|
Speaking of books, this one looks hilariously self-aggrandizing, and I plan on getting a used copy once the price comes down: http://www.amazon.com/GUNSHIP-ACE-Neall-Gunship-Mercenary/dp/1612000703/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1326734762&sr=8-1 Check out the chest-puffing: quote:Twice, single-handedly (and without a copilot), he turned the enemy back from the gates of Freetown, effectively preventing the rebels from overrunning Sierra Leone's capital-once in the middle of the night without the benefit of night vision goggles. Nellis (as his friends call him) was also the first mercenary to work hand-in-glove with British ground and air assets in a modern guerrilla war. In Sierra Leone, Ellis' Mi-24 ("it leaked when it rained") played a seminal role in rescuing the 11 British soldiers who had been taken hostage by the so-called West Side Boys. He also used his helicopter numerous times to fly SAS personnel on low-level reconnaissance missions into the interior of the diamond-rich country, for the simple reason that no other pilot knew the country-and the enemy-better than he did....Nellis himself earned a price on his head: some reports spoke of a $1 million reward dead or alive while others doubled it. I'm sure it will be interesting, possibly for the right reasons and possibly for the wrong. Edit: Have an airpower photo for the top of the page: 
TheNakedJimbo fucked around with this message at 18:31 on Jan 16, 2012 |
#
?
Jan 16, 2012 18:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 16:18 |
|
|
SopWATh posted:A few of the ejector seat pictures on page 53 make it look like the seats are self-righting; the planes appear to be banking hard to one direction or the other while the seat is upright. Is this so? Early ejection seat designs just went off in whichever direction they were pointed, which was good enough so far as getting clear of the aircraft. Some, especially on bombers, even ejected downwards in level flight. This was a liability as the flight environment became closer to the ground. After discovering that ejecting the pilot into the ground does not, in fact, save on burial costs, ejection seat manufacturers have devised improved models. Most use some sort of infrared sensor to discriminate between sky and ground which then drives thrust vectoring to get the ejection seat going in an upwards direction. Of course, the seat has only so much manoeuvring ability and ejection in an unfavourable attitude too close to the ground with too much downward momentum will still end unpleasantly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2012 19:53
|
|
|
TheNakedJimbo posted:Edit: Have an airpower photo for the top of the page: Here's even more for all your jetfighter/furfic slash: http://www.natotigers.org/
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2012 21:45
|
|
|
Hey iyaayas01, please school this dude: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?noseen=0&threadid=3443958&pagenumber=586#post399637412 quote:Jokes aside, back in the 70s the USAF ran a series of tests putting jets against helis.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2012 22:57
|
|
|
I want to tell you a story of a troubled aircraft program. The manufacturer promised revolutionary capabilities that no other aircraft in the world came close to meeting, and though some in the US military were clamoring for them, they were met with stiff opposition. The prototype suffered a fatal crash during government tests. The nation was facing hard economic times and not only was the cost per aircraft way higher than its competition, it was so expensive to produce that the manufacturer was facing bankruptcy trying to build it for the quoted price when the order was cut to a mere handful of aircraft. Very important capabilities were cut to meet budget constraints, hampering performance. And it was an aircraft without a mission or purpose: Special Study prepared for the White House posted:Concentration on the big bomber, an offensive weapon, was inconsistent with national policy and threatened unnecessary duplication of function withing the Navy, whose eleven carrier-based bombing squadrons equaled the whole combined total of such forces elsewhere in the world. No country had at the time, or was likely to have in the near future, aircraft capable of mounting an air attack on the United States. Still the US military persisted in buying a small number, only to be faced with failure after failure. The first operational aircraft crashed on delivery. Terrible problems in virtually every area were experienced during its first deployments, resulting in the losses of virtually all aircraft: guns wouldn't fire, the communications system was notoriously unreliable, there were problems with the oxygen system, the engines frequently suffered problems during flight, the bomb bay doors would fail to open, it was highly vulnerable from many directions, and worst of all- its mission effectiveness was terrible. Its actual mission completion ratio was dismally low. Yet despite all the teething problems, the problems were fixed and improvements made to improvements, and despite the cries from the War Department in 1936 that the US was invulnerable to attack and there was no use for strategic bombers, and British assessment of it as "utter rubbish", the B-17 turned out to be one of the most successful aircraft in the history of aviation. grover fucked around with this message at 02:28 on Jan 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2012 23:22
|
|
|
Times where that has worked: - B-17 Times where it hasn't: - A-5 - F-105 - Initial conception of the TFX - Pretty much any time Lockheed tried to build a fighter Also your analogy doesn't even work because the Brits told the US to get hosed and built Lancasters after finding the B-17 an inaccurate and vunderable bomber. Forums Terrorist fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Jan 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2012 23:26
|
|
|
grover posted:The first B-17 crashed on landing because the pilot had the wheel brakes locked. The F-22's computers crashed when it cross the date-line. The F-35 is physically incapable of landing on an air-craft carrier conventionally. There's a big difference.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 00:41
|
|
|
grover posted:B-17 For a while I thought you were talking about the XB-70 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 01:00
|
|
 B-24 rules, B-17 is for scrubs
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 01:20
|
|
|
Lancaster + Grand Slam, awww yeah..
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 01:24
|
|
|
Terrifying Effigies posted:For a while I thought you were talking about the XB-70
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 01:25
|
|
|
grover posted:With very little variation of that post, it honestly could have been any number of aircraft. Yeah, guess how many are those successful and don't cost more than 5 F-15's.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 01:45
|
|
|
I still love this thread. I like planes/jets and I like that you guys know a poo poo load about planes/jets. Thanks for being cool guys.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 01:50
|
|
|
LP97S posted:Yeah, guess how many are those successful and don't cost more than 5 F-15's. It's worth pointing out that the P-51 cost 2x more than the P-36, which was just 5 years older. Yet its performance paid FAR more than that premium in dividends due to its enhanced capabilities. grover fucked around with this message at 01:57 on Jan 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 01:52
|
|
|
grover posted:With very little variation of that post, it honestly could have been any number of aircraft. Are you saying that your post could have applied to any number of aircraft, from successes like the B-17, to troublesome never-lived-up-to-the-promises projects like the B-36 and Bradley, to dismal failures like the F-111, XB-70, A-5, A-12, Sgt. York, Comanche, and OICW? So, in other words, there's really no point in making cute little F-35 comparisons at all?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 01:56
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:Are you saying that your post could have applied to any number of aircraft, from successes like the B-17, to troublesome never-lived-up-to-the-promises projects like the B-36 and Bradley, to dismal failures like the F-111, XB-70, A-5, A-12, Sgt. York, Comanche, and OICW? So, in other words, there's really no point in making cute little F-35 comparisons at all? I thought it was an F22 comparison?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 02:05
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:Are you saying that your post could have applied to any number of aircraft, from successes like the B-17, to troublesome never-lived-up-to-the-promises projects like the B-36 and Bradley, to dismal failures like the F-111, XB-70, A-5, A-12, Sgt. York, Comanche, and OICW? So, in other words, there's really no point in making cute little F-35 comparisons at all? You could certainly draw a comparison between some of the problems faced in the B-17's development with many of today's engineering challenges, though. Incidentally, Boeing was long-stumped by one of the reported problems from early use by the British, that of the bomb bay doors freezing up and failing to open during bombing runs (forcing crew members to hang precariously 5 miles high, and kick it open.) Try as they might, the Boeing engineers just couldn't reproduce the problem. But a chance conversation eventually discovered the root cause: British crews pissing into the bomb bay!
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 02:09
|
|
|
grover posted:It's worth pointing out that the P-51 cost 2x more than the P-36, which was just 5 years older. Yet its performance paid FAR more than that premium in dividends due to its enhanced capabilities. That's not really a fair comparison considering how fast Aviation Technology was moving in those days I'm going to miss some but between those two aircraft you have; P-38, P-39, P-40, and the P-47. That and there was a war on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 02:09
|
|
|
Flikken posted:That's not really a fair comparison considering how fast Aviation Technology was moving in those days
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 02:12
|
|
|
The British are filthy savages, it is true.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 02:12
|
|
|
LP97S posted:The F-35 is physically incapable of landing on an air-craft carrier conventionally. I still laugh every time I think about this. Smiling Jack posted:
If by "scrubs" you mean "guys who value survival over increased bomb capacity but with a much higher likelihood of going down in flames" then I guess that's the case. I know which one I would've rather flown into combat on. Space Gopher posted:Are you saying that your post could have applied to any number of aircraft, from successes like the B-17, to troublesome never-lived-up-to-the-promises projects like the B-36 and Bradley, to dismal failures like the F-111, XB-70, A-5, A-12, Sgt. York, Comanche, and OICW? So, in other words, there's really no point in making cute little F-35 comparisons at all? To be fair, the F-111 doesn't really belong in the "dismal failure" category...the naval version definitely does, but the AF version, while having some issues, was successfully employed in two wars plus another couple of bombing raids. Hell, the A-5 doesn't really belong in their either, since it entered service and was used in combat. And if we're going to make cute little F-35 comparisons, I'll just paraphrase Bill Sweetman like I've done a couple of times before..."The U.S.'s new joint fighter is in trouble. It is overbudget, behind schedule, and is failing to meet critical performance metrics. The Navy is thinking of dropping out and going with a proven manufacturer with a history of producing quality naval fighters...but enough about the F-111, let's talk about the JSF." kill me now posted:I thought it was an F22 comparison? No point in making Raptor comparisons, that program is dead and gone although they did store all of the tooling instead of destroying it, so....
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 02:20
|
|
|
Why can the F-35 not land on a carrier? Some kind of totally retarded design choice?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 02:25
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:If by "scrubs" you mean "guys who value survival over increased bomb capacity but with a much higher likelihood of going down in flames" then I guess that's the case. I know which one I would've rather flown into combat on. yeah, but the procurement guys don't have to fly in the things
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 02:29
|
|
|
Gray Stormy posted:Why can the F-35 not land on a carrier? Some kind of totally retarded design choice? Tail hook is too close to the rear landing gear, so it can't snag the cable easily, or at all. http://rt.com/news/f-35-design-flaw-917/
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 02:32
|
|
|
Gray Stormy posted:Why can the F-35 not land on a carrier? Some kind of totally retarded design choice? Edit: ah, beat; the article is a post up. I'm a bit more optimistic the engineers will fix it than that author is, though. Also, I'm a bit disappointed they didn't mention the A-4 which has a similar aspect ratio to the F-35 yet had no issues landing on carriers. grover fucked around with this message at 02:36 on Jan 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 02:33
|
|
|
grover posted:The B-17A, at $104k, cost more than 4x the contemporary equivalent of an F-15. It also cost nearly twice what the aircraft it lost that first flyoff to- the Douglas B-18 Bolo. And no, the prototype did not crash because the pilot stood on the brakes too hard, that was the first production delivery. The prototype crashed because they forgot to remove the elevator lock before trying to take off. Fine, we'll go performance route. The F-35 cannot supercruise like the F-22 and the Eurofighter, the F-35 can't land conventionally on a carrier which is bad for a naval fighter, and the naval variants of the F-35 lack an internal cannon which is necessary for dogfighting. The F-35 is poo poo, Lockheed-Martin is poo poo, their politicizing of manufacturing (facilities in 46 states) is poo poo, and it's never going to be good. EDIT: Also the A-4 could land on a carrier, the F-35 can't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 02:37
|
|
|
Gray Stormy posted:Why can the F-35 not land on a carrier? Some kind of totally retarded design choice? Others have basically covered it...here's a link to the Quick Look Review report that identified the issue, among a couple of other serious ones (POGO got their hands on it back in December, but apparently the arrestor hook issue is just starting to make the rounds among the normal non-aviation media, so I dunno what the deal is with that) and here's a link to Bill Sweetman's take on the QLR. One extra problem with the F-35 is that since it is supposed to be a LO aircraft any external design change not only has the standard impacts on weight/balance/structure/aerodynamic issues, but you have to factor in how it impacts the aircraft's signature.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 02:38
|
|
|
Calling the B-17 the most successful aircraft in history doesn't mean it actually was any drat good. Sure, they built a lot of them, and there was a lot of propaganda produced justifying them, but the utility of strategic bombing in general is very questionable. They couldn't and didn't hit a goddamn thing, and the things that by sheer chance they did hit didn't lose much in the way of production capacity. Germany never did run out of ball bearings, etc. What they did run out of was pilots. You don't kill pilots with B-17's. I've always wondered what would have happened if we had not bothered with strategic bombing at all, and used all that aluminum and those crews to build two or four times as many smaller low level tactical bombers and fighters. Get late-war air supremacy in the middle of the war. Losing crew 1 or two at a time rather than 10 at a time has a lot to recommend it. Hitting trains one at a time with Jugs works a lot better than missing railyards with 100 ship bomber formations. Obviously, if there hadn't been a strategic bomber threat, the germans would have mis-allocated their resources differently, but I don't think they'd have mis-allocated them any better. Two ME-262's against 20 Mustangs is just as hosed as one ME-262 against 10 of them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 02:41
|
|
|
A-4s rule, they look like giant gangly ponies with their landing gear down. Lookit dem gams! Filthy Aussies 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 02:43
|
|
|
LP97S posted:Fine, we'll go performance route. The F-35 cannot supercruise like the F-22 and the Eurofighter, the F-35 can't land conventionally on a carrier which is bad for a naval fighter, and the naval variants of the F-35 lack an internal cannon which is necessary for dogfighting. It's all good bro, the F-35 won't actually have to dogfight thanks to EO-DAS which makes maneuvering irrelevant! ignore those pesky latency issues identified in the QLR, you know the ones that can't be fixed without changing out the sensors and the F-35's integrated core processor LP97S posted:The F-35 is poo poo, Lockheed-Martin is poo poo, their politicizing of manufacturing (facilities in 46 states) is poo poo, and it's never going to be good. Ayup. I dunno what happened to Lockheed/Skunk Works in between the SR-71 and the F-35, but whatever it is it isn't good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 02:44
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Ayup. I dunno what happened to Lockheed/Skunk Works in between the SR-71 and the F-35, but whatever it is it isn't good. Kelly Johnson retired 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 02:47
|
|
|
priznat posted:A-4s rule, they look like giant gangly ponies with their landing gear down. Lookit dem gams! Back when the Aussies had a carrier.  priznat posted:Kelly Johnson retired Eh, Ben Rich retired is probably more like it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 02:50
|
|
|
Hey fellas, I heard this was the airpower thread. (3000x1619)
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 02:58
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Ayup. I dunno what happened to Lockheed/Skunk Works in between the SR-71 and the F-35, but whatever it is it isn't good. I meant to mention that the early Lockheed stuff like the C-130, U-2, and SR-71 are pretty impressive, but when they merged and politicized everything even more it became a nightmare. Any, picture for the thread, click for big.  US and Russian Sailors standing by a Su-33 on the Admiral Kuznetsov in 1996.  Russian aircraft visiting Barksdale Air Force Bace, Louisiana in 1992.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 03:14
|
|
|
priznat posted:Tail hook is too close to the rear landing gear, so it can't snag the cable easily, or at all. What the hell is this article even talking about? quote:A design flaw in the US Marine Corps version of the F-35 Lightning II, which prevents it from landing on an aircraft carrier, could see the highly advanced vehicle grounded indefinitely. The USMC version of the F-35 is the F-35B. It doesn't even have a tail hook. The F-35C is the USN variant. If *that* can't land on a carrier because the hook's designed wrong,  How the hell do you let *that* get to this late in the procurement process before figuring that out?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 03:15
|
|
|
There's times that I wish Diefenbaker was still in office. Zombie Diefenbaker would look at Canada's CF-35 purchase and say "are you guys on loving crack", and cancel that right quick. (Yes I know the St.Laurent government was going to cancel the Arrow anyways but gently caress it) I really, really, really, REALLY hope our government wises up and cancels this loving abortion of an airplane it's an incredibly stupid waste of money, and we should simply follow the Canadian solution. Which is, buy the surplus equipment of European nations. Got any Tornadoes or Eurofighters you don't need, guys?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 03:19
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:There's times that I wish Diefenbaker was still in office. Zombie Diefenbaker would look at Canada's CF-35 purchase and say "are you guys on loving crack", and cancel that right quick. slidebite fucked around with this message at 03:43 on Jan 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 03:37
|
|
|
LP97S posted:I meant to mention that the early Lockheed stuff like the C-130, U-2, and SR-71 are pretty impressive, but when they merged and politicized everything even more it became a nightmare. Yeah, the early '90s when Ben Rich left/Skunk Works relocated to Plant 42 and became more corporate/the merger happened is when things started to go downhill. I'd seen that picture of the aircraft at Barksdale before, but that one on the Kuznetsov is pretty cool. It got posted much earlier in the thread, but in the vein of U.S./  (click through for huge) Phanatic posted:What the hell is this article even talking about? Like I said above, I'm not sure why this is just now hitting the mainstream news outlets, seeing as how POGO has had it out since early December...and honestly the hook issue isn't the most serious of the issues identified by the QLR. If you want a more intelligent/informed look at the issue check out the POGO article and the piece by Bill Sweetman I linked above...the POGO article also contains the QLR report itself so you can get it straight from the horse's mouth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 03:45
|
|
|
Just because I happened to be looking at Smokey Yunick stuff for AI/the SAS NASCAR thread, let it be known that Smokey hated the B-17 and loved his B-24. He also may be the only guy to fly with the Flying Tigers and also participate in the bombing raids against Ploesti, hell, he's one of only a handful of the famous American WWII vets I can think of that participated in a number of combat missions in both theaters. If he hadn't been a famous racing personality, he'd probably still be known today.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 03:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 16:18 |
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:To be fair, the F-111 doesn't really belong in the "dismal failure" category...the naval version definitely does, but the AF version, while having some issues, was successfully employed in two wars plus another couple of bombing raids. Hell, the A-5 doesn't really belong in their either, since it entered service and was used in combat. The F-111 and A-5 procurement processes definitely belong in the "dismal failure" category: ludicrous amounts of money spent chasing ultra-high-tech dreams that ultimately turned out to be impossible. The fact that the Navy and Air Force managed to make some sow's-ear leather purses out of them doesn't change the facts: the F-111 never flew as an interceptor, the A-5 never carried a live bomb, and they still stand as huge examples of How Not To Do It. grover posted:Edit: ah, beat; the article is a post up. I'm a bit more optimistic the engineers will fix it than that author is, though. Also, I'm a bit disappointed they didn't mention the A-4 which has a similar aspect ratio to the F-35 yet had no issues landing on carriers. Unless you're privy to information the rest of us aren't, the wing design doesn't come into it. The problem is the distance between the main landing gear and the tailhook, which is significantly shorter than anything else (yes, even the A-4). The F-35 also uses a newer tailhook design, adapted from the F/A-18, which has a blunt face: it's easier on the cable, but not as effective at scooping the cable up from the deck. They're going to try switching to a more aggressive design, but it's still up in the air whether that will actually work. Here's a comparison from the QLR. Canadians, please don't look. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 04:14
|
|