|
DJCobol posted:
If that's the 787 I assume it is, it never actually flew for ANA, just wore their paint colors.
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 21:12 |
|
|
MrChips posted:
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
Is that last one the nuclear-powered plane from Thunderbirds episode 1?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 05:17
|
|
|
Looks like it. Third from the bottom looks pretty Thunderbirdy as well. e: it might be from UFO, the Anderson show nobody remembers Psion fucked around with this message at 05:36 on Jun 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:If that's the 787 I assume it is, it never actually flew for ANA, just wore their paint colors. If you're assuming it's the second prototype you'd be correct. It had the poo poo beat out of it in testing and now that they've given it to us Boeing is still gonna be taking a look at it eventually to see how it lasts sitting under the desert sun for years. Anyways here's a picture of it when it was rolled across the street from DM after being defuelled 
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 06:36
|
|
|
Darcat posted:If you're assuming it's the second prototype you'd be correct. It had the poo poo beat out of it in testing and now that they've given it to us Boeing is still gonna be taking a look at it eventually to see how it lasts sitting under the desert sun for years. vvvv Same bird? vvvv
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 09:22
|
|
|
http://i.imgur.com/JD9HK7G.webm http://i.imgur.com/jgdMuLx.webm http://i.imgur.com/RcSkeGd.webm "spoooooooooooooooooky agility!" (wish I could inline this poo poo - which is funny considering they're smaller than a gif)
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 10:31
|
|
|
 The Soviet Fire Hedgehog A TU2 bomber loaded with 88 machine guns in order to strafe infantry soldiers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 11:26
|
|
|
freelop posted:
88 SUB-machine guns, not particularly effective.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 11:47
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:http://i.imgur.com/JD9HK7G.webm As much as I hate this thing landing vertical on a boat is pretty drat hard, especially for AV-8s and that since they don't have rotors. Plus the higher you get the less sight of the deck you have. This guy nailed those landings.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 12:12
|
|
|
The air force just posted lots of cool biRd pictures from the ACE exercise on their Facebook page.    https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.835882553127649.1073741855.476544242394817&type=1
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 12:33
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:http://i.imgur.com/JD9HK7G.webm That's cool and all, but the downward muzzle still looks like a prolapsing colon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 14:47
|
|
|
Bob A Feet posted:As much as I hate this thing landing vertical on a boat is pretty drat hard, especially for AV-8s and that since they don't have rotors. Plus the higher you get the less sight of the deck you have. The fbw computer in the F-35 makes a huge difference, in hover mode the joystick just acts like a claw grab control. The AV-8 is still mostly manual, even on the Harrier II variants with the glass cockpit. e: Also, I love the 'and not destroying the deck...' when there's clearly a section of 'different material' deck he has to land within.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:http://i.imgur.com/JD9HK7G.webm can it do a backflip on take off
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:The fbw computer in the F-35 makes a huge difference, in hover mode the joystick just acts like a claw grab control. The AV-8 is still mostly manual, even on the Harrier II variants with the glass cockpit. I did landings on that boat the night after. Most of the aircrews and maintainers were still there, minus the one dude who flew it off. A few spots had been previously reinforced for MV-22 landings considering we have a bad habit of scorching poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:
Damnit, I was hoping for .gifs of dumb things people have done with AC-130s.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:can it do a backflip on take off Once!
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:can it do a backflip on take off   is that not good enough?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
Bugsmasher posted:Great timing for this page today, Air Canada's first 787-900 out of the factory: Soon 
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
SCOTLAND posted:Soon Are they any different to fly?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Are they any different to fly? Need rebooting every 3 weeks instead of 4
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
I want to fly on a 787 or an A380 so bad  , I do about one international flight a year and always get stuck on dumb A340's.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
One of my uncles is pretty high up in the computer work for the 787, and when I met him for the first time a couple months ago it took so much effort not to crack jokes about this. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Are they any different to fly? I've got a 20ish page PDF I need to read on -8 vs -9 differences.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Yup, same plane
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:can it do a backflip on take off I still remember when there were (dumb) people who thought that was real. Bob A Feet posted:A few spots had been previously reinforced for MV-22 landings considering we have a bad habit of scorching poo poo. How many grass fires have you personally started? Is this a thing covered during "How to Choose Your Landing Spot - Vol. 1: Never choose the brushlands of the Serengeti. Vol. 2: Poppy fields in Afghanistan A-OK." class?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
Pima Air & Space museum is building a new hanger, completion ETA of October. New planes and artifact displays coming!
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
Sweet! I guess I'll be making that hour and a half drive in October  Best part about going to Tucson is getting Beyond Bread for lunch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
F16. most graceful jet ever... http://www.airspacemag.com/videos/category/military-aviation/the-f-16s-first-flight/?no-ist#ooid=ExNGhjazqzmopF1R2_etHH9igY5T2U_1 Guess they didn't have that FBW quite perfected yet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:F16. most graceful jet ever... "The ejection seat works, right?" "We'll get back to you on that." "Wonderful."
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:F16. most graceful jet ever... They blame it on the F-16 simulator not having the proper force on the side stick. This would have been a critical oversight given that the YF-16's side stick did not move - this might be why the production F-16's stick moves slightly!
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 04:00
|
|
|
Bugsmasher posted:Great timing for this page today, Air Canada's first 787-900 out of the factory: Saw this in final assembly at the Boeing plant last week. Very nice looking.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 05:00
|
|
|
Nooope. Nopenopenopenope. Everything about that flight regime, where the single engine is the only thing keeping you out of an unrecoverable stall, terrifies the poo poo out of me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 06:55
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:F16. most graceful jet ever... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6yVU_yYtEc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faB5bIdksi8
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 07:45
|
|
|
Didn't this guy ball up two of them?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 07:54
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:Didn't this guy ball up two of them? Even assuming no wind and a perfectly flat surface in the vincinity of the runway, all the established characteristics of vehicle stability and control response in full flight you got from your simulations and windtunnels during FCS development go out the window as soon as the aircraft enters ground effect. They gradually start shifting as the aircraft descends, and pitch/roll changes occur and airspeed changes in a regime where flight control response is already impaired by low airspeed, and then you also have interference effects added of your control surfaces being close to the ground depending on pitch and roll rates/angles, maybe even combined with bit of added beta angle when the pilot decrabs in crosswind. All of this and more makes for a fun time trying to design robust and reliable FBW filters which produce responses predictable enough for the pilot not to crash the airplane. Failing to do this causes something which looks similar to PIO, but in my mind isn't. Massively improved dynamic simulation and CFD these days mean all of the effects are better understood and can be accounted for in your flight control system in real time and during development, but in the 70s/80s they didn't have the computing power yet to do this... they just had crashes every once in a while. Tsuru fucked around with this message at 08:14 on Jun 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 08:12
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Nooope. Nopenopenopenope. Everything about that flight regime, where the single engine is the only thing keeping you out of an unrecoverable stall, terrifies the poo poo out of me. Ok, I must admit, that takeoff was impressive. Amazed it didn't explode into a million pieces, but still impressive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 13:15
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Nooope. Nopenopenopenope. Everything about that flight regime, where the single engine is the only thing keeping you out of an unrecoverable stall, terrifies the poo poo out of me. Powered lift is dubious. Single-engine powered lift is loving idiotic, and only Marines would think it's a good idea. Single-engine powered lift AT SEA is basically just daring death to come for you, and then loving his mom for good measure.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Single-engine powered lift AT SEA is basically just daring death to come for you, and then loving his mom for good measure. You're making the B sound like the most  warplane ever
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 21:12 |
|
|
I imagine helicopter pilots smugly chuckling at all this fear of powered lift. Also they die a lot more often.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 16:01
|
|
