|
B4Ctom1 posted:http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=68f_1306880662 Here's the cockpit view.
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2011 23:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 19:48 |
|
|
Craptacular posted:Here's the cockpit view. I just posted that, like, eight posts ago!  ... But hey, now it's on a new page, so s'cool!
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2011 23:46
|
|
|
Possible I posted this earlier, but here's some B-58 MITO porn: http://youtu.be/IbYATGZrJss
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2011 01:06
|
|
|
SyHopeful posted:Possible I posted this earlier, but here's some B-58 MITO porn: Goddamn I love the designs of those old birds. Makes me wish I'd been around for the days of the phenomenally rapid advancements in jet technology in the 50s and 60s. Of course, the odds are that as a pilot I would have been dead by now, but what the hell...
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2011 04:45
|
|
|
Flanker posted:Airpower: Can someone find me a resource tracking the no fly enforcement over Libya? Like how many sorties by country, which airframes are in action, results, etc? Give me a bit, I was doing a decent job of tracking the ORBAT between the various countries involved over in the Libya thread in GiP before I got lazy and the thread got closed after Caro came back and shitted it up. Anyway, if I'm bored enough tonight or tomorrow night I might see what I can put together regarding what the situation is now. One big development I can think of off the top of my head is that the British have deployed Apaches while the French have deployed Tigers and Gazelles; the deployment of attack helicopters is a rather significant escalation on their seriousness. You could argue that this is one step closer to putting troops on the ground. Regarding 5th Generation fighters, AlexanderCA posted:5th gen is a lockheed-marting marketing term with ever changing goalposts. This is a good post that I largely agree with. In my humble opinion, I would say the standard of a true 5th generation figher is: -supercruise (F-35 can't do that) -high quality all aspect stealth against higher frequency fire control radars (X band) and lower frequency search radars (L and S band) (F-35 can't do that, it has issues all around but especially with the lower frequency radars...I'm too lazy to get into the specifics, but there is a LOT of open source stuff available out there about radar and LO if you are interested in the subject) -Low Probability of Intercept AESA radar -"sensor fusion"/computing power. The F-35 definitely does not meet the standard 5th generation definition, because it can't supercruise and its stealth is far below the standard set by the Raptor. Of course, the real fact of the matter is that the generation thing is bullshit to begin with, because the design philosophy that the F-22 and F-35 (to a lesser extent) is not the linear way forward some LockMart have made it out to be.  discussion about fighter development follows, you have been warned.Any fighter these days is going to have a design interplay of three main areas: LO performance; payload, mainly regarding weapons, which impacts combat persistence, and fuel, which impacts range; and various performance factors, such as range, ceiling, top speed/ability to supercruise and the overall maneuverability (encompassing things like turn radius, thrust to weight ratio, drag, and wing loading...Energy-Maneuverability, in other words). An illustrative example would be the different design philosophies between the F-22 and the Flanker/PAK-FA family of fighters. The Raptor was designed with top notch LO as the area that was most important, with performance factors like maneuverability, ceiling, and top speed/ability to supercruise coming a close second, while payload, both of weapons and fuel, ranked a distant third. Compare this to the Flanker/PAK-FA, which featured a more balanced design that put performance first with payload right behind (compare the Flanker's max A2A missile load to the Raptor's, and then compare the Flanker's internal fuel/max range to the Raptor's). LO was far less of a factor in the Flanker's design, although it appears to play a larger role in the design of PAK-FA (such as it is), which might best be described in general planform/size/shape as a Flanker optimized for LO (similarly to how some have described the Raptor as having the shape of an Eagle optimized for LO). Is LO important? Absolutely. But assuming that the future of fighters is high end LO on the scale of the Raptor (and what LockMart claims the F-35 is capable of) is a dangerous proposition and one not necessarily borne out by the way fighter development is progressing. Everything is a tradeoff, which brings me to the last point: all of those factors listed above ALSO combine together to play against cost. If I have a fighter that does 90% of what the gold plated fighter does at 50% of the cost, is that worth it? I dunno, that depends on a whole host of decisions...first, regarding your overall military situation: do you have allies that you will more than likely go to war with who have higher performance fighters that you will be flying with? Do you have a robust support infrastructure (ISR, C3I, early warning systems, etc.) or is the fighter going to have to operate autonomously? Do you have adequate numbers/types of other tactical aircraft to fulfill other missions, or is this fighter going to have to be a generalist rather than a specialist? Second, regarding your geopolitical situation: what do you want your military to do? I had a discussion earlier in the thread regarding the U.K.'s defense cuts, so I won't rehash all of that, but the short version is that your military capability needs to match up with your geopolitical strategy: having too much capability for a strategy is a waste of money, and having too little capability for a strategy is dangerous and can actually also waste significant amounts of money. To get back to the "5th gen" discussion, going  THAT FIGHTER ISN'T FIFTH GENERATION is a reeeally effective way to shut up discussion regarding the 90% at 50% (or 75% or 85%...I don't want to make it sound like I'm white washing the other options out there, because they have problems as well) of the cost alternatives, nevermind that it is meaningless marketing bullshit.The fact that LockMart are the ones who are pushing the "If you don't have 5th Generation you are deficient" message has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they are touting the F-35 as the only 5th generation fighter currently in production. NerdyMcNerdNerd posted:We're still working on a version that can fly in the rain Armyman25 posted:Anyone have insight into the rain problem, keeping OPSEC in mind? It's absolute horseshit. I don't know where it started, but I have my suspicions whispers that were "leaked" (intentionally) to certain defense unfriendly reporters by OSD as part of their "kill the Raptor" campaign a few years ago. But yes, it is absolute horseshit. The only "rain" aspect is that the LO material on the Raptor will degrade quicker if it is kept out in the elements 24 hours a day on the ramp, etc...even then, it is a huge improvement over legacy stealth like the F-117 or B-2, which had to be maintained in special air conditioned hangars in order to avoid extremely time consuming maintenance in order to remain mission capable. The F-22 can be (and has been in the past) stored outside for extended periods of time (for example, it spent its first couple years with one of the fighter squadrons up here being stored out on the ramp like the legacy F-15s that came before it). The impact is that the LO degrades quicker than it would otherwise, resulting in an increased maintenance load to maintain the equivalent amount of LO performance...it is obviously a somewhat significant additional burden, because the AF has constructed more shelters/hangars at most major F-22 bases so all the aircraft can be stored inside if need be, but it is nowhere close to the  Raptors can't fly in the rain meme that has gotten a lot of traction.Normally I don't play the "I'm super special and smart because I've got inside knowledge  " card, but I don't want this to be a case of my anecdote trumps your anecdote because I said so, so I just wanted to mention that I'm a maintenance officer at an F-22 base...not with an F-22 AMU, but I have friends who are and I am quite familiar with the maintenance challenges the jet poses. There's more I could say, but opsec.Edit: I just googled "F-22 rain" and the second story that popped up (The WaPo fabricated bullshit hit job story was first) was an AF Times story about the problems the F-22 faced during one of (not its first) deployment to Guam, where it faced conditions with significant moisture. Shockingly enough, when you place an operational aircraft that entered service fairly recently into extreme climatic conditions, problems that were previously undiscovered may crop up. The maintainers worked with the deployed contractors/company reps to develop a workaround and eventual solution. Fun fact, these problems were with various electrical components on the aircraft and had nothing to do with the LO. Somehow this rather normal (as compared to the development of other aircraft historically) development with the electrical/avionics systems got turned into the Raptor can't fly in the rain because its stealth is lovely by the WaPo. Like I said, the piece was a made up bullshit hit job. That's not to say the Raptor doesn't have legitimate issues, because it does (opsec precludes me from going on too big of a tear, but just look at the recent grounding situation), but a lot of the stuff brought up (like almost everything in the WaPo article) is out and out bullshit.
iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 05:17 on Jun 8, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2011 05:01
|
|
|
priznat posted:F-22: IT'S TAPE! That is F-15E1 (the first Mud Hen off the line), that Boeing leases from the AF to use as a flying test bed. That picture is from the rollout; the CFT/Weps bays are flight certified, the tails were a non-flying mockup to show what the "ultimate" F-15SE would be like. Basically Boeing has set it up so that a customer could come in and order off a menu of F-15E upgrades. After the rollout, the regular tails were put back on to flight test the conformal bays. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pWhKHrz28k http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CRF53SNzHA There is also the F-18 International Roadmap, a "Silent Hornet" if you will:  http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/asian-skies/2011/02/aero-india-slideshow-boeings-a.html Basically, Drag-neutral (produces enough lift to counteract the extra drag) CFTs and a stealthy weapons pod for the center station, with an integrated IRST system. The one thing that has come out of the F-35 program that appears to be working is the DAS (distributed aperture system). Long and short: someone watched Macross Plus and said "I want that on an airplane." Now the conclusion that this means the plane gets a pass on maneuverability is one I don't really agree with. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fm5vfGW5RY
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2011 06:12
|
|
|
Hmm, I'd heard a rumor about an IRST drop tank being developed back when I was on active duty. Interesting to see they actually made one, and with weapons storage, no less. edit: Regarding DAS for the F-35, yeah, it sounds loving awesome on paper, but I really doubt ACM would ever take a backseat just because pilots can lock on behind them. They still have to maneuver into an ideal firing position and set themselves up to evade attacks; relying on missiles to "do all the turning" would be disastrous in a fight within visual range. I also imagine this will be a maintenance nightmare, if working on FLIR and ATFLIR was any indication. Although Raytheon ATFLIR pods were set up to be as easy to fix as possible, they were still a pain in the dick. The Casualty fucked around with this message at 07:39 on Jun 8, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2011 07:29
|
|
|
The Casualty posted:Hmm, I'd heard a rumor about an IRST drop tank being developed back when I was on active duty. Interesting to see they actually made one, and with weapons storage, no less. That's actually something different. The F-18IR has an integrated IRST on the gun-bay pallet door on the nose.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2011 07:39
|
|
|
That DAS thing is cool and the video is unintentionally amusing. That poor ZSU just pumping rounds all futile like and the F-35 is like *yawn, drop bomb*
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2011 07:52
|
|
|
This is quite cool: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1812595429445699346&hl=en It's a 1948 fighter tactics training film, with RAF Meteors and Vampires vs USAF B-29s pretending to be Tu-4s.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2011 14:04
|
|
|
So, true story: My father and mother met while they both worked at the CIA back in the 60s. While my mother was an executive clerk, my father had a more wide-ranging job: he was a classified materials courier. Briefcase handcuffed to his wrist and everything. One of his long-term assignments happened to be shuttling material back and forth between Langley and Groom Lake, Nevada, during the CIA involvement in the YF-12A "KEDLOCK" project, which later developed into the SR-71 Blackbird. Nothing more to that story, alas. That was about all he shared about those times...aside from relating what he called the "strangest thing he ever saw in Area 51": an Air Force crew chief pissing off the porch of his temporary quarters, 'cause the pilot that he flew with was inside, wrapped around the toilet. Oh, for the 60's again!
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2011 04:53
|
|
|
New Chinese Stealth Fighter? http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?199385-New-chinese-fighter F-35 Clone? Of the big players, It's only Europe that doesn't have an indigenous "Fifth Gen" project now (that we know of).
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2011 09:09
|
|
|
dogmaan posted:New Chinese Stealth Fighter? We don't know if the "fifth gen" fighters that are under construction in China (J-20/JH-7B if it's real) and Russia (PAK-FA) are capable of supercruise, and we certainly don't know what their LO signatures are going to be...one can make educated guesses regarding shaping based on the pictures that have been released, but shaping is just one part of the LO puzzle. And of course, as was said above the entire "fifth gen" construct is meaningless. As for Europe, as I pointed out above the Euro-canards have simply taken a different design tack...not insisting on insane amounts of RCS reduction/LO work does not necessarily make a given fighter horrible and lovely, it just means the designer took a different approach regarding the interplay of LO, payload, performance, and cost.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2011 09:21
|
|
|
dogmaan posted:New Chinese Stealth Fighter? If you follow the link and read through the militaryphotos.net thread there's a link to another forum where someone claims, without any proof, that the image is CGed and the creator of it has come forward. Who knows whether that's true or not but if you're not already, it seems wise to take that image with a grain of salt. EDIT: He posted these images here that seem to show it was faked.   
ought ten fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Jun 9, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2011 18:24
|
|
|
B-17 bomber "Liberty Belle" crashes in Illinois Nobody was hurt. quote:The foundation had been flying the "Liberty Belle" since it was restored in 2004, Brooks said. The plane had not missed more than “a couple days” due to mechanical problems, he said, once flying to England and back with no problems.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 22:17
|
|
|
drat, he put that plane down perfectly it looks like, they just couldn't put the fire out in time to save it.   Edit: Got some more pictures from the air show I went to processed here. Click for original size. B-2 Stealth Bomber, I was pretty surprised how close they let us get. I remember last time they brought one in they kept it parked practically on the runway.  TC-135, if I remember right.  A cruise missile of some kind.  B-1 panorama.  B-25 and a TBF Avenger, I believe.  Front shot of the B-25  Another shot of the Avenger with the Mig-17 in the background.  They were cool planes, ok?  Those L-39's like flying low.  Seriously. Made it hard to see at times they were so low.  And flying in formation. While low (taking off now, but they did a lot of great low level formation flying). Some good footage of their stuff here, my favorite is probably about 7 minutes in when the solo jet does a slow barrel roll around the diamond flight. Really good for an all civilian team (of mostly retired military pilots). Video didn't seem to do justice to how low they were going when I saw them.  C-31s' are weird looking. In a good way.  Big shot of the B-1's bomb bay. One of them, at least, with a rotary launcher mounted.  Even the Coast Guard showed up, in the middle of South Dakota that's not something you see every day. Dwarfed by the Galaxy though.  To be fair the Galaxy dwarfed everything.  The C-17 had it beat for shear amount of... stuff sticking out.  Dr. Despair fucked around with this message at 00:59 on Jun 14, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 23:53
|
|
|
gohuskies posted:B-17 bomber "Liberty Belle" crashes in Illinois This is incredibly sad, seeing as it was one of the few survivors of the tornado at the New England Air Museum, which is pretty much within throwing distance for me and has been all my life.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2011 01:31
|
|
|
Are we still playing $40,000,000 limbo? The Russian Beriev 200 Altair fireplane can refill the water tanks without stopping. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__XflBfmVs4
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2011 03:14
|
|
|
The Proc posted:Are we still playing $40,000,000 limbo? The Russian Beriev 200 Altair fireplane can refill the water tanks without stopping. Pshaw, that thing came out in 1998. CL-215 have been around since 1969. (Ok, they're not jets, but hey... They're yellow. Like a proper fireplane should be.) I was out canoeing with my dad once. We were just about to come around a bend in the creek and onto the lake proper when we heard this noise, looked up, and BAM, there's a goddamn plane like 100 ft above us, still dripping water. The fire was a ways away, but we stuck close to the shore that day, just in case. Around that time, they came out with the CL-415 "Superscooper", which has a much better Wiki article (And video, holy poo poo, skip to 1:36 if the link doesn't do what it should): Wikipedia posted:The aircraft requires 1340 m of flyable area to descend from 15 m altitude, scoop 6,137 litres of water during a 12-second 410 m-long run on the water, then climb back to 15 m altitude. According to the Bombardier website,[5] the 415 takes "12 seconds, travelling at 130 km/h (70 knots) and 410 metres (1,350 feet), to scoop up a 6,137-litre (1,621-US-gallon) water load... The advanced Bombardier 415 aircraft scoops water from sites that are only two metres (6.5 feet) deep and 90 metres (300 feet) wide. When the water site is too small for a full pick-up, the Bombardier 415 takes a partial load and returns to the fire. The Bombardier 415 amphibian doesn’t need a straight scooping path. Since the aircraft is still in "flying" mode while scooping, pilots can easily manoeuvre around river bends or visible obstacles in the water." When I was a kid, I wanted to grow up and fly one of those. Pilot + Fireman, what else could a kid want? But considering that the only thing those planes could fight are the aliens from Signs, I guess this is kind of off-topic. Sorry. FrozenVent fucked around with this message at 07:00 on Jun 14, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2011 04:07
|
|
|
INTERNETRACECAR posted:tornado at the New England Air Museum When the hell did this happen? I love the NEAM.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2011 06:09
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:A cruise missile of some kind. Like I said over in the AI thread, that's an AGM-158 JASSM. It's a piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2011 06:40
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Like I said over in the AI thread, that's an AGM-158 JASSM. It's a piece of poo poo. Can you elaborate? Wiki is pretty vague on it. A little surprising that you can have engine trouble, that end of the business should be dead simple.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2011 07:31
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:Can you elaborate? Well, it says "NON-FLIGHT HARDWARE" right on the missile body. That should be a dead giveaway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 01:19
|
|
|
CarterUSM posted:Well, it says "NON-FLIGHT HARDWARE" right on the missile body. That should be a dead giveaway. Nah, that really has nothing to do with it. That particular missile body is an inert load crew trainer used in the load barn. The loaders (2W1s) use these assets for training purposes to train up on procedures for loading (it's a lot more complicated than it sounds, and they have time standards for each specific type of load for a given aircraft), but you cannot fly them under any circumstances for a variety of reasons. These exist for pretty much every asset in the Air Force inventory...air to air missiles (AIM-9s, AIM-120s), air to ground missiles (AGM-65s, AGM-88s), bombs (various flavors of JDAMs, various flavors of LGBs, dumb bombs, CBUs, SDB), hell, there is even dummy 20mm solely for use with cycling through the UALS/LALS and through the jet for training purposes. Since you can't actually fly these assets, they are always clearly marked "DO NOT FLY"/"FOR TRAINING USE ONLY"/"NON-FLIGHT HARDWARE"/etc. These are different from training missiles, like CATM-9s, which are inert shapes with a live seeker head that are flown to enable training (the pilot can "lock on" to targets with the missile, but the missile has no warhead or motor and can't be fired). The load trainers are completely inert; they are just shapes that have the same size, shape, and weight as the live asset. As for why the JASSM is a piece of poo poo, as you alluded to it has faced severe developmental difficulties across a wide variety of areas. Supposedly they have them licked, but there were a series of tests as recently as 2009 that demonstrated the missile still had serious reliability issues. On top of that, these problems came up after the missile had already entered production, so there are "mistake" missiles that were in the stockpile. From a maintenance standpoint, it is tested using the CMBRE, which is nice (far simpler than the plethora of specialized test kits that legacy missiles used, which was kind of the point), but it will do stupid poo poo like randomly fail for no reason when you are testing it. This isn't unique to the JASSM (almost every type of munition does this occasionally), but it seems to happen more often than usual with the JASSM.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 07:23
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:*snip* Clearly my lame joke fell flat. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 07:41
|
|
|
CarterUSM posted:Well, it says "NON-FLIGHT HARDWARE" right on the missile body. That should be a dead giveaway. That's okay, it can just fire up the engine and drive out to the target on that little cart.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 13:12
|
|
|
CarterUSM posted:Clearly my lame joke fell flat.  My sarcasm/joke detector has failed me once again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 16:31
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:but it will do stupid poo poo like randomly fail for no reason when you are testing it. This isn't unique to the JASSM (almost every type of munition does this occasionally) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_14_torpedo
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 16:44
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:
I thought those got removed at OTS?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 16:46
|
|
|
I was wondering if any of you guys would be interested in some pics I took of the B-17 AluminumOvercast when it came to town a couple months back. I know it's technically not Cold War material, so I thought I'd ask first.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 20:36
|
|
|
durtan posted:I was wondering if any of you guys would be interested in some pics I took of the B-17 AluminumOvercast when it came to town a couple months back. I know it's technically not Cold War material, so I thought I'd ask first. It is airpower though! I'd be interested in them at least.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 20:37
|
|
|
Flikken posted:I thought those got removed at OTS? Nah, they just get a firmware update to auto-respond to jokes made by 0-6s and up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 21:07
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:It is airpower though! I'd be interested in them at least. JEEZ OKAY OKAY. No need to twist my arm over it.  But first, a little information on the plane with the blackest name, Aluminum Overcast    Warning! Images Ahead!!From the Gods of wiki Wikipedia posted:Aluminum Overcast, B-17G-105-VE, 44-85740, civil registration N5017N, is one of only a few surviving B-17 Flying Fortresses in existence. It is owned by the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), and it tours the U.S.A. and Canada offering flight experiences. Although never amassing a combat record, and barely escaping the fate of many aircraft that were scrapped after World War II, Aluminum Overcast has become one of the most recognizable examples of the type, due to its extensive touring schedule with over one million flight miles accumulated. The painstaking overhaul and restoration of the airframe took more than 10 years and thousands of hours by dedicated staff and volunteers at EAA Oshkosh, Wisconsin, headquarters. Through its association as the "flagship" of the EAA, the aircraft has become a living reminder of World War II aviation for many years to come.[1] Aluminum Overcast proudly carries the colors of the 398th Bomb Group of World War II, which flew hundreds of missions over Nazi-held territory during the war. Aluminum Overcast commemorates B-17G AAF Serial No. 42-102515, shot down over France in 1944.           Interesting fact, that walkway beam was about 6 inches wide. A bit of a squeeze; I had to leave my camera bag outside, but thankfully the atmosphere was very friendly, and not too busy, so it was still there when I emerged.    Dummy bombs with prominent donors' names. At least I think they're dummy.   Notice how small the actual ball turret is when comparing the dude crouched next to it. I believe he was about 5'9'' or somewherabouts.  A 13-year-old boy for size reference. There was a WWII vet who was a ball-gunner who said he joined up at 14 and was placed in the turret because he was the only one to fit. Apparently that was standard procedures at the time since age verification was null.  If you zoom closely at that sheet of paper inside the ball (which I unfortunately forgot to photograph  ) you can kinda see the position the gunner had to sit in. Not exactly roomy, and they were usually in there for upwards of six hours.  Side-turret.  Ironically, I also forgot to take a full-body photograph of the bomber with my good camera, I only took it with my Blackberry. So... Edit: Since it seemed absurd I didn't take any full-body shots of the bomber, I did a search through one of my memory cards and it seemed to imply I might have shot them on another card. More to come, hopefully... durtan fucked around with this message at 10:48 on Jun 16, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 22:47
|
|
|
The last time I saw a B-17 in person I was small enough to climb into the ball turret - I didn't get to, but up close at 10 or so, even then it looked small. I always figured that the only thing that made the turret bearable would be chain smoking the whole way through.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 23:04
|
|
|
As I recall, the ventral ball turret was generally the poo poo position to be in on the crew because even if you could fit yourself into it you couldn't necessarily fit into it with your parachute, and that little hatch in the back was known to fail at 20,000 feet when buffeted by nearby flak clouds.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 23:17
|
|
|
Also don't forget that "Amazing Stories" where the guy got stuck in there and the landing gear was buggered! He drew giant cartoon wheels that became real somehow and they landed safely
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 23:21
|
|
|
priznat posted:Also don't forget that "Amazing Stories" where the guy got stuck in there and the landing gear was buggered! I can't believe someone ELSE remembers this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 23:49
|
|
|
CarterUSM posted:I can't believe someone ELSE remembers this.  That show kinda rockedhttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt0511124/ I forgot about Costner and Kiefer Sutherland being in it though!
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 23:55
|
|
|
One of the main problems with the ball turret is that older models can only be opened while the plane is on the ground. So, landing gear not working? Get ready to smear, especially since, as another poster mentioned, strong winds tended to keep it shut (and I can't even remember if the gunner had the ability to open from the inside). Eventually they modified the turret so the gunner can leave the turret while the plane was flying, but it had to be positioned a certain way so the exit hole lined up with plane's fuselage. Unfortunately yet again, if you lost hydraulic pressure, the turret fails and your future looks a bit messy. The turret gunner that was there said he flew 14 missions (I think, memory is fuzzy) and had two instances where the hydraulic pressure to the ball failed somehow or another. He said each time he had just enough warning to maneuver the turret into the proper position, giving him enough room to shimmy out. No word on whether magic wheels were involved, or whether he was Michael J. Fox in disguise. Funny enough, Every time I brought up that movie about the magic wheels to somebody they would go "Oh jeez, that's like the only thing people think of when they see this plane. The movie was poo poo to begin with." Then we'll all have a laugh and continue masturbating to the sexy plane. Edit: Coulda sworn the Foxman was the cartoonist in that movie. Oh well. I'll leave it in for posterity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2011 00:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 19:48 |
|
|
priznat posted:
That episode was the only really good one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2011 09:29
|
|
