|
There's a Vulcan at the RAF museum in Hendon (London). The whole place is well worth checking out. I hadn't realised just how big the Vulcan is until i got there. Most of the exhibits are behind rope lines or similar. The Vulcan you can stroll around underneath, it's huge.
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 13:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 00:17 |
|
|
priznat posted:Yeah they didn't have much for range that's for sure! They were interceptors, they had all the range they needed to get to 60,000' and intercept soviet bombers at the extent of the UK's territorial waters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 14:08
|
|
|
dissss posted:The three V bombers all have somewhat of that look about them. I think it's because they all look like they could be straight out of 50s sci fi An air force equipped with V-bombers and Saab Drakens would have had the most marketable toy line ever.    
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
 I hadn't realised just how much bulkier the conformal tanks on the F-16E+ make it look, it almost looks like a fighter jet now, rather than something wimpy that will break if you lean against it wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:
It's like it has shoulder pads.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
Uh it's an F-16 that does heavy rear end shrugs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:
 the resemblance is amazing
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:
"Oh my boy, what have they done to you?" / 
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
Deptfordx posted:There's a Vulcan at the RAF museum in Hendon (London). The whole place is well worth checking out. Yeah, going to London and missing the RAF Museum at Hendon is pretty stupid. It is really easy to get there by subway and there are some great exhibits. The Imperial War Museum on South Bank is really small in comparison.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
I think it's regulatory that every military aircraft has a modification strapped to it once every 12 months that adds weight, makes it uglier, and creates yet another set of maintenance procedures. Given how long it's been in service, I'm surprised the B-52 isn't just a perfect sphere of added-on equipment by now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
Ambihelical Hexnut posted:I think it's regulatory that every military aircraft has a modification strapped to it once every 12 months that adds weight, makes it uglier, and creates yet another set of maintenance procedures. Given how long it's been in service, I'm surprised the B-52 isn't just a perfect sphere of added-on equipment by now. The B-52 still has bits and bobs poking out of it when you get up close.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Ambihelical Hexnut posted:I think it's regulatory that every military aircraft has a modification strapped to it once every 12 months that adds weight, makes it uglier, and creates yet another set of maintenance procedures. Given how long it's been in service, I'm surprised the B-52 isn't just a perfect sphere of added-on equipment by now. Not specific to aircraft at all
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
Yeah one look at a linebacker will also teach you that it's not even specific to production equipment
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
Ambihelical Hexnut posted:I think it's regulatory that every military aircraft has a modification strapped to it once every 12 months that adds weight, makes it uglier, and creates yet another set of maintenance procedures. Given how long it's been in service, I'm surprised the B-52 isn't just a perfect sphere of added-on equipment by now. Raf_nimrod.jpg
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:An air force equipped with V-bombers and Saab Drakens would have had the most marketable toy line ever. I think some variation of the Macross Saga had Draken-inspired space fighters/fighting robots. My personal choice for awesome looking: the Tu-22. Looked amazing, was basically a poo poo aircraft.        Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Aug 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
How does fuel consumption typically vary for a helicopter in hover versus circling, if it's just loitering around an area? I used to assume that when I say military helicopters circling at a checkpoint that they were doing so for force protection reasons. But surely forward flight requires less energy than hovering. Does it make a big difference?Ambihelical Hexnut posted:I think it's regulatory that every military aircraft has a modification strapped to it once every 12 months that adds weight, makes it uglier, and creates yet another set of maintenance procedures. Given how long it's been in service, I'm surprised the B-52 isn't just a perfect sphere of added-on equipment by now. On the other hand, it's pretty cool when the test community informs you that they're going to replace a few hundred 1960s circuit cards weighing a few hundred pounds and costing several million dollars with a suite of processors that costs tens of thousands of dollars and weighs 40 pounds or something. Then they get to work filling that freed up space with more poo poo. mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 21:59 on Aug 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:How does fuel consumption typically vary for a helicopter in hover versus circling, if it's just loitering around an area? I used to assume that when I say military helicopters circling at a checkpoint that they were doing so for force protection reasons. But surely forward flight requires less energy than hovering. Does it make a big difference? The exact amount varies greatly between airframes, and depends on the payload, outside air temperature, what the pilot had for dinner, etc, but ya, forward flight generally uses significantly less fuel. Translational lift rules.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
Looks good in camo, too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
I took a poo poo at Mach .85 today - do I win anything? This violates my normal rule about making GBS threads on aircraft, but we did an empty reposition from Chicago to Italy and the act was not optional. I abused the boss' crapper for it's intended purpose. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:How does fuel consumption typically vary for a helicopter in hover versus circling, if it's just loitering around an area? I used to assume that when I say military helicopters circling at a checkpoint that they were doing so for force protection reasons. But surely forward flight requires less energy than hovering. Does it make a big difference? Fuel consumption in a helicopter (generally) can be said to correlate directly with the power requirements for flight at a given airspeed. That power requirement is typically modeled by the drag created at each airspeed. On this image:  Induced drag is drag resulting from producing lift with the rotor blades. Higher AoA means more induced drag; interestingly, rotary wing ground effect is a condition of reduced power requirements/improved performance caused by a reduction in induced flow velocity (and induced drag) when operating near the ground. Induced drag is highest at a hover, and is reduced as airspeed increases. Profile drag is the drag of the rotor blades spinning through the air. It stays relatively constant with airspeed, but does increase a bit as you go faster since the relative speed of the advancing blade increases as airspeed increases. Parasite drag is the drag of the rest of the airframe going through the air; at a hover it's nothing, and it increases with airspeed. Total drag is the sum of all three. Notice that relative to airspeed total drag is high near zero, dips to its lowest point about halfway between 0 and "fast", and then increases above that point. This lowest middle point of overall drag represents the airspeed at which the lowest power requirements for flying exist. That means it also represents your most power available, maximum rate of climb, and maximum fuel endurance airspeed. To specifically address your question, yes the difference in fuel economy (and power required) between being in an OGE hover vs operating at max endurance airspeed is dramatic. Example numbers off the top of my head for my airframe would be like 1400 lbs/hr vs 750 lbs/hr. Specific to military operations, staying in forward flight and establishing orbits not only gives you the benefit of way way way more power available, but also provides a moving target to the enemy, allows you to examine the situation from multiple angles, and puts you in a much more survivable situation for something like a single engine failure than being in a hover does. mlmp08 posted:On the other hand, it's pretty cool when the test community informs you that they're going to replace a few hundred 1960s circuit cards weighing a few hundred pounds and costing several million dollars with a suite of processors that costs tens of thousands of dollars and weighs 40 pounds or something. Then they get to work filling that freed up space with more poo poo. Test community's mission: Complicate the fleet's wiring diagrams by any means necessary. 
Ambihelical Hexnut fucked around with this message at 01:53 on Aug 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
Ambihelical Hexnut posted:Test community's mission: Complicate the fleet's wiring diagrams by any means necessary. In fairness to the test community, that's really more of an acquisitions thing...test usually hates their stupidity as much as the field does.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
Ambihelical Hexnut posted:like 1400 lbs/hr vs 750 lbs/hr. hawk guy or apache? spot on explanation, though. mlmp08 posted:On the other hand, it's pretty cool when the test community informs you that they're going to replace a few hundred 1960s circuit cards weighing a few hundred pounds and costing several million dollars with a suite of processors that costs tens of thousands of dollars and weighs 40 pounds or something. Then they get to work filling that freed up space with more poo poo. yeah, except for when they neglect the impact the removal/movement of processors has on CG.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
brains posted:yeah, except for when they neglect the impact the removal/movement of processors has on CG. Not much of a CG concern on this bad boy: 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
brains posted:hawk guy or apache? spot on explanation, though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpTdVPfWllM
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 04:09
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:How does fuel consumption typically vary for a helicopter in hover versus circling, if it's just loitering around an area? I used to assume that when I say military helicopters circling at a checkpoint that they were doing so for force protection reasons. But surely forward flight requires less energy than hovering. Does it make a big difference? It's way easier for the pilots to orbit around then hover. Especially if the Heli is heavy it's sometimes impossible to hold a steady hover and it's a lot of work.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 11:34
|
|
|
Watched Flight of the Proms at the Shuttleworth collection yesterday. Mainly went because the 2 Lancaster bombers were doing a fly past but seriously considering going again next year because it was awesome. The Shuttleworth collection specialises in keeping old airframes flying, quite a bit of their stuff is unique. Took many pictures which I've dumped here Terrible vertical mobile video of the Lancasters here. At least the sound came across nicely. Just a quick selection of pictures     Rockets used to shoot at balloon observers     This plane is really pretty  Restoring a spitfire   The Lancasters  The only remaining Sea Hurricane  Gladiators make a nice sound too
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 13:05
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:Thaaaaaaaaaaaaat's right, the ol' Sea Dragon. I had a feeling it was the Navy version but my brain wouldn't put it together without the right amount of coffee earlier. Yeah it's the Navy version of the USMC Super Stallion. evil_bunnY posted:The B-52 still has bits and bobs poking out of it when you get up close.  Kinda want to ask Major Kong on DailyKos if he's in that picture. Edit: Man if that ain't the movie-est real-life bomber crew. You got the fat guy, the old guy,the guy played by Ron Livingston, the black guy with an attitude, the hot guy, and the woman who can't be bothered to take a picture with a Cub Scout. She's probably the pilot and a LTC at least. Well, if she wasn't then, she is now. Edit again: actually she's probably a Major General if she's still in. Or an airline pilot. Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 14:46 on Aug 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 14:06
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
Ambihelical Hexnut posted:Fuel consumption in a helicopter (generally) can be said to correlate directly with the power requirements for flight at a given airspeed. That power requirement is typically modeled by the drag created at each airspeed. Awesome answer, thank you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
Here's my view of the Air and Water Show:
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
Safety Dance posted:Here's my view of the Air and Water Show: There sure is a fair amount of water in that air.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
Today I experienced a new downing discrepancy on a jet. Pilot hit the button to start the gas turbine starter and nothing happened. Pilot hits the GTS button again after making sure both of our engine switches were on and nothing happens and I notice I'm smelling fuel and I'm surrounded by a fine mist of JP. Yeah, that jet is down. We switched into the spare and then lead went down because his generator wouldn't come online after engine start. Ahhh, Monday mornings with contract maintenance. iyaayas01 posted:In fairness to the test community, that's really more of an acquisitions thing...test usually hates their stupidity as much as the field does. I would even change that to say that operational test guys are the ones that hate feature creep. The regular test and eval guys seem to be a little more into adding new stuff. I've flown systems that were deemed not operationally suitable by the OPEVAL guy. In fairness, the system worked as intended but the UI was horrendous which was the main issue cited by the OPEVAL folks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 14:59
|
|
|
X-47 flies the pattern with F-18s for the first time. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/navy-makes-history-with-integrated-unmanned-manned-carr-1622988833
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:X-47 flies the pattern with F-18s for the first time. Stuff like this serves to remind me that I'll probably never have another job even half as awesome as when I worked on the carrier deck. It also reminds me that I really should have stayed on active duty and tried to get into one of those UAV programs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
C-130 lands gears up. Good place to do it, since Hill is one of the depot maintenance bases for C-130s.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 05:34
|
|
|
Kinda neat demo/flash reel for one of the companies I work with. https://vimeo.com/103295806
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 07:12
|
|
|
vulturesrow posted:I would even change that to say that operational test guys are the ones that hate feature creep. The regular test and eval guys seem to be a little more into adding new stuff. I've flown systems that were deemed not operationally suitable by the OPEVAL guy. In fairness, the system worked as intended but the UI was horrendous which was the main issue cited by the OPEVAL folks. As someone who is currently working OT and regularly has to deal with the poo poo DT gives us, you are absolutely right. DT: "Well, we just developed some new procedures, that fixed the glitch that would otherwise prevent the plane from even taking off, much less being operationally effective." OT: "But your 'new procedures' involve completely ignoring every step in the TO...how are we supposed to operationally field this?" DT: "I dunno, change the TO or something, that's not my problem" Also yeah, there's nothing more frustrating than sending up a "do not field/not operationally suitable" recommendation and having the powers that be go "noted, field it anyway." Godholio posted:C-130 lands gears up. Good place to do it, since Hill is one of the depot maintenance bases for C-130s. Every C-17 guy ever: "SEE, IT'S NOT JUST US!!!!!!!" (Ignore the fact that they declared an IFE and it was only the nose gear that wasn't down)
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 10:52
|
|
|
Is the C-17 community that unspeakably incompetent?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 12:29
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Is the C-17 community that unspeakably incompetent? Short snarky answer: yes. Longer less snarky answer: they have some pretty serious institutional/organizational issues that have manifested themselves in stupid poo poo like like landing at BAF with the gear up (damage so bad it was almost a write-off), putting it down at the wrong airport in FL, the normalization of deviance with the Elmendorf airshow crash, the four-engines out over Pakistan incident, and a few other things I'm probably forgetting. They've been told to keep doing more with less supporting the wars, which has resulted in a "screw the rules, just get it done" mentality. Combine that with an institutional lack of training/tribal knowledge, along with a healthy dose of wanting to play Joe Tacticool Airlifter (for example, performing high-risk tactical approaches just because into bases where DHL and NAC have been flying straight in approaches with zero issues) and it's pushed them to the breaking point. Of course the counterpoint to that would be that countless other communities have been in a similar boat as a result of the wars and they didn't do all that stupid poo poo, which is probably a valid counterpoint to some degree...I think it's just been a perfect storm of poo poo with the C-17 guys.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 13:36
|
|
|
Gee, maybe cutting flight hrs by 10% per year for a decade was a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 00:17 |
|
|
It's been at least a page since we've had an F35 poo poo fest, so I thought I'd just post a handy little image I saw today. TOO BIG TO FAIL 
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 16:40
|
|
