|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:The fact that you can add poo poo to the F-15 without making it look top heavy or ungainly is all the proof that I need that it is the superior airframe. Oh stop it.
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 06:01 |
|
|
Mazz posted:Yeah I have a bad habit of hitting post and then finishing my thought in edits. you and me both, it's alright 
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:To be fair, all of Israel's warplanes have CFTs because that's the price one pays for 1) being fond of semi-routinely executing long range strike missions where you can't risk refueling, and 2) not having to buy and maintain (or build in-house) heavy bombers, because no one in their right mind would ever sell Israel strategic bombers - except China, and I think one could say that the F-35I is a much better plane for strategic strike missions than a Chinese H-6 with a glass cockpit. I find it hilarious they'd stick with anything Badger-like at all. I mean, just get Bombardier to build a medium bomber out of the CRJ I'm not sure if that would be literally the worst airframe for that job but I've now read too much about Airliners as combat aircraft and vice versa 
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:I think one could say that the F-35I is a much better plane for strategic strike missions than a Chinese H-6 with a glass cockpit. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
Mazz posted:It's still poo poo, we all know, but it helps to actually frame things correctly here before you poo poo all over them. And if we're going to frame things correctly it's worth mentioning that the F-35 will likely shoot the F-16s in the face 20 miles out from the merge before the F-16s even knows it's there*. The F-35's no Raptor but it's also not just a chunkier lower performing carbon copy of the F-16 or whatever, the technological improvements it brings in a lot of areas are genuine. * At least until the F-35 has exhausted its 2-4 AMRAAMs
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:The fact that you can add poo poo to the F-15 without making it look top heavy or ungainly is all the proof that I need that it is the superior airframe. The fact the F-15 is not full of hydrazine that prevents from rescuing the victims when an F-16 crashes is all the proof that I need.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
That's what zero-zero ejection seats are for though? I would think that if anyone is physically pulling F-16 pilots out of the plane while it's on fire on the ground, they hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:That's what zero-zero ejection seats are for though? I would think that if anyone is physically pulling F-16 pilots out of the plane while it's on fire on the ground, they hosed up. Planes don't always crash in deserted fields
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
Hey, it's the only time I think you could ever say that the F-35 is actually the better option, which is wholly depressing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
Hmm yes when a fighter jet crashes into a suburb the most immediate danger to the people in the impact zone is the gallon or so of hydrazine for the EPU.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:That's what zero-zero ejection seats are for though? I would think that if anyone is physically pulling F-16 pilots out of the plane while it's on fire on the ground, they hosed up. https://www.thespainreport.com/13954/greek-f16-crashes-spanish-air-base-albacete/ Sagebrush posted:Hmm yes when a fighter jet crashes into a suburb the most immediate danger to the people in the impact zone is the gallon or so of hydrazine for the EPU. From what a Belgian Air Force pilot said, whenever an F-16 crashes, the first question for the emergency services is to know whether the area is contaminated or not. And in Albacete it was, which complicated the task considerably. Cat Mattress fucked around with this message at 01:10 on Feb 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Hmm yes when a fighter jet crashes into a suburb the most immediate danger to the people in the impact zone is the gallon or so of hydrazine for the EPU. You're right, there are plenty dangers to those on the ground. Which is why it's better to have multiple redundancies and not have the plane auger into the dirt like some sort of backyard game  If I had some artistic talent, I would make :smug15: happen. Nostalgia4Infinity fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Feb 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Hmm yes when a fighter jet crashes into a suburb the most immediate danger to the people in the impact zone is the gallon or so of hydrazine for the EPU. quote:Hydrazine is highly toxic, and dangerously unstable in the anhydrous form. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: It's a happy, funtime hypergolic!
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:From what a Belgian Air Force pilot said, whenever an F-16 crashes, the first question for the emergency services is to know whether the area is contaminated or not. There's an old deadstick landing F-16 video floating around on youtube that, upon landing and scrambling of the crash-rescue-fire crew, they even specifically mention to them that the hydrazing APU is running and to prepare for it. Also, when STS-107 broke up  )Duke Chin fucked around with this message at 01:22 on Feb 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
That would be a bigger concern than the 7000 lbs of burning jet fuel, any ordinance, or just the fact of a 20-30,000 lb jet smashing into the ground at hundreds oh mph?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:That would be a bigger concern than the 7000 lbs of burning jet fuel, any ordinance, or just the fact of a 20-30,000 lb jet smashing into the ground at hundreds oh mph? It's IN ADDITION TO. It is a combined hazard. It is an added, very special, extra level of "oh... poo poo." Come on guys stop being so reductive.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
I'm not downplaying hydrazine, I've read all the stories in the spaceflight and hazardous chemical threads, it's just a fairly small quantity all things considered.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:I'm not downplaying hydrazine, I've read all the stories in the spaceflight and hazardous chemical threads, it's just a fairly small quantity all things considered. Some chemicals are very harmful even in small quantities.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
To address a bunch of things - every emergency responder is going to ask about every plane crash "is the area contaminated with anything toxic that could hurt us?" -- that isn't unique to F-16s - If the plane hits the ground and breaks up and explodes, the burning jet fuel/weaponry is a far larger immediate problem than any hydrazine that might be in the mix - if the hydrazine escapes into the atmosphere in the situation of a crash it's highly likely that it would just burn off in seconds anyway, because it's extraordinarily reactive and hypergolic with jet fuel - if the plane manages to land in one piece with the EPU running, it's worth letting the responders know because the exhaust is hot and toxic, yes. But not significantly more than jet blast - NASA's "keep away from shuttle wreckage cause it's toxic" suggestion was entirely to keep people from stealing pieces or hampering an investigation - the Navy blew up that satellite to show off because China had just tested an ASAT. Even at the time people were arguing that the hydrazine excuse was baseless for a variety of reasons - it's not as deadly as people are making out. note the list of symptoms: mostly burns and skin conditions (consistent with it being a powerfully reactive chemical) and the potential for long-term organ damage, same as many other industrial chemicals. No one should be breathing the stuff or getting it sprayed on them, but it's not like the plane is full of nerve gas. It's a toxic chemical, sure. But in terms of relative quantity and danger level, focusing on it is like saying "wow, if you get in a car crash, you really gotta look out for that sulfuric acid in the battery!" Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Feb 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
We use it for boiler chemistry control. One of the precautions when cleaning instruments that come in contact with hydrazine is that any crystals can cause spontaneous combustion with organic material.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 04:57
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:I'm not downplaying hydrazine, I've read all the stories in the spaceflight and hazardous chemical threads, it's just a fairly small quantity all things considered. The Radium Girls were a bunch of whiny bitches, amirite?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 05:57
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Hmm yes when a fighter jet crashes into a suburb the most immediate danger to the people in the impact zone is the gallon or so of hydrazine for the EPU. Unless the fighter jet literally landed on top of them, this is pretty much true.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 07:19
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:That would be a bigger concern than the 7000 lbs of burning jet fuel, any ordinance, or just the fact of a 20-30,000 lb jet smashing into the ground at hundreds oh mph? I'm not a hydrazine expert so most of this probably doesn't apply but you know what's cool? Spraying H2O on a fire to put it out. Know what's uncool? Getting the wrong hypergolic on the wrong day and it strips the hydrogen out of your H2O and it ignites with the oxygen. And then it spontaneously combusts any metal and ashes around it upon contact. You're sort of right in the sense that there are worse things though! It could be a rocket that crashes with even more of the stuff in a more potent form. DeusExMachinima fucked around with this message at 07:56 on Feb 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 07:51
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:I'm not a hydrazine expert so most of this probably doesn't apply but you know what's cool? Spraying H2O on a fire to put it out. Know what's uncool? Getting the wrong hypergolic on the wrong day and it strips the hydrogen out of your H2O and it ignites with the oxygen. Again, in the context of a crashed fighter jet, poo poo's already on fire.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 08:37
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:I'm not a hydrazine expert so most of this probably doesn't apply but you know what's cool? Spraying H2O on a fire to put it out. Know what's uncool? Getting the wrong hypergolic on the wrong day and it strips the hydrogen out of your H2O and it ignites with the oxygen. I'm not a fire putting outer expert, but nobody is going to try to put out flaming anything on an airplane by spraying water on it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 09:30
|
|
|
Yeah I think you guys are making a bigger deal out of this hydrazine thing than you need to.      Look how happy these people are to be so close to a piece of history!
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 09:46
|
|
|
Linedance posted:I'm not a fire putting outer expert, but nobody is going to try to put out flaming anything on an airplane by spraying water on it. Yes they will if it crashes somewhere besides airports. Straight up water from a cannon or main line or a tree incher depending on the country of the fire service.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 09:58
|
|
|
SeaborneClink posted:Yeah I think you guys are making a bigger deal out of this hydrazine thing than you need to. That's not a rocket crash! That's the PRC's newest method of delivering cookware, Wok Faster!
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 10:43
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:Yes they will if it crashes somewhere besides airports. Straight up water from a cannon or main line or a tree incher depending on the country of the fire service. I'm struggling to think of a fire department in this hypothetical scenario that has no access to foam, only water, and not enough of that to completely flood the site, that also has the capability to handle a fire consisting of a few thousand kilos of jet b, potential ordinance, and hazardous chemicals, beyond just wetting everything surrounding the fire to contain it and letting it burn itself out. But like I said, I'm not a professional fire putter outer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 12:15
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:AIRBUS HUNGRY I seriously need to fly on a 380 someday. Everytime I see anything about it I get butterflies in the stomach  e: I just wish they made it break Mach 1 for no reason except "inacio wants it"
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 13:45
|
|
|
Psion posted:National airport Yup, only republicans and tourists call it Reagan.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 13:59
|
|
|
Inacio posted:I seriously need to fly on a 380 someday. Everytime I see anything about it I get butterflies in the stomach Malaysia flies A380s. And there's even a chance you'll break Mach 1 as the pilot is nose diving it into the ocean!
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 14:43
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:There's an old deadstick landing F-16 video floating around on youtube that, upon landing and scrambling of the crash-rescue-fire crew, they even specifically mention to them that the hydrazing APU is running and to prepare for it. E wrong airport. I knew this also happened at O'Hare in the mid 80's https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Puia_yQxir8 Syrian Lannister fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Feb 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
Linedance posted:I'm struggling to think of a fire department in this hypothetical scenario that has no access to foam, only water, and not enough of that to completely flood the site, that also has the capability to handle a fire consisting of a few thousand kilos of jet b, potential ordinance, and hazardous chemicals, beyond just wetting everything surrounding the fire to contain it and letting it burn itself out. Rural fire departments and outlying ones are extremely hostile to the use of Foam and will soray water everywhere. I was a fire putter outer. Ideal practice doesn't meet reality often.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:I was a fire putter outer. Ideal practice doesn't meet reality often. Ain't that the truth.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:I was a fire putter outer. Ideal practice doesn't meet reality often. ...said every profession everywhere for the entirety of mankind amen. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
A ... Piper Cub with a one bladed propeller? I thought those were only theory crafted now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
Even more crazy is that it changes pitch based on load. Neat Idea but not practical once you get up in power.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 06:01 |
|
|
Is there any point to that one-bladed propeller?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 00:18
|
|
