|
Back in the 80s I lived in Lompoc, Ca which was right next to Vandenberg AFB. B52s, tankers, and heavy lifters were daily with the occasional FB111 or F4. And the occasional missile launch (or failure). Still, the loudest thing I ever heard there was at an air show when an F15 did the whole take off and accelerate straight up thing. Louder than a Harrier, christ.
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 21:30 |
|
|
benito posted:Is that the strip with the little French restaurant attached to it? Le Relais, I think? I had a very memorable meal there a few years back, and it was great watching the old aircraft go by while eating. Yep KLOU. Sorry, Bowman Field, Louisville Kentucky, Earth, Milky Way. Been wanting to go eat there for a long time. One of these days.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Speaking of codes, I suspect U of A is University of Arizona but my brain read it as University of Alberta and was deeply confused for a second My university (Northern Kentucky) lies right under the approach for Cincinnati-Northern Kentucky International's runway 27; I have many fond memories of late nights listening to the freighters passing over my dorm on the way into the DHL hub there. Then again, I'm the kind of nutter who doesn't mind airplane noise. E: and for some reason, the Columbus PD likes to fly their MD-500's in patterns really, really low over my neighborhood in Columbus in the middle of the night. Again, not that I mind, but daylight (and a photo-op) would be nice once in a while.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
I'm about 3.5 miles from the Juneau airport and I can clearly make out the sounds of 737-400s taxiing when I'm outside in the yard. It's not bothersome, but it is something weird to be able to make out at this distance. I fairly often take the dog out about the same time as the last flight leaves in the evening and I can tell you where they're at on the taxiways by the sound. It should be noted that I'm essentially 90 degrees from the direction of travel on the runways. If you stand directly behind a 737 taking off, you won't hear then engines. Really. It's the oddest drat thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:It should be noted that I'm essentially 90 degrees from the direction of travel on the runways. If you stand directly behind a 737 taking off, you won't hear then engines. Really. It's the oddest drat thing. The loudest place near a BAE146/Avro RJ seems to be somewhere at an angle behind the engines. The loudest point on both a Fokker 50 and a Q400 is between directly alongside the propeller to maybe thirty degrees back from there. I'm not sure about loudest, but a rather unpleasant place to be is directly behind a 747-400 in an engine run bay doing a full power run, with only the blast shield and a metal warehouse wall between you and it. Stupid place to build a warehouse!
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 10:16
|
|
|
Geoj posted:I live about a mile away from Akron Fulton (6,000+' runway but 99% of the traffic is private aviation) and depending on wind direction aircraft on final approach to Akron-Canton regional (I'm about 15 miles north of the airport, they have 30-40 scheduled flights per day) pass pretty much directly over my house. Aside from notable aircraft landing at Akron-Fulton (CAF had a mini airshow there last summer and there was an Osprey doing touch & goes there for a few hours two weeks ago) I don't really notice the private aviation, and most of the traffic headed for CAK is low enough to make noise if you're outside but otherwise not really noticeable while inside. If you hear anything about any sort of air shows out of CAK please post it in this thread. I didn't know the CAF came around last year.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 11:32
|
|
|
Since the thread title now clearly states conspiracy, this seems the best place to post this: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/18/world/middleeast/mystery-shrouds-american-plane-at-tehran-airport.html?hp Slightly more info here as well: http://www.thewire.com/global/2014/04/nobodys-sure-how-or-why-an-american-plane-ended-up-in-iran/360872/ Basically, American flagged Bombardier Challenger CL-604 spotted in Tehran, which is odd considering how hard it would be to get there. Private owner about to get hit with sanctions or a plan in government service exposed by this article?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 13:05
|
|
|
onezero posted:Basically, American flagged Bombardier Challenger CL-604 spotted in Tehran, which is odd considering how hard it would be to get there. Private owner about to get hit with sanctions or a plan in government service exposed by this article? Is Bombardier forbidden to deal with Iran at all? It's registered to them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 13:16
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:Is Bombardier forbidden to deal with Iran at all? It's registered to them. http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=N604EP Says registered to the Bank of Utah, part of a trust, which isn't unusual but does obscure ownership. But on your point, Canada passed sanctions on Iran as well, and I'd be surprised to find that at least one thing in that plane wouldn't run afoul of export control regs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 13:24
|
|
|
Boeing and GE have recently been cleared to sell spare parts to Iran. Note that this may also pertain to other businesses. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/04/us-boeing-iran-parts-idUSBREA331P120140404
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 13:59
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Two cheeks and a pod on the very back of the tail are for electronic signals detection. Godholio can elaborate. That's pretty much it. There's also one under the nose. The Passive Detection System detects signals for identification. It's a very, very poor man's Rivet Joint setup, added in the 90s. If there's a real RJ in the area, it's basically worthless, but can sometimes get a look at something that might be terrain-masked from RJ. We actually have an ECO here (the sole crew member who operates PDS) but I don't want to out him. I'd like to think PDS will be improved in the upcoming block upgrade, but I have zero info on where the shortcomings are. If it's processing, the upgrade should be a huge improvement. If it's antennae resolution, welp 
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 14:24
|
|
|
onezero posted:Since the thread title now clearly states conspiracy, this seems the best place to post this: I think that's one of things that's media bias skewing perspective. There's regular flights from Tehran to Heathrow and all sorts of other European destinations on their lovely old a310s, and they have GE engines. Iran isn't some isolated no-fly-zone forbidden land, people and planes fly in and out of there all the time. So some US registered bizjet was there. Probably some bizzzness going on. No reason to suspect anything weird or dodgy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
especially considering relations with Iran are actually kind of thawing lately
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
Newsreel of Mirages being delivered to Australia (1964) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tsno8o7L1uk British Pathe have uploaded over 80,000 videos to youtube, no doubt a huge load of plane videos, lots of WW1 and WW2 newsreels too. I just came across this first.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
The RAAF made some odd choices.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...seen-Texas.html
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
Second spotting in a few months, crazy. This is definitely a thing, really wonder what it is, maybe LRS-B demonstrator?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
normally I'd say it were one of them youfoes, but since it's the Daily Mail, if it is, it's no doubt full of illegal aliens come to scrounge off benefits. And probably spy on your innocent white daughters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
zundfolge posted:I used to live right under the approach path to Wright-Patt. It was hard to ignore the noise when the airlift wing stationed there would fly the same loop all afternoon and do touch-and-gos with their C-5s (and C-141s before that); the C-17s they use now are practically silent by comparison. Going back through the thread and had to second this. Now, I think everyone in here is quite familiar with my love of C-5's, but I do have to admit that there's times I'm glad we have the C-17 at Stewart now, mostly when I'm at work and a C-17 is doing touch and go's, and I can have a conversation with people. When I worked in the airport itself at that aircraft refurbishing place, we'd literally have to put our tools down, cover our ears and stand there staring at each other like idiots for 30-45 seconds while the C-5's passed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Going back through the thread and had to second this. Now, I think everyone in here is quite familiar with my love of C-5's, but I do have to admit that there's times I'm glad we have the C-17 at Stewart now, mostly when I'm at work and a C-17 is doing touch and go's, and I can have a conversation with people. People who haven't worked around un-hushkitted 727s, 737-200s, DC-8s, etc, are cute.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
That just looks like a B-2 honestly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:People who haven't worked around un-hushkitted 727s, 737-200s, DC-8s, etc, are cute. I miss that kind of noise...especially the exhaust crackle you'd get in those old aircraft. Airports are so quiet these days (either that or I'm going deaf )
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 01:48
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:That just looks like a B-2 honestly. The back looks rather...straight. The B-2's is very much not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:People who haven't worked around un-hushkitted 727s, 737-200s, DC-8s, etc, are cute. We had that stuff very rarely, and we didn't really have enough experience with it until it screamed by and we all panicked. The C-5's were regular and distinct sounding from down the runway gave us a little more leeway. Plus we were like 150 yards off the runway at the far end, so they were pegged right when they went past.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:The C-5's were regular and distinct sounding from down the runway gave us a little more leeway. To this day, I can identify CF6s at idle, by sound only. I can tell how many there are, too. A 767 sounds different from an MD-11, which sounds different than a 747. Im so broken
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
Godholio posted:The back looks rather...straight. The B-2's is very much not. General Dynamics A-12 Flying Dorito got cancelled with a few billion spent and no metal bent (or was it?!?), and had a flat back. The aeronerds I follow allege that Boeing also had a less-scalloped trailing edge flying wing that might have got a couple built quiet-like.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
Godholio posted:The back looks rather...straight. The B-2's is very much not. The Dailymail pic looks like almost the exact geometry of an A-12. The pic from a few weeks ago had a lot more sweep to the wing and different shapes to the wingtips. I kinda feel like the A-12 shape is obsolete by now, which makes me lean towards this new pic (if not both) being a fake.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:To this day, I can identify CF6s at idle, by sound only. I can tell how many there are, too. A 767 sounds different from an MD-11, which sounds different than a 747. Yeah, I probably could have, but I was only there like 18 months. Plus Stewart has a revolving door of carriers and airframes. I can always tell the UPS and FedEx MD-11's, though, and the UPS 767's.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:General Dynamics A-12 Flying Dorito got cancelled with a few billion spent and no metal bent (or was it?!?), and had a flat back. The aeronerds I follow allege that Boeing also had a less-scalloped trailing edge flying wing that might have got a couple built quiet-like. What benefit would that be over a smaller (yet similar), unmanned design though?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
Spaced God posted:What benefit would that be over a smaller (yet similar), unmanned design though? Well, it looks like it is a twin engine from the contrails, which implies bigness, and possibly also some "can't lose a pilot" redundancy. Pretty much all the drones, even the really drat big ones, so far, have been singles.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
Linedance posted:normally I'd say it were one of them youfoes, but since it's the Daily Mail, if it is, it's no doubt full of illegal aliens come to scrounge off benefits. And probably spy on your innocent white daughters. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI VikingSkull posted:Going back through the thread and had to second this. Now, I think everyone in here is quite familiar with my love of C-5's, but I do have to admit that there's times I'm glad we have the C-17 at Stewart now, mostly when I'm at work and a C-17 is doing touch and go's, and I can have a conversation with people. WWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH MrYenko posted:People who haven't worked around un-hushkitted 727s, 737-200s, DC-8s, etc, are cute. WWHHHHHIIIIIIIINNNNNNEEEEEE
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:To this day, I can identify CF6s at idle, by sound only. I can tell how many there are, too. A 767 sounds different from an MD-11, which sounds different than a 747. So what you're saying is that if the RADAR goes out they can send you outside with a walkie-talkie and a chair on casters?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
Linedance posted:normally I'd say it were one of them youfoes, but since it's the Daily Mail, if it is, it's no doubt full of illegal aliens come to scrounge off benefits. And probably spy on your innocent white daughters. If you read the article (do not read the article), the Mail is true to form. They're prominently featuring some random moron's theory that it's a SR-72 (Lockheed's paper proposal for a hypersonic SR-71 successor), even though it obviously cannot be a hypersonic aircraft. But hey, the moron is an ex-Marine so clearly he is an authority worth quoting
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 10:52
|
|
|
Linedance posted:normally I'd say it were one of them youfoes, but since it's the Daily Mail, if it is, it's no doubt full of illegal aliens come to scrounge off benefits. And probably spy on your innocent white daughters. So you're saying there is a possibility that, "Our Maddie" is on that plane?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
BobHoward posted:If you read the article (do not read the article), the Mail is true to form. They're prominently featuring some random moron's theory that it's a SR-72 (Lockheed's paper proposal for a hypersonic SR-71 successor), even though it obviously cannot be a hypersonic aircraft. But hey, the moron is an ex-Marine so clearly he is an authority worth quoting Are you saying that marines don't know anything about aviation?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Are you saying that marines don't know anything about aviation? They use V-22's. Clearly they have an eye for style, but not efficiency or safety. So they know at least one thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
SocketSeven posted:They use V-22's. Clearly they have an eye for style, but not efficiency or safety. So they know at least one thing. No discussion of Marine air is complete without mentioning that more than a third of all USMC Harriers ever built have been lost to operational accidents. The Osprey is a cuddly child's toy, comparatively.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:No discussion of Marine air is complete without mentioning that more than a third of all USMC Harriers ever built have been lost to operational accidents. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
You missed the best one.  Fun Harrier fact: it's designed to land on the belly and strakes with minimal damage. The engine, however, is not rated for mattress spring ingestion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 21:30 |
|
|
I'm impressed that they managed to not set the mattresses on fire.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 18:59
|
|
