|
Phanatic posted:I have gone through airport security positively *covered* in explosive residue. As in, "I used to blow things up for the Naval Surface Warfare Center, I helped wire and set off three 60-lb UNDEXes that day, and the plume from each one drifted right over the backpack and jacket I am currently wearing through the checkpoint." Got picked for a random explosives screening, they swabbed my hands and my gear, put the swab in the sniffer, and got a big fat nothing. Well yeah, that was already exploded. They're obviously looking for stuff that has yet to blow -- the swabs only test for the explosives, not the decomposition products. Edit: have an airplane for the new page.  I love that the weather in Texas that day was properly English. Didn't rain, just 100% humidity, and the compression from the props knocked the water out of the air. Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 12:02 on Mar 25, 2017 |
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 11:56
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 03:47 |
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:Well yeah, that was already exploded. They're obviously looking for stuff that has yet to blow -- the swabs only test for the explosives, not the decomposition products. I'm thinking the "handled/helped wire/swabbed hands" bits counts as yet to blow.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 12:27
|
|
|
Half the time it's like the Brits are operating on different industrial design and possibly physics principles than the rest of the planet. Also genetic material
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 12:54
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:. I also love that. Edit: except it isn't really "properly English" unless it is drizzling.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 12:55
|
|
|
Superbug is in town for the F1 Grand Prix this weekend, only heard him yesterday but I spotted him while driving this afternoon, might spot him again tomorrow. Anyway, someone living closer to the park/track got some photos from his balcony. (more here: http://imgur.com/a/Fvxzt )     And above the main straight: 
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 13:44
|
|
|
Dannywilson posted:I'm thinking the "handled/helped wire/swabbed hands" bits counts as yet to blow. Also it's not like a lump of HE detonates in a precise stochiometric ratio. There's a portion of it that doesn't react before it gets flung away from the reaction front, just like there's a bunch of unburned gunpowder left over after you fire a gun.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 15:08
|
|
|
0toShifty posted:
That one looks like it had it's stance lowered by the owner. Fake edit: I had a student who had one of those and it was a neat aircraft to fly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
ausgezeichnet posted:That one looks like it had it's stance lowered by the owner. I thought "one of these" was a gear up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
vessbot posted:I thought "one of these" was a gear up. Certainly changes the interpretation of this part: ausgezeichnet posted:it was a neat aircraft to fly
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:That thing isn't even ugly in an endearing way, wow. Like the Fairy Gannett, it's grown on me. The doc I posted should be watched by y'all with experience in JSTARS/Boeing E-3s, as it's probably the only aircraft in the west that's even older looking on the inside. It apparently smelled of hydraulic fluid and worn leather. There's also that apparently Shackleton crews got really good at cooking in the tiny kitchen. It has an actual oven!
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
Interesting factoid: on this day in 1958 the Avro Arrow flew for the first time. http://casmuseum.techno-science.ca/en/collection-research/artifact-avro-arrow-2.php ~cue thinkpieces in major  papers about how a revamped arrow is a suitable F-35 alternative~
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
Anyone curious what a fuel jettison on a 787 looks like, search twitter for #ac17.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
Finger Prince posted:Anyone curious what a fuel jettison on a 787 looks like, search twitter for #ac17. Or: https://twitter.com/josh_edu/status/845712657311240192
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
So I found this little gem when I was poking around some of my favourite aviation websites this morning (click for bigger):
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
Awwww, doesn't F-111-style pig dump.  booooooriiiiiiiiing
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
"The MIG-23 now entering operational service in the Soviet Union is a mach 3.4 airplane at 80,000 ft."
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
Yeah that's the one!
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
MrChips posted:So I found this little gem when I was poking around some of my favourite aviation websites this morning (click for bigger): "a mach 4.5 airplane in five years"  edit: 80k feet at mach 3.4 is approximately unclassified SR-71 performance! Mortabis fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Mar 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
Being a major player in the military-industrial complex must have been amazing back then. The TGV of gravy trains.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
MrChips posted:So I found this little gem when I was poking around some of my favorite aviation websites this morning (click for bigger): In 1980 I was an 11-12 year old kid. I would read in library's copy Aviation Week about how much the F-15 sucked, how much it cost and how we would be better off with more Phantoms. I remember in the late '80s how upset people were that the YF-22/YF-23 did not have full 3-D thrust vectoring, and how they were the wrong aircraft to build ("It won't even hold as many missiles as an F-15!"). It makes me skeptical when I read about how the F-35 will be worse than the aircraft it replaces. Doesn't change my view of what a clusterfuck of a procurement process it is, of course...
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
MrChips posted:So I found this little gem when I was poking around some of my favourite aviation websites this morning (click for bigger): It's been a while since I've seen anything that looks like it was mimeo'd.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
winnydpu posted:In 1980 I was an 11-12 year old kid. I would read in library's copy Aviation Week about how much the F-15 sucked, how much it cost and how we would be better off with more Phantoms. I remember in the late '80s how upset people were that the YF-22/YF-23 did not have full 3-D thrust vectoring, and how they were the wrong aircraft to build ("It won't even hold as many missiles as an F-15!"). It makes me skeptical when I read about how the F-35 will be worse than the aircraft it replaces. This is more Cold War thread than strictly aviation but I can tell you people were cranking out thinkpieces all the time about how America was gonna loose the airwar with the Soviets because for every F-15 there were like six older Soviet aircraft, and the USAF was going to get  The push was of course for like doubling the size of the USAF
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:This is more Cold War thread than strictly aviation but I can tell you people were cranking out thinkpieces all the time about how America was gonna loose the airwar with the Soviets because for every F-15 there were like six older Soviet aircraft, and the USAF was going to get "I'm very concerned the US government is only paying us eleventy zillions to make amazing war machines. The Soviets have UFOs now, and they are photographing your daughters with x-ray cameras. We need a bagillion zillions. Are we not patriots?" The more things change...
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
vessbot posted:I thought "one of these" was a gear up. We managed to get the gear down every time I flew with him. After he got his ticket - I don't know.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
winnydpu posted:In 1980 I was an 11-12 year old kid. I would read in library's copy Aviation Week about how much the F-15 sucked, how much it cost and how we would be better off with more Phantoms. I remember in the late '80s how upset people were that the YF-22/YF-23 did not have full 3-D thrust vectoring, and how they were the wrong aircraft to build ("It won't even hold as many missiles as an F-15!"). It makes me skeptical when I read about how the F-35 will be worse than the aircraft it replaces. See I think that in general, people think the f35 is a pretty darn good aircraft, but then they look at the invoice and go "you paid HOW much?!" Like if you knew someone who put their name down for a $30k Tesla model 3 still paid up when Tesla put the price up to $50k on release because they had to build a pickup truck version for Texas.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
MrChips posted:So I found this little gem when I was poking around some of my favourite aviation websites this morning (click for bigger): So, I'm curious, a) what were the supposed flaws of the F-15 (or was it just "it doesn't do Mach 3 at 80,000 ft"), and b) what kind of aircraft were they proposing as the superior alternative. YF-12? It also talks about the "MiG-23 Foxbat", which makes it hard to tell if they're talking about what we now know as the MiG-23 Flogger or the MiG-25 Foxbat. The MiG-25 is indeed a very fast aircraft, at the expense of mulching its engines if it goes top speed and not mounting any particularly high-end weaponry. I've often heard that the MiG-25, or rather the mythical titanium-frame MiG-25 that existed in the fevered dreams of CIA analysts, was one of the driving factors in the F-15's design and capabilities. I'm really looking forward to the arguments in 15 years that we should just be building more F-35's instead of [insert next-gen fighter bomber skynet drone here], because it's a proven design that can be built much more cheaply.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
Red Eagles suggests that the MiG-23 Flogger was pretty fast itself. The problem was, well, you know, everything else about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:"The MIG-23 now entering operational service in the Soviet Union is a mach 3.4 airplane at 80,000 ft." I feel like they've confused the MiG-23 with the MiG-25, since they refer to it in the document as the Foxbat instead of the Flogger, and those speed and altitude figures are roughly in line with the performance of the MiG-25. That or they're just a bunch of conspiracy theorists like most military air-power spergs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:This is more Cold War thread than strictly aviation but I can tell you people were cranking out thinkpieces all the time about how America was gonna loose the airwar with the Soviets because for every F-15 there were like six older Soviet aircraft, and the USAF was going to get Then it turns out in 1982 the Israeli air force had absolutely no issue dealing with Syrian even right over Syrian air defenses, because the F-15 is that good. (And the E-2)
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 01:55
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Red Eagles suggests that the MiG-23 Flogger was pretty fast itself. The problem was, well, you know, everything else about it. Yeah, supposedly the engine in the MiG-23 was stupidly overpowered, but mated to an airframe that had the flight characteristics of a brick, made worse by having to pack rough strip landing gear that threw its center of gravity off. Given that it was pretty much the last generation of "must go fast/climb fast/shoot missiles" interceptors designed for high-level bomber interception, that can be overlooked, but then they tried to 'make it better' when that mission didn't exist anymore.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
Finger Prince posted:See I think that in general, people think the f35 is a pretty darn good aircraft, but then they look at the invoice and go "you paid HOW much?!" The whole F-35 vs A-10 thing is a good snapshot of it. Lockheed-Martin and the military got a little too ahead of themselves in proclaiming that they didn't need the A-10 because they had the F-35, even though it's obvious the F-35 can't match the A-10's performance as a ground attack bird. That gets people up in arms because it sounds like they're being sold a bill of goods. The reality is that it doesn't matter that the A-10 is theoretically better at ground attack, of course. For the missions actually on the table, the A-10 either is too much aircraft, or not enough, and either way it costs a ridiculous amount of money to operate. That's why they want to retire it., and they know the F-35 isn't a straight replacement of it. Rather, the F-35 is good enough at ground attack to pick up part of the A-10's mission profile, and the rest is going to get split up between drones, the LAC everyone expects the Air Force to pick up, and maybe even that turboprop air support bird the Army and Air Force periodically threaten to order. But that's not how they talk about it, so everyone flips out and harps on how the F-35 can't possibly succeed at everything it's supposedly going to do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:I feel like they've confused the MiG-23 with the MiG-25, since they refer to it in the document as the Foxbat instead of the Flogger, and those speed and altitude figures are roughly in line with the performance of the MiG-25. Well, this was 1969, and there was quite a bit of confusion on the part of the Americans at the time as to which new fighters were which; it also didn't help that the Soviets were more than happy to hand out all kinds of spurious designations to pretty much every testbed and experimental aircraft in their inventory as well. Incidentally, that publication lives on today under the Aviation Week umbrella.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 06:25
|
|
|
One of the reasons for articles like that was that the west looked at the MiG-25 and saw an air superiority fighter. Huge engines, a huge wing, twin tails for lots of control authority, the thing looked like it would be a world beater. What we COULDN'T see is that the thing substitutes steel for significant structures that would normally be made of aluminum. The Mig-25 and the F-15 are within a foot of each other in most dimensions. Parked next to each other, they're broadly similar. The F-15's empty weight is 28,000lbs. The MiG-25's empty weight is 44,000lbs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:I think there's also a little bit of a reaction to the claims that the F-35 is going to replace... well sometimes it seems like half the airframes in inventory right now, and can do everything short of make julienne fries. The A-10 is cheap as gently caress to operate. It slots in just above drones in terms of cost per flying hour. The last official figure I saw was 11.5K per flying hour. http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-shows-hourly-cost-of-military-aircraft-2014-12 bloops fucked around with this message at 17:57 on Mar 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
inkjet_lakes posted:Is that clacking noise his teeth chattering with the cold...  I was trying to figure out what that noise was...I thought it was a camera motor drive or the wind rattling the fences, but I think you're right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
inkjet_lakes posted:Is that clacking noise his teeth chattering with the cold... It could very well be; it's sunny in Gander in winter, which means it is too cold to snow
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:I think there's also a little bit of a reaction to the claims that the F-35 is going to replace... Even if the F-35 (or some other theoretical aircraft) is in the pipeline to replace the A-10, it's a really dumb move to retire it prior to that aircraft actually being available to do that replacing, which is what the Airforce has been trying to do for years, at least until very recently when it appears that maybe someone who is important has finally realizing that pulling it out of service might actually not be the smartest move, since last I heard they had shelved the retirement plans for it and are instead updating/overhauling them for longer service life. Note that I don't really keep up with this so I might be behind on the current status.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:One of the reasons for articles like that was that the west looked at the MiG-25 and saw an air superiority fighter. Huge engines, a huge wing, twin tails for lots of control authority, the thing looked like it would be a world beater. I would sever my own left bollock and present it to Putin on a velvet cushion in exchange for the chance to zoom climb a MiG 25 or MiG 31 and then max the engine till they had to yank out the melted slag on the ground. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 03:47 |
|
|
What sort of capabilities would the MiG-25/31 have had if it was built using all titanium/aluminum/other lightweight composites?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 02:00
|
|
