|
MrYenko posted:Thank god for Kodachrome. Oh wow, that owns. Is there a link to the entire collection somewhere?
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 07:11 |
|
|
Luneshot posted:Oh wow, that owns. Is there a link to the entire collection somewhere? Library of Congress got your back. Here is Alfred Palmer's Kodachrome collection from the WPA and WWII war effort. http://www.loc.gov/pictures/search/?q=Alfred+Palmer&sp=1&co=fsac&st=gallery
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:Library of Congress got your back. Here is Alfred Palmer's Kodachrome collection from the WPA and WWII war effort. http://www.loc.gov/pictures/search/?q=Alfred+Palmer&sp=1&co=fsac&st=gallery Sweet, thanks! Some awesome images in there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 03:19
|
|
|
Luneshot posted:Sweet, thanks! Some awesome images in there. You can drill back and get about 6000 images from the collection, but only about 100 of them are airplanes, and maybe 500 are war poo poo generally.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 03:27
|
|
|
rocket_350 posted:This is the one by Larry Milberry? He wrote a lot of insanely detailed books about Canadian aviation, like a 250 page hardcover book just about the North Star. Haha, yes, it is by Mr. Milberry. A 250 page book on just the North Star sounds hardcore.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 03:27
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:A 250 page book on just the North Star sounds hardcore. The audio book edition should just be 4 hours of 4 Merlins running at high power. "In the cabin, noise is reduced to 102 decibels near the windows and 93 at the aisle." By the end your tinnitus is so bad you want to cut your own ears off. Avro was actually working on a passenger jet in the late 40's and were second only to the Comet. Howard Hughes had a throbbing erection for it but sadly he got cock-blocked due to CF-100 production delays. C D Howe was a bit shortsighted on that decision. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_C102_Jetliner https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSHMC_ThYCQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6owC9dS0INw helno fucked around with this message at 04:35 on Feb 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 04:28
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:RE: S-2 stories. I'm very bad at re-telling stories, and the stories aren't really aviation related, more about ASW stuff. ----------- One of the things that the US was doing during the 50's was lots and lots of nuclear bomb stuff. At one point the Navy decided that what would really be cool was a nuclear tipped anti-submarine torpedo. The test was two parts. Part 1 was for an S-2 to do a high altitude parachute drop of a torpedo, which after hitting the water would go into a steep spiral to a pre-determined depth (fairly deep, but I forget the exact depth) at which point it would go boom. Part 2 was for a another S-2 (my dad's) to do a low-altitude 'standard' drop at a different location. For whatever reason both tests were scheduled on the same day, only a few hours apart. The high altitude aircraft dropped the torpedo and parachute, and then went into a shallow dive at full throttle to clear the area. When the torpedo went off, the EMP wiped out all the S-2's electronics, and the shockwave caused the pilots to lose control of the aircraft. They lost about 10,000' before recovering and they managed to get the somewhat crippled plane back to the carrier safely. The boom was apparently quite a bit larger than they expected. Part 2 was cancelled based on part 1, when they were less than 5 minutes from the drop point. If his recollection/story is completely true, and they hadn't cancelled that 2nd part, I would certainly not have been born as it's pretty much a certainty that the aircraft would have been destroyed. ------------ While patrolling off the west coast, it was not uncommon to locate Soviet subs that were poking around looking for our subs or whatever the Soviet subs did off our coast during the cold war. On two occasions that he has talked about, they came very very close to sinking these subs. In one case in particular, they made several attack runs on the sub, dropping small depth charges that were placed intentionally to miss, trying to force the sub to surface. They had been given the go ahead to make a final attack run and drop torpedoes to actually kill the sub. Back then when they wanted to do precision drops, they would use the sono-buoys to get the subs location, and then overfly it and get a precise location with the MAD (magnetic anomaly detection) gear. Using that precise location and direction of travel they would then do a final run to make the drop. They were on the final run after getting the MAD location when the sub finally surfaced, allowing the Navy to do whatever they do when they force a Soviet sub to surface in US waters (surface ships take over at that point). -------------- Most of his stories are junk like that, very few about the actual flying.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 04:42
|
|
|
There is this, again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 04:43
|
|
|
How you are supposed to see anything out of that is beyond me. I've been on a jet engine kick lately. Just how different designs work and how they've evolved since their creation. I love AgentJayZ's channel. Does anyone know of any other channels like it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 05:01
|
|
|
um excuse me posted:How you are supposed to see anything out of that is beyond me. I would bet that the view is on par with (and probably much better than) typical old taildraggers. There's no engine up front, just some gearing. True, it covers up the view over the top of the nose, which would be disconcerting to most pilots who who are used to having it. But to a taildragger pilot, that doesn't matter since it's pretty much all or nothing. Once the runway or horizon disappear below the nose (which happens easily), it makes no difference if it's by 2 degrees or 20. Rather than over the top, it's the view over the side of the nose that counts, which looks really good here. There are a few things that would scare me off test flying this plane, but the visibility is not one of them. Ironically, for this reason many planes have a better view from the back seat than the front. vessbot fucked around with this message at 08:27 on Feb 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 06:14
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:That F-117 was shot down because some Serbian guy figured out how to look for a hole in the radar, rather than a dot. No, it's not. It was shot down after flying the exact same route at the exact same time several days in a row. What you describe doesn't work with the systems involved. And it was an SA-3, not a 2. Edit wow, I forgot I was so far behind. For semi-content, that B-17 with the V12s was pretty cool. It was faster but topped out at a lower altitude, but what really did it in was that the prototype crashed after several flights and the engines were needed for a bunch of other aircraft like P-38s. Godholio fucked around with this message at 06:40 on Feb 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 06:35
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Haha, yes, it is by Mr. Milberry. A 250 page book on just the North Star sounds hardcore. I actually read the whole thing too.   helno posted:The audio book edition should just be 4 hours of 4 Merlins running at high power. This is BOAC's fix for the cabin noise issues. They designed a heavy complex assembly of crossover piping that carried the exhaust from the inboard side of the engine to the outboard side.  Trans Canada Airlines' rig for doing engine ground testing. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 06:42
|
|
|
is that chain really going to hold it if everything else fails
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 08:39
|
|
|
Chuck Yeager today on Facebook:The Legend posted:Visited with Navy pilots training in new T-6s - nothing like the T-6 we trained in in the early '40's. Q: What it was like to break the sound barrier. I told 'em - it will never replace sex.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 08:44
|
|
|
LUBE UP YOUR BUTT posted:is that chain really going to hold it if everything else fails That looks like a 3/4" or 1" chain, so it has a working load of anywhere between 10 tons and 25 tons, depending on the actual size and the specific alloy. There are also two runs. Even going with the lowest possible figure, do you think that engine can produce 40,000 pounds of thrust? I think it'd rip the front of the truck off before it broke the chain.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 08:51
|
|
|
Canadian drag races must be interesting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 08:54
|
|
|
Not shown: it's chained to a piece of rebar hammered into the dirt.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 08:56
|
|
|
rocket_350 posted:India's Vikrant was another sister ship. It wasn't scrapped until fairly recently. And it's been turned into motorcycles.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 13:47
|
|
|
And HMAS Melbourne had two confirmed ship kills. Impressive for an aircraft carrier. Sadly both friendlies: Sinking HMAS Voyager & sinking USS Frank Evans drunkill fucked around with this message at 14:13 on Feb 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 14:04
|
|
|
drunkill posted:And HMAS Melbourne had two confirmed ship kills. Impressive for an aircraft carrier. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPv-4wIw_rI
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
rocket_350 posted:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RW-G7pF6gUQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtfBPjXSorg I don't even care that there is no airplane attached to it. That glorious glorious noise...
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
This thread needs more corncob. https://vimeo.com/16117810
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
um excuse me posted:How you are supposed to see anything out of that is beyond me. Not that I've found. At least for "serious jet engines." I can point out some channels and videos for hobby size stuff. DIYAMAZINGPROJECTS made a 200% scale FD3 turbine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
http://i.imgur.com/4B2YYxh.gifv http://i.imgur.com/3T91wBQ.gifv http://i.imgur.com/32En596.gifv
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 10:43
|
|
|
Have a Canuck I photoed at Castle AFB last year
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 11:16
|
|
|
drzrma posted:While I knew and understood conceptually what was happening above my head, for some reason I'm now much more reluctant to get in to a helicopter again. This is so true. I just finished putting together a sub-250g quad copter and it is a total animal to fly. Seems to be best at crashing from what I can tell.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 12:03
|
|
|
I mean quads have insane P/W ratios and a complete lack of aero stability, of course they'll need the electronics to be on point to not kill themselves.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 12:36
|
|
|
If you don't, you should follow First Air Force One on Facebook. They're restoring Columbine, Eisenhower's AF1, to flying condition. Just recently posted pics of engine tests.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
 Yup
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
The GlitchBitch
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
PFM
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:What are people's thoughts on F-35/F-22/B-2 style radar stealth becoming obsolete within 50 years? Seems like the elephant in the room no one wants to talk about is thermal imaging sensors that are becoming very advanced. Colonial Air Force posted:That F-117 was shot down because some Serbian guy figured out how to look for a hole in the radar, rather than a dot. Both of these are wrong for the reasons others have pointed out. I don't know that much about the specific incident but the analogy below might be helpful in understanding why. Heres a better oversimplification: (IMO) Think of a radar like a super powerful flashlight. You can see things because light reflects off them. You can't shine light into a totally clear, pitch black night sky and see anything, no matter how dark. They flew something that reflects very little light (LO) at night time (read: no jamming) and along the same route (so they knew where to point the flashlight) as such it was easier to see. (Also the bay door made it reflect in thier direction and something about spotters giving them a time estimate of when to turn on the flashlight) If they flew during the daytime, (Electronic attack) the shoot down probably wouldn't have happened. Flown past the horizon (20 miles from 6ft above the ground) in a different direction first, wouldn't have happened, etc. CarForumPoster fucked around with this message at 01:58 on Feb 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
black magic involving technology that's still a bit too young?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
Best thing about avionics is when you finally peak behind the curtain and realize almost any half retard A&P could do their job and its hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:black magic involving technology that's still a bit too young? "Still a bit too young"? I wouldn't be surprised if avionics manufacturers are wondering if these new-fangled vacuum tubes are going to be reliable enough for aviation use.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
Greataval posted:Best thing about avionics is when you finally peak behind the curtain and realize almost any half retard A&P could do their job and its hilarious. Best thing about crew chiefs, I can and have done their job no sweat, but on every airframe I've encountered with the notable exception of rotary-wing stuff, they couldn't effectively or efficiently do mine. There is a reason my pay is 30% higher. The rotary-wing crew chiefs I've met have all been significantly smarter on average, and I don't know if that's the hiring process or what. Every time I've heard a fixed-wing CC bitch about the disparity, I tell him "Next time there's an opening, apply for it. It can't hurt and the last time we had an opening, it sat for almost 2 years getting filled."
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 04:30
|
|
|
Greataval posted:Best thing about avionics is when you finally peak behind the curtain and realize almost any half retard A&P could do their job and its hilarious. Believe me, I deal with half retard A&Ps all across your great nation, and I can assure you that that is not the case.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 09:20
|
|
|
So that JLENS aerostat that went buckwild across state lines until piggies put a hundred shells into it escaped because, I poo poo you not, they forgot to put batteries in the deflation system. I mean the process that lead to that must have read like a comedy of errors, why it uses onboard power instead of positive control for lift is beyond me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 13:08
|
|
|
Tsuru posted:Plenty of trailers and trucks still around with everything imaginable bolted to them... I can't believe they ran that poor motor without even a hint of a prop on it. Poor thing 
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 07:11 |
|
|
charliemonster42 posted:I can't believe they ran that poor motor without even a hint of a prop on it. Poor thing As long as he's careful not to overrev it, and doesn't run it long enough to heat up, it'll be fine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 17:38
|
|