|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Man the Peacemaker is loving ugly, no wonder the B-47 kicked its rear end. Thanks to the huge wing area of the B-36, it was actually more maneuverable at high altitudes (lightened aircraft commonly cruised at 50,000ft) than most of the fighters of the 1950's, which annoyed the Air Force and Navy to no end, since their fighters either couldn't reach those altitudes at all, or if they could, they were essentially ballistic projectiles and found themselves outmaneuvered by a 400,000lb bomber. There was also a great story in Air & Space a few years back about B-36 crews messing with fighter pilots. As part of exercises, interceptors were often scrambled to intercept "enemy" B-36's, and the fighter pilots greatly enjoyed harassing the slow moving bombers. During one such exercise, an F-89 pilot tried to form up with a B-36 to show off, only to find himself whizzing past the larger aircraft. Undeterred, the fighter pilot set himself up for another attempt, with the same results as before. Somewhat annoyed by this point, the F-89 pilot extended flaps and speed brakes in an attempt to pace the B-36, which ended with the fighter stalling and losing several thousand feet in the recovery, at which point the pilot gave up and went home. Some time later, the F-89 pilot was told by a former Peacemaker crewman that the B-36 was capable of controlled flight at around 100MPH when lightly loaded at lower altitudes, which was far slower than the jet powered F-89 was capable of flying.
|
# ? Jun 10, 2010 23:40 |
|
|
# ? May 21, 2024 16:05 |
|
jandrese posted:
Please tell me you have a high-res of this. Even if you don't it's going to be my desktop at work.
|
# ? Jun 11, 2010 04:15 |
|
Sorry, I just made that off of the picture on Wikipedia. I'm sure there are some higher rez photos available if you go looking.
|
# ? Jun 11, 2010 04:26 |
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Man the Peacemaker is loving ugly, no wonder the B-47 kicked its rear end. Sometimes, I look at the B-36 and think it was an enormous waste, in a military sense. The work on the B-52 started in 1945, and surely the Korean war proved that prop planes could no longer be on the frontline. Yet, even knowing that it was doomed to be obsolete shortly, they spent a king's ransom building and maintaining a fleet of them. It's an awesome machine, though, don't get me wrong :I
|
# ? Jun 11, 2010 07:07 |
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Sometimes, I look at the B-36 and think it was an enormous waste, in a military sense. The work on the B-52 started in 1945, and surely the Korean war proved that prop planes could no longer be on the frontline. Yet, even knowing that it was doomed to be obsolete shortly, they spent a king's ransom building and maintaining a fleet of them. Well, we could have had the B-60 instead of the B-52. The YB-60 was a derivative of the Peacemaker which basically had the same wing design as the B-52: high, swept, and with 8 jet engines underneath. It shared about 70% of it's fuselage with the B-36 to save money. However from the outset the B-60 was just a backup to the B-52 in case Boeing failed to come through.
|
# ? Jun 11, 2010 15:57 |
|
Atlantis' last ride into space. Be a patriot and click for big.
|
# ? Jun 11, 2010 21:55 |
|
Ola posted:Atlantis' last ride into space. Be a patriot and click for big. Not even American but goddamn
|
# ? Jun 11, 2010 22:19 |
|
I suck at photoshop but I actually like this one better. Just made it my phone's wallpaper (in muuuch smaller form). Click here for the full 1313x1599 image. Tindjin fucked around with this message at 03:02 on Jun 12, 2010 |
# ? Jun 12, 2010 02:54 |
|
might as well go all the way, this is so much better. Fayez Butts fucked around with this message at 05:06 on Jun 12, 2010 |
# ? Jun 12, 2010 05:00 |
|
Ola posted:Atlantis' last ride into space. Be a patriot and click for big. First thought: awesome overload! Second thought: Wow. They must be really loving paranoid to think someone is going to hijack the shuttle. Are the republicans back in power?
|
# ? Jun 12, 2010 12:54 |
|
Captain Postal posted:First thought: awesome overload! They've been flying CAP over shuttle launches for a long time. More to keep other aircraft from being damaged by the blast, ramming into the shuttle pre-launch, or magically getting hit by the shuttle as it ascends into orbit.
|
# ? Jun 12, 2010 13:01 |
|
I bet those pilots have one of the best seats in the house.
|
# ? Jun 12, 2010 13:04 |
|
Captain Postal posted:They must be really loving paranoid to think someone is going to hijack the shuttle. Are the republicans back in power?
|
# ? Jun 12, 2010 13:13 |
|
Manny posted:I bet those pilots have one of the best seats in the house. Obviously, since that's the photographer's wingman. Also F-15E means TWO of the best seats in the house!
|
# ? Jun 12, 2010 14:13 |
|
Minto Took posted:They've been flying CAP over shuttle launches for a long time. More to keep other aircraft from being damaged by the blast, ramming into the shuttle pre-launch, or magically getting hit by the shuttle as it ascends into orbit. Plus they can shoot it down if sleeper agents have infiltrated NASA and are planning to fly the shuttle into the Florida State Capitol Building One twitch off the prescribed flight plan and they're spamming amraams spamraams
|
# ? Jun 12, 2010 16:18 |
|
I just read through the whole of this awesome thread. Anyway, there was only a single mention, in passing, of my sorta favourite aircraft, the Fairey Rotodyne, a giant gently caress-off compound Gyrocopter. Literally all the info I have is from Wikipedia, so if anyone can shed a little more light on this lump I'd be very grateful. I said sorta favourite, because the Supermarine Spitfire exists. I know the Hurricane did far more and the Spit was basically a racing aircraft with guns nailed to it, but goddamn. Also, I have the misfortune of living in Stoke-on-Trent, birthplace of Reginald Mitchell. Museum here has a mk16 in a perpetual state of never-being-restored. Saddest poo poo here. If I win the lottery I'm paying them enough to finish the restoration, then getting someone to build me a Rotodyne.
|
# ? Jun 12, 2010 23:11 |
|
Cakefool posted:I just read through the whole of this awesome thread. We need more of these
|
# ? Jun 13, 2010 01:03 |
|
CommieGIR posted:We need more of these People who hate Stoke, or 15 ton Autogyros?
|
# ? Jun 13, 2010 15:51 |
|
Cakefool posted:People who hate Stoke, or 15 ton Autogyros?
|
# ? Jun 13, 2010 17:49 |
|
Nazis were douches, but cool douches Click here for the full 940x651 image. The Horton Ho 229B Click here for the full 1280x853 image. Arado 234B Click here for the full 1800x1202 image. Messerchmitt Me 262 This plane deserves a special mention even though its not a jet, due to the fact that it was the inspiration for the A-10 (Hans Ulrich Rudel was called in to advise on the design for the A-10, he being a Stuka ace had on record destroyed 800 Vehicles, 519 Tanks, 150 Artillery Guns, A destroyer, Two Cruisers, One Soviet Battleship, 70 landing craft, 4 armored trains, several bridges and nine aircraft.)He ran for 6km from chasing Russians after his plane landed in an attempt to pick up another Stuka crew that had crashed, swam 600m across the icy Dniester river, got captured, escaped, and made it back to Germany. He continued to fly even after his leg was amputated below the knee, Click here for the full 577x800 image. Junkers Ju-87 Stuka When going into its dive, it could submit the pilot to 6-8.5g's which the pilot could only sustain for 3 seconds CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 18:43 on Jun 13, 2010 |
# ? Jun 13, 2010 18:34 |
|
CommieGIR posted:
|
# ? Jun 14, 2010 17:29 |
|
slidebite posted:Anyone know what that is next to the engine? It looks like a packed chute in front of it for whatever it is. Wiki says it is an original RATO pack, possibly the last example of it's type.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2010 17:33 |
|
CommieGIR posted:When going into its dive, it could submit the pilot to 6-8.5g's which the pilot could only sustain for 3 seconds The Stuka had a very clever auto-pull out feature that would prevent the plane from crashing if the pilot blacked out due to g forces in the dive.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2010 17:46 |
|
CommieGIR posted:When going into its dive, it could submit the pilot to 6-8.5g's which the pilot could only sustain for 3 seconds Why only 3 seconds?
|
# ? Jun 14, 2010 18:06 |
|
Octoduck posted:Why only 3 seconds? Because G-Suits had not yet been invented. The blood rushes out of your head, the brain starves for Oxygen, and out you go.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2010 18:10 |
|
Octoduck posted:Why only 3 seconds? No g-suits and vertical g. Ever felt 8g? Your eyes go all woggly at like 3g.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2010 18:13 |
|
G suits provide maybe 1g of protection. I was thinking they hadn't really thought of anti-g straining medically yet.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2010 19:41 |
|
slidebite posted:Anyone know what that is next to the engine? It looks like a packed chute in front of it for whatever it is. It's a RATO unit:
|
# ? Jun 14, 2010 20:15 |
|
Octoduck posted:G suits provide maybe 1g of protection. I was thinking they hadn't really thought of anti-g straining medically yet. Mostly it was the seats. Tunnel vision and greying out are caused by the eyes being in front of the heart and losing blood flow before the rest of the head. A 10 degree seat back puts your eyes roughly straight over your heart. Older planes had nearly upright seating for the pilot, and didn't always even have a backrest for the navigator/bombardier. Here's an example of the Ju-87 cockpit. Click here for the full 699x825 image. Modern fighters recline the seat 20-30 degrees. At 30 degrees the pilots have neck problems otherwise they'd recline further. Laying flat on their back, people have taken 17g for several minutes without blackout.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2010 21:17 |
|
Yah that will definitely have an effect. The reason I asked is because I went for a spin in the centrifuge at NAS Lemoore and the flight doc told us that you should be able to take a high amount of G's (20+) for 3-5 seconds without any straining. Anyway, back to cool pictures of jets.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2010 21:31 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqc_hoZ9E1w G-suits are for pussies.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2010 21:38 |
|
Any comments on the fact that the media is claiming Russia's new "5th generation" jet is better than the F-22? Also, more SR-71 discussion please. I have been in love with the plane ever since reading the gizmodo article.
|
# ? Jun 19, 2010 05:11 |
|
natsea posted:Any comments on the fact that the media is claiming Russia's new "5th generation" jet is better than the F-22? If it delivers on-weight, and on price, then the t50 will have better range, and more thrust vectoring, and be cheaper. Of course, it won't be delivered on weight or on price, though it pretty much has to be cheaper. It probably won't have anything like the avionics that the F-22 has now, nevermind what they'll be cramming in it 15 years down the way when/if they start building the t50 in volume. Russians generally build capable airframes, and powerful engines. So, yeah, by the metrics they choose to emphasize, for an aircraft that doesn't really exist yet (prototypes don't really count, there is a ton of engineering between first flight and an actual production aircraft), and only 14 years later than the F-22, then sure, it might very reasonably be better. Of course, no matter how good the F-22 is or isn't, there are only 120 of them, so being second best with the numbers to be everywhere f-22's aren't is way better than being 'best'. Slo-Tek fucked around with this message at 05:58 on Jun 19, 2010 |
# ? Jun 19, 2010 05:56 |
|
CommieGIR posted:
Closeup of the Do 335A-1 Pfeil: Under the same roof: Bell XV-15 (Concord in the background): Northrop P-61 Black Widow, Enola Gay, Northrop N-1M and tail of a Nakajima JINI-S Gekko: Closeup of that Northrop N-1M: X-35B (Prototype for F-35B): grover fucked around with this message at 15:11 on Jun 19, 2010 |
# ? Jun 19, 2010 14:55 |
|
grover posted:The Smithsonian Udvar-Hazy center at Dulles loving KICKS rear end, btw. God yes it does. Only time I was there I sperged hard and took like 200 pictures (139 good ones). http://www.flickr.com/photos/bonzoesc/sets/72157603795819604/
|
# ? Jun 19, 2010 16:17 |
slidebite posted:Anyone know what that is next to the engine? It looks like a packed chute in front of it for whatever it is. It's a RATO pack like others have said. Also it is a packed chute on the front. After RATO they jettisoned the pod and it floated down on the chute for re-use.
|
|
# ? Jun 19, 2010 18:44 |
|
Slo-Tek posted:Of course, no matter how good the F-22 is or isn't, there are only 120 of them, so being second best with the numbers to be everywhere f-22's aren't is way better than being 'best'. There's something to be said for affordable unit cost. Speaking of which, a bipartisan committee released a report a few weeks ago, on cutting the military budget. It bears mentioning in this thread as two of their suggestions are 1)ending the Osprey program, 2) ending/limiting the buys from the F-35 program, and building advanced versions of existing fighter types instead
|
# ? Jun 19, 2010 20:41 |
|
Jesus. A new F-15 costs $100 million nowadays, yeah let's buy those since they're so affordable (vs the 130-180M per F-22).
|
# ? Jun 19, 2010 21:14 |
|
Godholio posted:A new F-15 costs $100 million nowadays Is this a matter of inflation or new technologies getting thrown in?
|
# ? Jun 19, 2010 21:40 |
|
|
# ? May 21, 2024 16:05 |
|
ApathyGifted posted:Is this a matter of inflation or new technologies getting thrown in? http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/articles/communiques/FighterCostFinalJuly06.pdf quote:Rafale M $68.9M Not to get all D&D on the Sustainable Defense Task Force report, but it was "bipartisan" as it was sponsored by Ron Paul and Barney Frank, both of whom want to make HUGE defense spending cuts, cuts most of the rest of congress are rational enough to know are asinine. So it's no wonder they're recommending deep cuts. I have to wonder why they want to cancel the F-35 and replace it with less capable aircraft that cost more money? Unless they want to go back and buy P-51 Mustangs at about $1M a pop. Cheap! Rather worthless as fighters on the modern battlefield, but we can afford a whole slew of them! grover fucked around with this message at 03:10 on Jun 20, 2010 |
# ? Jun 20, 2010 03:06 |