|
MrYenko posted:Tom Hardy: Suddenly less cool. Safely behind Kurt Russel, certainly.
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 04:16 |
|
|
I'd kill anyone in this thread for a ride in a Spitfire. What the gently caress Tom Hardy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
cowboy elvis posted:Maybe he doesn't care for vintage Russian airframes. Just got out of Dunkirk. See the Yak's more circular cowl took me out of the scene every time they used that shot. Why can't I just enjoy things?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 02:33
|
|
|
It took me a while to figure out what kind of plane this is. Saw the picture in some news site. So I'll just leave it here for you to figure out 
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
0toShifty posted:It took me a while to figure out what kind of plane this is. Saw the picture in some news site. So I'll just leave it here for you to figure out http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 06:12
|
|
|
0toShifty posted:It took me a while to figure out what kind of plane this is. Saw the picture in some news site. So I'll just leave it here for you to figure out I know I know BAe-146
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 06:14
|
|
|
priznat posted:I know I know It's like a teensy C-17! 
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 07:28
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:I'd kill anyone in this thread for a ride in a Spitfire. What the gently caress Tom Hardy. And I'd add in everyone's families for the chance to spend my Hollywood Actor Money on flying lessons so I could actually fly the things. But no, he wimps out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 08:46
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:It's like a teensy C-17! If you think the 146 is tiny, look up the D328JET - it's a baby 146.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 11:08
|
|
|
Looks more like a DC-8 super 60 or 70 with CFM56's to me. Is it a NASA jet?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 11:48
|
|
|
Tsuru posted:Looks more like a DC-8 super 60 or 70 with CFM56's to me. Is it a NASA jet? Well I'll be damned! 
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 12:57
|
|
|
Tsuru posted:Looks more like a DC-8 super 60 or 70 with CFM56's to me. Is it a NASA jet? That's it! It's NASA's DC-8-72.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 13:39
|
|
|
Finger Prince posted:Well I'll be damned! It's like a 707 with less refinement.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 13:51
|
|
|
Point of  : Super sixties are stretched, super seventies are super sixties, re-engined with CFM-56s. Super sixties have JT3s.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
drat! I was sure it was a high wing, and the 146 was those skinny pylons.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
Would a 146 have the legs for Antarctic flights?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Would a 146 have the legs for Antarctic flights? Yes they actually use them for tourist trips.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
cowboy elvis posted:It's like a 707 with less refinement. No no no, that's the JSTARS. Antique engines, ancient ex-civilian airframes, tortured souls, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
priznat posted:drat! I was sure it was a high wing, and the 146 was those skinny pylons. Nasa's DC8 has a lot of extra optical apertures on it for helping research missions - maybe that photo was taken from one of the ones not on the same level as the passenger windows. It even has a place where there's one on the top of the aircraft, and one on the bottom, with a trap door in the floor to make them both available to observe from at the same time! Friday it was in California flying in literal circles. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Point of Absolutely right, the 72 was the short fuselage and the 71/73 long fuse, the 72/73 had the larger wing. Always loved the DC8 since I saw the Sky Truckers (?) documentary on Discovery channel when I was a kid, the first kind of cockpit video I ever saw. A grizzled old crew complete with toothless F/E taking a clapped out old -61/-62 with hushkits (stage III!) and a garmin taped to the glareshield into Nigeria and Tblisi and some other godforsaken places during the 1990s. The stuff dreams are made of. Tsuru fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Jul 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
0toShifty posted:It took me a while to figure out what kind of plane this is. Saw the picture in some news site. So I'll just leave it here for you to figure out This somehow reminds me of those eBay postings showing something shiny and you can see the cameraman naked in the reflection.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
I'm more curious about what the heck is going on in the snow on the ground. If the plane isn't super low, that's a really big path through some really deep snow. Caribou or something? Edit: Found the article via Google image search, so nevermind, now I know. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
The Locator posted:I'm more curious about what the heck is going on in the snow on the ground. If the plane isn't super low, that's a really big path through some really deep snow. Caribou or something? Here's a news article if anyone else wants to know more. Says the photo was taken in November 2016. It's the Larsen C crack in a 2,240 sq mile ice shelf. It broke off a few days ago. http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-iceberg-antarctica-20170712-story.html
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
0toShifty posted:It took me a while to figure out what kind of plane this is. Saw the picture in some news site. So I'll just leave it here for you to figure out Is this one of those things that suggest a climate-induced doom for humanity? not the plane edit - I should have read to the end of the thread probably
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Is this one of those things that suggest a climate-induced doom for humanity? not the plane That crack has been there for a very long time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
The crack was first spotted in 2010 as far as I can tell.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
glynnenstein posted:The crack was first spotted in 2010 as far as I can tell. According to the article, the crack was already present (at least part of it) in the early 60's when Larsen C was first photographed. The newsworthy thing they are reporting on now is that the crack finally got long enough to make a large chunk of the shelf break off and become an Iceberg of Unusual Size.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
Here, have a naked WB-57.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
0toShifty posted:Here, have a naked WB-57. Why are they driving a WB-57 in primer? EDIT: Also does it have 3 pitot tubes?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 02:01
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:Why are they driving a WB-57 in primer? http://www.globalaviationresource.com/v2/2013/08/10/nasas-new-wb-57-n927na-flies/
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
Oh my god, those are TF33s?!? Mean time to pilot hearing loss: 14 minutes. Besides that, that's cool as poo poo. That plane's former squadron now operates B-2s.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 02:43
|
|
|
Best week of the year to live in Madison. Just non stop rotary traffic all day. god bless you EAA 
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
I'm the unpainted tail and nacelle soon to learn the true meaning of sand.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 03:26
|
|
|
Follow up on that question about the Korean aircraft that was routed to avoid Russia, something came to my attention today. Apparently the Russians won't allow operation in their airspace without TCAS, so it's possible that the aircraft in question had a bad TCAS and had to take the alternative routing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 14:46
|
|
|
Staying in Greenville, TX for a few nights, have seen two low-flying Rivet Joints already. Wasn't planning to stay here, so didn't bring the bkg Nikon to get photos of them. Oddly, I lived here for three years and never really noticed them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 02:57
|
|
|
Good lord, the Privateer was goofy looking:
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
It's just a Liberator with a B-17 tail and some extra turrets. In a world where the Brits were allowed to commit crimes against aesthetics with 30 years of bomber programs, it's not worth mentioning.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 00:38
|
|
|
Ball turrets fore and aft I get, for increased range of motion, but was there any benefit to those waist blisters compared to the "pintle mount in a square hole" approach seen on most bombers? Crew comfort due to less wind noise on long maritime patrol flights (the PBY had 'em too), and/or bomber designers decided they'd rather carry another bomb or two and make the crew slightly less comfortable? Edit: for reference, here's the waist gun position on the bomber version:  "V for victory! Or something like that." I like the little retractable wind-deflector flap, presumably they could pop a bit of plexiglass over the hole for ferry flights, or maybe leave it open all the time and just pop out the spoiler (which would hurt fuel economy no matter what's in the window) when the guns are manned? Edit again: I didn't notice it at the time, but yeah, looks like there's a sliding door above the hole, and the gun is placed far enough forward that it can be swung to the rear and go inside (hopefully there's some kind of swing-out stop that prevents that when in use, like, when the wind-spoiler is activated it also pops out a little guard-bar on the opposite edge of the door to keep the gun muzzle OUTSIDE the airplane). Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 00:56 on Jul 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
Given that they're only on Navy bombers, I'm going to assume it's a keep as much of the salt water as possible out of the plane thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 02:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 04:16 |
|
|
I think it was to improve the gunner's field of view to spot shipping or submarines.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 04:52
|
|
