|
Slo-Tek posted:Is this the one they belly-landed the other year? I'm surprised they got it back up and going. Yeah, that looks like the same one. Seemed to be flying fine today, hopefully I get a chance to see it again tomorrow.
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 07:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 18:42 |
|
|
ming-the-mazdaless posted:No-one can mention low flying without a repost of the French Air Force in Chad. My personal favourite: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nZh6D95X14 Although not very 'cold war' I like this 757 one too if just to imagine the jet you go on holiday on climbing out like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19KMLpc5Uu8
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 09:17
|
|
|
dogmaan posted:Apparently the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet got knocked out of the MMRCA due to poor maneuverability. MMRCA is all about who will give India the most industrial offsets.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 09:28
|
|
|
B-58, the Planiest of Planes. Ask a kid to draw a "fast bomb dropping plane" and chances are what he draws will look something like the Hustler. Everything about this plane was kinda dodgy and/or cool, even the name and its intended mission. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 09:54
|
|
|
Ygolonac posted:Was there a B-58 infodump in the thread already? I don't seem to recall one offhand. I think myself and others have mentioned some tidbits about it here and there, but I don't think there have been any huge posts or anything. ming-the-mazdaless posted:No-one can mention low flying without a repost of the French Air Force in Chad. Hahaha, I love it around 1:50, the pilot is doing a mock strafing run...instead of the French equivalent of "Guns guns guns" he starts making machine gun noises. That was loving hilarious. Speaking of France and Chad...here's a KC-135 joining in on the fun. (Whoops, beaten on that one...took too long gathering my clips). A Puma pilot gets in on the fun in Chad...good thing that guy ducked. Armée de l'Air doing a bit of flying over water...yeah, it's over water, but holy gently caress look how close the shadows are on some of those passes. Some Alpha Jets beating up an airfield...the first two are pretty ho-hum, but compare the third guy's altitude to the height of the perimeter fence. Not low level, but it is French and it is very pretty...promo video for Les Chevaliers du Ciel that someone posted over in the AI Aeronautics thread. Well worth watching in HD. This Hawg raises the landing gear on takeoff...and then never really gains any altitude. This dude has some balls. Some Kiwi Skyhawks flying pretty low. There was one video I've seen before but couldn't find...it's of a B-52 doing a photo shoot pass out in the mountains at the Yakima Range. It's noteworthy for a couple reasons...first, the jet is literally maybe 10-15 feet off the ground as it crests the ridge where the camera is. In fact, it would've pancaked into the ridgeline if the co-pilot hadn't hauled back on the yoke as they approached, which brings me to the next point: the pilot in command was Bud Holland, the same guy responsible for the Czar 52 crash. Fake edit: found it. Doesn't have the pass I'm thinking of, although apparently I was a little mistaken and the pass where the co-pilot hauled back on the yoke wasn't ever actually filmed because the film crew was taking cover. Few other BUFF related things I found in my search... Low level from inside the cockpit. Carrier pass...below the flight deck. Refueling in a 90 degree bank. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 11:30 on Jun 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 11:25
|
|
|
The B-58 is a pretty aircraft, I don't think it was that successful operationally though. Wasn't it obsoleted pretty quickly by high performance SAMs? Anyway, here's some Hustler related stuff. Convair's early 60s design study into converting the Hustler into a supersonic passenger aircraft, for both military and civilian use.  Look at how goddamn stylish that is. NACA wind tunnel model of an advanced B-58 variant with turned down wingtips, probably hinged like the B-70's. Also features an enlarged cockpit and fuel tanks under the wings rather than on the centreline, possibly to make room for another large fuel tank or weapon (maybe a large rocket?).  Tangentially related, a piece of promotional art for Martin's modified B-58 escape capsule. Big enough for two and equipped with an attitude control system and a re-entry heatshield, this was a proposal for a crew escape system for high-altitude aircraft and spacecraft.  Dude on the left seems to have a better understanding of their situation than the pilot, I think he accurately portrays the pants-making GBS threads terror of a hypersonic ejection and re-entry.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 14:08
|
|
|
dogmaan posted:Apparently the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet got knocked out of the MMRCA due to poor maneuverability. While the F/A-18 is the least maneuverable of the serious MMRCA contenders, the F/A-18 got kicked out because of tech transfer issues, much like Brazil's contention with the F/A-18 during the F-X2. State department has been dragging its feet on export reform for years now and puts US international sales at a disadvantage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 14:33
|
|
|
monkeytennis posted:
An Air Portugal Airbus gets in on the act too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26H-WzIe858 The French low level water stuff never looks that impressive to me, as it is flat and they just pootle along. A little slower but a fair bit lower.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 18:44
|
|
|
Sunday Punch posted:
Haha poo poo that is awesome. Captain's like, calm down man I got a spliff in here somewhere
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 18:51
|
|
|
Sunday Punch posted:The B-58 is a pretty aircraft, I don't think it was that successful operationally though. Wasn't it obsoleted pretty quickly by high performance SAMs? Anyway, here's some Hustler related stuff. Convair's early 60s design study into converting the Hustler into a supersonic passenger aircraft, for both military and civilian use. It pretty much was the too-expensive answer to what had become a stupid question. I recall reading that due to its extensive use of brazed honeycomb panels and other things, the aircraft ended up being (at the time) more expensive than its weight in gold. Then, the SA-2 and SA-5 were developed and all tooling around in a big plane at 50,000 feet and Mach 2 would get you is dead. Then, ICBMs started showing promise and all you'd get to do if you didn't get shot down is to bounce the rubble a bit. I believe the high point of the B-58's career was causing millions of dollars in sonic-boom broken window claims to show why supersonic transportation over populated areas is not so good. Still, if I had too much money and too much jet fuel, one of these B-58 party-bus conversions would be a good way to solve those problems.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 20:04
|
|
|
Got some good pictures today, but it's going to take me forever to sort through them. Here's an FJ-4 and a MiG-17 though, both are clicky for full size.  
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2011 08:03
|
|
|
My E-8 has a first name, it's J-O-I-N-T... My E-8 has a second name, it's S-T-A-R-S...  I was gonna do the rest of the song, but  . Have some AWACS instead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2011 08:59
|
|
|
More civvie low pass stuff: http://youtu.be/Cl7QgjdRONo Posted mostly because I adore the 727 and check out the climbout in the second pass.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2011 09:20
|
|
|
Here are some wallpapers I've made (read: found and re-sized photos) of my favourite Cold War and contemporary aircraft: the A-10 Thunderbolt II, otherwise known as 'Warthog', 'Hog', or 'Hawg'. There's both A and C models mixed in here. The resolution is only 1280x1024 because I still live in the past. Click to make them bigger. Fulda Gap fo' life.                                     
Crescendo fucked around with this message at 09:34 on Jun 5, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2011 09:31
|
|
|
Is there any particular reason the A-10 seems to be the only aircraft that gets away with getting nose paint these days?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2011 09:49
|
|
|
Other aircraft have nose art, it just tends to be a lot more subdued. Bombers especially (well, Bones and Buffs, anyway...there is, for example, a Buff with "Memphis Belle IV" nose art) tend to have a lot of nose art, as do AC-130s. Fighters not so much, although there are still some Eagles and Vipers with nose art...a fair amount of Mud Hens do as well, I think. A lot of it has to do with history...most (maybe all?) of the A-10s flying around with the no-poo poo shark's teeth (as opposed to the warthog nose art) belong to the 23d Wing, which traces it's lineage back through the 23d Fighter Group to the Flying Tigers. There's actually pictures out there of F-16s and C-130s (among other aircraft) that were assigned to the wing at some point and were given the shark's mouth treatment, although the A-10 has been the most enduring since its shape with the GAU-8 muzzle is almost perfectly suited for the shark's mouth. By the way, those pictures are sweet...I did have to chuckle a bit at the ones with the dumb Mk 82 and Mk 84s loaded up, especially the one that featured a M904 mechanical nose fuse. The Army Air Corps called, they want their fuzes back. Edit: Interesting sidenote... That particular aircraft was with the unit I am assigned to now...353d Tactical Fighter Squadron under the 354th Tactical Fighter Wing then, out of Myrtle Beach AFB, SC, now the 353d Combat Training Squadron under the 354th Fighter Wing up at Eielson AFB, AK. Couple of fun historical facts...the 353d TFS operating out of Korat was the unit to drop the last U.S. shot fired in anger in Southeast Asia, over Cambodia in July of 1973. The 354th TFW was the first USAF A-10 unit to achieve operational combat readiness. There's a lot of things I ding the Air Force for, but keeping the lineage of distinguished units is definitely not one of them. This particular Wing can trace its lineage all the way back through to the 354th FG, activated in November of 1942 and the unit that racked up the most kills of any Fighter Group in the ETO (701 confirmed). That kind of history is cool to me...our Det bar (down the hall from our offices) is plastered with pictures from the 353d's adventures flying Mustangs during WWII. Being able to trace your history all the way back like that is cool, I think. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 11:35 on Jun 5, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2011 11:07
|
|
|
I think the A-10 is my favorite plane because it's like the tactical equivalent of a middle finger. We care so little for your air defenses that we are going to fly this subsonic, ugly piece right at you and strafe your rear end with a gun that can be heard for miles...... ......and we're gonna stay here for a while with it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2011 12:29
|
|
|
Not nose art, but the South Dakota F-16's have some nifty tail art, at least compared to most planes I see. (click on any of them for giant size) Also, some more Mig and Fury action.     
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2011 17:13
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:A lot of it has to do with history...most (maybe all?) of the A-10s flying around with the no-poo poo shark's teeth (as opposed to the warthog nose art) belong to the 23d Wing, which traces it's lineage back through the 23d Fighter Group to the Flying Tigers. As a side note, the Army's 229 Aviation Regiment was granted permission to use the "Flying Tigers" livery by the 1st AVG veterans in 1988. How they can really claim lineage, I don't know, but there it is. http://www.usar.army.mil/arweb/organization/commandstructure/USARC/OPS/11Avn/Commands/8229Avn/History/Pages/default.aspx 
Armyman25 fucked around with this message at 17:51 on Jun 5, 2011 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2011 17:48
|
|
|
Alaan posted:Is there any particular reason the A-10 seems to be the only aircraft that gets away with getting nose paint these days? Who's going to tell it "no"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2011 17:50
|
|
|
Are there still A10's stationed in Battle Creek MI? I'm there a lot to hang out with Gewehr43, I didn't know there was an airbase there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2011 18:28
|
|
|
Flanker posted:Are there still A10's stationed in Battle Creek MI? I'm there a lot to hang out with Gewehr43, I didn't know there was an airbase there. Not anymore...they got BRAC'd in 2009. Battle Creek now flies C-21s (Learjets), their A-10s went to Selfridge, and Slefridge's F-16s went to Indiana.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 00:34
|
|
|
Anybody care to explain why the flying tigers have shark mouths on their planes?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 01:22
|
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nose_art posted:Perhaps the most enduring nose art of WWII was the shark-face motif, which first appeared on the Bf-110s of Luftwaffe 76th Destroyer Wing over Crete, where the twin-engined Messerschmitts outmatched the Gloster Gladiator biplanes of RAF 112 Squadron. The Commonwealth pilots were withdrawn to Egypt and refitted with Curtiss Tomahawks off the same assembly line building fighter aircraft for the AVG Flying Tigers being recruited for service in China. In November 1941, AVG pilots saw a 112 Squadron Tomahawk in an illustrated weekly and immediately adopted the shark-face motif for their own planes. This work was done by the pilots and ground crew in the field.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 01:29
|
|
|
They had seen it done on other planes and thought it was cool looking.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 01:29
|
|
|
dogmaan posted:Apparently the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet got knocked out of the MMRCA due to poor maneuverability. I used to be a maintainer in a Hornet squadron, here's the basic details I gleaned from pilots over the years: Super Hornets are one of the most maneuverable fighters at low speeds because of their large control surfaces and wing area (the leading edge extensions create massive amounts of lift at high angles of attack). They can beat F-15's and are a match for F-16's in dogfights because they can fly slower than either of them. While flying slow in a dogfight might sound counter-intuitive, it means that the Eagle pilots often overshoot the Hornet before getting a firing solution, and that the Viper pilot cannot turn inside of one. That said, they get their asses kicked by F-22's which can do the same trick only better in every way. I don't know the capabilities of the Rafale or Typhoon but I do know that the Rafale is smaller and lighter, and that the Typhoon was designed as purely ground-based which already gives it a natural advantage in maneuverability due to weight savings. I have no clue how this Indian carrier variant will perform, but I bet if they order them, they'll be running into all sorts of wonderful metal fatigue issues in the future. Super Hornets are not particularly fast because their power:weight ratio is rather low and their aerodynamics are configured for safely carrying as much ordinance as possible rather than speed. Acceleration is good enough for a carrier jet, but not as impressive as other Generation 4.5 fighters. Super Hornets were designed to a) be a workable compromise design that would fill the holes in capability left behind by the F-14, A-6, and S-3, and b) fix what was wrong with the original Hornet, namely the poor range, inadequate expansion space, and poor maximum payload. It succeeds in spades at being better overall than the original, but it wears many, many hats, and it's performance suffers for it. It's much more multi-role than anything I can think of. It can carry large bombloads, or a whole bunch of missiles, it can be a tanker, it can be a recon platform, an electronic attack aircraft, it can even be a very basic C2i platform with the right equipment. But being a jack of all trades makes it a master of none. Sure it can be a bomb truck, but because it's a bomb truck, it's also a pretty slow interceptor. It can be a tanker, but it's so small it's basically there to give jets just enough gas to reach the ship or a big USAF tanker. In conclusion, I'd say it's pretty feasible that the Indian's reasoning is somewhat valid, and honestly the IAF might be looking for something a little more specialized than a Swiss Army Knife. The Super Hornet has always been an interim solution while the F-35 came online, and now it's looking to be in the inventory for a very long time (which is great, I mean compared to most other multirole fighters it's pretty cheap and will save the Navy money). I think at this point the Rafale will win because it's a proven carrier-capable design, that is cheaper than the Eurofighter but has similar capabilities, while the Eurofighter is a refit of a land-based design.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 02:00
|
|
|
Can I just stop in to say how much I love this thread 
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 02:08
|
|
|
The Casualty posted:Super Hornets You make me feel validated in arguing against the Super Hornet being Canada's next fighter. We're on board with the F35, but some people bitch that we should have gone with the Super Hornet. I thought the USN was scrapping it soon, no?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 03:40
|
|
|
SyHopeful posted:Can I just stop in to say how much I love this thread Seconded. This might be my favorite thread in TFR right now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 03:59
|
|
|
This thread makes me feel like I am reading a bunch of old 1980's Microprose manuals. And if you've ever read 1980's era Microprose manuals you would know this to be high praise.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 04:19
|
|
|
The Casualty, Thank you, that was some excellent info. I thought the Naval Typhoon was purely speculative/theory though, Also do India get access to Euro MRAAM's like Meteor, or a separate AMRAAM deal with the US?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 04:32
|
|
|
Flanker posted:You make me feel validated in arguing against the Super Hornet being Canada's next fighter. We're on board with the F35, but some people bitch that we should have gone with the Super Hornet. Haha, no. The USN actually bought more of them because the JSF was taking entirely too long to be developed and costing way too much money and the USN was facing a fighter gap (the USAF is as well, but we're apparently more retarded about tactical aviation than the Navy and are putting all our eggs in the JSF basket). The Super Bugs will be around for a looooong time. Canada's decision to buy the JSF is at best questionable. The JSF has range issues (important seeing as how one of its primary roles with the CF is long range interception over the Arctic), as well as major price overruns and other performance issues.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 04:45
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:This thread makes me feel like I am reading a bunch of old 1980's Microprose manuals. The manual for Chuck Yeager's Air Combat was my favorite book for way too long. Wonder where that went. That's right, kids! Back in the days, games had manuals made of dead trees!
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 04:55
|
|
|
This post originally made in error. Move along.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 04:58
|
|
|
dogmaan posted:The Casualty, Thank you, that was some excellent info. Beaten already, but yeah, the Navy will definitely be hanging on to Super Hornets for a long time, and they would have even if the F-35 was arriving on schedule. It fills a much broader gap than the F-35, which is actually creating a new tactical profile that the Navy has always lacked- stealth interdiction and close air support. It can't carry the bomb load of a Super Hornet, and AFAIK it doesn't have the range, so the Super Hornet would still remain on as a bomb truck. The EA-18G is also taking over from the EA-6B as Electronic Attack aircraft of choice. And it took over tanker duties from the S-3 as well. The Super Hornet fills such a wide mission profile in Naval Aviation that it will probably be 50+ years before we see a true replacement. edit: EA-18G, not F/A-18G. The Casualty fucked around with this message at 07:30 on Jun 6, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 05:05
|
|
|
The Casualty posted:Beaten already, but yeah, the Navy will definitely be hanging on to Super Hornets for a long time, and they would have even if the F-35 was arriving on schedule. It fills a much broader gap than the F-35, which is actually creating a new tactical profile that the Navy has always lacked- stealth interdiction and close air support. It can't carry the bomb load of a Super Hornet, and AFAIK it doesn't have the range, so the Super Hornet would still remain on as a bomb truck. The F/A-18G is also taking over from the EA-6B as Electronic Attack aircraft of choice. And it took over tanker duties from the S-3 as well. The Super Hornet fills such a wide mission profile in Naval Aviation that it will probably be 50+ years before we see a true replacement. Someone mocked up a great model of the EF/A-18EFG...and fortunately, I have a picture of it:  I think my favorite part is the "V-14" Squadron designator on the spine...if the only aircraft left is the EF/A-18EFG, no real reason in having any type of squadrons besides fixed wing "V" squadrons.  Range comparisons and bomb load comparisons between the JSF and legacy fighters are problematic, because the JSF's combat load consists of two internal bombs and internal fuel, while the legacy fighters are almost always with several external bombs and external tanks. the JSF can also carry an external bombload, enabling it to carry more air to ground munitions than just the two it can carry internally. Obviously there are some significant differences between these various configurations, and shockingly enough partisans for each side of the argument tend to conflate the different configurations in a comparison to make their particular airframe look the best. From what I've been able to gather, the Super Bug has better performance when being used as a bomb truck, while the JSF has better performance in a limited payload long range interdiction situation (JSF with 2 GBU-31s and full internal fuel, Super Bug with same payload and external tanks). You're correct in that they are supposed to fill two different but related roles...the problem is that the JSF is also being touted as an adequate air superiority/supremacy fighter when it is nothing of the sort.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 06:19
|
|
|
I just love the A 10. It sure as hell isn't pretty, but  if it doesn't make me want to cuddle it. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 07:33
|
|
|
BigLove posted:I just love the A 10. It sure as hell isn't pretty, but It was introduced in 1972 and is projected to be in service until at least 2028 simply because nobody's been able to come up with anything better.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 08:48
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:we're historically more retarded about tactical aviation than the Navy fixed this for you. In the two major wars after the Air Force got out from under the Army's thumb, Korea and Vietnam, the Navy and Marine Corps have, often literally, had to teach or re-teach them how to conduct CAS. The Air Force has been so dedicated to strategic air that arch-loonie Curtis LeMay was convinced that if only the White House had taken the kid gloves off of strategic bombing in North Vietnam the US would have won. This is ignoring the fact that after two years of Rolling Thunder the US had dropped more bombs on Vietnam than on the entirety of Europe in WWII, and that the targets LeMay wished to strike, most notably Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricant facilities basically did not exist in Vietnam.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 12:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 18:42 |
|
|
Here's a page with a bunch of unremarkable but huge photos of the 111th FW's old A-10s. They also got BRAAC'd away from Willow Grove a few years ago. I used to love it when these guys flew over my house when I was a kid. I threw the same fit that other kids threw when the ice cream man came up the street. http://www.flyeronephotos.com/111FW/aircraft.htm
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 14:43
|
|