|
Speaking of water/retardant bombing, here is one of the national guard runs on the Yosemite fire from the air. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_eGiGG1B-Q That same channel has a few others too.
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 16:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 23:30 |
|
|
Escort Carrier USS Thetis Bay taking PBY Catalinas, F6F Hellcats, and one J2F Duck from Hawaii to Alameda for repairs, Jul 8 1944
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 17:14
|
|
|
Absolutely incredible air to air from a Lear of many different types of planes. Love when the F-15s go burner and pull away. http://vimeo.com/70994185
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 20:18
|
|
|
Mobius1B7R posted:Absolutely incredible air to air from a Lear of many different types of planes. Love when the F-15s go burner and pull away. Jesus Christ that's the best HD aircraft footage I've ever seen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 20:54
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto I had never heard about this. It sounds amazing and terrifying. quote:Once it reached cruising altitude and was far away from populated areas the nuclear reactor would be made critical. Since nuclear power gave it almost unlimited range, the missile could cruise in circles over the ocean until ordered 'down to the deck' for its supersonic dash to targets in the Soviet Union. The SLAM as proposed would carry a payload of many nuclear weapons to be dropped on multiple targets, making the cruise missile into an unmanned bomber.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 21:06
|
|
|
Mobius1B7R posted:Absolutely incredible air to air from a Lear of many different types of planes. Love when the F-15s go burner and pull away. It's bad that every time I see the preview for a video featuring planes I get that loving sail song stuck in my head
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 21:12
|
|
|
Mobius1B7R posted:Absolutely incredible air to air from a Lear of many different types of planes. Love when the F-15s go burner and pull away. 'dat Phantom  Is it the HD that makes some of those shots look computer generated? I'm thinking specifically of the shot with the two tankers. That looks straight up CG.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 21:26
|
|
|
CroatianAlzheimers posted:'dat Phantom Yeah, those Red cameras run at absurd framerate and resolution...and probably a ton of post sharpening and levels as well. So, computer enhanced imagery, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 22:03
|
|
|
Linedance posted:Yup, A10s are badass, and because they're so small and compact, they have good proportions too. Stout, sturdy, maybe not elegant, but tough. Like a military ground support plane should look like. The Constellation? Look at that stupid tail. Look at that stupid nose. They couldn't even make it a cylinder, the fuse is some weird cigar shape. The only thing that looks good are the wings, which look like they were hacked off a prettier airplane and frankensteined onto the rest of that abomination. Small? Compact? JP-1 is not a good substitute for Russian Deicer Fluid? Lets compare it to a F-18. It's only three feet shorter, but has 17 feet more wingspan. If I had to make "the call." they're the same size, for all intents and purposes. A-10 code:code:code:
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 22:04
|
|
|
You're proposing we compare a plane to a small plane and a famously small plane and then determine that it's also small? Thanks for that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 22:22
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:You're proposing we compare a plane to a small plane and a famously small plane and then determine that it's also small? Exactly. Compare it to an F-15 or F-14. Even a F-117. The A-10 is a meaty plane, for sure, but it holds its size well. It looks about as big as it should look. The F-117 does not. It seems small, but the whole thing is just an ENORMOUS brick. Side-by-side with an F-15, you get some sense of scale of the monster. And an A-4 is half an F-4, by design.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 22:36
|
|
|
Mobius1B7R posted:Absolutely incredible air to air from a Lear of many different types of planes. Love when the F-15s go burner and pull away. F-16's looked amazing so did the C-130. 787 is gosh darn pretty too. Thankfully no ugly gently caress Connie to ruin things.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 22:44
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:In the 1950s we were making legitimate plans to build a cruise missile powered by ramjets utilizing open core nuclear reactors. Somewhere in between those two: Blue Peacock, the British chicken-powered nuclear landmine to be deployed in Germany in the event of a Soviet invasion. More info at The Guardian.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 22:52
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:You're proposing we compare a plane to a small plane and a famously small plane and then determine that it's also small? I compared a big plane, with a big plane, then brought out a small plane. Becuase someone went "hey the A-10 is small" which is it not. How about a F-15? F-15 code:
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 22:53
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:F-16's looked amazing so did the C-130. Makes me wish we had cameras like that when the XB-70 was flying...
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 22:59
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:I compared a big plane, with a big plane, then brought out a small plane. Becuase someone went "hey the A-10 is small" which is it not. How about a F-15? It ain't a big plane until you can stand up in the engine intake.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 23:05
|
|
|
Who does that F-4 in the video belong to? Are any still flying in air forces these days?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 23:17
|
|
|
Apparently South Korea and the Turks still fly them. The Turkish Air Force lost an RF-4E to Syrian AA last year while patrolling the border.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 23:47
|
|
|
ehnus posted:Who does that F-4 in the video belong to? Are any still flying in air forces these days? I bet it's Turkish. Those were Turkish F-16s, and I think I saw a red flag on the F-5 tail. edit: it's got the Turkish AF Roundels on the wing. babyeatingpsychopath fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Aug 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 00:13
|
|
|
The Collins Foundation flies one. I have no idea what they have it painted as these days.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 00:47
|
|
|
Where/how do they shoot those kinds of videos? "Center, this is is N1234 requesting to join up with UAL88 for some film work." 
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 00:53
|
|
|
Hell the FAA jumped all over the controller and the Southwest Airlines crew for checking out a non-responsive Cirrus a year or so back.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 01:03
|
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:The Collins Foundation flies one. I have no idea what they have it painted as these days. Last I saw, couple years back, it was grey on grey Airforce. Shame Duke Cunningham was such a crooked politician, would be cool to see it painted as Showtime 100.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 01:13
|
|
|
fknlo posted:Where/how do they shoot those kinds of videos? Having arranged a few vanity trips at my old job, all of that is pre-arranged, not only with all the PICs involved, but also with ATC. Typically we would figure out when and where we want to photograph, then arrange for an altitude block when we file our flight plan. We'll talk with the ATC unit in charge of the airspace we want to use (if there is any; uncontrolled airspace makes these things a hell of a lot easier) to figure out a plan that works for both parties. Then with all that information in tow, we would file a flight plan (if the shoot is in controlled airspace) with the contact info for the person we dealt with in the ATC unit, just to confirm details. With all that done, only then it's kick the tires and light the fires.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 01:18
|
|
|
CroatianAlzheimers posted:Apparently South Korea and the Turks still fly them. The Turkish Air Force lost an RF-4E to Syrian AA last year while patrolling the border. Germany just retired theirs this year, Japan might have a few left also.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 01:28
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Having arranged a few vanity trips at my old job, all of that is pre-arranged, not only with all the PICs involved, but also with ATC. Typically we would figure out when and where we want to photograph, then arrange for an altitude block when we file our flight plan. We'll talk with the ATC unit in charge of the airspace we want to use (if there is any; uncontrolled airspace makes these things a hell of a lot easier) to figure out a plan that works for both parties. Then with all that information in tow, we would file a flight plan (if the shoot is in controlled airspace) with the contact info for the person we dealt with in the ATC unit, just to confirm details. With all that done, only then it's kick the tires and light the fires. I know the 787 ones were specially planned before delivery. The Qatar one was on the way back from an airshow and the United one was an arranged demo flight around the olypmic peninsula and back to KBFI
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 01:29
|
|
|
My favourite Awkward looking plane is the Short Stirling. In fact, the whole history of the aircraft seems pretty awkward. Not so bad in flight, but pretty weird looking on the ground. It seems to me that it's main redeeming feature was it was the first four-engine bomber to have seen widespread use in WWII. It was a second choice design for a Supermarine design that didn't work out, so it ended up in service anyway. It was based on earlier Short brothers flying boats, and was hamstrung by a requirement for a 99ft wingspan that destroyed it's speed and range. The Landing gear had to be modified and became a weak point causing many crashes. Apocryphally, other crews cheered when the Stirlings were flying with them because they were lower and slower, soaking up all the flak and fighters. A quick back of the envelope calculation suggests they had about a 22-25% loss rate. Pretty much the only thing that they had going for them was that they were better than the even worse Hampden and Whitley bombers, and they became second line aircraft as soon as other heavy bombers were available in large numbers. Also, compare scale models of an F-4, F-14 or F-22 and a B-24 Liberator. I find it amusing that modern dogfight capable combat aircraft are closer in size to a WWII Heavy bomber than to say, a P-51.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 01:51
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:I had never heard about this. It sounds amazing and terrifying. Don't forget that it would have spewed radiation out of the exhaust, irradiating everything it flew over. There was one proposal to have it criss-cross over enemy territory after it had dropped all of its warheads.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 03:27
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Having arranged a few vanity trips at my old job, all of that is pre-arranged, not only with all the PICs involved, but also with ATC. Typically we would figure out when and where we want to photograph, then arrange for an altitude block when we file our flight plan. We'll talk with the ATC unit in charge of the airspace we want to use (if there is any; uncontrolled airspace makes these things a hell of a lot easier) to figure out a plan that works for both parties. Then with all that information in tow, we would file a flight plan (if the shoot is in controlled airspace) with the contact info for the person we dealt with in the ATC unit, just to confirm details. With all that done, only then it's kick the tires and light the fires. Reminds me of a story related to me by a fellow alumnus. One of the typical "routes" for student pilots soloing would be to fly from DAB down to Marathon, sometimes with a planned "lay over". He gets down there and there are about 5 other pilots from my school already there when the weather warnings for DAB start coming in. So, all six of them take off one right after the other to get back to DAB before the poo poo hits (typical summer storms you get over the Florida peninsula). Well, with six of our birds flying close enough together, and technically all six flying VFR, they all decide to have an impromptu formation. Within about a minute ATC jumped on their poo poo and told them to knock it off.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 04:21
|
|
|
PhotoKirk posted:Don't forget that it would have spewed radiation out of the exhaust, irradiating everything it flew over. There was one proposal to have it criss-cross over enemy territory after it had dropped all of its warheads. The radiation SLAM emitted would have been nothing compared to the damage it would have done simply by flying over. You have to remember that it was designed to fly at Mach 3.5 and a couple hundred feet above ground. The shockwave generated by the aircraft flying over would have flattened just about any building.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 04:25
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:F-16's looked amazing so did the C-130. Those Dreamliners were absolutely sexy. Not biased at all. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 04:41
|
|
|
People freak out about how evil and awesome the Pluto would have been, but seem not to acknowledge that it never did fly and probably would never have flown even if they tried.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 05:18
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:People freak out about how evil and awesome the Pluto would have been, but seem not to acknowledge that it never did fly and probably would never have flown even if they tried. Eh, the Tory IIc engine worked, and was intended/packaged to be flight capable. Only ran on a test stand, but would have fit into an airframe if they had built it. You can make a lot of stuff fly with 38,000lbs of thrust, with follow-on engines being a lot bigger. Would have been interesting to see how it would respond to birdstrikes though....
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 05:25
|
|
|
SR-71 Spergpost: Part the first Development of the A-12 In the late 1950's, Clarence “Kelly” Johnson (the legendary founder/head of Lockheed's Skunk Works) began lobbying the CIA to design a new aircraft to replace the U-2 (he recognized it was just a matter of time until one was shot down), and the CIA began soliciting proposals in 1958. Initial designs ranged from a ramjet dropped from a helium balloon to something launched from underneath a B-58 Hustler, but eventually Lockheed came up with a design for a single pilot, twin engine aircraft that would utilize a long, sleek fuselage and a small delta wing mounted about 2/3 of the way back on the aircraft.  Kelly Jonhson, with two of his best known creations After some wrangling about how difficult the aircraft was going to be to see on radar (the CIA had to be convinced that an “invisible” airplane wasn't possible), the CIA signed off on Lockheed's 12th design iteration (hence the A-12 designation) in 1958, assigned the project the code name of Oxcart, and gave the company $96 million and two years to deliver five aircraft. As design work began on the A-12, it quickly became obvious that the engineering staff of the Skunk Works were rapidly entering completely new territory for aerodynamics and materials, which made the 24 month deadline far more intimidating. The biggest issue was heat. Flying at Mach 3, the airframe would be heated to between 800 and 1200 degrees by friction, which meant that aluminum couldn't be used. Consideration was given to using stainless steel, but it quickly became clear that a steel airplane would be far too heavy to achieve the kind of performance required. Eventually, Skunk Works engineers realized that a rare metal called titanium would deliver the required strength and heat resistance without the weight of steel, but there was almost no knowledge of how to machine, rivet, weld, extrude or drill the material, and there was only one company in the US that produced (relatively small) amounts of titanium. After some frustrating experimentation as to how to work with titanium, it was decided to paint the airplane black, since the paint would radiate more heat than it would absorb through friction, which allowed a softer and more workable alloy of titanium to be used in the A-12. Once the decision was made to use titanium, the problem of finding sufficient quantities of the metal emerged, since the largest exporter of titanium at the time was the USSR. Through a complex set of third parties and dummy companies, the CIA managed to unobtrusively purchase large quantities of titanium from the Soviets, who never discovered that they were exporting the metal to be used in an airplane designed to spy on them. Even as the titanium issue was sorted out, it became clear that basically every part of the A-12 was going to have to be designed from scratch, since existing materials and components simply weren't intended to operate under the extreme temperatures the A-12 would spend long periods at. Hydraulic lines had to be made of stainless steel, control cables were manufactured from a material used in watch springs, and gold was used to line certain parts of the aircraft due to how well it reflected heat. Even basic things like wires, connectors, oils, greases, and even screws, bolts, and rivets had to be specially designed and manufactured by the Skunk Works. Eventually, Lockheed would end up manufacturing about 13 million separate parts in house for the A-12 and SR-71 projects. About the only “off the shelf” component of the A-12 was the engines. Originally, the Pratt & Whitney J-58 had been developed in the late 1950's for a Mach 2 Navy interceptor, and Lockheed realized that the engine could be substantially modified to operate continuously in afterburner, although it would still need to be combined with an elaborate system of intake spikes, bypass doors and early computers (which will be described in detail later) to work properly on the A-12.  A J-58 running at full power at night. As development progressed, it became clear that the A-12 was not only going to be substantially over budget (the engines alone added a couple hundred million dollars to the development cost), but it was also increasingly obvious that the 24 month deadline wasn't going to happen either. In 1960, the CIA assigned their own engineer to the A-12 project, in an attempt to get the project back on track. Delays came from pretty much every possible source, but the use of titanium caused a large number of headaches. Lockheed had to invent their own quality control procedures to ensure the batches of titanium they received would perform properly, and even minor things like the use of city water for rinsing welded components (chlorine and titanium don't get along well) and the use of certain brands of tools (which contained cadmium, which also doesn't like titanium) caused production problems until engineers could track down what was making components fail. Eventually, the Skunk Works managed to iron out all of the problems with the A-12, and the first aircraft was completed, then disassembled, placed into large crates, and trucked from Burbank, CA into the Nevada desert to a facility at the Groom Lake dry lakebed, now known as Area 51. The first A-12 flew in April of 1962, and despite being powered by lower powered J-57 engines (the first J-58 wouldn't be ready until October of that year), the aircraft managed to reach Mach 2 and revealed that the basic design of the aircraft was sound. Upon delivery of J-58's, the potential of the A-12 became clear, with aircraft reaching speeds in excess of Mach 3 by 1963, and the first loss of an aircraft (which the pilot successfully ejected from) would also take place that year.  The first flight of the A-12, in April 1962 A-12 production continued until June of 1964, when the final aircraft was delivered to Groom Lake. In all, only 15 A-12's would ever be built for the CIA, and six of those would be lost to accidents by the end of the program in 1968. Of the surviving eight aircraft, only seven are on public display at museums, since the CIA took possession of an A-12 on display in Minneapolis and moved it to a display in their Langley, VA headquarters.  A lineup of A-12's at Groom lake in the 1960's. The second aircraft from the front is a two seat trainer.  An A-12 in flight, with a bit more paint  A-12's in storage after the program was ended. They sat there for about 20 years until the program was declassified in the 1990's
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 05:41
|
|
|
It's probably already been posted in this thread somewhere, but the story of getting the boxed A-12 out out Burbank is an epic in and of itself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 07:07
|
|
|
Ardeem posted:It's probably already been posted in this thread somewhere, but the story of getting the boxed A-12 out out Burbank is an epic in and of itself. Probably, but in case anyone's missed it  http://roadrunnersinternationale.com/transporting_the_a-12.html
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 07:22
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:Reminds me of a story related to me by a fellow alumnus. One of the typical "routes" for student pilots soloing would be to fly from DAB down to Marathon, sometimes with a planned "lay over". He gets down there and there are about 5 other pilots from my school already there when the weather warnings for DAB start coming in. So, all six of them take off one right after the other to get back to DAB before the poo poo hits (typical summer storms you get over the Florida peninsula). Well, with six of our birds flying close enough together, and technically all six flying VFR, they all decide to have an impromptu formation. Within about a minute ATC jumped on their poo poo and told them to knock it off. Why did ATC tell them to knock it off? Do you have to file formation flights? I thought in VFR the only thing required for formation was that all the pilots agreed to fly formation, then the formation leader talked to ATC and the flight acted like one aircraft until the pattern.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 11:26
|
|
|
I know I'm late to the party, but this has been replaced by: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BzU1sYPjzo
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 12:43
|
|
|
I finally got a splitter for my headset so I can now record cockpit audio alongside the DriftHD video. Check out the latest beardcam https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUsQc0eEfg4
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 13:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 23:30 |
|
|
babyeatingpsychopath posted:Why did ATC tell them to knock it off? Do you have to file formation flights? I thought in VFR the only thing required for formation was that all the pilots agreed to fly formation, then the formation leader talked to ATC and the flight acted like one aircraft until the pattern. I believe with formation flights you are suppose to file a flight plan regardless of VFR/IFR conditions, or at least give ATC ample warning so they don't think six student pilots in Cessna 172s are attempting to "merge the dots".
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 13:20
|
|