|
Thief posted:
Thanks for this, its great to see the evolution of the amount of stuff that a pilot has to see. That F-117 cockpit is a mess, missing displays and some other stuff.
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 02:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 18:16 |
|
|
Micr0chiP posted:That F-117 cockpit is a mess, missing displays and some other stuff. Maybe what was in those empty slots is still classified or something?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 03:52
|
|
|
Slow-mo HD video of the shuttle engine igniting. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fd9_1386028600
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 04:16
|
|
|
I am at a loss here. Trying to find a video clip, I think from the 70's, of a carrier steam catapult set incorrectly and sending a fighter to disaster. The jet was all borked up trying to compensate but I believe it hit the water in the end. I saw it on some doco years ago and am having a hell of a time finding it. Any help is appreciated, thanks in advance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 02:34
|
|
Herv posted:I am at a loss here. Trying to find a video clip, I think from the 70's, of a carrier steam catapult set incorrectly and sending a fighter to disaster. The jet was all borked up trying to compensate but I believe it hit the water in the end. http://youtu.be/vM1x_OjhTcQ
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 02:48
|
|
|
My heart sank as I saw the payload ejected, then the stall. Looks like it lost an engine. Thanks for posting it. The one I had in mind was definitely a delta wing F/A type fuse. It was thrown onto a 45 degree pitch for the aileron control (sorry the best way I can explain it) on full burn and oh man it was loud and messy to watch. If I had to guess, the fighter got way more power from the catapult than it needed and couldn't recover. My speculation of course. Herv fucked around with this message at 03:05 on Dec 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 03:03
|
|
|
Herv posted:My heart sank as I saw the payload ejected, then the stall. Looks like it lost an engine. Thanks for posting it. Quite the opposite, actually. The catapult can't deliver way more power than a launching aircraft needs. Usually the amount of power it delivers is described as "barely enough." IIRC, during this time, the carrier is sailing into the wind as fast as it possibly can on top of trying to push an aircraft off its bow as fast as it possibly can. When carrier takeoffs go bad, it's usually either because the aircraft lost power during launch or the catapult failed to deliver enough oomph.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 03:12
|
|
|
Herv posted:If I had to guess, the fighter got way more power from the catapult than it needed and couldn't recover. My speculation of course.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 03:15
|
|
|
Thanks for setting me straight. It was most probably was a simple stall from lack of power. It just bugs me that I can't find the drat clip that was probably playing every 3 hours on the military channel years ago.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 03:19
|
|
|
I guess it's theoretically possible they went from a heavy rear end aircraft like an F-14 to something like an Intruder and didn't reset the cat?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 03:52
|
|
|
One of those guys didn't look like his parachute fully deployed before he hit the water...
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 03:58
|
|
|
Herv posted:I am at a loss here. Trying to find a video clip, I think from the 70's, of a carrier steam catapult set incorrectly and sending a fighter to disaster. The jet was all borked up trying to compensate but I believe it hit the water in the end. This? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9a1vanKw7o
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 04:59
|
|
|
Why would you increase your angle of attack that much while you're that low and slow? Especially over the ocean where you have no vertical obstacles. He was in an established climb but kept increasing nose-up, if he had just maintained a slight nose up he could have increased his speed and then climbed safely. While you think dumping the cargo would help because "hey less mass" it will shift the center of gravity, forcing a change in pitch. When you're that close to stalling (you can see him already losing lift about 3 seconds before the roll) it doesn't take much more nose-up to turn it into a stall. Guy panicked and made a quick series of incorrect decisions, unless he had a sudden double engine failure he should have been able to make it back to the ship. /armchair piloting
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 05:10
|
|
|
I actually have a question that I hope would fit in quite well here. I spent the summer in the United Kingdom and there was a store with all sorts of old and surplus military stuff and this caught my eye. The tag said it was a "West German Luftwaffe greatcoat" and I was wondering if anyone here might be able to shed some more light on it? Pictures are a bit poo poo but hopefully are good enough. Rampant lion on the left sleeve  Not a full picture of the jacket. The shape is a little worn. It's missing a button on the left side and one of the bits on top to attach the rank insignia is missing. Otherwise it's in pretty good condition for being 50+ years old and having see god knows how much.  Shot of the tag. Nothing else inside the jacket, I presume that's just the size?  And some (badly lit) shots of the backs of the buttons. Not sure what exactly is stamped on the back but I figure someone here may know.   
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 05:12
|
|
|
That's a Bundeswehr 10. Panzerdivision patch.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 05:41
|
|
|
Doctor Grape Ape posted:Why would you increase your angle of attack that much while you're that low and slow? Especially over the ocean where you have no vertical obstacles. He was in an established climb but kept increasing nose-up, if he had just maintained a slight nose up he could have increased his speed and then climbed safely. While you think dumping the cargo would help because "hey less mass" it will shift the center of gravity, forcing a change in pitch. When you're that close to stalling (you can see him already losing lift about 3 seconds before the roll) it doesn't take much more nose-up to turn it into a stall. Guy panicked and made a quick series of incorrect decisions, unless he had a sudden double engine failure he should have been able to make it back to the ship. You might say.. He's Etendarded :sunglasses: *YEEEEEAAHHHHH*
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 05:57
|
|
|
Doctor Grape Ape posted:Slow-mo HD video of the shuttle engine igniting. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fd9_1386028600 Nice link, I love the way that the camera becomes less and less able to deal with the glare as the SRB comes into view.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 07:01
|
|
|
Turbopump scream and SSME light up. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FROxZ5i67k Pretty sure this is the same launch. Those boosters... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lq_shHu4lAs Another link I can't find, real time Saturn V footage from the top of the tower. So here's from the bottom. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlxmJaqb82I Hoping this counts as Cold War.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 17:08
|
|
|
Rocket engines are the epitome of Cold War
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 00:35
|
|
|
Herv posted:Turbopump scream and SSME light up. 45 minutes of more slow motion shots from (I'm pretty sure) the same launch while the NASA folks in charge of launch photography blab about cameras and stuff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFwqZ4qAUkE
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 00:41
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:Rocket engines are the epitome of Cold War Well in that case. While a lot of the Saturn V footage shows the 'office building' break free of the launch pad and gravity, but the most impressive thing to me is the end of the first stage burn. That loving 'office building' was going 5,328.44936 mph (abouts, probably sea level metric from google calc). Humans harnessed 160 million horses and contained it within 5 nozzles (engine pogo problems aside). If you don't get chills watching something that big, go that fast, I don't know what to say. At about 1:20 minute in. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzCsDVfPQqk Herv fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Dec 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 01:18
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:I recently had the thought wondering if simple AT-rifles such as the PTRD could be useful in an insurgency situation. The weapon's firing report, while huge, still doesn't compare to that of an RPG, and would be effective against humvees, trucks and even stykers*. The ammunition is also much lighter so many more shots can be carried. Assuming a two man team, the weapon could be designed to be broken down into two pieces, the barrel and the rest which would aid in fading away from the engagement. poo poo, the barrel would even be long enough that assuming you added on some bits to it, it could be concealed as a crutch. What the gently caress do you think .50 cal and other large bore sniper/anti materiel rifles are?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 18:24
|
|
|
Aviation Leak just broke a story on what it says is the Beast's big brother:quote:A large, classified unmanned aircraft developed by Northrop Grumman is now flying—and it demonstrates a major advance in combining stealth and aerodynamic efficiency. Defense and intelligence officials say the secret unmanned aerial system (UAS), designed for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) missions, is scheduled to enter production for the U.S. Air Force and could be operational by 2015. As the story points out, assuming all this is true (or at least the broad points, even if they got a bunch of the details wrong like they are wont to do) it makes the budgetary and programmatic decisions regarding the Global Chicken, U-2, MQ-X, and NGB/LRS-B make quite a bit more sense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 20:32
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Aviation Leak just broke a story on what it says is the Beast's big brother: The key point seems to be that it's meant for less permissive airspace. That implies a very different design than its predecessors.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 20:38
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Aviation Leak just broke a story on what it says is the Beast's big brother:
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
I expect it to be related to the X-47, if for no other reason than I doubt Grumman has the resources to develop two completely independent, highly advanced unmanned aircraft simultaneously. If it's actually covered in all those sensors (especially an AESA radar) that means it's big, too. Edit: I doubt it'd be twice as large as the X-47...looking at the wiki specs of that one, that's about the size I had in mind for the RQ-180.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 01:52
|
|
|
Thief posted:
God I wish we could send amazing camera equipment back in time. Imagine how awesome all that stuff would have looked like brand-new. Also, TIL I'd never seen the RSO seat of a Blackbird, thanks for that link! Can you imagine a scarier light to come on?  Pilot Ejected -> good luck, fucker.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 06:41
|
|
|
Boomerjinks posted:God I wish we could send amazing camera equipment back in time. Imagine how awesome all that stuff would have looked like brand-new. I thought most jets were set up that if the pilot checked out the rest of the crew also did automatically. Maybe it's an either or thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 08:41
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:I thought most jets were set up that if the pilot checked out the rest of the crew also did automatically. Maybe it's an either or thing. I know on the F-15D you could isolate one seat or another. Not that could imagine a back-seater trying to land without a canopy... I believe it was intended for single occupancy -- I guess you didn't want to worry about an empty seat flying around if the pilot ejected.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 08:48
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:I know on the F-15D you could isolate one seat or another. Not that could imagine a back-seater trying to land without a canopy... Yeah, I guess that makes sense. I've only been in the B1 cockpit for an extended period of time and they are either/or but I'm pretty sure that in flight the back seaters are on the 'auto' option. Sadly you can't see the back seaters switches in those pictures because of the trays, but you can see the pilot/copliot 'auto/man' options.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 08:59
|
|
|
The "Turret Jettison" lever in the B-52 tailgunner position might be the most  thing I've ever seen. Do you think that just drops the gun off, or the entire thing falls away so the gunner can bail?
Boomerjinks fucked around with this message at 11:16 on Dec 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 09:11
|
|
|
Boomerjinks posted:The "Turret Jettison" lever in the B-52 tailgunner position might be the most :metal: thing I've ever seen. Do you think that just drops the gun off, or the entire thing falls away so the gunner can bail? "On all models of the B-52 up through the B-52F, the gunner rode in the tail of the aircraft, facing aft, and did not have an ejection seat. In order to bailout, he would jettison the entire turret leaving nothing but air in front of him. He could then just lean forward and fall clear of the aircraft. On the B-52G, the gunner and EWO sat side by side, facing aft in the main crew compartment. In this model the gunner did have an ejection seat."
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 10:21
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:What the gently caress do you think .50 cal and other large bore sniper/anti materiel rifles are? I know, but 14.5mm is much more powerful than 12.7mm as an example.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 11:25
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:I know on the F-15D you could isolate one seat or another. Not that could imagine a back-seater trying to land without a canopy... I might be misremembering, but I thought in the F-15D if the backseater pulled the handle he went out on his own, but if the pilot did it, they both went. Are you saying the pilot can select? In the SR-71 the backseater can't fly the plane, and he's in his own cockpit without a forward view so without that light he has no way of knowing if the pilot ejects (except maybe a weird noise?).
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 19:49
|
|
|
Could there have been timing issues, too, like making sure they don't both eject at the same time, to allow a margin of safety/clearance? Maybe the protocol was, "you don't bail until that light comes on." By then, minimal chance of the two ejections fouling on each other. I have no idea, just sort of guessing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 20:06
|
|
|
Boomerjinks posted:God I wish we could send amazing camera equipment back in time. Imagine how awesome all that stuff would have looked like brand-new. Way worse than that, imagine it NOT coming on when the pilot bails out. "Uh, pilot what's up? Pilot?"
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 20:06
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:I know, but 14.5mm is much more powerful than 12.7mm as an example. Did the PTRD/S shoot the same 14.5mm round the KPVT does? Either way, can you even find those rifles anymore? They aren't exactly AKs. Also, it seems like a lot of the armor descriptions you read armor up to 14.5 (or used to) because of that KPVT threat. But yeah, I cant see why it wouldnt work against trucks/humvees and the like if you could actually find one to shoot. Mazz fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Dec 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
If it were actually a good idea insurgents would probably use it more.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 21:43
|
|
|
I recall a few videos from Syria of people using cobbled together 20mm rifles. TBH an anti-materiel rifle, especially in an insurgent war, seems to be trying to fill a role that overlaps and is filled by RPGs, IRAMs and heavy machine guns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 22:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 18:16 |
|
|
And that's a role where it is outperformed by the alternatives in both cost and effectiveness. We are also overlooking the fact that Xerxes seems to be excited about the idea of people shooting at and killing American soldiers to a mildly disturbing degree.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 22:28
|
|