|
Delivery McGee posted:Yeah, the F-111 is famously low-slung. Every time I see an F-105 in person I marvel at how the gently caress the Thunderbirds decided it'd be a great tight formation aerobatic airplane.
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 07:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 00:44 |
|
|
~Coxy posted:Uh, no way. They are big though. I misremembered. It was the rear tyres, not the nosewheel tyre, and even then not quite THAT big.  Nostalgia4Infinity posted:are you a hobbit? Only half. Midjack posted:How old were you? 28. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 08:29
|
|
|
Previa_fun posted:Every time I see an F-105 in person I marvel at how the gently caress the Thunderbirds decided it'd be a great tight formation aerobatic airplane. The air force put an F on it! What more do you want??
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 08:38
|
|
|
Previa_fun posted:Every time I see an F-105 in person I marvel at how the gently caress the Thunderbirds decided it'd be a great tight formation aerobatic airplane. Blue Angels flying F-4s is almost as baffling imo. Possibly more so.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 08:55
|
|
|
Thrust > Aerodynamics
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 11:03
|
|
|
I enjoy the Blues well enough but the Red Arrows/Snowbirds style big swarms of light jets are always so much more entertaining to watch  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3Lm4P7wvjg  Although we just got a worn-out Blues F/A-18A airframe at the Museum of Flight in Seattle after last year's show season, and especially engineless and parked next to the fuckoff big sky yacht F-14 it really is a very small aircraft 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 12:11
|
|
|
The Locator posted:Seems like a pretty good way to lose your pilot's license. At least in some countries. you seem to be under the impression that the man flying that plane has a license
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 13:20
|
|
|
Inacio posted:Are modern fighters bigger mostly because they needed to have more weapons on them? Among other things. If you think about it, there's a bunch of things that set lower limits on how small you can make everything - radar package size is sort of what sets the fuselage diameter for most fighters, which kinda gets to determining the drag and thrust needed, add fuselage volume to get the internal fuel amount you need for the desired range, then wing area comes about from desired stores load plus fuel load. What's interesting is that you can basically tell fighter intended role from radar size, and it really really seems to drive the rest of the airframe size - the F-4 was built around a 32" diameter dish, and the F-14, F-15, and F-22 all have radar dishes in the 36" range, as does the SU-27, while the MiG-31 is up around 55". Compared, the F-16, F-18 and MiG-29 dishes are around 25-27", and the F-5, in the versions that mounted radar at all, had around a 20" dish. The equivalent driver in WW2 was supercharger housing OD.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
Previa_fun posted:Every time I see an F-105 in person I marvel at how the gently caress the Thunderbirds decided it'd be a great tight formation aerobatic airplane. It's got a lot of inertia? Probably nice and stable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:TMZ got the video of Harrison Ford getting his license revoked: Wait... the AA Airliner that he had to pass directly over to make that landing didn't tip him off that he might be making a mistake? Holy poo poo, he better lose his license.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
priznat posted:Blue Angels flying F-4s is almost as baffling imo. Possibly more so. Both teams were using the F-4 for a while.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
The Locator posted:Wait... the AA Airliner that he had to pass directly over to make that landing didn't tip him off that he might be making a mistake? Holy poo poo, he better lose his license. On Google Maps you can sort of imagine how you could confuse the runway with the taxiway right beside it, but in that video clip it's pretty blatant that there are no appropriate numbers or markings on what he's about to land on, which should have tipped him off. Furthermore, you'd think he would know the airport layout and that there are supposed to be two runways side-by-side. So if you're landing on one, and there are two much wider strips to your right, you are probably making a mistake . and if nothing else, "hmm, there is a jetliner parked sideways on the end of the 'runway' I'm trying to land on" should trigger an immediate go-around, and if it doesn't I dunno if you should be flying Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Feb 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
He crashed on a golf course 2 years ago. Just sayin.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
Yeah but that was legit engine failure. I feel like he gets a pass for surviving that one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
Well that one was a little different. Apparently he had an engine failure in his 80-year-old plane, and a golf course is going to be one of the only open areas in Los Angeles where you might be able to crash-land without killing somebody
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
It gave us a good quote though. "I would say that this is an absolutely beautifully executed -- what we would call -- a forced or emergency landing, by an unbelievably well-trained pilot," said Christian Fry of the Santa Monica Airport Association. Also lets not talk about his other other plane crash or helicopter crash Helo crash was during training, other plane mishap was loss of control on landing due to wind in, of course, a Bonanza -minor damage no casualties. He's also done good pilot things like rescue people and fight forest fires simplefish fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Feb 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Both teams were using the F-4 for a while. Ah I did not know the thunderbirds did too! I had seen the A-4 Blue Angels quite a bit when I used to go to airshows as a youngun, they were fun.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
mekilljoydammit posted:What's interesting is that you can basically tell fighter intended role from radar size, and it really really seems to drive the rest of the airframe size - the F-4 was built around a 32" diameter dish, and the F-14, F-15, and F-22 all have radar dishes in the 36" range, as does the SU-27, while the MiG-31 is up around 55". Compared, the F-16, F-18 and MiG-29 dishes are around 25-27", and the F-5, in the versions that mounted radar at all, had around a 20" dish. I don't think it's a simple as that. Saying, "well, the area of the dish is 36" so therefore it's main role is air search" might have had some truth to it in 1975 but is not at all true now. The F-15 started out with a pulse-doppler radar where the dish size would dictate the waveform and now has an AESA radar which had is number of array elements dictated by the size of the airframe. These are two vastly different things despite the naming convention of all being called "*APG 63*" and the AESA version will have vastly more functions and capability than that original pulse doppler.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
Murgos posted:I don't think it's a simple as that. Saying, "well, the area of the dish is 36" so therefore it's main role is air search" might have had some truth to it in 1975 but is not at all true now. The F-15 started out with a pulse-doppler radar where the dish size would dictate the waveform and now has an AESA radar which had is number of array elements dictated by the size of the airframe. These are two vastly different things despite the naming convention of all being called "*APG 63*" and the AESA version will have vastly more functions and capability than that original pulse doppler. A 2010s vintage radar will be vastly more capable than a 1970s vintage one, yes, obviously, but range and ability to focus well at long range is still going to be affected by aperture size. My point is that for stuff where the design brief is optimized towards air superiority (or interception in the MiG-31's case) the allowed compromises in the radar are a lot smaller, while antenna (or AESA nowadays, yes) size gets shrunk for lower cost stuff where the emphasis is on multi-role capability. Maybe I'm putting the cart before the horse, but I know some older air superiority airframes were essentially built around the radar sets they needed to do their job, and I'd just be surprised if that changed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
priznat posted:Blue Angels flying F-4s is almost as baffling imo. Possibly more so. I'm still a bit surprised the Blues haven't transitioned to the T-45. Seems like it'd be a return to the A-4 era of tight and fast routines. I'm fairly sure 2017 will mark 30 years of them using the Hornet which is more than twice as long as any other aircraft has been employed in Blues service. Plus they don't look bad at all in the paint scheme:  What's the current advanced jet trainer for the USAF? Still the T-38? Previa_fun fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Feb 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
Previa_fun posted:What's the current advanced jet trainer for the USAF? Still the T-38? Yep, though the T-X program is still accepting bids/proposals I believe. Thunderbirds stopped flying the T-38 when they had 4 crash into the desert (flight lead stabilizer locked, other 3 followed him into the deck)
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
Once you mute the psychotically relentless action movie score, there is still quite a bit of insanity left, of the aeronautical kind. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJBX80xSYQc
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:Yep, though the T-X program is still accepting bids/proposals I believe. Thunderbirds stopped flying the T-38 when they had 4 crash into the desert (flight lead stabilizer locked, other 3 followed him into the deck)  RIP
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 21:37
|
|
|
Again, I will propose that all teams everywhere move to the G.91  https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=S3XNnNkA4pc https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5A_zwNA4bxc HookedOnChthonics fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Feb 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
Murgos posted:I don't think it's a simple as that. Saying, "well, the area of the dish is 36" so therefore it's main role is air search" might have had some truth to it in 1975 but is not at all true now. The F-15 started out with a pulse-doppler radar where the dish size would dictate the waveform and now has an AESA radar which had is number of array elements dictated by the size of the airframe. These are two vastly different things despite the naming convention of all being called "*APG 63*" and the AESA version will have vastly more functions and capability than that original pulse doppler. Also the expected future direction for fighter radars is going to be spreading the driven elements out across the entire surface of the plane, and computationally assembling a virtual radar emitter an equivalent-wingspan across. No more round dishes in the nose.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
My girlfriend is genuinely disturbed by pusher canard aircraft so I like to play this game called guess which way it flies and show her interestingly configured aircraft. Its her least favorite game. EDIT: Ola posted:Once you mute the psychotically relentless action movie score, there is still quite a bit of insanity left, of the aeronautical kind. HookedOnChthonics posted:Again, I will propose that all teams everywhere move to the G.91 The juxtaposition of the music to action ratio in these two is entertaining. CarForumPoster fucked around with this message at 23:33 on Feb 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
Ola posted:Once you mute the psychotically relentless action movie score, there is still quite a bit of insanity left, of the aeronautical kind. Someone on Reddit pointed out that Colin Furze already accomplished this AND was actually safer about it (because his had shrouds around the rotors).
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
priznat posted:Blue Angels flying F-4s is almost as baffling imo. Possibly more so.  (fortunately plans to adopt the F7U as the team's primary plane lasted pretty much exactly as long as it took for both pilots to divert to that airfield in the background with terrifying engine problems. I hear nobody even bothered retrieving the aircraft afterward)
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
Once again it's time to post this article about the Blue Angels' rather unhappy experience with the Cutlass. http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/the-gutless-cutlass-12023991 quote:While the Panthers were grounded for fuel control problems in the spring of 1952, Feightner, in a blue and gold Cutlass, made his Blue Angels airshow debut, flying a one-man show for VIPs in Pensacola, Florida. “I rolled down there, hit the afterburner, and headed straight up,” he says. “We didn’t have any other airplane that could do that in those days. I just started to climb, then I lost the hydraulics. You couldn’t eject until you got to 1,500 feet, and I topped out at 1,100, then headed straight down. I have the stick [full aft] and nothing is happening. The ground is getting bigger and all of a sudden everything hooks up again and the airplane goes nur-ooop. So now I’m flying—but there is a row of trees at the end of the runway. I couldn’t get over them so I just picked out a space between two trees and carved a hole through them.” Streaming hydraulic fluid and wood pulp, Feightner wrestled the Cutlass onto the runway and even managed to taxi up to the crowd.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Once again it's time to post this article about the Blue Angels' rather unhappy experience with the Cutlass. You're burying the lede there: quote:They endured hydraulic system and landing gear failures, inflight engine fires, and, on one occasion, pieces of landing gear doors falling onto a grandstand, miraculously missing everyone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
 Two F-86L Sabres in air defense shelters in July 1960
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
They look wrong with radomes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:02
|
|
|
What's the plane out in front? I presume it's another Rutan joint, but I've never seen it before
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:53
|
|
|
No Starship, 3/10
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
Epiphyte posted:What's the plane out in front? VariViggen  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1SEgbolSF4&t=3858s Platystemon fucked around with this message at 05:15 on Feb 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 05:01
|
|
|
Godholio posted:They look wrong with radomes. Seriously. They look like they should have a propeller. hmm... I bet a T-56 powered Sabre would be pretty fast ...
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 07:10
|
|
|
Ola posted:Once you mute the psychotically relentless action movie score, there is still quite a bit of insanity left, of the aeronautical kind. This isn't a loving hoverbike, its a loving drone with a loving saddle on it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 07:19
|
|
|
D C posted:This isn't a loving hoverbike, its a loving drone with a loving saddle on it. It’s a velocipede.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 07:20
|
|
|
D C posted:This isn't a loving hoverbike, its a loving drone with a loving saddle on it. At least it can hover! I wonder if the dream of making a "hoverbike" instead of a manned multicopter clouded his judgement somewhat. I would much prefer the rotors to be above, so the center of gravity is dangling beneath the center if lift and it's harder to accidentally chop a body part off.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 12:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 00:44 |
|
|
Godholio posted:They look wrong with radomes. They look happy. "WE'RE PLANES!!! YAY!!!! LET"S GO FLYING!!!!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 13:59
|
|
