|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Extra lift due to all the extra stuff making her more nose heavy? F-22 flight systems testbed.
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 20:21 |
|
|
MrYenko posted:TU-128, forever. I'm doing long term catch up with this thread, but just chiming in to say yeah, this. Fighter-bomber? Feh, how bout bomber-fighter? vessbot fucked around with this message at 01:30 on Dec 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
Zebulon posted:What the hell is with that forehead canard. It was used to test airflow against F-22 wing geometry without relying on it to actually keep the airplane up. That 757 put up a lot of hours testing F-22 avionics, software, and wing poo poo before Raptor 01 ever flew.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
Godholio posted:It was used to test airflow against F-22 wing geometry without relying on it to actually keep the airplane up. That 757 put up a lot of hours testing F-22 avionics, software, and wing poo poo before Raptor 01 ever flew. That's not the way you're supposed to do it. You're supposed to build an entire aircraft with all its new systems all at the same time, and then start turning them out on an assembly line before you finish flight testing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 01:38
|
|
Platystemon posted:Reminds me of this: "I'm helping!"
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
SSBNs: Soviet Union/Russia In service: Typhoon - 1 Delta IV - 6 Delta III - 2 [+1 modified for RnD] Borey - 3 [4 under construction, three more planned] Total: 12 Out of Service: Typhoon - 5 Delta IV - 1 Delta III - 11 Delta II - 4 Delta I - 18 Yankee - 34 Hotel - 8 note: next two entries are sad, low energy conventionally powered models Golf - 24 [note 1, 2] Zulu - 6 [note 3] Total: 112 Sum total 124 Note: 1. All boats had left Soviet service by 1990. In 1993, ten were sold to North Korea for scrap. According to some sources, the North Koreans are attempting to get these boats back into service.  2. 1959 the project technology was sold to China which built a single modified example in 1966, which is still in service. 3. This is the total that were modified to be ballistic missile submarines. The first one modified could fire one (highly modified) SS-2, the remaining 5 could mount 2 scuds.  United States In service: Ohio - 18 Total: 18 Out of Service: Benjamin Franklin: 12 James Madison: 10 Lafayette: 9 Ethan Allen: 5 George Washington: 5 Total: 41 Sum total: 59  Great Britain In service: Vanguard: 4 [Dreadnought: building 1, planned 4] Out of Service: Resolution: 4 Total: 8  France In service: Triomphant: 4 Out of service: Redoutable: 6 Total: 10  China Type 092 - 1 Type 094 - 4 [planned 8] Type 096 - ????????? Total: 5  India Arihant* - 1 [building 3] Total - 1 *Arihant is apparently sanskrit for "Killer of Enemies" 
Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 02:12 on Dec 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:SSBNs: I'll put on my Pedantic Navy Hat and point out that the "N" stands for "Nuclear", which not all of those subs are. Cool list, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:F-22 flight systems testbed. I have a weird fetish for flying test beds. Something about subsystems testing just gets me so...tumescent ....mmm yea risk reduction baby
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:I'll put on my Pedantic Navy Hat and point out that the "N" stands for "Nuclear", which not all of those subs are. It's true, I'll add a note There is no point to this list aside from "holy poo poo, the Soviet Union built a lot of SSBNs"
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:
I guess Mexico's flag does kinda work for India.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:I have a weird fetish for flying test beds. Something about subsystems testing just gets me so...tumescent https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqAwOPOsigU
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
Godholio posted:It was used to test airflow against F-22 wing geometry without relying on it to actually keep the airplane up. That 757 put up a lot of hours testing F-22 avionics, software, and wing poo poo before Raptor 01 ever flew. What can engineers learn from this that they can’t from wind tunnel tests?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:I have a weird fetish for flying test beds. Something about subsystems testing just gets me so...tumescent I will take any opportunity to post Voodoo One 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
Fair enough. I figured it was something like that, because I've certainly seen and heard of aircraft like the other one that was shown where they use an existing aircraft to test new engines without having to rely on them. I was just struggling to figure out just what the goofy-rear end forehead canard was for at the time but figured it had to be for testing SOMETHING.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:
Worth noting that of those 18 the oldest 4 have been converted to SSGN cruise missile boats which means the USN currently has 14 SSBNs in service.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:What can engineers learn from this that they can’t from wind tunnel tests? They can test the subsystems in the real world. It ain't about aerodynamics. Its about the various subsystems that make up the wing and wing center section in the real world. Some that come to mind are the fuel subsystems, ESM system, missiles, flares, comms, manufacturing procedures for the actual structure that are high risk, etc. StandardVC10 posted:I will take any opportunity to post Voodoo One Unghhhh Its soooo good. Fuyck yea real world testing. CarForumPoster fucked around with this message at 03:18 on Dec 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:
I want to read more about the magical Best Korean SSBNs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
There was one in Crysis Warhead. It was pretty chill.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:21
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:What can engineers learn from this that they can’t from wind tunnel tests? Wind-tunnel testing is good for aerodynamics, it's not so good for loads and vibes and component behavior and heat flow. For a lot of things there's no substitute for putting actual gages on a flying aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:I will take any opportunity to post Voodoo One What is that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:They can test the subsystems in the real world. It ain't about aerodynamics. Its about the various subsystems that make up the wing and wing center section in the real world. Some that come to mind are the fuel subsystems, ESM system, missiles, flares, comms, manufacturing procedures for the actual structure that are high risk, etc. Test beds = best planes 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Wind-tunnel testing is good for aerodynamics, it's not so good for loads and vibes and component behavior and heat flow. For a lot of things there's no substitute for putting actual gages on a flying aircraft. You can get better loads and dynamics out of an uncorrelated FEA of the plane than out of that test bed. You all are thinking too mechanical, that is a straight up subsystem test bed. How do the functions (software, electronic, mechanical) that comprise an F-22 perform perform?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
DPRK allegedly hacked ROK military network.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 04:13
|
|
|
ohh din't see mod sumo wrestler style man
Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 04:27 on Dec 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 04:15
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:You can get better loads and dynamics out of an uncorrelated FEA of the plane than out of that test bed. Funny how our structural and dynamics engineers rely on actual flight test data to validate their FEA stuff and calculate component lives, then. quote:You all are thinking too mechanical, that is a straight up subsystem test bed. How do the functions (software, electronic, mechanical) that comprise an F-22 perform perform? I was answering the question about why you'd bother to fly something rather than just wind-tunnel test it, not talking about that particular platform, and I specifically mentioned component behaviors.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 04:22
|
|
|
What's the point of cluster munitions anyway? Is there any point to them not just blowing up right away?
Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 04:27 on Dec 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:What's the point of cluster munitions anyway? Is there any point to them not just blowing up right away? They're supposed to, aren't they? The issue is that some of them don't and then end up lying around.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 04:30
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:What's the point of cluster munitions anyway? Is there any point to them not just blowing up right away? There are mine dispensers, but the problem is that with a 1% dud rate when you're dispensing hundreds of bomblets thats not so good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 04:34
|
|
|
Not as flashy and eye-catching as most, but as I was looking at pictures of the E-3 testbed (now retired and parked in the boneyard), an ECO walked up and said "I am rock hard right now." They're generally weird dudes, even for the AWACS community.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:What's the point of cluster munitions anyway? Is there any point to them not just blowing up right away? Say you have a bunch of guys in trenches and foxholes. If you airburst a conventional bomb, you're probably going to kill the guys right under it, but others will be protected from the blast and shrapnel by their fighting positions. With a cluster bomb, every soldier in the dispersion footprint has a good chance of a grenade sized bomblet landing in his lap. The dozens of UXO they leave behind is just an amusing side effect. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 04:42 on Dec 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 04:39
|
|
|
Sperglord posted:What is that? Ex-American Airlines Boeing 727 used by Raytheon as an avionics testbed - I think that's an F-16 nose?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
General Battuta posted:They're supposed to, aren't they? The issue is that some of them don't and then end up lying around. This makes a lot more sense. The cluster munitions I've seen have always detonated promptly; here I was thinking there was this whole other class that was designed to not explode.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Funny how our structural and dynamics engineers rely on actual flight test data to validate their FEA stuff and calculate component lives, then. Right, actual, not a testbed whose induced vibe is basically all directly applied an 0 d'alembert which is not representative of a real aircraft. Hence a properly setup yet invalidated fea is more worthwhile (still kinda worthless beyond optimization). The only inertial forces induced on a wing tied to a big mass like that are whatever the inertial forces from the host plane and aren't representative of the future host aircraft's. I.e whatever the plane does + the directly induced forces from buffeting/aero/SPL. That said it's a great wing subsystem test bed, so it's probably not for mechanical BS validating the OML of the plane But rather whatever subsystems they can put in that area or boxes that connect to it
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
Or you get kickin' rad cluster munitions like the SFW where you can take out a column of vehicles each with their own EFP. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HkauuIyDsM
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
I am for a cluster munitions ban no matter how limited and ineffective it is, but at the same time they are pretty fuckin bad rear end. My personal favourite is the MW-1/JP233 mounted on Panavia Tornados which poo poo out a huge number of whatever fun treats they decide to load them up with. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1FyA-3wcBQ In short I am conflicted.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 07:49
|
|
|
Name the loadout game
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 08:00
|
|
|
Ain't a whole lot of (US) missiles that look like a HARM.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 08:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 20:21 |
|
|
The WW on the tail is kind of a giveaway! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 08:15
|
|