|
Blaster of Justice posted:I don't think you've seen all of Kululas poo poo: Holy poo poo if I could just fly them from now on I would give them all my business just for their sense of humor. ETA: Oops, new page content needed..  Click here for the full 1800x1400 image. Tindjin fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Sep 3, 2010 |
#
?
Sep 3, 2010 22:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 19:52 |
|
|
The gently caress is that
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2010 01:19
|
|
|
Looks like an air tractor flying through a cloud of red smoke. The spiral is the tip vortex. If it's not an airshow, and he actually sprayed that red stuff (he's not spraying anything in the photo), then I have no idea what the gently caress it is. Probably really bad to inhale. So many memories of hanging out at my grandparents' dairy farm and watching the crop dusters in the fields down the road...and then the buttery chlorine smell that hangs around for a few hours and makes you feel just a little bit drunk. Good times orange lime fucked around with this message at 01:42 on Sep 4, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2010 01:39
|
|
|
grover posted:I always wanted an aeroplane that I could paint like that, but wrong. Have the landing gear sign point to the door, the left wing sign point to the right wing, that kind of thing. Just to piss off the accident investigators if I ever did have a crash.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2010 04:33
|
|
|
Nait Sirhc posted:The gently caress is that Wingtip vortices. Turbulent air that curls off the end of the wingtip. A lot of larger aircraft have winglets that stick up at the edge of the wing to reduce the effect these have. There are some good videos of these vortices in action on the NASA/Dryden research page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingtip_vortices Edit; links to the videos are on the wiki page but here they are anyway; http://www1.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Movie/C-5A/HTML/EM-0085-01.html http://www1.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Movie/L-1011/index.html GTi fucked around with this message at 05:22 on Sep 4, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2010 05:19
|
|
|
  Never forget.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2010 00:38
|
|
|
 Click here for the full 980x667 image. Can carry MORE than the B-52, has more RANGE than the B-52, and only 100 mph slower than the B-52. gently caress yeah, I'm in the USAF and I like the Tu-95 more than the B-52 Anyone else notice the nose on that one looks DISTINCTLY like a B-17 nose?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2010 00:43
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
HAhahah, yes - and there is a very good reason for this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2010 01:01
|
|
|
ursa_minor posted:HAhahah, yes - and there is a very good reason for this. Actually, I know what you are thinking, however the Tu-95 is based on B-29 designs
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2010 01:03
|
|
|
2ndclasscitizen posted:
The F-111 is a fat ugly pig that was never truly good at anything it did, and it killed the SR-71 to boot.  *slaps with glove* CommieGIR posted:Actually, I know what you are thinking, however the Tu-95 is based on B-29 designs "Entirely ripped off, down to the placement of rivets and routing of wires" is more like it. Though I understand that there are a few weird differences, such as the Tu-95 being somewhat heavier since the closest metric equivalent of the panels used for the B-29's skin is actually marginally thicker than the actual Imperial dimension.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2010 01:33
|
|
|
orange lime posted:The F-111 is a fat ugly pig that was never truly good at anything it did, and it killed the SR-71 to boot. The Tu-4 was the EXACT ripoff, the Tu-95 was brought into replace it, but it kept it close to the design
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2010 01:45
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The Tu-4 was the EXACT ripoff, the Tu-95 was brought into replace it, but it kept it close to the design Though they did a fair amount of non-US-derived R&D on the platform as the years went on, including a civilian transport, and of course this tuboprop AWACS that I always post pictures of: 
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2010 02:35
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:Though they did a fair amount of non-US-derived R&D on the platform as the years went on, including a civilian transport, and of course this tuboprop AWACS that I always post pictures of: Now THAT is cool! Gotta hate when your 'cultural revolution' ruins very good projects CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 02:50 on Sep 5, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2010 02:48
|
|
|
orange lime posted:"Entirely ripped off, down to the placement of rivets and routing of wires" is more like it. Though I understand that there are a few weird differences, such as the Tu-95 being somewhat heavier since the closest metric equivalent of the panels used for the B-29's skin is actually marginally thicker than the actual Imperial dimension. Interestingly, the Shvestov engines used on the Tu-4 were related to the Wright R-3350s on the B-29 - they were both evolutions of the Wright R-1820, an engine that the Soviets built under license production before WWII. Ironically, the Shvestov engine was slightly more powerful and vastly more reliable than the R-3350 fitted to early B-29s.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2010 22:47
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Interestingly, the Shvestov engines used on the Tu-4 were related to the Wright R-3350s on the B-29 - they were both evolutions of the Wright R-1820, an engine that the Soviets built under license production before WWII. Ironically, the Shvestov engine was slightly more powerful and vastly more reliable than the R-3350 fitted to early B-29s. Yes they were, in fact it was so common for B-29s to blow engines or have oil fires thanks to the R-3350, which the Soviets solved with the licensed re-design
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2010 00:35
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:Though they did a fair amount of non-US-derived R&D on the platform as the years went on, including a civilian transport, and of course this tuboprop AWACS that I always post pictures of: That plane is my desktop on at least two computers at work, and it ALWAYS gets someone to double-take (I fly on the E-3).
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2010 02:14
|
|
|
Godholio posted:That plane is my desktop on at least two computers at work, and it ALWAYS gets someone to double-take (I fly on the E-3). When you say that it's your desktop at work, and that you fly on the E-3, are you saying that it's your desktop for the computers that you use while flying in the E-3? Because that's awesome.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2010 02:57
|
|
|
Alas, our nearly-50 year old computer system prevents me from using it ON the jet, but I use it on the computers in our squadron. But 98% of the people in there are also AWACS aircrew, so it's almost as awesome.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2010 14:14
|
|
|
2ndclasscitizen posted:
That sweet negative-G turn they did on the second pass was to die for. And some of the aerobatics on the East-West passes, you could really tell the pilots were opening them up and really enjoying it up there for their last time. I'm going to miss them so much 
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2010 15:02
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Alas, our nearly-50 year old computer system prevents me from using it ON the jet, but I use it on the computers in our squadron. But 98% of the people in there are also AWACS aircrew, so it's almost as awesome. Are you guys using SCNS on your planes?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2010 17:41
|
|
|
http://vimeo.com/14687612 Wing wave!
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2010 21:04
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:I always wanted an aeroplane that I could paint like that, but wrong. Build a model. With enough skill you could do whatever you wanted. (I was 'spergin' out earlier on in the thread about Russian cargo aircraft because I was in the middle of building a An-124 model and was doing lots of reading about Antonovs and the like.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2010 21:40
|
|
|
Speaking of building models, I really want to try building a radio-controlled version of some of those crazy turn-of-the-century flying machine designs, just to see what they could have done with a modern engine and a good power:weight ratio. How awesome would it be to see these things flying around?   The first one in particular -- that poo poo's awesome.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2010 21:47
|
|
|
I've always been partial to B1s taking off at night with afterburners. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jkXBTGfjKI&feature=fvw Also they are holy poo poo loud. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvjqHHdaHXI&feature=related
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2010 23:03
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:I've always been partial to B1s taking off at night with afterburners. Imagine being in the Soviet Union and seeing a bunch of those things blasting down a canyon, 200 feet above the ground, at Mach 1.5. DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM And what's the huge-rear end cloud of smoke on takeoff? Water injection?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2010 23:14
|
|
|
orange lime posted:Imagine being in the Soviet Union and seeing a bunch of those things blasting down a canyon, 200 feet above the ground, at Mach 1.5. DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM They do this weekly, probably almost daily in Afghanistan. "Show of force" at 500 feet Mach 1+. Not sure what the cloud is possibly something with the nozzles changing when it goes weight off wheels?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2010 23:17
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:Also they are holy poo poo loud. That is a big bird moving very fast, good god drat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2010 01:20
|
|
|
orange lime posted:Speaking of building models, I really want to try building a radio-controlled version of some of those crazy turn-of-the-century flying machine designs, just to see what they could have done with a modern engine and a good power:weight ratio. How awesome would it be to see these things flying around? That's an awesome idea and I'd like to see it too, though I suspect that most of the machines are either way too fragile or heavy to fly. The Wright Brothers did a lot of research to build the Wright flyer. For example, they discovered errors in the formula for lift that had been accepted for 50 years. I think they also had to do some pretty serious math to develop proper air propellers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2010 01:36
|
|
|
the physics changes in strange ways as you get to smaller aircraft. most of the planes had so many guy wires that their glide ratio would be non-existant. :-( People have made flying models of most of the historic "silly" planes. With some mild care with cg choice, and sufficient power, almost anything will fly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2010 05:38
|
|
|
I was thinking of using a little tiny brushless motor, balsa for the main spars, carbon-fiber for the thinner struts, and mylar instead of fabric. The guy wires would be actual ~30-ga aluminum wires. Just need to mount the battery and electronics into a balsa block shaped like a person and we're golden. I admit that nearly anything can fly when it's tiny and light (a paper airplane for instance?) but it would still be pretty drat cool to see the Vuia II flying around at the field. Too many people get all nuts about making models of warbirds, or of the latest Russian vaporware fighter, when the truly weird and wild stuff happened in the first 10 years of powered flight. [e] and yeah with the power:weight ratios of some of the systems out there now, you can make any model just hover and accelerate vertically. I'd be shooting for something more equivalent to "what if they had an engine with twice the specific power?" orange lime fucked around with this message at 07:12 on Sep 7, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2010 07:07
|
|
|
Um radial wing? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArgrDsIe_7Y&feature=related Who knew it would work? Any advantages outside of the novelty?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2010 07:24
|
|
|
Sterndotstern posted:Um radial wing? Kinda like this? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2010 07:33
|
|
|
Tindjin posted:ETA: Oops, new page content needed.. Reminds me of that god-awful 80s movie where an aircraft carrier gets thrown through some time-vortex to 1941 and they end up trying to intercept the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor before being thrown back through another time-vortex to the present... 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2010 07:51
|
|
|
Geoj posted:Reminds me of that god-awful 80s movie where an aircraft carrier gets thrown through some time-vortex to 1941 and they end up trying to intercept the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor before being thrown back through another time-vortex to the present... YOU SHUT YOUR WHORE MOUTH 'The Final Countdown' was the BEST movie ever* * After 'Red Dawn'
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2010 08:51
|
|
|
Wicaeed posted:YOU SHUT YOUR WHORE MOUTH 'The Final Countdown' was the BEST movie ever* Huh, I thought he was talking about The Philadelphia Experiment. Got it backwards though -- in The Final Countdown, it's an aircraft carrier going from the 1980s to the 1940s, and in the Philadelphia Experiment, it's a destroyer going from the 1940s to the 1980s. Obviously two totally different movies. I must say I love IMDB's spoiler system though. Unspoilered text: "A modern aircraft carrier is thrown back in time to 1941 near Hawaii, just hours before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour." SPOILER ALERT! ROLLOVER TO VIEW PLOT KEYWORDS!! Japanese | Pearl Harbor | Aircraft Carrier | Uss Nimitz | Harbor Nice. orange lime fucked around with this message at 09:27 on Sep 7, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2010 09:23
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Are you guys using SCNS on your planes? I don't know what that is, so I'll assume it's far too modern. We have a variant of the IBM 4Pi, programmed in JOVIAL. In the late 90s we got rid of the reel-to-reel stuff and now use a reel-to-reel emulator to trick the computer, which makes the all-to-common computer restart a pain in the rear end that can take minutes depending on the partition arrangement.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2010 14:19
|
|
|
Sterndotstern posted:Um radial wing? Less lift-induced drag since you've basically created a wing with infinite aspect ratio. You know how modern airliners have blended winglets to reduce drag? Think of it as the ultimate winglet. Plinkey posted:I've always been partial to B1s taking off at night with afterburners. I've stood next to one while running in this test cell (the engine pictured is an F136, not an F101 from the B1):  Click here for the full 900x600 image. When it goes into full augmentor (afterburner), it'll knock the wind out of you, even though the engine is completely sealed inside that cell. Note the thickness of the cell wall in the opening. Fun stuff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2010 16:24
|
|
|
Forum Hussy posted:poo poo, sorry. I forgot about this after I got home. lovely cell phone shots, but here they are: Thank you, this is a thing of beauty. It's my dream plane. Mine would be rebuilt by elves with spars of solid unobtanium, but still.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2010 16:46
|
|
|
Understeer posted:Less lift-induced drag since you've basically created a wing with infinite aspect ratio. You know how modern airliners have blended winglets to reduce drag? Think of it as the ultimate winglet. No shade tree mechanic-ing those bastards. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2010 18:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 19:52 |
|
|
Nerobro posted:With some mild care with cg choice, and sufficient power, almost anything will fly. No kidding. How about an RC flying lawnmower.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2010 19:19
|
|
