|
When I was a kid I wanted a PBY to convert into a Mobile Home of sorts. It would be the best ever since you go by air, sea or land (on land). If ever I am a super millionaire it's what I will do. i need to dig up some pics I took of the one in Eastern Washington that's a fire bomber now. I got to change it's spark plugs once. I lived next to Lake Union for a while and never got sick of watching the float planes land. I had a great view from my desk. I'm a total plane nerd, though, and have to stop to look at every one I hear.
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2011 21:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 20:57 |
|
|
Boomerjinks posted:I live in Colorado. Our largest natural lake is 1 mile long. That's beautiful. Thank you for the new desktop background. I'm probably in the minority in this but in my opinion the PBY Catalina was the sexiest aircraft ever built. ack! posted:When I was a kid I wanted a PBY to convert into a Mobile Home of sorts. It would be the best ever since you go by air, sea or land (on land). I had this same fantasy but I remember reading somewhere that the insurance for a water landing was hell of unreasonable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2011 22:02
|
|
|
FEMA summer camp posted:That's beautiful. Thank you for the new desktop background. I'm probably in the minority in this but in my opinion the PBY Catalina was the sexiest aircraft ever built. A-loving-men. FEMA summer camp posted:I had this same fantasy but I remember reading somewhere that the insurance for a water landing was hell of unreasonable. I always imagined filling the side blisters with pillows and turning them into reading nooks. Johnny Quest flew around in a PBY, why can't I?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2011 22:47
|
|
|
benito posted:The bomber version of the 737 has been an idea for a long time, and it's a cool concept and a lot cheaper than developing something like a bomber version of the C-17. But as someone who only flies civilian... part of me worries about the 737 becoming a potential warplane. Are those windows real or painted on? Do I get fighter escorts when flying into certain countries, just in case? Do we have to start patrolling 737s flying into American airspace? "I'm just a little lost Southwest plane, nothing to see here..." Have you heard of the Boeing 707? How about it's close relatives, the E-3, E-6, E-8, KC-135, RC-135, VC-137, etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2011 22:49
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Have you heard of the Boeing 707? How about it's close relatives, the E-3, E-6, E-8, KC-135, RC-135, VC-137, etc. Personally I'm a fan of planes that started off as bombers and then became airliners!
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2011 22:55
|
|
|
Boomerjinks posted:Personally I'm a fan of planes that started off as bombers and then became airliners! This is better. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2011 23:52
|
|
|
sup
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2011 00:19
|
|
|
Cygni posted:sup gently caress i was gonna post the IL-114
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2011 01:11
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Have you heard of the Boeing 707? How about it's close relatives, the E-3, E-6, E-8, KC-135, RC-135, VC-137, etc. I see an E-6 coming out of Will Rogers in OKC all the time on my way home from work. My old classroom was right next to RWY 13 so we got to see a few KC-135's shoot a really short final too. It kind of sucks that I'll never actually see any of the airplanes I'm talking to when I'm done here 
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2011 01:15
|
|
|
Did I post the pictures from inside the Dornier 24 ATT? Kinda fun, the doors are ship-style doors that you'd think would close with a mighty clang, but they are actually hollow-core aluminum, and slam like screen doors.  dornierattview by RReiheld, on Flickr Here is the view from the dorsal bubble  dornierattbubble by RReiheld, on Flickr Looking back from the cockpit to the cabin area  dornierattcabin by RReiheld, on Flickr cockpit  dornierattcockpit by RReiheld, on Flickr In flight  dornier8x66yh by RReiheld, on Flickr (can't find the drat original of this one) Here is a shamefully small image of the TU-70 Cart, the airliner conversion of the TU-4 Bull bomber that was copied from B-29 Superfortresses landed in Kamchatka during WWII.  [edit] SEE ALSO PBY AIR YACHT http://www.seawings.co.uk/CatalinaFlying%20Yacht-WRgal.htm bikini girls in a flying boat. Like this: 
Slo-Tek fucked around with this message at 02:36 on Sep 2, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2011 02:19
|
|
|
benito posted:The bomber version of the 737 has been an idea for a long time, and it's a cool concept and a lot cheaper than developing something like a bomber version of the C-17. But as someone who only flies civilian... part of me worries about the 737 becoming a potential warplane. Are those windows real or painted on? Do I get fighter escorts when flying into certain countries, just in case? Do we have to start patrolling 737s flying into American airspace? "I'm just a little lost Southwest plane, nothing to see here..." Maybe im way off hear but I thought I had heard of some of the stealth aircraft faking civilian transponders to help conceal them. IIRC they were also capable of transmitting radar signals back at scanning dishes so that to the dish it would have a signature like that of a civilian aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2011 03:47
|
|
|
Sadi posted:Maybe im way off hear but I thought I had heard of some of the stealth aircraft faking civilian transponders to help conceal them. IIRC they were also capable of transmitting radar signals back at scanning dishes so that to the dish it would have a signature like that of a civilian aircraft. At least over the US and most of Canada civilian airliners are ridiculously traceable: http://flightaware.com/ shows pretty much everything in IFR flight. Wouldn't a stealth aircraft spend most of its time at a much higher altitude than a civilian airliner too?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2011 04:04
|
|
|
slidebite posted:For some reason I think military versions of civilian aircraft are cool. I was pretty much poo poo we got civilian aircraft doing air to air refueling for us. http://www.omegaairrefueling.com/
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2011 05:28
|
|
when I first found out that the Canadian Forces' A310 derived CC-150 Polaris could actually do air-air tanker duty.
|
Slo-Tek posted:Did I post the pictures from inside the Dornier 24 ATT? Somewhere I have my dads night photo of this airplane in this very spot, as well as some splashdown pictures of it landing in the lake.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2011 14:28
|
|
|
Previa_fun posted:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isP1LVVZ6nU I love the 880 - there's just something about the look of them. And the J79s. Cabin design by Harley Earl, appropriately enough for an AI thread. Fun fact. For those of us old enough to have flown in cabins like those, the TWA ones really bring back memories.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2011 15:03
|
|
|
Sadi posted:Maybe im way off hear but I thought I had heard of some of the stealth aircraft faking civilian transponders to help conceal them. IIRC they were also capable of transmitting radar signals back at scanning dishes so that to the dish it would have a signature like that of a civilian aircraft. Civilian aircraft squawk Mode 3A and 3C (A is the code you're thinking of, C is self-reported altitude). So do military aircraft. Unless they're engaging in military activities (training in designated airspace) or actual wartime action, they're squawking M3A/C as well, and following ATC direction just like everything else out there. The only way you'd know the difference is listening to the callsigns or if you had a radar scope you'd see a formation rather than a single dot. Military aircraft have addition transponder systems, as well. So it wouldn't so much be faking civilian transponders, they would just have to turn it on. But if it doesn't match an anticipated flight plan, this is only going to draw attention to them. No stealth aircraft (F-117 through F-22) is that concerned about ATC radars. They would turn everything off. As far as the LPI radar capabilities, they can imitate other radars. That won't fool a radar, but it'll fool a "radar detector" into thinking it's another kind of plane. IE, if it could pretend to be an APG-68, now the enemy thinks it's an F-16 out there. But again, that would draw attention to themselves which defeats the whole purpose. Anyway, most ATC radars aren't using the size of the dot to figure out what kind of plane it is, they're focusing 90% on squawks. Many areas don't even have a traditional "radar" that gets skin hits off the aircraft itself, they're strictly IFF interrogators. There are probably a few people in here who know a lot about this, so I'll caveat by saying I'm keeping it very general.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2011 15:20
|
|
|
Godholio posted:There are probably a few people in here who know a lot about this, so I'll caveat by saying I'm keeping it very general. Keeping it general also keeps opsec nannies happy 
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2011 19:15
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:Wouldn't a stealth aircraft spend most of its time at a much higher altitude than a civilian airliner too? Not really. A 747 has a service ceiling of about 43,000 feet. The F-117's ceiling was 45,000 feet, and the B-2 was at 50,000 feet. There's not really much point in going far beyond 40,000 feet in altitude in a subsonic aircraft, because the stall speed in the thin air starts getting uncomfortably close to the point where transonic wave drag begins to gently caress with the aircraft, greatly reducing your fuel efficiency and (if the plane's not designed for it), becoming a bit of a danger to the airframe itself. That's why most of the aircraft you see with a cruising altitude above 50,000 feet are supersonic, like the Concorde and SR-71. The exception is the U-2, but it had only a 10 knot window between stalling and overspeeding, and that window narrowed down to 5 knots in the later, heavier models.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2011 22:21
|
|
|
ApathyGifted posted:Not really. A 747 has a service ceiling of about 43,000 feet. The F-117's ceiling was 45,000 feet, and the B-2 was at 50,000 feet. A 5 knot coffin corner is pretty 
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2011 23:01
|
|
|
I didn't get any good pictures (only this HDR failure from my phone) but we followed this around Quebec about 2 weeks ago Twin-Star outside of Pittsburgh  Swiss SuperPuma in northern Scotland.  Erickson Skycrane in socal    Camera mount on a Long Ranger  Wish I had bigger of this one, bit of an oh-poo poo moment in Thailand  10 minutes later:  From the cabin of a DC3  Horsies!  Brazil  Vancouver  
D C fucked around with this message at 01:49 on Sep 3, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2011 01:35
|
|
|
 You can czech out the article about it too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2011 05:20
|
|
|
I want your job, D C.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2011 05:46
|
|
|
D C posted:Vancouver 
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2011 05:51
|
|
|
D C posted:
When did you see this skycrane in Southern Cal? I was driving up to my stations transmitter a couple days ago and saw a skycrane flying over the mountains. We were thinking that maybe Verizon sprung for a helicopter to drop off their dishes at our location since getting them through five miles of really bad dirt roads would be difficult.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2011 11:48
|
|
|
ApathyGifted posted:Not really. A 747 has a service ceiling of about 43,000 feet. The F-117's ceiling was 45,000 feet, and the B-2 was at 50,000 feet. Lots of subsonic civil aircraft can cruise above 50,000 feet. Most modern Learjets, the Gulfstream V family, later Dassault Falcons, the Citation X and the Bombardier Global Express family, to name a few, can cruise at 51,000 feet. The advantage of flying this high is that it gets you almost completely out of the winds and weather, allows for more direct routing and further reduces fuel burn, especially at tropical latitudes. The biggest reason why we don't see more aircraft cruise that high isn't the "coffin corner", but rather the certification criteria regarding pressurisation system design and emergency descent performance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2011 16:36
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Lots of subsonic civil aircraft can cruise above 50,000 feet. Most modern Learjets, the Gulfstream V family, later Dassault Falcons, the Citation X and the Bombardier Global Express family, to name a few, can cruise at 51,000 feet. The advantage of flying this high is that it gets you almost completely out of the winds and weather, allows for more direct routing and further reduces fuel burn, especially at tropical latitudes. Presumably bizjets have an easier time hitting those requirements due to their much smaller internal volume and mass?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2011 16:53
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Lots of subsonic civil aircraft can cruise above 50,000 feet. Most modern Learjets, the Gulfstream V family, later Dassault Falcons, the Citation X and the Bombardier Global Express family, to name a few, can cruise at 51,000 feet. The advantage of flying this high is that it gets you almost completely out of the winds and weather, allows for more direct routing and further reduces fuel burn, especially at tropical latitudes. All of your examples are newer jets that have had the advantage of expanded knowledge about transonic wave drag integrated into their designs, and therefore are built for better efficiency at those speeds. You also missed the following qualifier I included in my last post: If the aircraft isn't designed for it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2011 17:23
|
|
|
ApathyGifted posted:All of your examples are newer jets that have had the advantage of expanded knowledge about transonic wave drag integrated into their designs, and therefore are built for better efficiency at those speeds. What does this have to do with anything? You made a poorly thought-out assertion (that there are very few subsonic aircraft that fly that high when there are actually quite a few) and got called on it. Whether it is an old design or not is totally irrelevant. Granted, the technical limitations as to why there aren't more aircraft capable of such altitude have changed, but that still doesn't lend any credence to your blanket assertion. And I'm not even going to touch that last sentence... BonzoESC posted:Presumably bizjets have an easier time hitting those requirements due to their much smaller internal volume and mass? That is certainly a big part of it, as it is easier to make a smaller aircraft compliant with the regulations. At the end of the day, it all comes down to cost; airliners are a bit more price sensitive than business aircraft in the same way a Bentley is less sensitive than a pickup truck. Also, ego comes into play as well; there is definitely an element of oneupsmanship in this market. See also the speed war between Cessna and Gulfstream. MrChips fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Sep 3, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2011 19:18
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:
That wing is beautiful. I'm looking forward to flying on the 787 at some point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2011 19:21
|
|
|
Australian documentary about Qantas flight 32, the A380 that blew out an engine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGiITFlaafI&feature=related
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2011 20:00
|
|
|
MrChips posted:What does this have to do with anything? You made a poorly thought-out assertion (that there are very few subsonic aircraft that fly that high when there are actually quite a few) and got called on it. Whether it is an old design or not is totally irrelevant. Granted, the technical limitations as to why there aren't more aircraft capable of such altitude have changed, but that still doesn't lend any credence to your blanket assertion. The original post posited that stealth aircraft (Like the B-2 and F-117) fly higher to avoid radar. These are aircraft whose concept and design was born in the late 70's/early 80's. That's why newer bizjets and the transonic aerodynamic breakthroughs they incorporate have no bearing on my assertion on their capabilities or the issue with coffin corner (calling it coffin corner is a little inappropriate in this conversation as it's more about efficiency than safety). You are correct about my language in the post, it asserted that few subsonic aircraft fly at such high altitudes. That was a mistake and I should have stated myself more clearly. However, there was a reason for that qualifier about aircraft being designed for it. Would it have been better had I said, "that's why so few aircraft from that era fly at such high altitudes?" Edit: In fact checking I noticed that the B-2 and F-117 were publicly revealed within a month of each other. Holiday season '88 must have been wicked loving cool, too bad I was only 2 years old. ApathyGifted fucked around with this message at 01:29 on Sep 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 01:23
|
|
|
ApathyGifted posted:Edit: In fact checking I noticed that the B-2 and F-117 were publicly revealed within a month of each other. Holiday season '88 must have been wicked loving cool, too bad I was only 2 years old. I don't remember the exact year, but I seem to recall by 1990 I got to see an F-117 at an airshow. It was parked on the tarmac, but surrounded by a velvet rope and had armed guards around it. Oh, and a dozen aviation enthusiasts taking pictures from every angle. Two or three years later, I saw a B-2 do a flyby at an airshow, and I finally got to see it up close and personal at Dayton in 2008. None of those experiences were as great as seeing the SR-71 at Eglin AFB in Florida around 1990. Somehow it seemed too small, but I walked around that bird for half an hour.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 02:44
|
|
|
ApathyGifted posted:
You would think, but the F-117 was some fukkin' bullshit when you were expecting the F-19 as depicted by Testors and Monogram models and Microprose simulations. Seriously:  and  The B-2 reveal was pretty pimp. I don't know if it is exactly as I remember it, but as I remember it, they had the star-made-of-b2's logo out before they showed the aircraft, and when you saw it, you went "Ah!" I am not able to google it. It is a pretty nice image. Five B-2 bombers pointed nose in to eachother makes a 5 pointed star. Here we go:  Remember also that in 1988 you got your news from your local newspaper, which printed a 3x4 grainy black and white picture. I am pretty sure I did see the B-2 rollout on the 6 o'clock news on TV. The 24" tube television that still had "color" as part of the badging. Slo-Tek fucked around with this message at 03:16 on Sep 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 02:57
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:You would think, but the F-117 was some fukkin' bullshit when you were expecting the F-19 as depicted by Testors and Monogram models and Microprose simulations. On top of that, the real F-117 model that finally came out was so damned boring. Matte black, a little white for the gears, and a bunch of ugly angles. I think it was the only one that I built and then threw away. Let me go back to the cool WWII planes so I can have fun with the airbrush and special order decal sets to match a specific squadron.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 03:03
|
|
|
Boomerjinks posted:I live in Colorado. Our largest natural lake is 1 mile long. This is all very amusing to me, since I just moved from a couple blocks away from the shore of South Lake Union in Seattle to Denver. I will say that being on a boat out in the lake and seeing those guys pick a lane to land in is awesome. Almost as awesome as being in the plane, and being sure that you're about to kill a stupid paddleboarder.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 03:36
|
|
|
onezero posted:This is all very amusing to me, since I just moved from a couple blocks away from the shore of South Lake Union in Seattle to Denver. I saw one take off from next to the cruise terminals yesterday, but I was stuck in traffic on the causeway
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 06:06
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:You would think, but the F-117 was some fukkin' bullshit when you were expecting the F-19 as depicted by Testors and Monogram models and Microprose simulations. If you were an Aviation Week subscriber that year, it was loving amazing. You got slightly less grainy color shots. The initial public unveiling of the B2 was arranged specifically to conceal the trailing edge of the wing from view at the event. The pic was probably taken from the grandstands they had built - Said grandstands also blocked the view from outside. They thought they had security pretty tight. Then an Aviation Week photographer buzzed the scene in a little Cessna, and got perfect shots of the top view, including the trailing edge. Billions of dollars of high tech defeated by a private plane! The AF was hopping mad, but there wasn't much they could do. Before the B2 was unveiled, Honda ran a commercial for the new CRX - featuring a full scale stealth flying wing mockup. It was pure (very good) guesswork, they had not seen the B2, but the Pentagon had a loving aneurysm. "What is my goddamn secret bomber doing in a loving car ad?!?!?" The Honda mockup is in a so cal air museum now. Looking at the commercial I can see why the AF freaked, that thing was pretty close! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M40uSxC6_1k
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 07:08
|
|
|
Schindler's Fist posted:The Honda mockup is in a so cal air museum now. Looking at the commercial I can see why the AF freaked, that thing was pretty close! Slight correction...the mockup was on display at the aviation museum outside Ellsworth in Rapid City. The condition of its display was that it had to be destroyed if the museum replaced it with anything else. The museum replaced it with a real B-1 a few years back, so they destroyed it. Story here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 07:38
|
|
|
Fewer engines, more insanity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWfph3iNC-k
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 12:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 20:57 |
|
|
benito posted:On top of that, the real F-117 model that finally came out was so damned boring. Matte black, a little white for the gears, and a bunch of ugly angles. I think it was the only one that I built and then threw away. Let me go back to the cool WWII planes so I can have fun with the airbrush and special order decal sets to match a specific squadron. The coolest thing about it was that we'd already been using it for years, including in combat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 14:41
|
|