|
So a C-5 lost pressurization today over the Atlantic, ended up landing at Westover ARB outside of Springfield, MA http://boston.cbslocal.com/2014/02/08/crews-stage-at-hanscom-air-force-base-for-emergency-involving-plane/
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 06:32 |
|
|
That sort of thing happens more often than you'd think. Fair chance they would have landed at Dover if they didn't have passengers. It certainly wouldn't have made the news.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:At some point some bright boys at the Pentagon also compelled the Navy to take part in the LWF competition, with an eye toward yet another joint-service purchase. So there were designs for an F-16N. The proposed naval F-16 wasn't the F-16N (that was actually a hot-rod lightweight F-16A with a growth engine from a -C), nor was it to be made by General Dynamics. Vought was to be the prime contractor on the naval F-16, with their V-1600 variant. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
To expand on the Navy's desire for twin-engine aircraft for over-water safety, I've often wondered why bush planes are (in places like Alaska, at least) almost always singles. I've done some half-assed Internet research and only come up with quips like "A second engine only gets you to the scene of the crash faster". My belief is that it's really just initial, operation, and maintenance costs and maybe getting in and out of tighter places. Does anyone have a definitive reason why the ubiquitous bush plane on wheels, skis, or floats, is generally going to be a piston single?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
hogmartin posted:To expand on the Navy's desire for twin-engine aircraft for over-water safety, I've often wondered why bush planes are (in places like Alaska, at least) almost always singles. I've done some half-assed Internet research and only come up with quips like "A second engine only gets you to the scene of the crash faster". My belief is that it's really just initial, operation, and maintenance costs and maybe getting in and out of tighter places. Does anyone have a definitive reason why the ubiquitous bush plane on wheels, skis, or floats, is generally going to be a piston single? Weight, complexity, cost, maintenance. It's not like most bush flights are operated on a huge budget or anything. The lighter the plane the more places it can land/take off from, as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
hogmartin posted:T Does anyone have a definitive reason why the ubiquitous bush plane on wheels, skis, or floats, is generally going to be a piston single? Basically exactly the reasons above, good stol performance is mostly about weight, and adding a second engine tends to bring in a lot of extra size and cost. However some people are trying. Meet the unfortunately named Double ender http://www.bushplanedesign.com/
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
Colonel K posted:Basically exactly the reasons above, good stol performance is mostly about weight, and adding a second engine tends to bring in a lot of extra size and cost. Looks about right.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
Interesting design with the tractor/pusher orientation of the engines on top of the wing
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
MrChips posted:plus it had virtually no air-to-ground capability (which we needed just as much as an interceptor). This fact is hilarious now given how long the CF let the CF-18's air to ground capability atrophy. Slo-Tek posted:The F-18 had a number of shortcomings for the Navy, and McDonnell re-re-designed it as the F-18(EFG) which has pretty much no parts in common with the previous F-18, but congress was more apt to let go of the purse strings for an upgrade than for a new model As proof that poo poo comes full circle, the Super Bug is roughly the size of an F-15. Godholio posted:That sort of thing happens more often than you'd think. Fair chance they would have landed at Dover if they didn't have passengers. It certainly wouldn't have made the news. Especially with FRED.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
FullMetalJacket posted:Interesting design with the tractor/pusher orientation of the engines on top of the wing Cessna did a tractor/pusher model called the Skymaster, which was a really lousy aircraft. All the expense and complexity of a twin, and it wasn't all that much quicker than a 172. Also the rear engine likes to overheat and quit during taxi, so that when you take off it fails to climb and you slam into whatever is at the end of the runway. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 02:07
|
|
|
That's why you're supposed to advance the rear engine's throttle first. The mixmaster was also available pressurized, which is somewhat unique for a little high wing like that. While we're at "weird facts" section of our day. The F-16 is only unstable below mach. Over mach, the CoL moves rearward, far enough that the plane becomes positively stable. If your computer dies, you get to land at mach ;-)
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Okay my fellow airplane nerds, a question. How often in WW2 did powers use initial aircraft prototypes in combat roles? Because if you are the Third Reich, the answer is "a lot." I'm just wondering if this is a WW2 thing generally.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
Fun F-16 / SHSC crossover fact: it was the first use of MIL-STD-1553, which has since been used as a digital communications backbone in all kinds of military vehicles (not just aircraft, it's used in tanks and APCs among other things).
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 09:39
|
|
|
thesurlyspringKAA posted:CHINESE OSINT SPOTTED Oh no, they are on to me 
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 09:46
|
|
|
grover posted:The US combat tested a lot of prototype UAVs in Iraq and Afghanistan. No, we didn't. I'd love to hear what "a lot" you're thinking of. Using something in combat for the first time is not the same thing as using a prototype.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 11:23
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Especially with FRED.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 13:13
|
|
|
A Melted Tarp posted:Cessna did a tractor/pusher model called the Skymaster, which was a really lousy aircraft. All the expense and complexity of a twin, and it wasn't all that much quicker than a 172. Also the rear engine likes to overheat and quit during taxi, so that when you take off it fails to climb and you slam into whatever is at the end of the runway. Yes, I immediately thought of the O2A Variant used as a FAC.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 14:10
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:No, we didn't. I'd love to hear what "a lot" you're thinking of. In WWII, I think US ended up using all the initial YB-17s in combat in the pacific, too; the YB-17s were pretty lovely bombers (the B-17 didn't start to get good until the B-17E and F models), but 1941/1942 was a really desperate time for the US. The B-17 was originally envisioned as an anti-naval weapon, and the US was desperately short of aircraft everywhere the Japanese were attacking, so, the prototypes were thrown into combat along with the handful of early production models that had been built, largely as individual "precision" bombers, and were nearly completely ineffective. The mass bombing tactics that were so effective later in the war had not yet been developed, and US didn't have the numbers yet anyhow. grover fucked around with this message at 15:36 on Feb 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 14:56
|
|
|
I guess when you're flying over brown people airspace it doesn't matter if the things fall out of the sky. It makes sense why the armed forces would be fielding prototype UAVs in Afghanistan.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 15:00
|
|
|
grover posted:"A lot" as in %-wise of the UAVs developed during that time period. The Global Hawk is the most public example; DARPA bought the thing and threw it right into afghanistan. IIRC, they just flew the gently caress out of all the prototypes until they failed, usually about the time the next was ready, and then flew that and kept going.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
The Beast of Kandahar is another pretty good example, but it was almost two years old when the first one was spotted in Afghanistan.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
A Melted Tarp posted:Cessna did a tractor/pusher model called the Skymaster, which was a really lousy aircraft. All the expense and complexity of a twin, and it wasn't all that much quicker than a 172. Also the rear engine likes to overheat and quit during taxi, so that when you take off it fails to climb and you slam into whatever is at the end of the runway. I've heard bad things but man I'd still like to give the Cessna Suck and Blow a try.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:The Beast of Kandahar is another pretty good example, but it was almost two years old when the first one was spotted in Afghanistan. Dead Reckoning posted:One example is not "a lot." Also, if you're going by that metric, every war since Kosovo has been fought by "prototype" aircraft, since every B-2 airframe built has been upgraded to combat capability. The idea of something that's been flying since 1998 (Global Hawk) and been through several upgrades being a "prototype" is pretty questionable, especially when you're talking about aircraft with low production numbers and spiral development. At best, it's very different from the untried technology demonstrator the word implies. wikipedia posted:The first seven aircraft were built under the Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD) program, sponsored by DARPA, in order to evaluate the design and demonstrate its capabilities. Demand for the RQ-4's abilities was high in the Middle East; thus, the prototype aircraft were actively operated by the U.S. Air Force in the War in Afghanistan. grover fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Feb 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
Shavnir posted:I've heard bad things but man I'd still like to give the Cessna Suck and Blow a try. I think they're pretty nifty. They have a greater useful load than a Seneca and the turbocharged/pressurized versions are at least as fast. And then Riley came along, stuffed a pair of TSIO-520's in it and made the Super Skyrocket. ehnus fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Feb 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
Helter Skelter posted:Aircraft nicknames amuse me, particularly those given by ground crew. Today I learned that the B-1 is sometimes nicknamed the "Hawk" (Holiday And Weekend Killer), and the C-17 is sometimes known as "Barney" (FRED's fat little friend that gets all the attention) or "The Moose" (apparently it makes weird noises during refueling). HAWK isn't just given to the Bone...the Global Chicken has that, as do a few others.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
ehnus posted:I think they're pretty nifty. They have a greater useful load than a Seneca and the turbocharged/pressurized versions are at least as fast. I kinda want to stuff a pair of PT6As into one
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
Kilonum posted:I kinda want to stuff a pair of PT6As into one I believe there were a few turbine 337's made, this one has a PT6 stuffed into the rear hole and a smooth nose cone.  Two PT6's would make for a hell of a ride for the half hour before it ran out of fuel.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
According to the wikipedia entry on the Skymaster, two Cuban exiles on a mission to drop supplies to refugees in rafts were killed in one by a Cuban MiG-29 in 1996. So if anyone was wondering if a US-registered GA plane was killed by Cuban MiGs in the last few years of the 20th century, the answer is apparently a surprising yes. I did not know that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
Wouldn't a plane with a pusher prop be a terrible system for dropping poo poo out of?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:This fact is hilarious now given how long the CF let the CF-18's air to ground capability atrophy. Even with the current upgrades, our CF-18s aren't even as capable as your average C/D model. Also, this was about the extent of the CF-18s air-to-ground capablity for 20 years:  Looks badass, but it isn't very useful at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
Which would you rather fly or work on: a piper Navajo or the skymaster?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
MrChips posted:The proposed naval F-16 wasn't the F-16N (that was actually a hot-rod lightweight F-16A with a growth engine from a -C), nor was it to be made by General Dynamics. Vought was to be the prime contractor on the naval F-16, with their V-1600 variant. That's really interesting, I did not know that. Did they ever build one?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
FullMetalJacket posted:Which would you rather fly or work on: a piper Navajo or the skymaster? Not a fan of either honestly, but probably the Joe. slidebite posted:That's really interesting, I did not know that. Nope. Put simply, the Navy suffered from a serious case of "We don't know what we want, but we know what we DON'T want" in the VFAX program, and the 1600 was pretty much what they didn't want. It's also one of the reasons why the YF-17 grew so much as it became the F-18. The Vought 1600 also changed so much that it was only superficially an F-16 variant by the final 1602 version. A couple more pictures from the Vought Archives:  
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Not a fan of either honestly, but probably the Joe. Reminds me of a quote from "Skunk Works" "Starve before doing business with the damned Navy. They don't know what the hell they want and will drive you up a wall before they break either your heart or a more exposed part of your anatomy."
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
Kilonum posted:I kinda want to stuff a pair of PT6As into one "Let's stick a turboprop on (insert GA type here)" is a game I'd love to play if I were rich. I don't think I've seen a turbo Cessna 172 yet, though there are plenty of Bonanza conversions floating around http://www.airliners.net/photo/Beech-A36TP-Propjet/2162052/L/&sid=a8c9d08b9236feaf757d0f281f5f1ddd http://www.airliners.net/photo/Beech-A36TP-Propjet/1567740/L/&sid=a8c9d08b9236feaf757d0f281f5f1ddd http://www.airliners.net/photo/Cessna-T210M-Turbo/1592243/L/&sid=b1a06def36d91fb118f607769a6ee8ee http://www.airliners.net/photo/Beech-A36TP-Propjet/1371475/L/&sid=31b950ec62a8fd909c24f349f9e24d0b http://www.airliners.net/photo/Cessna-210N-Centurion/1447615/L/&sid=b1a06def36d91fb118f607769a6ee8ee
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
Plastic_Gargoyle posted:"Let's stick a turboprop on (insert GA type here)" is a game I'd love to play if I were rich. I don't think I've seen a turbo Cessna 172 yet, though there are plenty of Bonanza conversions floating around
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
Plastic_Gargoyle posted:"Let's stick a turboprop on (insert GA type here)" is a game I'd love to play if I were rich. I don't think I've seen a turbo Cessna 172 yet, though there are plenty of Bonanza conversions floating around No 172, but how about a 185?  
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 08:08
|
|
|
Cross post from the Aviation thread, because I know there are more people here that aren't already in the field in some way:fknlo posted:Hey folks, APPLY TO BE AN AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLER HERE. Seriously, go do this. If you don't you're literally retarded. Literally retarded would be an understatement.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 12:09
|
|
|
I get it's a training program and the entry requirements seem low (like no degree), but can anyone in your country live on 20k a year? Would you try and flip burgers after a day of what I would assume is pretty intense school?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 12:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 06:32 |
|
|
MrYenko posted:Cross post from the Aviation thread, because I know there are more people here that aren't already in the field in some way: Or literally old, or literally unable to hold an airman's class II medical. Tony Montana posted:I get it's a training program and the entry requirements seem low (like no degree), but can anyone in your country live on 20k a year? Would you try and flip burgers after a day of what I would assume is pretty intense school? That's pay for attending the FAA's academy in OKC. It's supplemented by per diem as well. Here's my post from the A/T thread: The Ferret King posted:
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 12:24
|
|
