|
Flikken posted:I'd love to hear the cockpit voice recorders of when that C17 touched down and realized they weren't landing at an air force base. "I wonder if FedEx will hire us if we say we'll start out flying their regional C208s." In other words, the Air Force career chat equivalent of "we're gonna hit houses, dude."
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 04:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 14:40 |
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:No, it was the pictured Boy Scout outing just after the fall of the USSR. I had the run of the underside of Better Duck II out where you can see the oil stains on Google Maps. Even then, I had to duck to get into the belly of the beast, as it were. I'm being a pedantic jackass here but the C-17 offers about 160,000 lbs of thrust and it's empty weight is 282,000 lbs. The F35B has a very verifiable thrust to weight above 1:1. I was more interested in the numbers than saying you're wrong, though. Edit. Other notable fighters in the US fleet with afterburning thrust to weight ratio above 1:1 include the F-18 Super Hornet and F-16 Fighting Falcon. But surprisingly not the F-22 Raptor. I guess it's a flying hog of sorts. um excuse me fucked around with this message at 04:20 on Jul 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
Flikken posted:I'd love to hear the cockpit voice recorders of when that C17 touched down and realized they weren't landing at an air force base. "Guys, I'm concerned."
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 04:28
|
|
|
Nice username/post combo. I forget what I used when I ran the numbers myself, but it's only with the F-15 and afterburner that fighters got over 1:1. Pretty sure I used the F-15 mil power (no reheat) specs. Edit: wait, F-35B? You're using THAT as an example? Pfft. Even aside from the B-model being a flaming shitheap, of course it's over 1:1, it has to hoist itself into the air without the benefit of aerodynamics. MrChips posted:"Guys, I'm concerned." Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 04:40 on Jul 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 04:30
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
um excuse me posted:I'm being a pedantic jackass here but the C-17 offers about 160,000 lbs of thrust and it's empty weight is 282,000 lbs. The F35B has a very verifiable thrust to weight above 1:1. The 22 can basically walk straight vertical even so, I've seen them do it taking off to do Bear intercepts. It's one of the most unreal looking things I've ever seen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
Dannywilson posted:The 22 can basically walk straight vertical even so, I've seen them do it taking off to do Bear intercepts. It's one of the most unreal looking things I've ever seen. Isn't the -15 limited by the airframe in a vertical climb off the tarmac? Like, it can easily exceed Vne going straight up as soon as it's flying? I would hope its replacement performs even better.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
Dannywilson posted:The 22 can basically walk straight vertical even so, I've seen them do it taking off to do Bear intercepts. It's one of the most unreal looking things I've ever seen. 45 degrees pitch can look a lot like 90 degrees from the ground. Delivery McGee posted:Isn't the -15 limited by the airframe in a vertical climb off the tarmac? Like, it can easily exceed Vne going straight up as soon as it's flying? I would hope its replacement performs even better. That was just the one they stripped down for time to altitude records.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 05:13
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:Isn't the -15 limited by the airframe in a vertical climb off the tarmac? Like, it can easily exceed Vne going straight up as soon as it's flying? I would hope its replacement performs even better. Iirc that's a bit of trivia that while technically true, the combination of speed and air density only exists for the blink of an eye in said flight profile and it's probably not a real concern. The F-15, too, was kinda the last plane where performance was limited by available engine power to stuff into the airframe. Newer aircraft make tradeoffs in acceleration and aerodynamic efficiency to gain the edge in other areas (stealth, sensor capability, etc). The 15 and 16 were probably the last pure dogfighters we'll ever see; even if the F-22 and F-35 can match or exceed them in that arena, that's not their killer app. War... has changed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 05:22
|
|
|
Going off wiki data, so not super accurate but decently close: F-15 Empty weight: 28,000 lb Loaded weight: 44,500 lb Max. takeoff weight: 68,000 lb Powerplant: 2 × Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-100 or −220 afterburning turbofans Dry thrust: 14,590 lbf (64.9 kN) each Thrust with afterburner: 23,770 lbf 22 Empty weight: 43,340 lb Loaded weight: 64,840 lb Max. takeoff weight: 83,500 lb Powerplant: 2 × Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 turbofans with thrust vectoring in pitch-axis Dry thrust: 26,000 lb (116 kN) each Thrust with afterburner: >35,000 lb They both sit around 1.05-1.1. Is the F-15 really superior to the F-22 at anything? Because I've never heard that before. Also, FWIW, the F135 puts out as much dry thrust as the common F-16 choices in full afterburner so even with the weight difference they don't come out that far apart. Mazz fucked around with this message at 05:50 on Jul 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 05:43
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Is the F-15 really superior to the F-22 at anything? Actual combat experience.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 05:59
|
|
|
Let's saw one wing off an F-22 and find out!
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 06:00
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Actual combat experience. Valid, but it's not like the F-22 would suffer against Syrian Su-22s either. For instance they can't even shoot AIM-9X yet so they wouldn't miss!
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 06:10
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:45 degrees pitch can look a lot like 90 degrees from the ground. Ouch. Sitting on a base watching 15's take off for 10 years and then watching 22's take off is like night and day. I've never seen a 15 take off and increase to that pitch, and holy mother the only time I've ever seen 22's make as much noise as a 15 is when they are doing that climb. It may not be rocketship vertical, but the next time I see it happen I'll take a video for y'all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 06:24
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Valid, but it's not like the F-22 would suffer against Syrian Su-22s either. For instance they can't even shoot AIM-9X yet so they wouldn't miss! There's no guarantee a Mike's seeker would track an Su-22 any better past Russian flares than the X-Ray's.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 07:38
|
|
|
um excuse me posted:I'm being a pedantic jackass here but the C-17 offers about 160,000 lbs of thrust and it's empty weight is 282,000 lbs. The F35B has a very verifiable thrust to weight above 1:1. Out of curiosity I checked the civilian side of things, and both a 318 and a 787-8 are roughly in the 0.5:1 range of power to empty weight. Which, if you've only experienced an empty standing takeoff in an airliner for comparison (which is still pretty rad), kind of gives you an idea of just how fun a full power takeoff in a fighter jet actually is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 12:44
|
|
|
david_a posted:So why is that not an issue with the C-17? The article states they make monthly trips. Disregarding landing strip length which others have mentioned, the other factor is landing gear performance. A degraded surface is better handled the better your weight to landing tire ratio is. The C-17, with 14 tires and OEW of about 260000 lbs has a ratio of 18500lbs/tire. The A330 is at about 26000/tire. another feature of the C-17 landing gear is the very unique bogie with 3 tires arranged abreast. This means that when the plane is travelling in a straight line the main wheels run in 6 different tracks, as opposed to the more conventional 4 tracks of the A330. So if there is a pothole or bump the width of a tire, only 1/6 of wheels will be affected, as opposed to 1/4.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 13:48
|
|
|
Pretty much everything open source on the Internet says the F-22 can climb like a goddamned monster in a standard configuration, though no one wants to put out hard numbers for very obvious reasons. It also says there's a bunch of interesting stuff out there that culminated in the USAF investigating one of the pilots they tasked with "selling" the Raptor to the public for potentially posting online too openly about the Raptor's flight performance, culminating in them clearing him of official wrongdoing and then an OPSEC briefing being published openly that highlighted a bunch of his personal info and most relevant posts and insinuated the report was made with the help of law enforcement, which it wasn't. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 13:53
|
|
|
Anecdotally, I was on a dive boat just west southwest of Waikiki beach two weeks ago, and watched a pair of F-22s off Hickam leave in what I can only describe as one of the more impressive things I've seen an airplane do without afterburners.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 14:17
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Is the F-15 really superior to the F-22 at anything? Because I've never heard that before. Being rained on? The F-15 has also been endlessly modifiable. Nobody in 1976 would have foreseen the Strike Eagle. Only time will tell if the F-22 can be as flexible. FuturePastNow fucked around with this message at 15:31 on Jul 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
Not sure if this belongs in Aeronautical Insantity or Locomotive Insanity thread: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1byFm1woPo Two French Rafales escort a TGV and give the passengers a little airshow.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
Glad to see the Armée de l'air has a vertical video enforcement patrol unit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
um excuse me posted:Edit. Other notable fighters in the US fleet with afterburning thrust to weight ratio above 1:1 include the F-18 Super Hornet and F-16 Fighting Falcon. But surprisingly not the F-22 Raptor. I guess it's a flying hog of sorts. The wiki stats for the F-22 list the numbers for each engine. It's WELL above 1:1.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
Godholio posted:The wiki stats for the F-22 list the numbers for each engine. It's WELL above 1:1. Yeah, the unclass numbers posted by USAF put it at something like 1.6 times more thrust than unloaded weight. Also nobody does this without some good thrust/weight ratio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ggnzNVM-io
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
Got buzzed by a Lancaster yesterday avo, didn't have my phone but somebody else did! https://www.facebook.com/aircraftrestorationcompany/videos/801647973325205/
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
It's really drat obvious how much thrust the F-22 has when you get to see one at an air show and compare it to other fighters. They had one last fall at Fleet Week, and when it points its afterburners down at the crowd, it's significantly louder than the full flight of four Blue Angels F/A-18s. Everything around you just starts crackling and rumbling. but mostly just lol @ the idea that the F-22 is somehow outperformed by the F-15, an aircraft thirty years older that it was explicitly designed to replace
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
I don't think anyone said that, just that the F-22 isn't merely engine wrapped in airframe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 01:53
|
|
|
I was watching ID4, and it struck me that the F-22 actually does more impressive aerobatic maneuvers than the alien fighters in that movie. In other words, modern fighters have reach that point they've outpaced Hollywood science fiction from 20 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
Still a century away from Gundam technology.  
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:I was watching ID4, and it struck me that the F-22 actually does more impressive aerobatic maneuvers than the alien fighters in that movie. In other words, modern fighters have reach that point they've outpaced Hollywood science fiction from 20 years ago. The alien fighters have more than 5 minutes of endurance doing that though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 03:08
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:The alien fighters have more than 5 minutes of endurance doing that though. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 03:29
|
|
|
catfry posted:Disregarding landing strip length which others have mentioned, the other factor is landing gear performance. A degraded surface is better handled the better your weight to landing tire ratio is. The C-17, with 14 tires and OEW of about 260000 lbs has a ratio of 18500lbs/tire. The A330 is at about 26000/tire. another feature of the C-17 landing gear is the very unique bogie with 3 tires arranged abreast. This means that when the plane is travelling in a straight line the main wheels run in 6 different tracks, as opposed to the more conventional 4 tracks of the A330. So if there is a pothole or bump the width of a tire, only 1/6 of wheels will be affected, as opposed to 1/4. Major Kong in one of his articles said that the C-17 seemed like kind of a needless upgrade from the C-141. I don't think he claimed that it's not better, just that it wasn't enough of an upgrade over the C-141s to justify the cost. The only thing I know about the C-141 is that I overheard some 'Nam vets at Wright-Patterson call it the "Tube of Pain" or something similar, but I doubt a C-17 has all that more creature comforts for the
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:I don't think anyone said that, just that the F-22 isn't merely engine wrapped in airframe. um excuse me posted:Edit. Other notable fighters in the US fleet with afterburning thrust to weight ratio above 1:1 include the F-18 Super Hornet and F-16 Fighting Falcon. But surprisingly not the F-22 Raptor. I guess it's a flying hog of sorts. tbf I am pretty sure he just misread the data but 
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 04:04
|
|
|
david_a posted:That was helpful, thanks. The C-17 is just straight up larger. Not C-5 large, but large enough to have a real bathroom and not buck all over the place when confronted with weather. The 141 was like maybe 20% larger diameter than a C-130 on the inside, whereas in comparison the C-17 is straight cavernous, with a hell of a lot of headroom. E: ask me questions about (H/M)C-130J's in comparison to the HC-130E/H models if you feel like, we just took possession of our first one last month, and as an aircraft it's a really cool bird IMO. spookykid fucked around with this message at 04:23 on Jul 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 04:17
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:tbf I am pretty sure he just misread the data but Yea I done goofed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 04:30
|
|
|
God I love the weirdness to be found on military bases through Google Maps.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 04:59
|
|
|
david_a posted:That was helpful, thanks. From what I've heard the C-141 fleet was really running out of hours, so they needed to replace them with something. Kebbins posted:God I love the weirdness to be found on military bases through Google Maps. A forbidden mating ritual
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 05:16
|
|
|
That C-5 is gonna be put on a registry.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 05:17
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:From what I've heard the C-141 fleet was really running out of hours, so they needed to replace them with something. Yeah, the C-17 fleet is running out of hours too. They were supposed to last into the 2030-40's with minimal peacetime hours, and they have been rapidly approaching their boneyard dates since like 2004 with what's been thrown at them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 05:44
|
|
|
Kebbins posted:God I love the weirdness to be found on military bases through Google Maps. At least what 3 pictures blended there?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 05:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 14:40 |
|
|
How are the Ospreys doing for hours? I read that they've been run as constantly as possible since they were operational. (click for huge)
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 05:59
|
|
