|
So, what's all this about TFR's favorite plane, eh?
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 10:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 13:51 |
|
|
Are you asking what would typically be the go to answer for the majority of tfr's members? If so, the A-10 receives a lot of praise here. Mostly because of you know, the gun.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 14:58
|
|
|
_firehawk posted:If so, the A-10 receives a lot of praise here. Mostly because of you know, the gun. Even outside TFR, the A-10 is the best plane because it's loving awesome to a level not replicated since. Also, A-10 Attack! was the best flight sim of the 1990s 
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 16:44
|
|
|
_firehawk posted:Mostly because of you know, the gun. My favorite aircraft gun has to be the GSh-23 "teeter-totter" though. Or one of these: 
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 16:47
|
|
|
So do Gatling guns in planes also have a "spin up" time? If so that must be inconvenient in combat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 16:57
|
|
|
Yup, part of the reason why they developed this.
Koesj fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Dec 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 17:37
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:So do Gatling guns in planes also have a "spin up" time? If so that must be inconvenient in combat. On the M61A1 (F-15, F-16, F-18, F-22), the gun is electrically/hydraulically powered and takes about half a second to reach full firing rate. However, it starts firing rounds right away as it accelerates. The feed is linked directly to the gun, so if the cannon is moving, it's feeding rounds. wkarma fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Dec 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 17:41
|
|
|
wkarma posted:On the M61A1 (F-15, F-16, F-18, F-22), the gun is electrically/hydraulically powered and takes about half a second to reach full firing rate. However, it starts firing rounds right away as it accelerates. The feed is linked directly to the gun, so if the cannon is moving, it's feeding rounds. Here you can see the F-35's GAU-22/A 4-barreled 25mm vulcan cannon test-firing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKbZj_BW_bA This video kinda puts it in perspective, too. They're just running empty shall cases through an M61 at an airshow, but it's still  to see them pouring out into the catch bin.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOTlrl8qUZo grover fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Dec 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 19:46
|
|
|
The GAU-22 is unrelated to the Vulcan...it's a descendent of the Avenger though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 21:30
|
|
|
I saw this video posted in AI... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qmln5aChX0s
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 00:43
|
|
|
wkarma posted:On the M61A1 (F-15, F-16, F-18, F-22), the gun is electrically/hydraulically powered and takes about half a second to reach full firing rate. However, it starts firing rounds right away as it accelerates. The feed is linked directly to the gun, so if the cannon is moving, it's feeding rounds. It's linked to such an extent that you can inadvertently fire the gun if you manually rotate the barrels. vvvvvv Yep, pretty clear negligent discharge. If it's loaded and you rotate it in the firing direction, it'll fire. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 04:10 on Dec 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 03:51
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:It's linked to such an extent that you can inadvertently fire the gun if you manually rotate the barrels. Just don't stand in front of the gun when you do manually rotate the barrels.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 04:08
|
|
|
Can't think of any scenario where I'm going to volunteer to stand in front of a jammed gun and gently caress with it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 04:11
|
|
|
Craptacular posted:I saw this video posted in AI... Oh man, this reminds of being nine years old and getting to fire off blanks in a reproduction B5N Kate that arrived early for an air show. Goddamn those guys were cool for letting me do that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 08:31
|
|
|
wkarma posted:On the M61A1 (F-15, F-16, F-18, F-22), the gun is electrically/hydraulically powered and takes about half a second to reach full firing rate. However, it starts firing rounds right away as it accelerates. The feed is linked directly to the gun, so if the cannon is moving, it's feeding rounds. There also pyrotechnic started and gas driven Russian Gatling guns which besides the lack of electric motor work the same.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 11:05
|
|
|
Yeah, seriously. Gun is or is not functioning properly means don't stand in front of the barrel. You don't ever stand in front of a gun, doubly so when someone else is dicking around with one that was just shooting before it jammed up. It's why I always used to second and third check my lockout/tagout stuff when I was working on heavy machines. I don't trust people ever. Ever ever. Actually I do trust them. I trust that they are idiots and their idiocy will get me killed if I give it a chance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 17:55
|
|
|
Bugdrvr posted:Actually I do trust them. I trust that they are idiots and their idiocy will get me killed if I give it a chance. I use this logic when driving: every other driver is an idiot out to kill me. So far, I have yet to get killed or be at fault in a collision. Success.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 17:59
|
|
|
This is the general logic I employ at ranges, and one of the big reasons I've gravitated towards members-only clubs and going during hours when normal people are at their jobs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 02:18
|
|
|
Just finished Red Eagles: America's Secret MiGs, by Steve Davies. It chronicles the use of Mig-17, 21, and 23s back in the 70s and 80s to train US pilots, and I thought it was a great book on a very interesting topic. Check it out!
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 05:40
|
|
|
Psion posted:I use this logic when driving: every other driver is an idiot out to kill me. I didn't always have this mindset, but the one and only traffic incident I've ever had involved two cars accelerating down the start of a long straightaway right through a red light while I made a left turn, continuing to audibly accelerate right up until the collision as though I didn't even exist. The impact launched my car sideways across three lanes and a divider after the collision (this was in a 35 zone). Now I always think "Is this guy going to stop at the stop light/stop sign or is he too fast and furious?"
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 06:14
|
|
|
pbpancho posted:Just finished Red Eagles: America's Secret MiGs, by Steve Davies. It chronicles the use of Mig-17, 21, and 23s back in the 70s and 80s to train US pilots, and I thought it was a great book on a very interesting topic. Check it out! Seconded. Let me again warn you guys of Gail Peck's book on the same subject too. It's a very disjointed account of not very much at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 06:28
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Seconded. Let me again warn you guys of Gail Peck's book on the same subject too. It's a very disjointed account of not very much at all. Peck's book includes quite a bit more info about Bobby Ellis and the other maintainers, something that Davies' book lacked (no fault of his own, most of the maintainers were very reticent to be interviewed by him or otherwise give him information.) Since I was particularly interested in that side of the story given my background/job, I thought slogging through Peck's book was still worthwhile. But make no mistake, it is a slog...very disjointed might be too generous. And I feel bad, because he's not a terrible author writing wise (considering he's a career fighter pilot), he just really needed a good editor and apparently got no editing support from his publisher.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 06:41
|
|
|
Fair enough, I'll do a reread through those parts then since I stopped taking in information and started editorializing after the first couple of chapters 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 07:28
|
|
|
  Attention: Canadian Military types YOU! could name the next Canadian military vehicle, now known as VBCI — short for Véhicule Blindé de Combat d’Infanterie. Badger I think is pretty good, but I think I'm going to go through Livestock's "Names for Dogs" articles to see if there's anything better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 05:08
|
|
|
So it's a Canadian version of a French Stryker? Lazy Beaver MK I
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 05:15
|
|
|
Mudfucker 5000 Edit: semi related, the govt has/is going to push the "reset" button on the F-35 procurement. So this means there will be the possibility of an open competition. Most likely with the "must be stealth" dropped. The F-35 can still enter, of course. priznat fucked around with this message at 05:36 on Dec 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 05:33
|
|
|
The Daily Mail has a photo essay about Russia's junkyard, er, air museum at Ulyanovsk. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-rust-away.html I'd like to see the photos without the lovely sepia treatment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 16:14
|
|
|
How the gently caress it's a graveyard, if it's clearly a museum. loving journalists  PhotoKirk posted:
http://aviahistory.ucoz.ru/index/0-15 or here http://www.google.de/search?q=%D0%9...w=1920&bih=1111 AntiTank fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Dec 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 16:31
|
|
|
PhotoKirk posted:The Daily Mail has a photo essay about Russia's junkyard, er, air museum at Ulyanovsk. http://englishrussia.com/2011/11/04/the-museum-of-civil-aviation-in-ulyanovsk/ http://eggshelluk.smugmug.com/MilitaryAircraft/Overseas-Museums/Museum-of-Civil-Aviation/20940345_FR5nxw#!i=1663537510&k=ZbLN9VD
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 16:38
|
|
|
joat mon posted:http://englishrussia.com/2011/11/04/the-museum-of-civil-aviation-in-ulyanovsk/ 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 17:24
|
|
|
AntiTank posted:How the gently caress it's a graveyard, if it's clearly a museum. Has the Mail started employing journalists now?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 17:30
|
|
|
grover posted:Why does the Tu-124 (and virtually other Soviet airliner of that area) have a bombsight? Were they designed to be converted to bombers during wartime? Glazed nose isn't for bombing, it's for the navigator's position. Probably an equal part for possible wartime use (as a transport, not a bomber) and just a carryover from previous designs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 17:37
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Glazed nose isn't for bombing, it's for the navigator's position. Probably an equal part for possible wartime use (as a transport, not a bomber) and just a carryover from previous designs. They were pretty common on Russian planes, take the IL-76 (clearly not a bomber). 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 18:09
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Glazed nose isn't for bombing, it's for the navigator's position. Probably an equal part for possible wartime use (as a transport, not a bomber) and just a carryover from previous designs. Also, Russian navigation aids and similar systems didn't develop as quickly as in Europe and the United States, I don't think; furthermore, Russia is a goddamn big country especially when you include the former USSR members. It was something that Western airliners also sort of considered, in a way. The Boeing 707 had those little "eyebrow" windows above the main cockpit windows so it would be easier to navigate if the regular systems weren't working. Since the 707 nose was carried over wholesale to the 727 and 737, the little windows stayed around a pretty long time even when they were no longer needed, though new-build 737NGs now no longer have them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 22:08
|
|
|
Might come in handy with airmobile operations too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 01:08
|
|
|
 If I ever become a billionaire, I will restore a Tu-114 to flying condition.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 17:48
|
|
|
If I ever become a billionaire I will still never own a Russian airplane because I would spend millions restoring it and die the first time I fly it due to a drunken Russian drunkenly machining a screw of low quality steel installed by a Russian drunk on electronics cooling glycol.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 19:52
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:If I ever become a billionaire I will still never own a Russian airplane because I would spend millions restoring it and die the first time I fly it due to a drunken Russian drunkenly machining a screw of low quality steel installed by a Russian drunk on electronics cooling glycol. If i become a billionaire i would by a saab Drakken
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 19:56
|
|
|
I would buy some rusted piece of poo poo MiG 21, restore it to look nice ( but not fly ), and then put a computer in it to play flight sims in. Those planes just look awesome.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 20:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 13:51 |
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Also, Russian navigation aids and similar systems didn't develop as quickly as in Europe and the United States, I don't think; furthermore, Russia is a goddamn big country especially when you include the former USSR members. It was something that Western airliners also sort of considered, in a way. The Boeing 707 had those little "eyebrow" windows above the main cockpit windows so it would be easier to navigate if the regular systems weren't working. Since the 707 nose was carried over wholesale to the 727 and 737, the little windows stayed around a pretty long time even when they were no longer needed, though new-build 737NGs now no longer have them. I don't understand how they'd work for navigation in the jet age. You'd be above the cloud layer at least some of the time, and Russia's geographic size and sparse population mean a lack of visually distinguishable navaids in much of the country. Who would be looking out the nose windows, anyway? Neither the Il-76 or Tu-124 windows look positioned in a way that the pilot/co-p could see out of them. Are the 707 windows for celestial navigation?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 20:18
|
|