|
Constellation posting should be a probatable offense.
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 00:00 |
|
|
cowboy elvis posted:Constellation posting should be a probatable offense. Yeah, the beauty overshadows the rest of the aircraft pictures ITT.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
Mazz posted:I highly doubt NG would bother with something like that since it's worth so little and any reporting on it would loving murder them. The political fallout from dealing with countries like North Korea or Iran in this political climate isn't worth a couple million in parts sales. The weirdest, but remotely possible scenario is that Russia handed them original plans (or even hardware) acquired via the KGB.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
slidebite posted:I also heard an interview from someone who was in the SR program about the retirement and the guy basically said all of the ones on display had major airframe structures cut.. stuff like spars. I think he said the one in U-H is possibly the only one that isn't hacked in some way but wasn't positive. The Smithsonian only accepts completely intact donations to its collection, so I could believe that the SR-71 they have is the closest to flyable. Incidentally, because of that requirement, the Smithsonian also has the world's only remaining functional EV-1.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
also re. Constellations please remember the distinction made in the OPFinger Prince posted:This is a Lockheed L-049 Constellation, or 'connie'. It is a decent looking, well proportioned airplane.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 00:14
|
|
/connie is 
" arguments
|
No, all Constellations are beautiful.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
MrChips posted:No, all Constellations are beautiful. Find for me a flattering picture of a Warning Star.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 00:38
|
|
|
Ardeem posted:Find for me a flattering picture of a Warning Star. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
cowboy elvis posted:Hating the Constellation should be a probatable offense.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
Kebbins posted:I understand that these are english words but they can't possibly mean anything. I'm in my 30s and not Russian 
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
I think the Super Constellation is cooler looking, honestly. The Snoopy radar-dome nose is adorable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 03:52
|
|
|
 I think this is "Lil Monster", one of Curtis Pitts' racers, but the FAA doesn't have the tail number in their records any more.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 04:24
|
|
|
wzm posted:
It outran the law. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 06:18
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:The Smithsonian only accepts completely intact donations to its collection, so I could believe that the SR-71 they have is the closest to flyable. The SR-71 at Udvar Hazy flew to Dulles for inclusion in the museum (13 years before the museum was actually built, it was stored in a hangar at Dulles) while setting a speed record on the way there. I assume the Smithsonian did not cheese hole the frame for safe keeping after they got the keys.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 07:13
|
|
|
 Unfortunately it's just part of some really cool concept art by E wo kaku Peter https://www.artstation.com/artist/peter6409
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 09:02
|
|
|
Humphreys posted:
Replace "George Lucas" with "Disney" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sa0K8qKtsBg
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 09:17
|
|
|
Humphreys posted:
Live action crimson skies reboot looking good
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 09:37
|
|
|
drunkill posted:No need for jato when it already shoots flames: https://youtu.be/taU6qu5pXBo Made some gifs just for this thread because I bet none of you clicked the link and you should all be ashamed. http://i.imgur.com/BRtBZ3W.gifv http://i.imgur.com/2A1IJQv.gifv And from another slowmo video of theirs from the same airshow. Prolick: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMNFuLDWAMo http://i.imgur.com/AXUh9fV.gifv http://i.imgur.com/4nhEvso.gifv http://i.imgur.com/L4EfcH3.gifv http://i.imgur.com/JWiFnH6.gifv http://i.imgur.com/ish4ZBR.gifv http://i.imgur.com/d3uoLks.gifv
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 09:48
|
|
|
So did the flight crew have to gently remind everyone that the engine is normally on fire?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 10:11
|
|
|
cowboy elvis posted:A loaded group of collectors/restoration facility needs to spend countless millions making an SR-71 flyable. Carth Dookie posted:X-70 I am Inacio and I approve this message Fast planes best planes, 1v1 me on this
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
Frinkahedron posted:The SR-71 at Udvar Hazy flew to Dulles for inclusion in the museum (13 years before the museum was actually built, it was stored in a hangar at Dulles) while setting a speed record on the way there. I assume the Smithsonian did not cheese hole the frame for safe keeping after they got the keys. Not only was the plane never cut up, but the interior of the plane was sealed and controlled.   I'm sure the fuel tanks are a complete mess, however.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 16:11
|
|
|
Lets try to approximate where the CG would be on this. What fun!
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 16:11
|
|
|
Kebbins posted:Not only was the plane never cut up, but the interior of the plane was sealed and controlled. I'm always amazed at how loving tiny the SR-71 is compared to what I imagine it to be like.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
Not sure how big you thought the SR was, but I don't think I'd call it tiny. It's a little over 107' long. To put it in perspective, that puts it just under a 737-700 in length.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
Inacio posted:I'm always amazed at how loving tiny the SR-71 is compared to what I imagine it to be like. Not XB-70-sized by any means...  But certainly not "small."  Another reminder of how loving beefy the F-15 is... 
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
    I know it's not, but I always imagine it's the size of the XB-70. I made a (possibly incorrect) Photoshop size comparison, and it really is small compared to the Valkyrie.  And since I had fun doing that: 
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
drunkill posted:No need for jato when it already shoots flames: https://youtu.be/taU6qu5pXBo this is a good fuckin' video maybe not a good video for fuckin' but I don't judge bloops too harshly on that Kebbins posted:Another reminder of how loving beefy the F-15 is... a production F-16XL would've been way cooler than these new F-16s with the conformal shoulder tanks. I'm sure there are many good reasons why they chose the tanks but I also still hold a grudge over the YF-23 sooooo Psion fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Jun 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
Psion posted:
There were times when I felt like the fanboying over the YF-23 borders on Avro Arrow territory, but then I listened to the Penninsula Seniors video on the YF-23. Northrop took it really hard and they were super salty about LockMart releasing pointless glamor shots of the YF-22 firing missiles and AoA testing. One of the coolest parts of the video imo was when they talk about thrust vectoring and how it wasn't needed at all on the YF-23 because the all-moving tail fins were so loving huge. The speaker then shows a diagram that illustrates the surface area of the tail fins compared to the surface area of the wings, and the realization is that the plane really just has 4 wings. They also discuss how the fuselage was boxier than it needed to be because the initial request from the air force was that the ATF needed to stop in 2,000 feet of runway, necessitating thrust reversers. The USAF then rescinded that requirement and Northrop didn't bother resizing the fuselage. Also of interest is that the developers of the YF-23 considered the avionics and sensor suite to be more revolutionary than the plane itself. He says a few times that the airframe only represented half of what they accomplished with the prototypes. Lastly, one of the speakers is a test pilot who got to fly both of the planes (which apparently you're not allowed to do because who needs to compare that kind of experience? /s) and he underhandedly states that the YF-23 knocked the 22 out of the goddamn park.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
Kebbins posted:Not XB-70-sized by any means... Man, the non-lengthened Starlifter was a good looking plane. When they made it longer, they made it much more awkward looking.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
Kebbins posted:There were times when I felt like the fanboying over the YF-23 borders on Avro Arrow territory, but then I listened to the Penninsula Seniors video on the YF-23. Northrop took it really hard and they were super salty about LockMart releasing pointless glamor shots of the YF-22 firing missiles and AoA testing. That's crazy if the -23 was such a performer considering the Raptor might as have come from outer space.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
cowboy elvis posted:That's crazy if the -23 was such a performer considering the Raptor might as have come from outer space. The greatest loss of our generation is not seeing the YF-23 going through the same goony prototype-to-sciencefiction superwar fighter that the YF-22 went through as it hit production. One can only imagine how loving amazing it would look with a gold cockpit...
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
My thoughts about the YF-23 versus the YF-22 debate can be summarized as this: do the NGAD concepts look more like a YF-23 or a YF-22? So far, all the concepts are more like the YF-23, clearly big aircraft, with large wings, a very shallow (if any) tailfin, and none of the high dynamic-Q boxiness of the F-22. The YF-23 is just better suited for the future of air combat than the YF-22.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
Maybe, but the YF-22 was just so much more It's cool, though - I'm sure they learned their lesson about being logical and reasonable just in time to start building the B-21.  Also, new Major Kong article on big planes: http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/6/13/1670828/-The-Big-Guys Heh: "The easiest way to tell an Antonov from a C-5 is the C-5 has a T-tail while Antonov has a conventional tail. You can also tell a C-5 by the fact that it’s usually sitting on the ramp with a bunch of maintenance people working on it. If you see four C-5’s and three are up on jacks, it means they ran out of jacks." BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Jun 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Live action crimson skies reboot looking good I would pay so much money to see this become reality. gently caress. Goddammit somebody make a new Crimson Skies game for the PC. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
The aircraft that was a lot bigger than I expected it to be was the B-1B
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Also, new Major Kong article on big planes: http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/6/13/1670828/-The-Big-Guys As a small note, the Boeing Dreamlifter is only called Giant because that's the registered callsign for Atlas Air, who operates the BLCFs under contract for Boeing. Their normal 744s and 748s use the same callsign. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Maybe, but the YF-22 was just so much more Remember though that the YF-23 was a joint Northrop/McDonnell-Douglas project, and in the late 1980s and early 1990s, both those companies weren't exactly in anyone's good books at the Pentagon, what with the overruns on the B-2 and the A-12 fiasco.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
I went to the Air Zoo last week and the first thing you're confronted with when you walk in is an F-14. I'd never seen one before and had no idea they were so big. Wiki says they're similar sizes but it seemed a hell of a lot bigger than an F4, but I couldn't directly compare because theirs is languishing in the east campus with all the cool stuff (SR71b excepted).
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
Terrible Robot posted:I would pay so much money to see this become reality. gently caress. Let me tell you about this LP: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3815107&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=1
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 00:00 |
|
|
MrYenko posted:As a small note, the Boeing Dreamlifter is only called Giant because that's the registered callsign for Atlas Air, who operates the BLCFs under contract for Boeing. 767s too
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 00:05
|
|
