|
This is a pretty neat article on Gizmodo talking about a civilian contractor flying a DHC-4 Caribou. They do precision supply drops for remote outposts in Afghanistan. I'd think that would be a pretty hairy ride, especially in some of the nasty weather they could get. http://gizmodo.com/5895124/the-ancient-airlifter-that-makes-daredevil-drops-over-afghanistan quote:The dramatic "Low-Cost, Low-Altitude" (LCLA) resupply, which I witnessed numerous times during my week at Marzak in January, represents the latest tactic in the high-stakes logistical campaign that underpins the U.S.-led war effort. Along with robot trucks, robot helicopters, "smart" parachutes, hybrid trucks and even airships, it's also evidence of the Pentagon's never-ending quest for better resupply methods.
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2012 00:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 18:06 |
|
|
co199 posted:This is a pretty neat article on Gizmodo talking about a civilian contractor flying a DHC-4 Caribou. They do precision supply drops for remote outposts in Afghanistan. I'd think that would be a pretty hairy ride, especially in some of the nasty weather they could get. I was going to go on a rant about the C-27, but I see the article covered that. I fully understand (and support) the decision to get rid of the C-27, because it really is a niche capability since Afghanistan is one of the only places on earth where there is a large region incapable of being supplied by a C-130, so getting rid of it makes sense in an era of fiscal austerity...but canning it while we are STILL IN AFGHANISTAN was loving retarded. Interesting to see that this was the solution they came up with.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2012 00:54
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:but canning it while we are STILL IN AFGHANISTAN was loving retarded. AND after they had already started flying. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2012 00:59
|
|
|
isnt that a role that the C23 could fill? Pretend I know nothing of the airframe other than its the dorkiest plane ever and I know nothing about legit logistical air supply
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2012 01:12
|
|
|
DEVILDOGOOORAH posted:isnt that a role that the C23 could fill? Pretend I know nothing of the airframe other than its the dorkiest plane ever and I know nothing about legit logistical air supply C-23 has a 14,000 ft service ceiling?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2012 02:01
|
|
|
That sounds reasonable thank you for the answer!
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2012 02:04
|
|
|
joat mon posted:C-23 has a 14,000 ft service ceiling? grover fucked around with this message at 02:43 on Mar 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2012 02:08
|
|
|
joat mon posted:C-23 has a 14,000 ft service ceiling? Can the C-23 do airdrops?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2012 02:20
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Can the C-23 do airdrops? I think the -B and -C models can.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2012 02:32
|
|
|
joat mon posted:I think the -B and -C models can. Okay, that's kinda what I thought too. I went to the AF Armament Museum today outside Eglin...I'll post a link to the album once I get all the pictures uploaded, but here's a few teasers (click through for huge):  A T-62 scale model...that's not very air or armament-ish. Hm...  I thought that was pretty cool.  That's a little more armament related.  Words to live by (inscribed on the GBU-28 bunker buster they have there).  MOAB.  Rumor is that this (along with a couple other MiGs that are in various museums around the country on loan from the USAF Museum at Wright-Pat) is a Constant Peg/4477th TES jet.  This was the last operational B-47 (actually an RB-47).  First Lady, the very first C-130 off the production line in 1955. She was eventually modified to a gunship and finally retired in 1995.  Nose art.  The only "Big Tail" SR-71.  Pave Low.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2012 03:11
|
|
|
I was there less than a year ago checking out that SR71. Pretty cool place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2012 03:17
|
|
|
What's in the tail boom on that Blackbird? Sensors of some kind, I assume? Surely a MAD can't work from 80,000 feet?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2012 03:59
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:What's in the tail boom on that Blackbird? Sensors of some kind, I assume? Surely a MAD can't work from 80,000 feet? from Sr-71.org SR-71.org posted:SR-71A #61-7959, also known as "Big Tail," is on display at the Air Force Armament Museum at Eglin AFB, FL. The aircraft came off the assembly line like any other SR-71A when it was rolled out on 16 August 1965, but was chosen as the platform for a new set of sensor equipment to be carried in a nine-foot extension from the rear of the aircraft in 1975. The tests demonstrated that there was little performance loss, but that the new sensor equipment proved little advantage. The program to retrofit the new "big tail" to the remaining SR-71s was cut and the aircraft last flew on 29 October 1976 And from another blog Travelforaircraft posted:This particular Blackbird has a unique trial modification which added 9 feet (2.7m) beyond the tail to carry a new optical bar camera as well as more electronic countermeasures. The testing indicated that aerodynamics were not unduly affected — but the additional equipment did not substantially add to mission capability either. Since the flying of this SR-71 was not harmed the extension remained, this unique aircraft was given the nickname of “Big Tail” and served several more years inhabiting a flight envelope solely with its Blackbird brethren.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2012 04:20
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:What's in the tail boom on that Blackbird? Sensors of some kind, I assume? Surely a MAD can't work from 80,000 feet? Apparently it contained an optical bar camera and additional ECM equipment. It was a trial program to see if it worked before they put it on all the other jets, but the equipment didn't add significantly to the mission capability so they didn't put it on any other jets, but since it didn't negatively impact the flight characteristics they didn't take it off this one jet either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2012 04:21
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:I was going to go on a rant about the C-27, but I see the article covered that. I fully understand (and support) the decision to get rid of the C-27, because it really is a niche capability since Afghanistan is one of the only places on earth where there is a large region incapable of being supplied by a C-130, so getting rid of it makes sense in an era of fiscal austerity...but canning it while we are STILL IN AFGHANISTAN was loving retarded. Canada is thinking of getting a fleet of C-27s for search and rescue operations...even though a company out of the Calgary airport is offering to build new DHC-3 caribou, the plane currently used in that role with great success. This has been a "Canada has terrible procurement" moment, thank you
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2012 04:54
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Canada is thinking of getting a fleet of C-27s for search and rescue operations...even though a company out of the Calgary airport is offering to build new DHC-3 caribou, the plane currently used in that role with great success. Hey, I know a place where you guys can get some for cheap, barely used! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2012 05:37
|
|
|
Where are they getting enough avgas to fill a Caribou in Afghanistan? Or are they really flying a Buffalo, which is what Viking Air is talking about producing again?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2012 15:50
|
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:Where are they getting enough avgas to fill a Caribou in Afghanistan? Definitely a Caribou: Inverted gull wing straight leading edge cruciform tail beautiful piston engine sound I believe some of the UAVs use avgas.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2012 16:45
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:I don't think the 747 it flies around on is supersonic though. What if they firewalled the throttle and went into a shallow dive? For old time's sake.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2012 17:29
|
|
|
joat mon posted:I believe some of the UAVs use avgas. This is correct. Preds (and whatever the Army calls their version) use avgas, as do quite a few of the smaller UAVs, so avgas is definitely something that is part of the logistics flow over there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2012 17:30
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Definitely a Caribou: I haven't had a chance to watch the video yet. I would have thought they'd run the UAVs on mogas. The piston engines used are all perfectly capable of it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2012 20:09
|
|
|
This was posted in the Amusing and Provocative Political Pictures thread in D&D and I figured it belonged here. I always kind of had a soft spot for scale models of planes that never really existed and/or look nothing like the model once they actually do exist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2012 20:59
|
|
|
Boat posted:This was posted in the Amusing and Provocative Political Pictures thread in D&D and I figured it belonged here. It kinda existed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2012 21:05
|
|
|
F-35B VTOLing off a carrier. I would have thought it would have come in like a normal landing but with huge flair/hover for the final touchdown, but it looks like a full vertical landing and a mix on takeoff. It seems like the jet energy is never concentrated on any part of the deck for very long. Pretty interesting! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki86x1WKPmE Edit: the heavy down elevator deflection on takeoff is a bit perplexing darknrgy fucked around with this message at 22:00 on Mar 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2012 21:56
|
|
|
darknrgy posted:F-35B VTOLing off a carrier. That's pretty cool; it looks a lot like Harrier operations. Speaking of carriers and the F-35, I'm pretty sure the LHA carriers don't have traditional 4-wire trap apparatus like a Navy carrier; not that it would matter since the Navy's F-35C can't land on a carrier anyway due to a design flaw.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2012 22:07
|
|
|
darknrgy posted:F-35B VTOLing off a carrier. I would have thought it would have come in like a normal landing but with huge flair/hover for the final touchdown, but it looks like a full vertical landing and a mix on takeoff. It seems like the jet energy is never concentrated on any part of the deck for very long. Pretty interesting! co199 posted:not that it would matter since the Navy's F-35C can't land on a carrier anyway due to a design flaw. Edit: pictures!   
grover fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Mar 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2012 22:19
|
|
|
darknrgy posted:Edit: the heavy down elevator deflection on takeoff is a bit perplexing I assume it's to counteract the engine nozzle being pointed downwards -- that thrust angle combined with up elevator and I bet it would just flip onto its back. I wonder if that's automatic, though, or if the pilot has to do the corrections manually?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2012 22:43
|
|
|
grover posted:Don't worry, it will be fixed. The Navy's been doing this sort of thing since 1922, you would think their new airplane would be able to do the one thing they're known for. (Not starting an F-35 derail, just wanted to get a jab in at the Navy.  )
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2012 22:48
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:I assume it's to counteract the engine nozzle being pointed downwards -- that thrust angle combined with up elevator and I bet it would just flip onto its back. The nozzle in the rear is pointed down which would push the nose down. Down elevator would also push the nose down. I think it might be because of the big fan and duct behind the pilot. It looks forward of cog and it's going to be pulling in air. Just guessing though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2012 23:02
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:I assume it's to counteract the engine nozzle being pointed downwards -- that thrust angle combined with up elevator and I bet it would just flip onto its back. grover fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Mar 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2012 23:47
|
|
|
That's a pretty good sounding theory, grover.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2012 01:33
|
|
|
I watched a little movie about airplanes called "Top Gun" last night. Is it just me or are the F-14s' swing wings basically randomly placed in any given shot?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2012 01:36
|
|
|
Probably yes, because of editing, but I understand that the sweep is normally controlled by a computer depending on speed and angle of attack, so in a dogfight with lots of maneuvering they would probably be moving in and out quite a bit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2012 01:39
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Probably yes, because of editing, but I understand that the sweep is normally controlled by a computer depending on speed and angle of attack, so in a dogfight with lots of maneuvering they would probably be moving in and out quite a bit. The sweet is indeed controlled by a computer depending on those things, and during a dogfight they would indeed probably sweep back and forth quite a bit (the sweep can also be manually overridden by the pilot). Speaking of things moving quite a bit, the Tomcat earned the nickname of "turkey" because of how on approach it would have flapping control surfaces all over the place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2012 03:24
|
|
|
My favorite thing about Top Gun is how much they reused that footage in shows and movies, especially JAG. Every shot with an F-14 in it was from Top Gun.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2012 04:01
|
|
|
Mobius1B7R posted:My favorite thing about Top Gun is how much they reused that footage in shows and movies, especially JAG. Every shot with an F-14 in it was from Top Gun. Ha, that's awesome. I love that show, have it all on DVD.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2012 05:59
|
|
|
Mobius1B7R posted:My favorite thing about Top Gun is how much they reused that footage in shows and movies, especially JAG. Every shot with an F-14 in it was from Top Gun. Considering Paramount (now a part of CBS) originally funded both Top Gun and JAG, it'd be easy for them to use the clips. After all, they didn't pay the Navy all that money to use the plane film just for Top Gun! I'm awful fond of the last dogfight in Top Gun, as you can see the same clip of the F-14s and F-5s doing the rolling scissors at least 5 times.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2012 06:07
|
|
|
There's apparently going to be Top Gun. The plane that's going to be flying: the F-35. (No word yet if those F-35s are going to be entirely CG like in that Die Hard movie.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2012 19:50
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:There's apparently going to be Top Gun. The plane that's going to be flying: the F-35. It'll probably depend on if they need to show them flying at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2012 20:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 18:06 |
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:It'll probably depend on if they need to show them flying at all. They'll just use them for B-roll between volleyball and gay overtures.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2012 20:39
|
|