|
iyaayas01 posted:These two pictures have a pretty cool story behind them. Whatever you do, do NOT share the story. Just don't. Nobody wants to hear them.
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 12:26 |
|
|
SyHopeful posted:Whatever you do, do NOT share the story. Just don't. Nobody wants to hear them. lol A couple MiG-29s were sent on a goodwill trip to Abbotsford for the airshow in the 1989...it was either right before or right after the wall fell. The first picture is taken from the two-seater F-15; the two near contrails are two of the other F-15s, the two far contrails are the two MiG-29s they are on their way to join up with. The second picture is of the F-15s escorting the MiGs into Elmendorf, for a refueling stop on their way to Abbortsford. IIRC the MiGs visited a few other places in the States before heading back to the USSR.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
Wombot posted:Does Sea-Tac ever land two airliners side by side on parallel runways? Last night, at 8:42pm, I was driving south on I5 just north of Boeing Field and saw two large aircraft, ostensibly in the approach pattern for SEA, flying in formation about 5 wing spans apart and directly abeam. The marker lights were the exact same for both. If the weather is good, Seattle will use all three runways (two for arrivals, one for departures), but when the weather comes down, they only use the left and right runways due to separation requirements. When Seattle is doing visual approaches, it's not uncommon for airplanes on approach to be doing what looks like formation flying on final, and it looks just as weird from the cockpit, especially when the two landing aircraft have matched speeds.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:lol Yeah, I remember seeing them at NAS Norfolk during the '89 airshow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
The idea was briefly entertained about asking if Russia would fly over some aircraft for the 2012 Elmendorf airshow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:The idea was briefly entertained about asking if Russia would fly over some aircraft for the 2012 Elmendorf airshow. They had all kinds of stuff visiting airshows in the UK and France during the mid-1990s but that kind of thing seems to have cooled off a fair bit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 01:27
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:They had all kinds of stuff visiting airshows in the UK and France during the mid-1990s but that kind of thing seems to have cooled off a fair bit. They weren't both economically and physically broken then?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
Viggen posted:They weren't both economically and physically broken then? They were, but apparently they could afford to send Bears and Flankers to the Royal International Air Tattoo and other events at least a couple of times.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:The idea was briefly entertained about asking if Russia would fly over some aircraft for the 2012 Elmendorf airshow. lol well they may have flown some aircraft in the general direction I suppose
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
Ardeem posted:What is the VNE of an A-10, and is it currently capable of getting up to that speed without using JATO bottles? 450 knots and lol.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
More F-35 goodness http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-f-35-cant-run-on-warm-gas-from-a-fuel-truck-that-sa-1668120726
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
So, um... Hornet  Hornet  Piece of poo poo  Hornet  Also I have a really special F-15 image on my Hard Drive at home, I'll post it Friday if it doesn't show up before then.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 06:00
|
|
|
Barnsy posted:More F-35 goodness I..... I uh.... um....  How in the absolute everloving gently caress does this make sense. Did they forget the last 60 years of loving engine design? Someone that actually works on planes please explain how you could gently caress things up to this level.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 06:00
|
|
|
Did I tell you about our new Lockmart brand fuel refrigerator? Just $50million each. A steal!
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 06:12
|
|
|
Naturally Selected posted:I..... I uh.... um.... It's not that big of a deal. Several planes in the current operational fleet utilize the fuel tanks as a heat sink to a certain degree; in fact, I'd be willing to wager that it's almost every plane. Basically: iyaayas01 posted:This is dumb and is basically evidence of yet another compromise made due to weight (I'm assuming they couldn't install a beefier ECS because of weight concerns and are therefore having to rely on the fuel as a heat sink to a greater degree than originally intended), but as far as F-35 issues go this is pretty small potatoes. As for what actually caused them to "miss" this up until now... iyaayas01 posted:I'd be willing to guess that it's a combination of: Regarding the short term fix about repainting the fuel trucks, it's really a non-issue...like I said above, almost every aircraft in the fleet uses fuel as a heat sink. Because of that (as well as a host of other reasons) they all are impacted by high temps to certain degrees, depending on the temperature. We've developed work-arounds, it can be something as simple as not taking off with a full load of gas and hitting the tanker an extra time or something as involved as not generating sorties at certain times of the day (this actually isn't as operationally limiting as you would think depending on the platform.) In the grand scheme of things, repainting the fuel trucks for F-35s for a couple thousand dollars a truck isn't a big deal. The long-term fix of building sunshades is even less of a non-issue, because we already build a shitload of sunshades at bases in warm climates basically as soon as we set up shop, for a whole variety of reasons...building one more for the fuel trucks at F-35 bases is so low of a problem it's not even worth talking about. Just add $50k in MILCON money per base and be done with it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 06:13
|
|
|
Yep. Case in point, there is a ton of military equipment that CAN operate in super hot climates with direct sunlight, but which suffer pretty terrible MTBF (mean time between failure) without sunshades or other alternate cooling methods, but totally acceptable MTBF with sunshades.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 06:22
|
|
|
Sorry folks: I'm alone, out of town and bored. Your gonna have to put up with photo dumps for awhile.  (note: linked image is 3000x2000!)  WTF?  And finally 
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 06:46
|
|
|
All AWACS planes should be forced to have the hypno-livery or yahtzee/pinwheel painted on them.  ...Then fly inverted and spinning the dish as fast as possible to put the whammy on the ground troops. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 07:01
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:WTF? Best one
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 07:10
|
|
|
simplefish posted:Best one You know how I've said the photoshop of the Osprey refueling the F-35B is USMC_Aviation.jpg? That's Naval_Aviation.jpg.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 07:20
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:Sorry folks: I'm alone, out of town and bored. Your gonna have to put up with photo dumps for awhile. Don't go back home. Wait, that sounds wrong ... 
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 07:37
|
|
|
OK fellow aviation history buffs, I had a thought as I was driving home; it seems to me that outside the very early history of aviation, very few companies not only designed and built aircraft, but also the engines powering their aircraft. The reasons are obvious as to why this was/is the case, but then I got to thinking...not counting license production and distant corporate relatives (looking at you, Armstong-Whitworth and your myriad mergers and demergers) who actually built successful aircraft powered by their own engines? All I could come up with were Curtiss-Wright (though one could argue that they weren't all that successful at it), Bristol, Junkers and Fiat. Maybe it's just the fatigue of being awake for 18 hours that's making this a challenge, but there you have it. E: Oops, forgot about Heinkel and Macchi. MrChips fucked around with this message at 12:07 on Dec 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 11:59
|
|
|
MrChips posted:OK fellow aviation history buffs, I had a thought as I was driving home; it seems to me that outside the very early history of aviation, very few companies not only designed and built aircraft, but also the engines powering their aircraft. The reasons are obvious as to why this was/is the case, but then I got to thinking...not counting license production and distant corporate relatives (looking at you, Armstong-Whitworth and your myriad mergers and demergers) who actually built successful aircraft powered by their own engines? All I could come up with were Curtiss-Wright (though one could argue that they weren't all that successful at it), Bristol, Junkers and Fiat. de Havilland e: Nakajima Kawasaki Mitsubishi joat mon fucked around with this message at 12:29 on Dec 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 12:14
|
|
|
joat mon posted:de Havilland Fun fact: the de Havilland D.H.60 Moth's engine was built from war surplus Renault 8Gs. Those 8 cylinder engines were split in two, given new crank cases, and used to make two 4 cylinder Cirrus I engines. These were very light and reliable and served as the inspiration for the famous Gipsy series of engines.  Probably my favorite airplane ever
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:
It's kinda sad that they're so much prettier here in America than anywhere they were built because we let them fly without the anti-spin strakes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
Ardeem posted:It's kinda sad that they're so much prettier here in America than anywhere they were built because we let them fly without the anti-spin strakes. I'm pretty sure you can fly them privately in the uk without strakes. I don't think the Australians ever fitted them either. I've not flown a moth yet, but everyone I know who has moth time prefers the Bucker Jungmanns. The dhc-1 though, is a very dear aircraft to me. 
Colonel K fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Dec 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
Colonel K posted:I'm pretty sure you can fly them privately in the uk without strakes. I don't think the Australians ever fitted them either. IIRC, the prevailing opinion amongst moth owners is to grudgingly admit Bucker built better airplanes, but to insist that Moths were better trainers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
Why are Commonwealth aircraft either mind-numbingly beautiful (Spitfire, Mosquito, Dragon Rapide, Vulcan, Sea Fury, Comet, Concorde,) or essentially the very epitome of an ugly motherfucker? (Basically everything else.) There isn't much of a middle ground. Content: A Percival Provost 
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
It's actually to do with the name. There's a committee that decides roughly how an aircraft should look based on the name, and the engineers build to that. You can't have an aircraft called a Percival Provost being pretty, that would be as absurd as an aircraft called the Valkyrie being ugly. They got it about right with the Warthog, along with the Eagle, Falcon, Arrow and so on. There was some confusion with the Vulcan: Is that a pretty sleek plane? Or a chunky rip-your-head-off one? I think they got the balance right in the end.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:It's actually to do with the name. There's a committee that decides roughly how an aircraft should look based on the name, and the engineers build to that. I think the engineers took some liberties with the Folland Gnat. It is positively full of swoosh. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
Ola posted:I think the engineers took some liberties with the Folland Gnat. It is positively full of swoosh. Yeah, the committee heard it was called the Gnat gave it slab wings and tail. I hope someone got fired for changing them to swept+tapered At least the engineers kept the ugly-rear end fuel pods and the downs cockpit canopy shape
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:Also I have a really special F-15 image on my Hard Drive at home, I'll post it Friday if it doesn't show up before then. Is it this one? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:Yeah, the committee heard it was called the Gnat gave it slab wings and tail. I hope someone got fired for changing them to swept+tapered Uhhh the Gnat featured prominently in one of the best movies of all time. "EAGLE RIVER?!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:Yeah, the committee heard it was called the Gnat gave it slab wings and tail. I hope someone got fired for changing them to swept+tapered I like the canopy and the fuel tanks balance the look out
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:Yeah, the committee heard it was called the Gnat gave it slab wings and tail. I hope someone got fired for changing them to swept+tapered It looks weird and ungainly becuase like it's namesake, the Gnat is so loving small. Seriously, it's the same size as a Cessna 152.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
SyHopeful posted:Uhhh the Gnat featured prominently in one of the best movies of all time. Then put some food in the life raft. For God's sake, man, do I have to think of everything?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
Psion posted:Then put some food in the life raft. For God's sake, man, do I have to think of everything? Those are some long legs! I just had them lengthened. Now they go all the way up. E: http://youtu.be/DathfSvlwwo?t=22m37s SyHopeful fucked around with this message at 03:17 on Dec 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
What I wouldn't give to be 20 years younger...and a woman!
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
Worthleast posted:Is it this one?  Hnnnnngg, Strike Eagle best Eagle. I know thats not an E Money Shots:      And the Afterburner Shock Diamonds finisher: 
Tenchrono fucked around with this message at 04:46 on Dec 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 12:26 |
|
|
Worthleast posted:Is it this one? No, but that one i really good. I'm not quoting this to make it easier to find later... Anyways: Agressors. 'Murican planes, Ruskie Colors     Die Phony bad guy!  and... hold on those aren't American!  (well the engines are) awwwww yeaaaahhhhh  edit: whooops forgot one. 
Jonny Nox fucked around with this message at 04:55 on Dec 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 04:38
|
|