|
Godholio posted:I assume he's landing? He's also not a Globemaster 
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 11:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 05:10 |
|
|
emirates a380
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 11:43
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:As you can see from this video even a base that doesn't actually operate fighters (Mildenhall) has a barrier system installed because of the high possibility that fighters from a nearby base (in this case, Lakenheath) might have to divert in. How do the land-based arrestor systems work? Obviously they don't have the massive underfloor hydraulic sheaves like the ones on carriers. I'm guessing it works more like a highway guardrail, with the cable attached to lines of anchors on either side, and breaking it free of each anchor in turn provides the resistance?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 13:03
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
There's some info on non-naval tailhooks here: http://flyingwithfish.boardingarea.com/2012/12/26/reader-mail-why-do-air-force-jets-have-tailhooks/ And there's a video showing such a system being tested on an F-16 here: http://theaviationist.com/2013/07/02/f-16-using-the-tailhook/ No breaking anchors, the aircraft is merely slowed down by pulling on the cable. It replaces or supplements brakes after all, and it's not there to decelerate the plane brutally like on a carrier.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 13:21
|
|
|
Here's a sales video on land based arrestors that goes into some history, development and operating principles.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 14:21
|
|
|
Dannywilson posted:I love it when the HC-130's I work on land too early and run the nose gear over the arresting cable. It snaps back up and destroys belly antennas in spectacular fashion. Don't worry, at least the HC generally doesn't land on dirt runways. Then you come back with no antennas.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
The more things change... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaMp5SibXRk
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
Godholio posted:The more things change... Nobody saw this in the 80-whatever years of Amelia Earhart research, until this documentary?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Okay, it's a bomb. The UK is sure enough that they're banning flights between Britain and Sharm el Sheikh, where the downed flight originated, out of precaution.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
Fair enough.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
The big problem with the bomb theory is that it is based on the word of Russia and Egyptian agencies. Neither of which are known for what I'm going to call vigorous fidelity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
vessbot posted:Nobody saw this in the 80-whatever years of Amelia Earhart research, until this documentary? Most of the research slacked off after the first couple of years. But that weird group that thinks they've got it all figured out actually have a pretty convincing case, including this antenna argument.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
'Solar storm' grounds Swedish air traffic The solar storm caused problems for civilian radar systems and ATC was unable to see the planes on their radars.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
Also Antonov 12bk has gone down in South Sudan. Maybe everyone dead. http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2015/11/04/dozens-reported-dead-as-plane-crashes-in-south-sudan.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
 Nope nope nope nope nope nope not even in a flight sim thank you very much
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
MrLonghair posted:
18 inch* wingtip-to-canopy separation *+/- 17.5 inches
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
Spaced God posted:18 inch* wingtip-to-canopy separation "IIIIIIIIIIII'M NOOOOOOOOOOOOT TOOOOOOOOUCHINGGGGGG YOOOOOOOOUUUUU" 
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
Spaced God posted:18 inch* wingtip-to-canopy separation fixt
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
MrLonghair posted:
Is that intentional? Couldn't a small gust destroy them? That looks like the 520 bridge in Seattle. edit: Or maybe the San Mateo bridge? Kia Soul Enthusias fucked around with this message at 02:38 on Nov 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
CharlesM posted:Is that intentional? Couldn't a small gust destroy them? Well, one factor working to their advantage is that they're so close, if one of them hits a gust, everyone else hits the same gust and gets jostled the same way. Still a giant bucket of nopes to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 02:56
|
|
|
MrLonghair posted:
Please tell me there's a video to go along with this...?  CharlesM posted:That looks like the 520 bridge in Seattle. Yeah I'm getting a San Mateo bridge vibe from that as that bridge is missing the small cantilevers on either end that the 520 have.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
CharlesM posted:Is that intentional? Couldn't a small gust destroy them? They trade paint occasionally. While the speeds involved are large, the relative velocities and vectors are pretty small. They intend an 18" separation, sometimes it is 22, sometimes it is -1. Most of the accidents are multi-engine failure, controlled flight into the ground, or during a merge, rather than bungling in formation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:Please tell me there's a video to go along with this...? https://www.facebook.com/chasefield/videos/10153106299982687/
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:The big problem with the bomb theory is that it is based on the word of Russia and Egyptian agencies. Neither of which are known for what I'm going to call vigorous fidelity. US is now saying they have intelligence that suggests it's a bomb as well. http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/04/middleeast/russian-plane-crash-airport-security/index.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
BonoMan posted:US is now saying they have intelligence that suggests it's a bomb as well. Why on earth should I believe anything attributed to the US intelligence community? Iraq WMD, NSA domestic collection, etc
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
MrLonghair posted:
What would the radar signature of that formation be compared to that of a single Hornet?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
Suicide Watch posted:What would the radar signature of that formation be compared to that of a single Hornet? Depends.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
Confusing and angering to ATC if they're all squawking, I can tell you that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 05:58
|
|
|
Suicide Watch posted:What would the radar signature of that formation be compared to that of a single Hornet? All known radar systems show it as a huge, throbbing penis.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 05:59
|
|
|
Bob A Feet posted:Confusing and angering to ATC if they're all squawking, I can tell you that. Confusing and angering to half-decent mil radars if they aren't all squawking. Mode V gonna be so great when it's fully fielded.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 06:07
|
|
|
Suicide Watch posted:What would the radar signature of that formation be compared to that of a single Hornet? On our ASR-11 (A "modern" terminal radar antenna) it'd look like one target. They're digitized so it'd be the same size as a Cessna.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 06:27
|
|
|
Welp definitely not the San Mateo Bridge!  Also: that loving owns and I would strongly consider actually shanking someone to get that backseat media ride.  Wingnut Ninja posted:All known radar systems show it as a huge, throbbing penis. 
Duke Chin fucked around with this message at 06:34 on Nov 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 06:29
|
|
|
Midjack posted:Why on earth should I believe anything attributed to the US intelligence community? Iraq WMD, NSA domestic collection, etc Because the actual intel communities were successful in both of those examples. What you saw on Fox News circa 2003 wasn't exactly the actual reports from the analysts, you know. Edit: There's not a radar on the planet bigger than a fighter nosecone that could break out a formation like that. Radar doesn't work that way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 08:35
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Edit: There's not a radar on the planet bigger than a fighter nosecone that could break out a formation like that. Radar doesn't work that way. False but obviously it'd be real hard to discuss in depth out here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 13:23
|
|
|
If this isn’t aeronautical insanity I don’t know what is. https://youtu.be/_VPvKl6ezyc
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 13:32
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Because the actual intel communities were successful in both of those examples. What you saw on Fox News circa 2003 wasn't exactly the actual reports from the analysts, you know. I do know, which is why I said "attributed to the IC" rather than simply "gently caress the CIA." Also note the posted link is a "OUR SPIES SAY HURR" statement so who knows what actually came out of some reports shop.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 13:50
|
|
|
bobfather posted:If this isn’t aeronautical insanity I don’t know what is. Trailer for Executive Decision 2
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 14:22
|
|
|
Midjack posted:I do know, which is why I said "attributed to the IC" rather than simply "gently caress the CIA." Also note the posted link is a "OUR SPIES SAY HURR" statement so who knows what actually came out of some reports shop. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 05:10 |
|
|
mlmp08 posted:False but obviously it'd be real hard to discuss in depth out here. Thats an easy one though that any EE should be able to answer. Big antenna, long wavelength, low resolution, long range. Small antenna, short wavelength, high resolution, short range. The "big radar" you're talking about is an array of tiny antennas which through the magic of 70 years of defense contracting can do both at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 16:05
|
|
