|
Geoj posted:Any idea what these are? http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&t=h&ll=32.169389,-110.866619&spn=0.00063,0.00097&z=21 Obviously experimental aircraft of some kind, just kind of surprising to see them in a boneyard.  Probably D-21s.  Click here for the full 1856x1608 image. I drove by/through that boneyard twice a day for years. The only tails that stand out above the surrounding terrain are the C-5s -- those fuckers can be seen from 2-3 miles out.
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 01:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 15:14 |
|
|
Geoj posted:Apparently the Air Force has money in the budget to maintain a golf course in the loving desert Of course the Air Force has the money in the budget to maintain a golf course in the desert. Also, that's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_D-21/M-21
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 01:53
|
|
|
This is kind of fun: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...003076&t=h&z=19 This is alleged to be a mockup/ground test model of the ill-fated A-12 Avenger/Flying Dorito stealth naval bomber. Also an F-35 airframe sitting there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 01:53
|
|
|
Geoj posted:So wait, did the satellite actually catch that Sikorsky in flight? They're not satellite photos. Most of Google maps higher res. photos are from US Geological survey aircraft. These higher resolution photos may be from USGS aircraft, or maybe somebody contracted an aerial photo outfit to take them. Nearly every Air Force base in the US has a golf course, they also have swimming pools, baseball fields, etc... For service member morale and fitness. Those are D-21/M-21 drones. Edit: C-17's getting some heavy maintenance at the Long Beach Airport. http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou....00071&t=h&z=21 LOO fucked around with this message at 02:10 on Jan 6, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 02:06
|
|
|
Did anyone else spot the CH-53E flying over the boneyard as well? http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&t=h&ll=32.161409,-110.858813&spn=0.001458,0.002064&z=20
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 02:39
|
|
|
Geoj posted:Apparently the Air Force has money in the budget to maintain a golf course in the loving desert
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 02:49
|
|
|
Lightbulb Out posted:Of course the Air Force has the money in the budget to maintain a golf course in the desert. The Air Force has the smallest budget of the service departments. Also, check out the runway at Tinker AFB, OK for some hot hot AWACS take-off action. Edit: The super-zoom is new photos, so you have be out a couple of clicks to see the aircraft in flight.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 05:21
|
|
|
Godholio posted:The Air Force has the smallest budget of the service departments. Awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 06:30
|
|
|
Godholio posted:The Air Force has the smallest budget of the service departments. I've heard (from a Navy retiree, so grain of salt) that, when building a new base, the Air Force builds the recreational facilities before anything else, so they have to go back to the DoD for money to do their mission. The Air Force base near my high school had a golf course, marina, and easily the best bowling alley I've been to.  KLM is starting direct MD-11 service from Miami to Amsterdam about a week before Scottish Ruby Conference, which works out pretty well for me 
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 07:10
|
|
|
ehnus posted:Looks like the Lockheed D-21/M-21 drone. So are they keeping around those things just because, or does this mean they need the parts? Of course, if they do need the parts, I'm actually more curious as to what they need all the old Neptune parts for. LOO posted:C-17's getting some heavy maintenance at the Long Beach Airport. Are they actually replacing bits of the fuselage?  Seriously, what's the white area?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 07:18
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:So are they keeping around those things just because, or does this mean they need the parts? Given that the D21 program was scrapped decades ago, I'm guessing those airframes are kept in storage because it's cheaper than scrapping them, and there's probably some research value in keeping them around. As for the Neptunes, I think there are still a few doing firefighting work in the US, so AMARC probably sells parts to those operators, and parts from the engines may show up on surviving DC-7's and Constellations. Mostly though, I'd guess that many of the older aircraft are just kept in long term storage because there's no pressing need to scrap them, and just letting them sit doesn't cost anything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 08:03
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:I've heard (from a Navy retiree, so grain of salt) that, when building a new base, the Air Force builds the recreational facilities before anything else, so they have to go back to the DoD for money to do their mission. grover fucked around with this message at 11:49 on Jan 6, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 11:46
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:So are they keeping around those things just because, or does this mean they need the parts? I think they were made of titanium and other exotic materials which probably adds to the cost of scrapping them, and it's not like they take up much room. quote:Are they actually replacing bits of the fuselage? If you look at the one above, you can see where the wing blends in to the fuselage. It looks like they've removed these fairings and you can see the white bare ribs underneath. Maybe to check for fatigue on the wing joints/spar.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 13:55
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:I've heard (from a Navy retiree, so grain of salt) that, when building a new base, the Air Force builds the recreational facilities before anything else, so they have to go back to the DoD for money to do their mission. The AF hasn't built a base since the 50s, so... Back then I can believe it. Congress couldn't throw enough money at the AF in SAC's heyday.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 14:06
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:So are they keeping around those things just because, or does this mean they need the parts? A lot of the aircraft you see there are stored so they could be restored to full capability in a matter of weeks. There is some kind of coating they put over certain parts of the fuselage and wings to prevent corrosin...I don't know what it is, but that's the white you're seeing. It's a very in depth process that I know very little about. The place is called AMARC, and there's a lot of info about it online. I'm not saying we expect to use D-21s anytime soon, but it costs money to destroy these things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 14:09
|
|
|
Sterndotstern posted:The only tails that stand out above the surrounding terrain are the C-5s -- those fuckers can be seen from 2-3 miles out. I work across the street from Stewart ANG and live right in the flight paths going in and out, and C-5s are my loving favorite plane of all time. They aren't glamorous fighters, or anything that special really. You just have to see them flying in person to understand, I guess. Gonna be sad when they switch to the C-17. I've posted this before but I can't give enough love to the 105th. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwMFIjMPb0E e- if one of these have never botched a landing and came out of 1000 foot cloud cover over your head a quarter mile away from a runway, you haven't really lived Seizure Meat fucked around with this message at 14:27 on Jan 6, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 14:20
|
|
|
MikeyTsi posted:Chinese stealth aircraft prototype? It's too obvious to just copy the F-22. Make it look slightly like the YF-23!
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 14:34
|
|
|
Geoj posted:So wait, did the satellite actually catch that Sikorsky in flight?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 15:33
|
|
|
grover posted:Not only that, but there's people on virtually every hole! Shouldn't they be out defending freedom or something? Hell, while they're at it why stop with a golf course? They really should consider importing some other geographically impractical recreational facilities. I think an open-air ski resort with real snow (in the middle of the desert) would do wonders for unit morale...
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 20:48
|
|
|
MikeyTsi posted:Chinese stealth aircraft prototype? We needn't be too concerned, it will probably fail crash testing...
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 21:09
|
|
|
Flying SWA on a 737 (of couse) next weekend from ALB to AMR. I usually fly A320s and grab row 11 for the extra legroom. Any insider tips on the 737 for a tall guy?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 02:01
|
|
|
At 6'5", I find the 737 to be like most passenger aircraft other than the 777, sit bolt upright and take a nap.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 02:05
|
|
|
Skyssx posted:At 6'5", I find the 737 to be like most passenger aircraft other than the 777, sit bolt upright and take a nap.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 02:45
|
|
|
Epic Fail Guy posted:Flying SWA on a 737 (of couse) next weekend from ALB to AMR. I usually fly A320s and grab row 11 for the extra legroom. Any insider tips on the 737 for a tall guy?  If the flight's not full, the front bulkhead is also pretty good; the fuselage is a lot thinner there, so if it's a full flight you lose a lot of shoulder room. Also: http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Southwest_Airlines/Southwest_Airlines_Boeing_737-700.php
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 03:30
|
|
|
http://seatguru.com is the best resource in the world for picking a good airline seat. Unfortunately, they all still suck.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 03:38
|
|
|
grover posted:http://seatguru.com is the best resource in the world for picking a good airline seat. Unfortunately, they all still suck.  Edit: I think we've had this conversation before. Cocoa Crispies fucked around with this message at 04:53 on Jan 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 04:49
|
|
|
I found this photo in an old calendar I was throwing out, it's too neat not to share. It's an Avro Lancaster about to be lifted by a Chinook in 1979 after being purchased by the Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum. This bomber had spent a few decades on display outdoors in Goderich, Ontario before this and was later restored to flying status. I can't find any pictures of the lift in progress.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 05:00
|
|
|
grover posted:http://seatguru.com is the best resource in the world for picking a good airline seat. Unfortunately, they all still suck. I like browsing SeatGuru and daydreaming about chilling in one of the First Class pods on some trans-oceanic flight.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 09:47
|
|
|
Minto Took posted:I like browsing SeatGuru and daydreaming about chilling in one of the First Class pods on some trans-oceanic flight. DoD travel policies are partly to blame. I flew probably 50,000 miles last year, but spread on 4 different airlines. Just barely made Gold on American and, judging by past trends from when I finally qualify for something like that, I probably won't fly American again until it expires. grover fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Jan 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 16:59
|
|
|
I just took a 26 hour each way flight, in coach, on DELTA, which means 30 year old Northwest aircraft. Movies projected on screens on the bulkheads, Remember those? From the 80's? It wasn't too bad really. I'm still kind of impressed that you can go to the entire opposite side of the world for a thousand bucks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 19:06
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:I just took a 26 hour each way flight, in coach, on DELTA, which means 30 year old Northwest aircraft. Movies projected on screens on the bulkheads, Remember those? From the 80's?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 19:24
|
|
|
grover posted:...single calendar year.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 20:05
|
|
|
grover posted:DoD travel policies are partly to blame. I flew probably 50,000 miles last year, but spread on 4 different airlines. Just barely made Gold on American and, judging by past trends from when I finally qualify for something like that, I probably won't fly American again until it expires. When I was at a DoD contractor, the travel policy said that flights over eight hours or to different continents should be business or first class, but during my time there we didn't land any jobs outside CONUS. None of us ever got status with an airline due to the lowest-cost policy. After I left, they switched to all-Southwest because clients changing schedules was costing too much in change fees, so a few of them are A-List. Slo-Tek posted:I just took a 26 hour each way flight, in coach, on DELTA, which means 30 year old Northwest aircraft. Movies projected on screens on the bulkheads, Remember those? From the 80's? That's typical; new IFE systems require expensive certification per aircraft type, to the point that A319s, A320s, and A321s each need to have IFE systems certified separately, even though they're just stretched variants. Airlines would love having the weight savings of something SSD-based over the Betamax systems in place. Per-seat systems are really heavy, but they provide some revenue potential. Not nearly as much as a Wi-Fi system though, which requires just a few light modules (lighter than a CRT) scattered around the plane, and the provider will actually pay the airline to install it. Then they get revenue from individuals buying access, or Google will buy all the access for a period of time and give it away free (for a shitload of money), which then gets the airline news articles about how great they are for having free wi-fi.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 20:27
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:When I was at a DoD contractor, the travel policy said that flights over eight hours or to different continents should be business or first class, but during my time there we didn't land any jobs outside CONUS. None of us ever got status with an airline due to the lowest-cost policy.  We can only fly business class if the flight is over 12 hours and we are unable to schedule a rest period to break up a long flight or after landing; and even then, it has to be approved by an admiral or general. So, like, if something very important broke and we got a call "be at the airport in 20 minutes" and hit the ground running, then we could get business class. Otherwise, we're supposed to fly on coach a day earlier and because an extra night in the hotel is cheaper than a business class seat.Meanwhile, the contractors are flying in business class and charging us taxpayers for it. gently caress them. grover fucked around with this message at 22:12 on Jan 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 21:53
|
|
|
The Army used to fly my dad to Japan when he was still active. I'll have to ask him which class he sat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 22:11
|
|
|
grover posted:Meanwhile, the contractors are flying in business class and charging us taxpayers for it. gently caress them. At least we got our 1.4%! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2011 01:16
|
|
|
grover posted:
I had a really hard time being both a contractor and a taxpayer. Poisonous "take 'em for everything they've got" culture made me switch to commercial stuff, so now I'm just the reason websites cost so much.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2011 03:25
|
|
|
grover posted:Meanwhile, the contractors are flying in business class and charging us taxpayers for it. gently caress them. Usually this is airline status and not the USG picking up the full tab. Companies want to squeeze every last penny out of contracts. Overhead costs are pretty frowned on... Not to say that there isn't an overabundance of FWA going on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2011 06:07
|
|
|
Tremblay posted:Usually this is airline status and not the USG picking up the full tab. Can you expound on this a bit?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2011 13:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 15:14 |
|
|
I see no one has mentioned the Luftwaffe F-104G Candlestick out of hell. That likes to crash..
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2011 14:51
|
|