|
PhotoKirk posted:I thought it was built from the B-57? They took an F-104 fuselage and put sailplane wings on it.
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 13:51 |
|
|
Gervasius posted:Counterpoint - the most mediocre Viper of them all: Ok, maybe one miss. That was designed to suck, though. Also lol at that tailpipe extension to cram that long-rear end engine in there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:The F-5 is just such a gorgeous little bastard. I read a fiction book written by a fighter pilot who had obviously been involved in testing for NG and they for reasons took a private squadron of F-20s over to the Arabian Peninsula and spanked all those big dumb F15s when war broke out between Saudia Arabia and Israel.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
tactlessbastard posted:I read a fiction book written by a fighter pilot who had obviously been involved in testing for NG and they for reasons took a private squadron of F-20s over to the Arabian Peninsula and spanked all those big dumb F15s when war broke out between Saudia Arabia and Israel. Warriors - not a bad book, I have it somewhere in a box. https://www.amazon.com/Warriors-Barrett-Tillman/dp/0553287354
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
PhotoKirk posted:I thought it was built from the B-57? English Electric modified the B-57 to fit the need, but Kelly Johnson's F-104 + more Kelly Johnson = U-2 joat mon fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Dec 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
In boring aircraft news, an A320 ate a goose dinner and a bunch of passengers had overwrought reactions: http://www.rrstar.com/news/20161215/allegiant-air-flight-hits-geese-makes-emergency-landing-at-chicago-rockford-international-airport
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
So Rockford ill
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
"Chicago" Rockford airport.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
This is a seriously impressive shot
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
Afraid of flying, chooses Allegiant 
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:This is a seriously impressive shot Is it even actually a photograph?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Is it even actually a photograph? Yep. Photographer got several where you can see the shockwaves. I don't know what kind of settings/equipment that requires but they did a bunch of gun runs with photographers closer than usual to get some sick shots.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
For some reason, quite possibly that I am a gigantic idiot, pics of Cold War Tacti-Golfs always make me really happy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
Someone please post the photo of a perfectly pancaked F-16.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
Safety Dance posted:In boring aircraft news, an A320 ate a goose dinner and a bunch of passengers had overwrought reactions: http://www.rrstar.com/news/20161215/allegiant-air-flight-hits-geese-makes-emergency-landing-at-chicago-rockford-international-airport That's got to be disheartening as a pilot. You go through all this training on how to handle the loss of an engine, and how to react in emergencies, etc. and then when it happens you have some whiny idiots whining about how they'll never fly again because it's just too gosh darn unsafe. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Someone please post the photo of a perfectly pancaked F-16. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
joat mon posted:English Electric modified the B-57 to fit the need, but The WB-57 is still in service and occasionally makes trips to the mid-east to observe the "weather"
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
PT6A posted:That's got to be disheartening as a pilot. You go through all this training on how to handle the loss of an engine, and how to react in emergencies, etc. and then when it happens you have some whiny idiots whining about how they'll never fly again because it's just too gosh darn unsafe. I'm especially fond of "Is this what the 9/11 people - is this how they left the world?" 
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
Do you think the public, in general, has an appreciation for how safe aviation is? Like, the fact that a multi-engine aircraft can fly safely after the loss of a single engine, and that procedures exist to contain engine fires and/or electrical fires, and that sort of thing? Also, the incremental improvements in safety that happen after every single incident, to reduce the probability of the same thing ever happening again? I feel like the "flying is the safest form of transportation, statistically" bit gets trotted out all the time, but that's only half the story. I rarely hear anyone outside the industry mention exactly how it comes to be that safe. Do you think if that were publicized to a greater degree, it would help? Or would the fact that there are designated procedures for pretty much anything that could go wrong worry people, because they just realized how many different things could possibly go wrong? Or is it all completely irrational and there's nothing we can do to help?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Do you think the public, in general, has an appreciation for how safe aviation is? Like, the fact that a multi-engine aircraft can fly safely after the loss of a single engine, and that procedures exist to contain engine fires and/or electrical fires, and that sort of thing? Also, the incremental improvements in safety that happen after every single incident, to reduce the probability of the same thing ever happening again?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
Education and knowledge help to a degree, but largely the public doesn't understand how planes work. I've gotten strong looks when I share anecdotes from my aircrew days and people are left wondering why I'd ever willingly step foot into a jet after some of those days. It's because, as I tell them, jets are profoundly capable and reliable vehicles. Redundancy, training, and incredible engineering are all to thank for that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
https://www.jqpublicblog.com/air-force-releases-thunderbird-crash-report-whitewashes-obamas-role/ The accident report on the Thunderbird crash is out. Someone has already blamed Obama.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
I regularly have to explain to aerospace engineering seniors at my school that no, quadcopters are not safer/more reliable than conventional helicopters, and we won't be seeing man-sized ones on the market anytime soon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
Prop Wash posted:https://www.jqpublicblog.com/air-force-releases-thunderbird-crash-report-whitewashes-obamas-role/ Well Obama was the reason they were 30min behind schedule. The fault then lies with whoever didn't scrub the air show after the bingo fuel state. The Air Force of course managed to blame an enlisted person instead of an officer. In the future under Trump they'll need the centerline, wing tanks and a tanker.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Do you think the public, in general, has an appreciation for how safe aviation is? no
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Do you think the public, in general, has an appreciation for how safe aviation is? That said, media loves them a spectacular disaster, and airliner disasters are always spectacular. Be it a mysterious disappearance, the poorly-covered up act of a military force misidentifying it with an enemy aircraft, a terrorist bomb, a suicidal pilot, or a plain old accident, you're guaranteed to hear about it a lot. And so when there's a minor accident, such as a surprise engine inspection performed by a hapless bird, then people feel they need to make it worth the media's time because it can transmute an inconvenience into their 5 minutes of fame if they can appear on TV to tearily cry about how horrible it was and how traumatized they are. (Do you think those passengers who tell the reporters "it's a bit annoying but otherwise everything is fine" will be printed by the newspaper? Far too boring.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
Part of the issue with public perception about aviation is how the progress appears. A safer plane appears as crashes which don't happen and incidents with a low impact. That will necessarily have a low impact on general public. This is similar to how more efficient aircraft with higher usage rates appears to outside "informed" observers. The "informed" observer expects advances to appear as something flashy and ignores meaningful and gradual improvements in aviation aspects hidden to them. Yet, for all the complaints, more people fly than ever. People do view aviation as reliable, through their revealed preferences.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Is that supposed to be a rhetorical question? No, I'm honestly curious. I think it's something that education could actually address (I dunno, maybe it's too nerdy), because the safety systems behind almost every aspect of the aviation industry are amazing to behold. gently caress, I've learned about another whole bunch of them I wasn't aware of since I started my CPL ground school. I've also noticed that "pilots doing unsafe and stupid things in a poorly-filmed Cessna" is the new hotness for sitcoms for some reason. That can't be helping.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
One day Parker and Stone are going to do a two man stage show about pinnacle 3701
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
shame on an IGA posted:One day Parker and Stone are going to do a two man stage show about pinnacle 3701 Reading your post just brightened up my whole drat day.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
Sperglord posted:Part of the issue with public perception about aviation is how the progress appears. A safer plane appears as crashes which don't happen and incidents with a low impact. That will necessarily have a low impact on general public.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:That said, media loves them a spectacular disaster, and airliner disasters are always spectacular. Be it a mysterious disappearance, the poorly-covered up act of a military force misidentifying it with an enemy aircraft, a terrorist bomb, a suicidal pilot, or a plain old accident, you're guaranteed to hear about it a lot. The media report on things that are newsworthy. Common things are not newsworthy. Therefore you only ever hear fearmongering about stuff that isn't actually dangerous.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
SPLAT
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
simplefish posted:Why was it such an MX hog? It didn't have variable-geometry wings or anything, used a pretty standard engine, no pistons, and only 2 of em. Was way to big to fly off a carrier, so landed hard and had parts fall off a fair bit. Was just 50's super-science complicated and finicky. That, and North American didn't really do a lot of carrier aviation, compared to the Grumman Ironworks and McAir, so probably a learning curve there as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
Alereon posted:It's like that idiot disruptive BJSST paper someone linked earlier, he has a picture of an early 737 and a new 737 MAX or something and is like "see! 50 years and planes look exactly the same! where's the innovation?!" You know, aside from just about everything being different except for the most basic elements of the shape... What does this guy want besides the idiotic sst poo poo, flying wing passenger jets? I mean otherwise there isn't a ton of innovating left to do on the basic shape of an airplane. They aren't governed by aesthetics like cars are, and even then there has been convergence in shapes due to engineering requirements.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:Was just 50's super-science complicated and finicky. I have a big soft spot for these aircraft, mind you, but they're in that strange liminal space also occupied by super-cars and bleeding edge electronics. That is, it's an incredible testament to human ingenuity that it's even possible, but still a gigantic pain in the rear end to actually do anything with.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:There should be a list of these aircraft somewhere, with the F-104 at the top of it. Not 1950s, but the MiG-25 needs a place on that list too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Is it even actually a photograph? Search youtube for AXALP. The Swiss do live-fire demo airshows up in the mountains, looks bonkers insane.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
Alereon posted:It's like that idiot disruptive BJSST paper someone linked earlier, he has a picture of an early 737 and a new 737 MAX or something and is like "see! 50 years and planes look exactly the same! where's the innovation?!" You know, aside from just about everything being different except for the most basic elements of the shape... Yes, exactly that guy. Car shapes haven't changed significantly in 50 years either... Though, you could make the argument that planes could become more fuel efficient, however those shapes have a bunch of operational downsides. (Who wants to do blade containment for an open rotor system?) rscott posted:What does this guy want besides the idiotic sst poo poo, flying wing passenger jets? I mean otherwise there isn't a ton of innovating left to do on the basic shape of an airplane. They aren't governed by aesthetics like cars are, and even then there has been convergence in shapes due to engineering requirements. I've taken to reading his articles on airplanes, he has something new about supersonic jets right here: https://blog.elidourado.com/how-to-legalize-supersonic-flight-over-land-deefff2dbdce#.8tw6gtkyg I get the impression he has read about the N-wave shock wave and uses that one fact to sell the rest of his argument. About par for the course for a voxplaination article. (I went on Wikipedia so you don't have to!) Then there's the problem of trying to build the Uber of the skies. The 'informed' observer wonders about swarms of small aircraft, but doesn't read about airplane efficiency decreasing with smaller planes. Nor, do they read the article that NASA has basically given up on large-scale battery powered aircraft for now, as battery technology has not developed as fast as needed. This is the level of informed observation from outside aviation... No wonder people 'don't get it.'
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 13:51 |
|
|
Besides cars haven't changed much either. They're still roughly rectangular, with four wheels, the engine in front, the driver and passengers in the middle, and some luggage compartment in the rear. And likewise, airliners are still a cylinder with blades sticking out of it to give it wings and a stabilizer. And all the airport infrastructure is built to accommodate big winged cylinders, so if you arrive with your ~disruptive~ flying saucer or whatever enjoy having a lot of gratuitous trouble for doing elementary things such as letting passengers board and debark.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 01:48
|
|