|
What happens when the wings fall off a C-130? With the magic of Youtube, we can see.
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2011 22:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 10:57 |
|
|
mlmp08 posted:The Marine Super Cobra pilot managed to get past our defenses by "accidentally" loading up his Mode 4 codes (cheating) Then he did a loving airshow on top of our faces flipping every which way, standing on his tail and nose, and generally doing things I honestly didn't know you could do in such a chopper so low to the ground without crashing.  "What the gently caress, he's cheating? What a di-"...  "How..." You literally cannot be mad after an impromptu air-show like that, you're asking for an autograph or a ride. Revolvyerom fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Nov 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2011 22:08
|
|
That's when you slip the ref a few  and have him use the god gun.... except I don't think helicopters had the laser tag gear
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2011 22:12
|
|
|
gohuskies posted:What happens when the wings fall off a C-130? With the magic of Youtube, we can see. Holy poo poo, that would be terrifying. The poor crew. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2011 22:16
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Airshows notwithstanding, most of my extremely low buzzes have come from doing IADS (Integrated Air Defense Systems) exercises. The Marines liked to scream over our sight just barely high enough to avoid communications arrays in Harriers and F-5s, then the Air Force joined in with a couple of F-16s. Got the same sort of show from a Cobra section when I was in Iraq. We had a section chopped out to us doing surveillance ahead of our movement to find pickup trucks or something. When they had about 5 minutes of on station time left they asked us if we wanted a show. Couple of mock strafing runs, some acrobatics and then they flew back to wherever they came from to eat ice cream. Also, had an F/A-18 fly inverted over my platoon at like 500M.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2011 23:05
|
|
|
Suicide Watch posted:Does anyone know the common route Tu-95 Bears took during their patrols? I'd only just learned about their insane flight range. Basically they can fly 1/3 the circumference of the Earth. Depends on where they were headed...Northwestern Pacific/Arctic patrols usually start from a forward base in Siberia and then they will just fly around the periphery of the entire state of Alaska, possibly starting further to the east in the North so the Canadians have to come up to intercept. Atlantic patrols usually start from a forward base on the Kola Peninsula, from where the aircraft would fly around the North Cape of Norway, and then either come through the G-I-UK gap on their way down the Eastern seaboard to either Cuba or Venezuela or fly through the North Sea and down the English Channel. Then of course there are also the carrier intercept missions, where they try and find a U.S. carrier strike group (carrier battle group back then) and see how close they can get before they are intercepted. They also fly patrols near Japan, usually related to the Kuril Islands dispute. movax posted:Not sure on the exact routing, but the Bear is one thing the Soviets did right. Turboprop airframe that can fly pretty much forever and is much easier to maintain than computerized jet powered aircraft. That's been going on for quite a few years now; Putin restarted them in 2007 and they've been taking place regularly ever since. Smiling Jack posted:Yes, Gulf War 1 gave us so much access to Iraqi oil. The Iranian models were equipped with the TF30s, as the U.S. didn't upgrade beyond them the late '80s. They weren't terrible engines, it's not like they blew up or anything, it's just that they suffered compressor stalls at high angles of attack when the throttles were moved aggressively...which is kind of a problem for a fighter. For what it's worth, they were also used in the A-7 and F-111 and didn't see nearly the same amount of trouble with those platforms (although there were similar issues with disturbed air getting into the engines on the F-111 due to the initial intake design).
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2011 23:23
|
|
|
18 episode documentary covering russian military and civilian avaiton from Imperial Russia to now (episode 3 covers jet fighters during the cold war) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCUd7WcaLO0 edit: the discription of lend lease aircraft is commedy gold (the B-25 had bourgeoisie luxury items like heating and a toilett) Trench_Rat fucked around with this message at 00:53 on Nov 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2011 00:03
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:That's when you slip the ref a few Our system, Patriot, has live air trainer where it radiates searching for live air and everything works exactly as it does in tactical mode, except that when you engage aircraft, it simulates the missile going outbound and shows it on your scope. If the aircraft masks and we lose it entirely, it's counted as a miss, and if we maintain contact the entire time, the system calculates the odds of an intercept given the aircraft's range, flight profile, size, etc. Once the symbology of the aircraft has a "kill" modifier on it, we hard copy the event to have a timestamp, then call up our control chain and let them know we destroyed the aircraft. This info gets fed to the white cell running the event, and then they call the red cell, and then the red cell calls on the pilot. This process results in a lot of pilots screaming over our sites to bomb us not realizing they were killed 40 kilometers back. For aircraft with a RWR, we can just spoof them with the track-via-missile, forcing our radar to emit at the aircraft in question as if the radar were doing last-second illumination we use to guide real missiles, just without actually firing a missile. mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 01:54 on Nov 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2011 01:51
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Once the symbology of the aircraft has a "kill" modifier on it, we hard copy the event to have a timestamp, then call up our control chain and let them know we destroyed the aircraft. This info gets fed to the white cell running the event, and then they call the red cell, and then the red cell calls on the pilot. I got to sit in on a Red Flag debrief a couple of weeks back...the white cell dudes did a pretty good job of making sure everyone knew when they were dead, but every so often a pilot would pop off a visual heater or SAM-1 would take a shot with their emitters that didn't get passed along, so the shooter would make the call and then someone else who had piped up for a later shot would be like....yeah, never mind. "Uh, hello, airplanes? Yeah, it's blimps, you win, bye! I hope you didn't invest in this." Since TFR loves Archer, and I happened to be watching the blimp episode tonight, I thought this was relevant.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2011 10:07
|
|
|
anecdotal not sure if true stories from a russian posted on 4chan in broken english about his father and uncle   
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2011 15:38
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:I got to sit in on a Red Flag debrief a couple of weeks back...the white cell dudes did a pretty good job of making sure everyone knew when they were dead, but every so often a pilot would pop off a visual heater or SAM-1 would take a shot with their emitters that didn't get passed along, so the shooter would make the call and then someone else who had piped up for a later shot would be like....yeah, never mind. Yeah, the WTI events I've been to have all had the white cell take a full 12 hours or so to figure out who shot what and when based on engagement reports. There have been a few times when Patriot has a blip of a helo right as it hits our radar's dead space and just really had to hope the stinger guys got it. The stinger guys always nailed the choppers though. And their own F-18s  It's also really amusing to see a pilot become visibly disappointed when he sees that a SAM hit his airplane about 2 seconds before he dropped his bombs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2011 22:13
|
|
|
slidebite posted:A little bit of irony that a nation can barely keep a 40 year old aircraft in the sky, 35 year old AA missile operational, but yet can almost make a nuclear weapon and basic launch system. I dunno, the US developed a nuclear weapon from scratch, during a large war, using early-to-mid-1940's technology...
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 01:15
|
|
|
Yeah the logistical and industrial ressources and efforts required by a state to hand make a few nuclear weapons, especially since the recipe already exist, don't even begin to compare to what you'd need to maintain a whole fleet of modern aircrafts... Especially without access to OEM parts and trained techs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 02:25
|
|
|
TU 160 Blackjack   (model) size comparison between the TU22M, TU160, and B1: 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 03:43
|
|
|
Do my eyes deceive me, or does the entire tail fin pivot above the elevators?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 03:46
|
|
|
Sperglord Actual posted:Do my eyes deceive me, or does the entire tail fin pivot above the elevators? Yeah, that's called a "stabilator" or "all-moving tailplane." Practically everything supersonic uses them, and there are a fair number of subsonic civil aircraft that use them, too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 03:52
|
|
|
The UH-60 Black Hawk also utilizes a stabilator.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 04:37
|
|
|
I learn something new here every day. Edit: yes, the vertical stabilizer. Somebody Awful fucked around with this message at 07:33 on Nov 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 04:51
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:Yeah, that's called a "stabilator" or "all-moving tailplane." Practically everything supersonic uses them, and there are a fair number of subsonic civil aircraft that use them, too. I think hes asking about the entire verticle stabalizer acting as a rudder not the horizontal stabalizers. Most supersonic aircraft definitely do not have that feature. http://www.airliners.net/photo/Russ...hoto_album=hide
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 07:28
|
|
|
 The Soviets did some crazy things. One of which was their development of the ekranoplans, ground effect flying ships. Some of which were built, like the Lun missile ekranoplan (was featured earlier in either this thread IIRC), but one idea proposed in the mid 70s was too insane, even for the soviets: the flying aircraft carrier. Weighing 8,000 tons with an 800' chord wing, this ekranoplan would fly across the Atlantic at aircraft speeds, much faster than any American supercarrier. Unfortunately, all I was able to find of this were a few terse mentions of Alekseev's Project Seconds and this sketch of an older design. Wings of Russia showed a more updated design that looked to be operating Su-37Ks, but I can't seem to find it online. grover fucked around with this message at 23:47 on Dec 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 17:23
|
|
|
Holy poo poo...yeah, the ekranoplanes were discussed earlier in the thread (specifically the Lun class and their ability to carry six Moskit/Sunburn anti-ship cruise missiles and how that could make a carrier battle group's day very interesting), but I had no idea they thought about creating a loving aircraft carrier.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 21:55
|
|
|
Do ekranoplanes work on open oceans with waves, or bad weather? I would have thought that's the reason why there are no trans-oceanic ekranoplane liners.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 22:17
|
|
|
I'm sure this was mentioned earlier in the thread too but another awesome wacky Russian thing was the ZIL screw drive: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uynmApjhWI Although I think screw drive vehicles had been around before, there's a vid for a 1929 Fordson tractor conversion on youtube too. priznat fucked around with this message at 22:24 on Dec 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 22:21
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Holy poo poo...yeah, the ekranoplanes were discussed earlier in the thread (specifically the Lun class and their ability to carry six Moskit/Sunburn anti-ship cruise missiles and how that could make a carrier battle group's day very interesting), but I had no idea they thought about creating a loving aircraft carrier. Enjoy
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 22:35
|
|
|
SyHopeful posted:Enjoy    Not much of a runway, but then, you don't really need a runway when your airfield is already flying above your aircrafts' stall speed! grover fucked around with this message at 23:50 on Dec 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 23:43
|
|
|
SyHopeful posted:Enjoy Hydrofoil kitty 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 00:13
|
|
|
priznat posted:I'm sure this was mentioned earlier in the thread too but another awesome wacky Russian thing was the ZIL screw drive:  So that's where they got the idea
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 00:14
|
|
|
Sjurygg posted:Hydrofoil kitty
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 00:16
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Do ekranoplanes work on open oceans with waves, or bad weather? I would have thought that's the reason why there are no trans-oceanic ekranoplane liners. They can skim up to ~1/2 wingspan above the surface, so the wave height that is negligible depends on the size of the ekranoplane. Take-off and landing will be more weather-dependent. I think the lack of them has to do with there being no market niche that isn't already filled with airliners or cargo ships. Airliners can go considerably faster, don't have to worry about saltwater corrosion, and can use airports far inland. Containerised or bulk cargo ships are slow but they are drat cheap. In comparison, the ekranoplan is neither fish nor fowl. I think they could have an application for racing, somewhere in-between jet hydrofoils and Reno Unlimited-class planes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 00:40
|
|
|
Frozen Horse posted:They can skim up to ~1/2 wingspan above the surface, so the wave height that is negligible depends on the size of the ekranoplane. Take-off and landing will be more weather-dependent. I think the lack of them has to do with there being no market niche that isn't already filled with airliners or cargo ships. Airliners can go considerably faster, don't have to worry about saltwater corrosion, and can use airports far inland. Containerised or bulk cargo ships are slow but they are drat cheap. In comparison, the ekranoplan is neither fish nor fowl. I think they could have an application for racing, somewhere in-between jet hydrofoils and Reno Unlimited-class planes. Well, they do fill a niche: they carry heavier cargo (or weapons or whatever) than airplanes, at close-to-airplane speeds. But, besides all the other stuff you mentioned, there's another glaring issue: density. Air is much denser at sea level than at 35k feet, and that means a lot when you're going into it at a significant fraction of the speed of sound. Ekranoplan wings are more efficient in terms of lift-to-drag, but shoving that fuselage through dense air at jetliner speeds is going to eat all the efficiency savings right back up. Plus, even though they can fly over waves fairly well, they're still going to have more storm issues than an ordinary airplane that can just fly above a lot of weather.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 02:18
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:Well, they do fill a niche: they carry heavier cargo (or weapons or whatever) than airplanes, at close-to-airplane speeds. But, besides all the other stuff you mentioned, there's another glaring issue: density. Air is much denser at sea level than at 35k feet, and that means a lot when you're going into it at a significant fraction of the speed of sound. Ekranoplan wings are more efficient in terms of lift-to-drag, but shoving that fuselage through dense air at jetliner speeds is going to eat all the efficiency savings right back up. Plus, even though they can fly over waves fairly well, they're still going to have more storm issues than an ordinary airplane that can just fly above a lot of weather. That too, but what I was mainly pointing out is that for cargo aside from those that you want delivered to a beach you're storming, there isn't much that falls into the middle-speed category. Air cargo will always be faster for reasons we both pointed out, and container shipment is fast enough for everything that can wait a week or so. It's not that there's no market for something that could get you to Vanuatu from San Francisco at half the speed of a 747 for a little less money, but there's not enough of a market to fund actually building these things.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 02:33
|
|
|
Take off would be an...interesting experience on one of those things. Wouldn't you have one mother of a pressure wave to get through from that beast punching through the air? poo poo landing would be a god drat terrifying experience. Even if the relative speed between carrier and plane is similar to a traditional carrier, if you gently caress up its going a lot worse for everyone involved. I'm guessing something flying doesn't take nearly as well to tons of aviation fuel and metal slamming into it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 08:35
|
|
|
Alaan posted:poo poo landing would be a god drat terrifying experience. Even if the relative speed between carrier and plane is similar to a traditional carrier, if you gently caress up its going a lot worse for everyone involved. I'm guessing something flying doesn't take nearly as well to tons of aviation fuel and metal slamming into it. That's the thing though, the relative speed would be way less than a traditional carrier...traditional carriers these days typically have a max speed of 30ish knots. The Lun class ekranoplan had a max speed of slightly under 300 knots. Even if we assume that a larger ekranoplan carrier would be considerably slower, approach speed for your typical naval aircraft is going to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 130-150 knots...chances are that the larger carrier sized ekranoplan would still be able to cruise at least that fast, so it's less about a traditional landing and more about just coming aboard. Fixed wing operations would probably resemble rotary wing operations on a cruising ship, where the aircraft matches speed, maneuvers into place, gets into contact with the landing surface, and then reduces power to touch down for good. Of course, your point about turbulence and the like is a good one, since a craft that size moving that fast is going to be putting off some decent wake turbulence.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 10:13
|
|
|
Frozen Horse posted:That too, but what I was mainly pointing out is that for cargo aside from those that you want delivered to a beach you're storming, there isn't much that falls into the middle-speed category. Air cargo will always be faster for reasons we both pointed out, and container shipment is fast enough for everything that can wait a week or so. It's not that there's no market for something that could get you to Vanuatu from San Francisco at half the speed of a 747 for a little less money, but there's not enough of a market to fund actually building these things. Yeah, that's basically it, so much that the few A-90s built would cover the rather marginal (as compared to other deployment methods relevant for the mission) job of putting a mechanized battalion or so anywhere within a few hundred kilometers somewhere not too heavily protected in a few hours. And the Lun, like iyayaa01 said, could potentially make the day very interesting indeed for a carrier group with six Moskits strapped to its back. But apart from that, especially considering the high-seas issues of storms and heavy waves, it's a tough job finding a good bag of missions for it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 13:14
|
|
Sjurygg posted:Yeah, that's basically it, so much that the few A-90s built would cover the rather marginal (as compared to other deployment methods relevant for the mission) job of putting a mechanized battalion or so anywhere within a few hundred kilometers somewhere not too heavily protected in a few hours. And the Lun, like iyayaa01 said, could potentially make the day very interesting indeed for a carrier group with six Moskits strapped to its back. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-90_Orlyonok This?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 15:50
|
|
|
Yeah. The concept is impressive, but there's a lot of what-ifs and can-nots to make it work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 16:30
|
|
|
Sjurygg posted:And the Lun, like iyayaa01 said, could potentially make the day very interesting indeed for a carrier group with six Moskits strapped to its back. How much more dangerous and less detectable could this be than a more conventional bomber riding the deck with a belly and/or wing pylons full of cruise missiles? According to Wikipedia the Moskits can be launched from Su-33s, which perversely have longer range (not sure if this is with Moskit-incompatible droptanks.) Even factoring in the Lun's absurdly low altitude, it's so large that the Sukhoi may still be harder to detect, and hiding over the horizon would negate what appears to be its main advantage of carrying ship-sized active search and guidance radars. What really blows my mind is that this was a plane put into service in '87 that had a tailgunner position. And at least one more dorsal turret under the front launchers. Here's some pics. This thing kinda strikes me as more of 'really badass replacement for a small missile frigate' than a genuinely effective aircraft. Which may be why only one was made.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 17:21
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:How much more dangerous and less detectable could this be than a more conventional bomber riding the deck with a belly and/or wing pylons full of cruise missiles? According to Wikipedia the Moskits can be launched from Su-33s, which perversely have longer range (not sure if this is with Moskit-incompatible droptanks.) Even factoring in the Lun's absurdly low altitude, it's so large that the Sukhoi may still be harder to detect, and hiding over the horizon would negate what appears to be its main advantage of carrying ship-sized active search and guidance radars. The Sukhoi's quoted range also isn't the range skimming at sea level, presumably.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 17:31
|
|
|
IIRC, those things were designed mostly for use in interior seas (Black Sea, etc) which is relatively calm compared to say, the North Atlantic. They were also tested for use in over-the pole arctic transport. I think one made an appearance in a GI:Joe Special Missions issue which led to a very confused reference librarian getting some inter-library loan requests from a determined eleven year old. I wanted to know what that thing was.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 17:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 10:57 |
|
|
SyHopeful posted:Enjoy The whole wings of Russia series is great despite the narration, anyone reading this thread should watch them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 22:10
|
|