|
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. Just file/request flight following as 6/C172/G.  If they were all receiving individual flight following, it's still technically legal, but it would seriously annoy the piss out of the controller. He'd be getting flashing conflict alerts for each airplane, and it would just be a general nightmare to separate the six data blocks from each other.
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 13:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 07:57 |
|
|
Here, have some engines on test stands
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 15:17
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Germany just retired theirs this year, Japan might have a few left also. The JASDF still has quite a few (around 80), Greece flies some as well (well they have them anyway, doubt they're doing much flying these days.) Also Egypt and Iran but I'm pretty sure both of them aren't going to be flying in any Western photo ops any time soon. xaarman posted:I know I'm late to the party, but this has been replaced by: The fact that it was done by a helo pilot from an air force that no longer possesses jet fighters makes it that much more funny.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 16:48
|
|
|
Cross-posting with the Spaceflight thread, NASA is crashing a helicopter for science  ! right now!Zero One posted:Not quite a rocket, but NASA is doing a helicopter crash test in a half hour: http://www.nasa.gov/aero/heli_crash_test/index.html#.Uh4WVGScX09
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 18:17
|
|
|
xaarman posted:I know I'm late to the party, but this has been replaced by: Does anyone have the "I'd rather fly the _____" song with lyrics like the Viper flying up its own rear end in a top hat?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 18:25
|
|
|
Boomerjinks posted:Does anyone have the "I'd rather fly the _____" song with lyrics like the Viper flying up its own rear end in a top hat? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=335GdTqtyLs I miss being able to find "Has Anybody Seen My Wingman". Fortunately I've got it memorized! adagio, like an Ivy League frat chorus Haaas anybody seen my wingman? I'm sure he's in a hell of a fix! I have scanned all through the skies but I needn't use my eyes Cause that fucker always flies At my dead siiix! allegro So, him! Him! gently caress him! What a way to go But at least he won't be jammin' up the fuckin' radio! Is he blind or is he split? I don't give a fuckin' poo poo It's all the more glory for meeee!
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 18:44
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:Cross-posting with the Spaceflight thread, NASA is crashing a helicopter for science Lots of mannequins are about to get smooshed by big heavy gearbox parts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 18:44
|
|
|
It turned out to be just more of a thud than anything else. It was maybe 100-200 feet in the air.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 18:46
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:SR-71 Spergpost: Part the first Thanks! Now, make with part two :-)
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 18:54
|
|
|
Not gonna lie, I'm a bit underwhelmed at the "damage" from the helicopter impact. I know that's a good thing, but 
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 20:06
|
|
|
Mzuri posted:Thanks! Now, make with part two :-) Should have part two up later this evening.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 20:21
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Just file/request flight following as 6/C172/G. In a standard formation (where aircraft are flying close together) only the lead airplane should be squawking. With everyone else squawking standby there shouldnt be any conflict alarms. Large non standard formations may have the lead aircraft and the tail aircraft squawking, with everyone in the middle on standby. If everyone started with FF then wanted to join up in formation, I'd make them pick a leader and only leave that aircraft's flight data active (changing the aircraft type to indicate a flight). Never had civilians request a join up in the air, they've always departed that way from the start, though certainly it could happen. Military in-air joins and splits do happen more often.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 21:08
|
|
|
Why do some engines have the shock diamonds and some do not?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 22:05
|
|
|
boiledalive posted:Why do some engines have the shock diamonds and some do not? Length of exposure, I think. The ones that are pure blurry blue are probably much longer exposures than the ones that have the sharp defined diamonds, whereas the ones that have them appear to have been shot with bigass strobes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 22:12
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:It turned out to be just more of a thud than anything else. It was maybe 100-200 feet in the air. Kind of anti-climactic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 23:05
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:It turned out to be just more of a thud than anything else. It was maybe 100-200 feet in the air. Yeah. I definitely don't work for NASA, but it was pretty unrealistic for a heli crash. The torque at work usually causes things to end with the aircraft on it's side digging a huge furrow as the occupants get spun around.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 01:14
|
|
|
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. I work with these guys sometimes, they run a pretty cool setup. Some of the shots look CG due to the stability of the shots, rare to see fully stable shots of stuff in motion and not having anything to compare the speed or movement to makes it seem 'off'  Here's the flightpath of the brand new AA 777 we shot for a commercial introducing the "New AA" 
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 01:56
|
|
|
The 777 isn't one of those planes I look at and go "drat that's so sexy/majestic/awe-inspiring", but there's definitely something beautiful about just how well it does what it's designed to do. Aesthetically 'meh', practically 'wow.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 02:12
|
|
|
Speaking of the new AA logo, I completely forgot that it had shown up in Disney's Planes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 02:50
|
|
|
I always have liked watching them land. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 02:50
|
|
|
SR-71 spergpost: part the second A-12 in service Although the A-12 had a relatively short service life, the lessons learned from A-12 operations would prove invaluable to the longer-lived SR-71 program that would follow it. Almost as soon as the first A-12 flew in 1962, the CIA and Pentagon began to wonder; “how do we hide this thing?”. Since the aircraft needed around 80 miles just to turn around, keeping it inside restricted airspace was going to prove impossible, and it was only a matter of time until the aircraft was either spotted or one crashed, letting the cat out of the bag. To maintain secrecy, A-12 pilots were subject to intensive background checks (they weren't even told what they would be flying until arriving at Groom Lake), and their families were never given any details as to where they were going or what they were doing, and were simply given a phone number to call if there was an emergency. By 1964, enough A-12's had arrived at Groom Lake that keeping the existence of the aircraft secret was proving very difficult (when an A-12 crashed in 1963, the CIA silenced the witnesses and local sheriff with a mix of $25k bribes apiece and threats of “severe consequences” if they talked), so the decision was made to reveal the existence of the project, without revealing that the A-12 itself existed.  Wreckage of the A-12 that crashed near Wendover, UT in 1963. This photo wasn't declassified until 2011 In February 1964, an announcement was made about an advanced experimental aircraft called the A-11, which was capable of flying more than 2000 mph at 70,000ft, and that the aircraft was currently in testing at Edwards AFB. The announcement actually referred to the USAF's YF-12 (which will be described later), and two YF-12's were rushed to Edwards to lend credibility to the story. As A-12 testing progressed into the mid 1960's, it became clear that the aircraft (and the procedures for operating it) had matured to the point where it was ready for operational missions, leading to the question of when and where to begin using the aircraft. Despite the fact that the A-12 was designed to take the U-2's role in overflying the USSR and China, it would never do so in operation. In 1964, consideration was given to overflights of Cuba, but the idea was abandoned as US involvement in Vietnam began to escalate and China tested their first atomic bomb. In late 1964 the decision was made to base several A-12's out of Kadena AFB on the island of Okinawa, under a program known as Black Shield.  Kadena Air Base: Home of the A-12, and later the SR-71 Although preparations for Black Shield were largely complete by mid 1965 (including test flights requiring the multiple aerial refuelings that would be needed on an operational mission), the intelligence requirements in Vietnam and concerns about alerting the Soviets and Chinese to the A-12's capabilities meant that nothing happened for the better part of a year, although test flights of ever increasing complexity and duration continued in order to improve the readiness of the aircraft and crews. In early 1967, the Johnson administration became concerned about North Vietnam positioning missiles to launch into South Vietnam, and decided that the situation would be perfectly suited to the A-12's capabilities. On May 31, 1967, an A-12 departed Kadena, and over the course of a 3 hour 39 minute mission covering 5,600 miles, the aircraft successfully photographed 70 SAM sites and various other targets in North Vietnam before returning to Kadena without having been detected.  Map of the first Black Shield mission route. Through May of 1968, Black Shield aircraft flew 24 missions over Vietnam (typically spending less than 20 minutes over the country on a photo pass), two over Laos and Cambodia, and three over North Korea. On the third mission, radar was able to detect the A-12, although missiles weren't launched at the aircraft until the 16th mission. During the course of Black Shield, A-12's photographed almost all of North Vietnam (aside from a small strip near the Chinese border), taking pictures of air bases, barracks, ports, SAM sites, railroads, industrial facilities, and pretty much anything the CIA wanted to obtain images of.  Hanoi, as photographed by and A-12 in 1967 At present, the CIA has confirmed that only three Black Shield flights were ever fired upon, with one managing to damage the aircraft. The first incident took place on October 28, 1967 over Hanoi, when an SA-2 was launched, but the missile was fired too late and was never a threat to the aircraft. Two days later, six SA-2's were fired at another A-12 cruising at 84,000ft, and the pilot observed the missiles climb to about 90,000ft, tip over, and begin chasing the aircraft. Three of the weapons detonated behind the aircraft (one within 200 yards), and a small piece of debris was later found to have penetrated the skin of the aircraft, although it caused no damage. The final missile launch happened in January of 1968, with the missile never coming within a mile of the A-12. During this period, Black Shield aircraft were also used during the Pueblo crisis in 1968, when North Korea boarded the USS Pueblo (which was in international waters at the time) and captured the ship. One A-12 mission was conducted in January of 1968, and the photos taken verified that the Pueblo had indeed been moved to a North Korean harbor, and that North Korea didn't appear to be engaging in a military buildup in response to the incident. Two more flights were conducted over North Korea, with the last taking place in May of 1968, which was also the last operational flight of an A-12.  A photo of the USS Pueblo, taken by an A-12 End of Oxcart The end of the A-12 program actually started before the aircraft had flown its' first operational mission. In 1965, the Bureau of the Budget began expressing concerns about the costs of running both Oxcart and the SR-71 programs (the first SR-71 flew in late 1964), since there didn't seem to be any compelling reason for the CIA to be operating their own program along side the USAF. By June of 1966, three options had been proposed; continue both programs; mothball the A-12 and split SR-71's between the CIA and SAC, or (assuming the SR-71 was ready) retire the A-12 and assign all the work to the Air Force SR-71 fleet. In December of 1966, the decision was made to end the A-12 program in favor of the SR-71. Despite lobbying by the CIA to get their own SR-71's, the decision to shut down the program remained, and the CIA drew up plans to retire the A-12 fleet, all of which was done before the first operational mission had taken place. After the first A-12 missions produced very useful intelligence, there was some consideration of keeping the project alive a bit longer, and it was decided to conduct a (very classified) competition between the A-12 and SR-71 to see which was the better aircraft. The A-12 had the advantage of being a proven airframe, and due to being a single seater, it was capable of flying somewhat faster and higher than the two seat SR-71. In contrast, the SR-71 was capable of carrying more sensors (two cameras, or a radar and camera), although the image quality wasn't quite as good as that of the A-12. The results of the competition (the A-12 took better pictures, but the SR-71 collected more kinds of intelligence) resulted in the A-12 getting a temporary stay of execution until June of 1968, but the escalating expenses of the Vietnam war meant that the A-12 would make it's final operational flight in May of that year. In the end, the final A-12 flight took place on June 21, 1968, when Article 131 (which had flown the first operational mission just over a year earlier) was flown from Nevada to a storage facility in California, where it would sit with the surviving members of the A-12 fleet for more than two decades before the CIA revealed the existence of the A-12 in the 1990's.  Article 131, which flew the first operational A-12 mission, as well as the last flight of the A-12 program azflyboy fucked around with this message at 06:16 on Aug 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 03:14
|
|
|
Small nitpick: It's Kadena, not Kandea.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 03:22
|
|
|
Derp, I spell gud. Thanks for the correction.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 06:17
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:In the 1950s we were making legitimate plans to build a cruise missile powered by ramjets utilizing open core nuclear reactors. Nuclear power was new and exciting, people are bound to try everything with that, especially in an arms race. The thing is, bears are a known quantity, they have been for thousands of years. So while the nuclear rocket is the crazier the more you know about it, everyone knows how crazy it is to strap a bear to an ejection seat because it is a loving bear.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 06:19
|
|
|
AlmightyPants posted:Nuclear power was new and exciting, people are bound to try everything with that, especially in an arms race. The thing is, bears are a known quantity, they have been for thousands of years. So while the nuclear rocket is the crazier the more you know about it, everyone knows how crazy it is to strap a bear to an ejection seat because it is a loving bear. ...Crazy AWESOME.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 11:45
|
|
|
ctishman posted:The 777 isn't one of those planes I look at and go "drat that's so sexy/majestic/awe-inspiring", but there's definitely something beautiful about just how well it does what it's designed to do. Aesthetically 'meh', practically 'wow. The Triple-7 is a gorgeous plane, what are you talkin' about?!     
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:22
|
|
|
The 777 is a little bulbous and tumorrific for me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:30
|
|
|
Lightbulb Out posted:The 777 is a little bulbous and tumorrific for me. What tumors?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:34
|
|
|
polpotpotpotpotpot posted:The Triple-7 is a gorgeous plane, what are you talkin' about?! It is. It still amazes me that something that big can even get off the ground. I love seeing them parked next to MD-80s at DFW. It's like the 80s are toys. Everyone should get a chance to experience intercontinental First Class on an American, or any other airline's, flagship. I did DFW to Tokyo and back a couple years ago. I can see why the people that can afford it do it. It means arriving at your destination refreshed instead of exhausted. Now I dread my next trip across the world because I won't be able to afford sitting up there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:50
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:since there didn't seem to be any compelling reason for the CIA to be operating their own program along side the USAF. Good thing we learned that lesson!
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 16:11
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:What tumors? You can't see it? Let's start with an easy one.  big (Don't forget bulbous) No bulbousness or tumorifficity here, no sir.  
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 16:28
|
|
|
Are you complaining about the wing root?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 17:07
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Are you complaining about the wing root? Corsairs are loving stupid looking too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 17:19
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Are you complaining about the wing root? You're missing the dripping sarcasm relating to the previous pages of aesthetic arguments.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 18:40
|
|
|
Speaking of aesthetics I just had a flight in one of Southwest's 737-800s with the "boeing sky interior." It was pretty cool looking, here's a photo (not mine). The only downside was I sat way in the back and with the extra seats it took forever to unload.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 00:45
|
|
|
I was on an Alaska 738 recently with the sky interior, dimming for night just means turning the cabin blue, it was terrible. Besides that it felt roomy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 01:36
|
|
|
For the last month or so Boeing has been flying the Advanced Super Hornet out of St. Louis and Pax River. http://www.boeing.com/boeing/Features/2013/08/bds_adv_super_hornet_08_28_13.page  What do y'all reckon about the Super Duper Hornet? This going to peck away at the edges on international F-35 orders? The USN likely to pick any up? Are the conformational tanks and little baby strap-on weapons bay enough? Is a 50% reduction on RCS of a Superhornet enough to tick a 'stealthly' box on procurement for anybody? Slo-Tek fucked around with this message at 02:04 on Aug 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 01:56
|
|
|
If the weapons pod basically just straps onto an existing hardpoint, why don't they put 2 of them on each wing? Or, for that matter, why not just make a cheap 'stealth box' out of foam and absorbent coatings that falls off a sidewinder as it launches? I'd really love to see what happens when they put this in a flyoff with an F-35, especially the special snowflake STOVL edition.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 02:14
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Corsairs are loving stupid looking too. You take that back right now Mr.!
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 02:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 07:57 |
|
|
Are there airplane equivalents to the Volkswagon Beetle or the Honda Civic?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 02:36
|
|
