|
BonzoESC posted:At MIA a week ago:
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2012 03:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 15:08 |
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:posting this from the inside of an air plane I've been flying AA more this year, and the lack of wifi gives me the shakes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2012 03:42
|
|
|
Now you can own a ME-163! http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=276309655 quote:Mon, Mar 12, 2012 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2012 18:13
|
|
|
Mother of God. Where's an eccentric rich uncle when you need one?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2012 18:25
|
|
|
Dr JonboyG posted:You should probably steer clear of the Air and Space Museum in San Diego then. They have an A-12 outside the front that is looking sadder and sadder each year.    And an album with those in hi-res as well as a slew of other shots: http://imgur.com/a/FOMJD
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2012 20:27
|
|
|
grover posted:I know I've seen that aircraft in the foreground before, but I can't recall its name. Nevertheless, I didn't expect to see that there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2012 22:03
|
|
|
I believe it's an XF2Y Sea Dart. The things sticking out the bottom are hydrofoils. Pretty unique plane -- the only supersonic seaplane ever built, if I'm not mistaken. [e] well it says YF2Y on the tail so I guess it's actually one of those. Xs are experimental, Ys are pre-production prototype.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2012 22:10
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2012 22:12
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:I believe it's an XF2Y Sea Dart. The things sticking out the bottom are hydrofoils. Pretty unique plane -- the only supersonic seaplane ever built, if I'm not mistaken. edit to add another photo of #135763: 
grover fucked around with this message at 22:26 on Mar 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2012 22:18
|
|
|
It also looks very similar (gee, I wonder why) to the more prolific F-102 and F-106, so it's more likely you've seen one of those.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2012 23:54
|
|
|
Gaaahhh....I can't find the photos (yet) I shot at Willow Grove NAS (PA) back in the mid-80s. They had a Sea Dart and a Seiran parked right along the fence on Rt. 611, along with a number of other planes. The Seiran is now down at the Smithsoniam, I believe in line to be restored. The Japanese want it bad, since all theirs went down with their subs. Don't know what happened to the Sea Dart. (edit) whoops...looks like they finished the Seiran: http://www.nasm.si.edu/collections/artifact.cfm?id=A19630308000 (edit2) arg....for all those years I thought it was a Seiran. It's a Rex: (here's someone else's pictire from that time):  http://www.aviastar.org/air/japan/kawanishi_n1k.php PainterofCrap fucked around with this message at 01:02 on Mar 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2012 00:54
|
|
|
Godholio posted:It also looks very similar (gee, I wonder why) to the more prolific F-102 and F-106, so it's more likely you've seen one of those. Nope, it was the Sea Dart that I saw. Not in person obviously, I came across it doing research into navy aviation and forgot most of the info on it. I knew it was supposed to be a seaplane, and was experimental and never went anywhere, but I couldn't remember the name. Also, the Navy didn't fly -102s and -106s, and you can plainly read the NAVY on the tail. Thanks for refreshing my memory Grover and Joat Mon. CroatianAlzheimers fucked around with this message at 01:05 on Mar 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2012 01:02
|
|
|
PainterofCrap posted:(edit2) arg....for all those years I thought it was a Seiran. It's a Rex: (here's someone else's pictire from that time): The single remaining Seiran is at the Smithsonian, but I can see how you'd get the two confused as they look a *lot* alike. God bless "For obscure doctrine reasons we need floatplane versions of our modern fighters."
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2012 02:30
|
|
|
Godholio posted:It also looks very similar (gee, I wonder why) to the more prolific F-102 and F-106, so it's more likely you've seen one of those. Sea Dart wasn't area ruled. I survived a flight on an ATR 72 tonight into Key West. This was my first time flying on a turboprop powered aircraft that wasn't military, and jesus christ all turboprop airliners need to be destroyed. Most unpleasant flying experience of my life, hands down. At least with the grey tails I know to bring earplugs, but silly me, I thought that an airliner would have at least a modicum of soundproofing. I was apparently incorrect. Nebakenezzer posted:God bless "For obscure doctrine reasons we need floatplane versions of our modern fighters." Wasn't just the IJN:  I give you, the Wildcatfish. (Although it never actually entered production.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2012 05:28
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:jesus christ all turboprop airliners need to be destroyed. Aw, come on, they're fun. I fly fairly regularly on Saab 340s and I actually enjoy the ride more than any jet airliner. The humming whirr of the engines is like soothing white noise and the bouncing, vibrating ride is like being rocked to sleep. Really quite nice. I am completely serious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2012 05:41
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Aw, come on, they're fun. I fly fairly regularly on Saab 340s and I actually enjoy the ride more than any jet airliner. The humming whirr of the engines is like soothing white noise and the bouncing, vibrating ride is like being rocked to sleep. Really quite nice. I am completely serious. Maybe it's different on the 340 then because that actually does sound nice, but the ATR 72 was literally the most miserable and uncomfortable flying experience I've ever had, and I've flown on military airlifters, flown in all sorts of weather, flown cattle class on United on a trans-Pacific flight...still worse than any of that, and it was only like 40 minutes long. I'm not sure if the ATR was louder than the (no-soundproofing) C-130J I flew on, but I can definitely say that the ATR (which is supposedly soundproofed) without earplugs was a good order of magnitude louder than the C-130 with earplugs. I'm okay with yelling to the person next to me be heard without an interphone on a military airlifter, but on an airliner being forced to resort to that is kind of ridiculous. e: I will say that I was in row 5 so I was right in line with the props, which I'm sure had something to do with the noise, but even accounting for that it was still the most miserable flying experience I've had.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2012 06:12
|
|
|
I didn't find the ATR to be that bad, but I still have recent memories of 737-200s without hush kits.iyaayas01 posted:Wasn't just the IJN: They did it to transports as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2012 06:20
|
|
|
Looked up the 340 out of curiosity and I found thisquote:One of the improvements introduced in the 340B Plus was the installation of an active noise and vibration control system in the cabin, reducing noise and vibration levels by about 10 dB during cruising flight. Welp. Still, I've flown on EMB-120s a few times and they didn't seem too awful either. Maybe your particular plane was missing some soundproofing? VVVV yes it was, only the 102 prototype had a tubular fuselage. They redesigned it halfway through when flight tests showed it was a pig. And the F-106 itself was basically just a heavily modified F-102 that they decided to give a new designation. Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 06:26 on Mar 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2012 06:22
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Sea Dart wasn't area ruled. Neither was the F-102, which is why the 106 replaced it so fast.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2012 06:23
|
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:I didn't find the ATR to be that bad, but I still have recent memories of 737-200s without hush kits. Maybe I'm just spoiled then, since I've never really experienced flying on a non-hush kitted legacy turbofan aircraft like a -200. Were those Alaska's you flew on? Godholio posted:Neither was the F-102, which is why the 106 replaced it so fast. As stated above, they did after the prototype...one of the first (if not the first) projects Whitcomb applied the area rule to after discovering it was the F-102. I was going to make a comment that if we were truly sperging, saying the F-106 was just a highly modified F-102 was a bit of a stretch since the Six had an all new engine, all new avionics, and heavily modified airframe and intakes, but then I remembered that the Navy did all that and kept the same designation, so...  .
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2012 06:50
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:but then I remembered that the Navy did all that and kept the same designation, so... I've heard that the Super Hornet is essentially an all-new aircraft that just happens to look a hell of a lot like an original Hornet in order to get the people in procurement to believe it's an "upgrade" instead of a new model. It's like 25% larger and heavier than the old version and everything from the pilot's seat back is a new part. Literally the only commonalities are the gun, radar, and ejection seat, or something ridiculous like that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2012 07:01
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:I've heard that the Super Hornet is essentially an all-new aircraft that just happens to look a hell of a lot like an original Hornet in order to get the people in procurement to believe it's an "upgrade" instead of a new model. It's like 25% larger and heavier than the old version and everything from the pilot's seat back is a new part. Literally the only commonalities are the gun, radar, and ejection seat, or something ridiculous like that. Pretty much. Except the radar and most of the avionics were upgraded/replaced very soon after it declared IOC (as well as adding a JHMCS capability), so all that is for all intents and purposes new as well. I don't blame the Navy for doing what they did, because their stupid decisions regarding the A-12 and the NATF got them between a rock and a hard place regarding a replacement for the A-6/A-7/F-14. I've said it before numerous times, but the insistence on moving towards an all LO-fleet has been the worst thing to happen to U.S. tacair (both USAF and USN/USMC) over the past 25 years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2012 07:10
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Maybe I'm just spoiled then, since I've never really experienced flying on a non-hush kitted legacy turbofan aircraft like a -200. Were those Alaska's you flew on? Holy gently caress, they built almost 900 of them in two years! I knew it was a short production run, but I didn't realize there were that many.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2012 16:52
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Maybe I'm just spoiled then, since I've never really experienced flying on a non-hush kitted legacy turbofan aircraft like a -200. Were those Alaska's you flew on? I'm pretty sure Alaska's had hush kits, though they were still drat loud. Shared Services Aviation (the oil industry joint venture for Prudhoe flights) didn't bother to hush kit theirs because they were under no obligation to spend the money. I have suspicions they also had a 'sound deadening delete' option. It was probably cheaper to hand us all a lifetime supply of ear plugs than haul around insulation. Aside from the noise they were better planes to fly than the Alaska 200s. They had regular size bins and you loaded from the front. Of course, they crammed in the 'Japanese commuter' spec seats and layout, so that sucked. I'm 5'6" and not a large guy so I could honestly care less about leg and rear end room. I've been told that back when they ran 727s it was a lot like riding a roller coaster. The pilots knew you wouldn't complain so they'd launch like a fighter jet to get above the weather. That probably also helped the liquor sales onboard return flights
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2012 20:52
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Maybe it's different on the 340 then because that actually does sound nice, but the ATR 72 was literally the most miserable and uncomfortable flying experience I've ever had, and I've flown on military airlifters, flown in all sorts of weather, flown cattle class on United on a trans-Pacific flight...still worse than any of that, and it was only like 40 minutes long. I'm not sure if the ATR was louder than the (no-soundproofing) C-130J I flew on, but I can definitely say that the ATR (which is supposedly soundproofed) without earplugs was a good order of magnitude louder than the C-130 with earplugs. Maybe it was an older model 72? I've flown a bit on ATR 72-500s and really like them compared to the rattly old 737-200s they replaced and they don't seem unduly noisy compared to the newer 737s and A320s you get on the same routes at busier times
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2012 00:03
|
|
|
dissss posted:Maybe it was an older model 72? Whatever American Eagle is using to fly from MIA to EYW.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2012 04:35
|
|
|
From NatGeo: A 23-second exposure in a camera mounted in the tail of a Lockheed TriStar jet captures the lights of the airport runway and the city beyond.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2012 05:50
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:From NatGeo: A 23-second exposure in a camera mounted in the tail of a Lockheed TriStar jet captures the lights of the airport runway and the city beyond. Sounds like a simple shot until you think about it. What camera do you use to take a shot like that? How do you actuate the shutter? Would it survive high altitude flight? What kind of paperwork do you have to fill out to make a "modification" to a commercial aircraft? Surely someone was worried about a FOD scenario. All of that considered, that's a pretty amazing photo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2012 06:31
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Maybe it's different on the 340 then... My job is almost exclusively Saab 340 maintenance. They're a bit loud on the ground but quiet down nicely once you get in the air. The real trick is to not sit in the first 3 rows if at all possible. A lot of the later B-models also have a noise-cancelling system installed in the cabin that (when calibrated properly, which few facilities seem to be able get right) attenuates the noise by about 6dB. The last ATR I flew on had a couple of loose interior sidewall panels, hooked in at the top but not completely seated on the bottom. *rattlerattlerattlerattle* for 2.5 hours. Ugh.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2012 14:55
|
|
|
rcman50166 posted:Sounds like a simple shot until you think about it. What camera do you use to take a shot like that? How do you actuate the shutter? Would it survive high altitude flight? What kind of paperwork do you have to fill out to make a "modification" to a commercial aircraft? Surely someone was worried about a FOD scenario. An SLR, gaffers tape, a giant rear end suction mount, and a remote shutter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2012 15:26
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:From NatGeo: A 23-second exposure in a camera mounted in the tail of a Lockheed TriStar jet captures the lights of the airport runway and the city beyond. I appreciate the effort that went into capturing the shot but it's not really that great. It looks really good as thumbnail though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2012 20:39
|
|
|
rcman50166 posted:Sounds like a simple shot until you think about it. What camera do you use to take a shot like that? How do you actuate the shutter? Would it survive high altitude flight? What kind of paperwork do you have to fill out to make a "modification" to a commercial aircraft? Surely someone was worried about a FOD scenario. None of that actually matters, as that shot was taken during the test program for the Tristar. Since the prototype Tristar is technically an experimental aircraft, Lockheed could do pretty much whatever they wanted to it in terms of camera mounts and the like - in fact, that camera position was likely used at some point during flight testing for other purposes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2012 21:46
|
|
|
So yesterday I took a trip to a really big square building I went inside this loving HUGE building and inside was the new.  But hark something else was here too tucked away in a corner was this old thing.  I have many other pictures too, most decent wall paper sized if you guys are interested. So yeah I finally was able to make a trip I have always wanted to make to see the Cape and The KSC, it was awesome
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2012 01:17
|
|
|
You'd better start posting them. I wish I could've gone in the VAB, but it wasn't open to the public when I was there. I will definitely loving go back though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2012 02:47
|
|
|
Gunbus posted:But hark something else was here too tucked away in a corner was this old thing. Definitely a kick in the pants for me to get working on my plan to see the last landing of Discovery...
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2012 03:10
|
|
|
Boomerjinks posted:Definitely a kick in the pants for me to get working on my plan to see the last landing of Discovery... It's a shame you won't get the two sonic booms it usually made landing at KSC.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2012 03:15
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:It's a shame you won't get the two sonic booms it usually made landing at KSC. I will always, ALWAYS regret not getting to see a launch or a proper landing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2012 04:25
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:It's a shame you won't get the two sonic booms it usually made landing at KSC.  every supersonic object makes two sonic booms
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2012 05:01
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:
I don't think the 747 it flies around on is supersonic though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2012 13:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 15:08 |
|
|
Gunbus posted:I have many other pictures too, most decent wall paper sized if you guys are interested. So yeah I finally was able to make a trip I have always wanted to make to see the Cape and The KSC, it was awesome You have to ask?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2012 14:12
|
|
