|
edit: oops wrong thread
mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 03:31 on Dec 21, 2011 |
# ? Dec 21, 2011 03:27 |
|
|
# ? May 22, 2024 18:59 |
From AR 95-1 Army Aviation Flight Regulations 8–7. Oxygen system See FM 3–04.301 for restrictions on use of oxygen. Approved oxygen systems will be used as follows: a. Unpressurized aircraft. Oxygen will be used by aircraft crews and occupants for flights, as shown below: (1) Aircraft crews. (a) On flights above 10,000 feet pressure altitude for more than 1 hour. (b) On flights above 12,000 feet pressure altitude for more than 30 minutes. (2) Aircraft crews and all other occupants. (a) On flights above 14,000 feet pressure altitude for any period of time. (b) For flights above 18,000 feet pressure altitude, oxygen prebreathing will be accomplished by aircrewmembers. Prebreathing may utilize either 100 percent gaseous aviator’s oxygen from a high pressure source, or an onboard oxygen generating system (OBOGS) that supplies at least 90 percent oxygen. Prebreathing will be for not less than 30 minutes at ground level and will continue while en route to altitude. In those extraordinary cases where mission requirements dictate rapid ascent, commanders may authorize shorter prebreathing times on a case-by-case basis, with the realization that such practice increases the risk for developing altitude decompression illness. Return to NORMAL OXYGEN (pressure demand regulator, gaseous oxygen-equipped aircraft) is authorized on descent below 18,000 feet pressure altitude, provided continued flight will not exceed this altitude.
|
|
# ? Dec 21, 2011 03:36 |
|
Propagandalf posted:9K usually won't kill you, but after 10-15 minutes you'll start feeling like poo poo. Red/black vision, spotty vision, tunnel vision, slow focusing, diminished reaction time, compromised manual dexterity, numbness in the fingers. It's a lot like being drunk. You really don't want that poo poo at 500mph. We were up in Leh trying to sell Chinooks to the Indian Air Force. 11,000'. Flew in from Chandigarh, and I started feeling the altitude on the plane ride in, since they only pressurized it to the altitude they were landing at, I guess. Basically you sit there breathing automatically and unconsciously and realize you're not getting enough air and you start having to think about breathing instead. Guys who were flying the helicopter up got in several hours later, I'd *just* managed to nod off in the hotel room (which was hard, because every time you nod off you jerk awake again because as soon as you stop breathing consciously you start running out of air again), and the ALSE guy knocks on my door to let me know they've got the O2 bottles with them if I need any. Thanks a lot, gently caress! 2nd day, I felt mostly okay, except that when I brought the camera up to my eye I'd reflexively hold my breath to try to steady the shot, and then would realize what an awful, awful idea that was. Third day I was out hiking around. Going from acclimated-to-sea-level to 10,000+ in a few minutes would undoubtedly do bad things to people. Hell, one of our pilots is a retired Marine, he's in sick physical shape, the guy runs Iron Man triathlons every year. So he gets up to Leh, he's fine, he's out *jogging* up the mountains in the morning. He's flying the helicopter up at 21,000'. Then on the last day we were there, altitude sickness comes out of nowhere, knocks him on his rear end, and he's sitting there in the helicopter on the runway ready to leave huffing an O2 bottle. Also, the Leh control tower has a rather unfortunate sign on it proclaiming it to the the "Highest control tower in the world."
|
# ? Dec 21, 2011 14:42 |
|
From the FARS:code:
|
# ? Dec 21, 2011 15:03 |
|
I would also like to call bullshit on the 9k will kill you. Typical airliners are pressurized to 8000 feet with no supplemental oxygen. Above certain hights you need more than just oxygen to breath you need enough pressure to get it through your lungs into your bloodstream.
|
# ? Dec 22, 2011 00:18 |
|
helno posted:I would also like to call bullshit on the 9k will kill you. Holy poo poo Helno outta nowhere? How you been buddy?
|
# ? Dec 22, 2011 00:26 |
|
Pretty good actually. Havent spent much time in this forum in a long time. Hows life in Hamilton?
|
# ? Dec 22, 2011 00:36 |
|
Armyman25 posted:From AR 95-1 Army Aviation Flight Regulations. I think there is an awful lot of safety factor in there. I too have flown at 10K in an unpressurized AC for a significant amount of time with no ill effects, and at the time I was probably in worse shape than I am now.
|
# ? Dec 22, 2011 01:22 |
|
slidebite posted:I too have flown at 10K in an unpressurized AC for a significant amount of time with no ill effects, and at the time I was probably in worse shape than I am now. Were you riding in a seat in the back or doing something more active?
|
# ? Dec 22, 2011 04:45 |
|
2nd seat. So yeah, not doing a hell of a lot more other than being incredibly inquisitive and asking questions. Edit: You know, I thought about this last night and I'm not so sure it was over 10K most of the time. The more I think about it, the more I'm not sure. slidebite fucked around with this message at 15:14 on Dec 22, 2011 |
# ? Dec 22, 2011 06:24 |
|
Lots of really amazing talk and photos in this thread. I'd kill for somebody who's smart on the subject to do a write up of the M1 Abrams. If that doesn't work, I'll settle for the A-7 Corsair.
|
# ? Jan 2, 2012 04:14 |
|
Propagandalf posted:Go over 10k ft without a mask and you'll pass out in 3-5 minutes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_of_useful_consciousness That says otherwise. I can tell you firsthand that being at 32,000 MSL you are fully conscious at or about the 2 minute mark.
|
# ? Jan 2, 2012 05:49 |
|
HeyEng posted:If that doesn't work, I'll settle for the A-7 Corsair. I have a story about the A-7. Third hand. Story goes, one of my pop's friends was in an A-7 during Vietnam. On his way back from a mission, be spots a Mig-15 coming the other way at a lower altitude, and it doesn't see him. Seeing an opportunity that just doesn't come up that often, he rolls in tight on his 6 and sprays all 12 seconds of ammo toward the now-acutely-aware-of-him Mig. And, according to legend, tracers went on all sides, and with the gun going *click* the Mig flies away apparently unscathed. Allegedly guns for ground attack are tuned to spread rather than columnate, and as such you could have a legitimate kill shot and still hit everywhere but where you were aiming. Dunno if it is so, but that is the story about how a bomber driver didn't become a fighter killer. Apparently the story did have a rather happy post script, the same guy got to strafe a train during his third tour, which was considered a decent consolation prize.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2012 02:32 |
|
Yeah, the angle the guns meet at would be different. I learned that from playing Aces High II! I think that's a big reason why modern combat planes have a rotary cannon.
|
# ? Jan 4, 2012 13:45 |
|
Slo-Tek posted:I have a story about the A-7. Third hand. Yeah, dont believe the hype. If you are pilot on a plane with multiple guns, you KNOW what the convergence range is for your gun. If you dont know, then that means you didnt care enough to check or to ask the ground crew to set it to your liking. Either that or this pilot is just a poor shot and hes making up an excuse. Either way, guns are not tuned to spray randomly unless something is actually loose and the gun is jumping around during firing.
|
# ? Jan 4, 2012 15:31 |
Zhanism posted:Yeah, dont believe the hype. If you are pilot on a plane with multiple guns, you KNOW what the convergence range is for your gun. If you dont know, then that means you didnt care enough to check or to ask the ground crew to set it to your liking. Either that or this pilot is just a poor shot and hes making up an excuse. Either way, guns are not tuned to spray randomly unless something is actually loose and the gun is jumping around during firing. Also, didn't the A-7 have a single rotary cannon anyway? Convergence would be a moot issue.
|
|
# ? Jan 4, 2012 16:32 |
|
Zhanism posted:Yeah, dont believe the hype. If you are pilot on a plane with multiple guns, you KNOW what the convergence range is for your gun. If you dont know, then that means you didnt care enough to check or to ask the ground crew to set it to your liking. Either that or this pilot is just a poor shot and hes making up an excuse. Either way, guns are not tuned to spray randomly unless something is actually loose and the gun is jumping around during firing. Case in point: the SUU-61/A and SUU-23/A pods they put on Phantoms prior to the internal gun on the -E model.
|
# ? Jan 4, 2012 16:54 |
|
Smiling Jack posted:Also, didn't the A-7 have a single rotary cannon anyway? Convergence would be a moot issue. Yeah, a single M61 Vulcan according to wikipedia.
|
# ? Jan 4, 2012 17:10 |
|
Depends on the service and version - early Navy A-7s had traditional Colt cannon.
|
# ? Jan 4, 2012 18:13 |
|
Compare this story to the story of the F-105 driver who downed a MiG with a guns kill after having taken a few rounds through his instrument panel and therefore didn't have a working gunsight.
|
# ? Jan 4, 2012 23:36 |
McNally posted:Compare this story to the story of the F-105 driver who downed a MiG with a guns kill after having taken a few rounds through his instrument panel and therefore didn't have a working gunsight. From what I understand of most of the era of aerial gunnery, nobody ever really had a working gunsight.
|
|
# ? Jan 4, 2012 23:48 |
|
McNally posted:Compare this story to the story of the F-105 driver who downed a MiG with a guns kill after having taken a few rounds through his instrument panel and therefore didn't have a working gunsight. Follow that up with the rumor of the F-105 driver who downed a Mig-17 by jettisoning his bomb rack.
|
# ? Jan 4, 2012 23:49 |
|
Smiling Jack posted:From what I understand of most of the era of aerial gunnery, nobody ever really had a working gunsight. Not really. Putting reflector sights on aircraft in big numbers in the years leading up to WW2 was a Big loving Deal as far as air-to-air combat went. They worked, and worked well, and removed the need for pilots to line their heads up properly with a mechanical sight. THat's kind of a big deal when you're constantly looking over your shoulder for someone trying to kill you. The tl;dr of the tech is that they basically worked like huge, primitive ACOGs. All the reasons why an ACOG on an M16 is a cool thing apply, only magnified by the fact that it's harder to line up irons when you're concentrating on driving an airplane at 300+ mph. Everyone was using them in WW2 - seriously, only the scrubbiest of the scrubs were still using mechanical gunsights. We're talking the same countries that were still using biplanes and hi-wing monoplanes in 1939. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 00:48 on Jan 5, 2012 |
# ? Jan 5, 2012 00:34 |
|
"In 1966, two US Air Force Public Relations officers made a spoof interview of an American F-4 Phantom fighter pilot. A humorous piece of history." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQ1AYVcAS7k What the Captain means is...
|
# ? Jan 6, 2012 12:50 |
|
Crescendo posted:"In 1966, two US Air Force Public Relations officers made a spoof interview of an American F-4 Phantom fighter pilot. A humorous piece of history." hahahahaha this is amazing
|
# ? Jan 6, 2012 13:19 |
|
That final punchline owned.
|
# ? Jan 6, 2012 15:02 |
|
Crescendo posted:"In 1966, two US Air Force Public Relations officers made a spoof interview of an American F-4 Phantom fighter pilot. A humorous piece of history." Goddamn this is great.
|
# ? Jan 6, 2012 17:40 |
|
Gtab posted:hahahahaha this is amazing Cyrano4747 posted:Goddamn this is great. mlmp08 posted:That final punchline owned. Well worth the listen indeed.
|
# ? Jan 6, 2012 22:36 |
|
"What the Captain Means" is a classic. I couldn't find an audio clip of it, but Sharkbait 21 is also pretty good (scroll about halfway down that page for it).
|
# ? Jan 7, 2012 08:01 |
|
Dave Rabbit is pretty cool, too.
|
# ? Jan 7, 2012 15:47 |
|
Cross post from the plane game going on in the GiP AF thread, just because it is an awesome picture: Vulcans are so cool...hell, the whole V-force is awesome.
|
# ? Jan 8, 2012 03:33 |
|
Vulcans are awesome and kind of scary looking. Was there one in that classic Lord of the Flies movie at the start? During a "bombs are falling" montage or something like that. Been a while since I've seen that movie, though.
|
# ? Jan 8, 2012 03:45 |
|
priznat posted:Vulcans are awesome and kind of scary looking. I've always thought the V bombers looked incredibly alien. B-36 to B-47 to B-52 lineage is pretty clear, hell even the Hustler looks like it belongs in the family to some degree. And each of those designs pretty much defined how a bomber "should" look, at least in my mind's eye. The first time I ever saw a picture of a decked-out Victor, I honestly thought I was looking at something out of Strikers 1945. The Vulcan looks particularly sinister to me, personally. Totally loving awesome, but clearly... un-western, I suppose?
|
# ? Jan 10, 2012 13:22 |
|
Get out of TFR you insufferable piece of poo poo
|
# ? Jan 10, 2012 13:24 |
|
Whatever. As long as he doesn't hijack this thread like that AI one for peddling those loving posters is all I care about.
|
# ? Jan 10, 2012 19:10 |
|
Gtab posted:Get out of TFR you insufferable piece of poo poo
|
# ? Jan 10, 2012 19:34 |
|
One day Soviet ghost dinosaurs are going to invade Chicago and what then? We won't have any awesome cars to drive around in, that's what.
|
# ? Jan 10, 2012 20:19 |
|
Thanks guys! Here's a video of Backfire M3s performing a few low passes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-MHEiOUK6c Not sure if the m3 retained the downward-firing ejection seats of the original Tu-22, but either way ... Does anyone know of any photographs of the (I think) M-4 that buzzed a U.S. carrier? The clip was featured in the Wings of Russia bomber segment, but I can't seem to find anything else on it.
|
# ? Jan 10, 2012 23:06 |
|
Would anyone be interested in my posting excerpts from In Retrospect, McNamara's book on the failures in US foreign policy and military decisionmaking that led to our involvement in Vietnam? I'm reading it now and finding it an interesting read, and though there's not much "AIRPOWER" in it there is plenty of "Cold War." The airpower-related bits have to do with the decisionmaking on the use of strategic bombing.
|
# ? Jan 10, 2012 23:17 |
|
|
# ? May 22, 2024 18:59 |
|
iyaayas01 posted:Cross post from the plane game going on in the GiP AF thread, just because it is an awesome picture: So very English. Sure, we're going to take part in ending civilization and killing millions of people with nuclear weapons, but we're going to do it with style.
|
# ? Jan 10, 2012 23:33 |