|
Fender Anarchist posted:Not shown: operator suffocation nah they instagibbed
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 23:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 23:19 |
|
|
Banshee, Fury, and Cutlass
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 00:44
|
|
|
LostCosmonaut posted:Banshee, Fury, and Cutlass I think if you add all three of them together you get maybe 1.1 useable fighters?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 00:50
|
|
|
Banshee 0.7 Fury 0.8 Cutlass -0.4 The math adds up!
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 01:02
|
|
|
They found the wreck of that Argentine submarine Imploded on the sea bed, naturally
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 02:42
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Weapons testing compilation from China Lake. There's no reason not to mute it, because the music is all bad/canned rock and the explosion sounds are patched in rather than from the tests. Man were you right about muting it but holy poo poo this is the best at showing insane accuracy. Straight through the hood of a car at ~40mph?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 04:14
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:Man were you right about muting it but holy poo poo this is the best at showing insane accuracy. Straight through the hood of a car at ~40mph? I gotta assume the pickup pulling the trailer the target vehicle’s mounted on is RC, otherwise that’d be the coolest and most OSHA job in the world.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 04:15
|
|
|
I like the one with the target drone engine busting loose and the fuel hose flailing around like aieeeeee
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 04:21
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:I gotta assume the pickup pulling the trailer the target vehicle’s mounted on is RC, otherwise that’d be the coolest and most OSHA job in the world. They are. Even though they're not directly targeted, they still pick up some gnarly battle damage from the odd stray shot or piece of shrapnel. Especially the ones that pull targets for gun strafing runs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 04:37
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Banshee 0.7 I just now learned that the F-86 was navalized.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 05:47
|
|
|
Blistex posted:I just now learned that the F-86 was navalized. Yeah I learnt this on the deck of the USS Intrepid a few months ago "Wait a sec that's an F86, what's a fury?"
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 06:00
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:Man were you right about muting it but holy poo poo this is the best at showing insane accuracy. Straight through the hood of a car at ~40mph? I had a similar thought, but mine was in response to one of the bombs going through the driver's spot. I wonder if they targeted it on purpose. Also, I wonder if they clean all that stuff up afterwards. Must be an environmental nightmare there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 06:08
|
|
|
Blistex posted:I just now learned that the F-86 was navalized. I think the F-86 and most of its derivatives are some of the finest looking planes ever to fly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 06:15
|
|
|
hannibal posted:I had a similar thought, but mine was in response to one of the bombs going through the driver's spot. I wonder if they targeted it on purpose. Also, I wonder if they clean all that stuff up afterwards. Must be an environmental nightmare there. I've been to one of the blow up stuff in the desert ranges and theres definitely metal and poo poo everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 06:16
|
|
|
Pursesnatcher posted:
The Luftwafffe?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 06:20
|
|
|
Blistex posted:I just now learned that the F-86 was navalized. Splode posted:Yeah I learnt this on the deck of the USS Intrepid a few months ago The Fury has a seriously convoluted family tree, to the point that calling it "a navalized Sabre" is almost selling it short. North American was working on a straight-wing jet fighter design towards the end of World War II, with versions pitched to both the Navy and the Army Air Force. War ended and they learned about the swept wing. They asked both the Navy and the AAF if they want it on their new fighter. Navy said no, Air Force said yes, so the design split in two. Navy's design was the FJ-1 Fury, the closest thing we ever got to a turbojet-powered P-51D. It was a straight-wing, and kind of crappy, so there were only a few made. Air Force's design was the XP-86, which became the F-86 Sabre we know and love. Now the Navy had been slow-walking swept wings a little bit compared to the Air Force because their slow-speed handling wasn't as good (and the Sabre's development reflected this; the leading edge of the wing went through like fifty changes to get it working right) but once the Korean War was underway they kind of changed their minds. To get the ball rolling a little quicker, they ordered some F-86Es with minimal changes. These were called the FJ-2 Fury, even though they're not all that related to the original FJ-1 anymore, but they were also kind of crappy; adding an arrestor hook, folding wings, and so forth to the F-86 increased its empty weight quite a bit, and the Sabre's J47 engine wasn't really up to the task (also its carrier handling wasn't great.) So the airframe was redesigned for the higher thrust J65 engine (as seen on the F-84F) to produce the FJ-3. The final iteration was the FJ-4, which kept the J65 but changed almost everything else - the fuselage was shorter and fatter, the tailfin was taller, the wing had a different profile, and so forth. The easiest way to tell an FJ-2/3 from a Sabre is its stance on the ground - the Fury has a noticeably taller nose gear strut for a higher angle of attack on takeoff. The FJ-3 also has a somewhat larger intake for the new engine, but that's easy to miss. If it looks all swole it's an FJ-4. StandardVC10 fucked around with this message at 06:32 on Nov 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 06:24
|
|
|
That Works posted:Sounds like some of the same flights those Viggens claimed to get an intercept on It really sounds a bit more relaxed than the white knuckle mach 5 closing rate head-on the Viggen intercept was relying on. I find it interesting they ran the intercept on the IR sensor, granted the SR-71 at full burner was probably about as easy as a target you were going to get. Those intercepts were probably the only times the MIG-31 got to do what it was built to I'm guessing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 10:19
|
|
|
priznat posted:I like the one with the target drone engine busting loose and the fuel hose flailing around like aieeeeee I think the Herc pooping out missiles is great. I like to imagine some guy just pulling a pin and dropping them through the hole.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 20:46
|
|
|
That Works posted:Sounds like some of the same flights those Viggens claimed to get an intercept on The Viggen intercepts were all over the Baltic, these MiG-31 ones described here were up over Barents Sea.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 00:11
|
|
|
priznat posted:I like the one with the target drone engine busting loose and the fuel hose flailing around like aieeeeee
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 00:24
|
|
|
In sadder news the Pecos Bill P-51D that i've seen fly around at airshows before crashed yesterday into an apartment complex parking lot in Texas and killed the pilot and a passenger. Sounds like it may have been engine problems but the whole thing sucks. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 01:19
|
|
Conelrad posted:In sadder news the Pecos Bill P-51D that i've seen fly around at airshows before crashed yesterday into an apartment complex parking lot in Texas and killed the pilot and a passenger. Sounds like it may have been engine problems but the whole thing sucks. drat... Seen that one a few times myself. Sad news for the families.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 01:24
|
|
|
First PCOS Bill permaban that I’ve felt sorrow for.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 01:55
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:First PCOS Bill permaban that I’ve felt sorrow for. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 02:01
|
|
mlmp08 posted:First PCOS Bill permaban that I’ve felt sorrow for. loving lmao
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 02:05
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:First PCOS Bill permaban that I’ve felt sorrow for. I love you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 02:49
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Weapons testing compilation from China Lake. There's no reason not to mute it, because the music is all bad/canned rock and the explosion sounds are patched in rather than from the tests. Being a resident engineer for Raytheon at that field must be one of the best jobs. Go to the range in the morning, drink coffee, watch poo poo blow up. Spend the afternoon watching video of poo poo blowing up while drinking coffee, file a report, send off an email or two. Go to an expensed dinner with air-crew and get 'feedback from the end-users'.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 14:30
|
|
|
drgitlin posted:On a completely different topic, some Russian thinks they could definitely shoot down SR-71s with MiG-31s. The SR-71s in that description fly one of two very specific courses that don't deviate by more than a few miles. So, the MIG pilots and ground stations know down to the minute what to do to be in the box of airspace ahead of time for the few moments they could possibly perform an intercept. In a 'weapons free' situation the SR-71s would be coming from randomized directions and flying far more varied routes. It would have been nearly impossible to intercept an SR-71 on those conditions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 14:46
|
|
|
Murgos posted:The SR-71s in that description fly one of two very specific courses that don't deviate by more than a few miles. So, the MIG pilots and ground stations know down to the minute what to do to be in the box of airspace ahead of time for the few moments they could possibly perform an intercept. In a 'weapons free' situation the SR-71s would be coming from randomized directions and flying far more varied routes. It would have been nearly impossible to intercept an SR-71 on those conditions. Weapons free like in... Yugoslavia?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 17:22
|
|
|
large hands posted:Weapons free like in... Yugoslavia? SR-71's had a shitload of actual attempted shootdowns with interceptors and SAMs over the Soviet Union that never panned out. One reason being that they didn't run the same routes or have predictable timing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 17:47
|
|
|
The Blackbird didn’t really operate over the USSR. It operated along its borders, but flying plane as day over the USSR would be too high risk. They did fly over soviet-era SAMs in Vietnam and Libya.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 17:56
|
|
|
Kafouille posted:Those intercepts were probably the only times the MIG-31 got to do what it was built to I'm guessing. Mig 31 pilot gets vector for possible SR-71 intercept. Pulls back stick and pushes throttle all the way forwards. Starts counting down from 15 "3. . . 2. . . 1. . . Engine overhaul time!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 20:40
|
|
|
Trading a Mig 31’s engines for an SR-71 is a great bargain.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 20:46
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Trading a Mig 31’s engines for an SR-71 is a great bargain. Then the SR-71 get's done toying with them and opens up the throttle as they watch the MIG explode from trying to keep up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 21:04
|
|
|
The MiG-25 was the one with the terrible engines (which is honestly a bit overdone, according to this book, page 18 the MiG-25 was limited to Mach 2.83 for structural reasons, at higher airspeeds hard maneuvers would bend the wings so much they would cause control issues), the MiG-31s engines were more reliable. Though the MiG-31 was also limited to below Mach 3. fakeedit: per page 50 of the same book quote:Other sources state that it was VVS pilot Krasnogorsky who should walk away with the record (and get the 'speeding ticket'), as he reached 3,400 km/h (2,125mph) in one of the sorties. This was dangerous because the airframe could be damaged by overheating, but careful inspection of the aircraft showed no damage. Still, the pilots received an unambiguous debriefing after the incident.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 23:48
|
|
|
LostCosmonaut posted:The MiG-25 was the one with the terrible engines (which is honestly a bit overdone, according to this book, page 18 the MiG-25 was limited to Mach 2.83 for structural reasons, at higher airspeeds hard maneuvers would bend the wings so much they would cause control issues), the MiG-31s engines were more reliable. Though the MiG-31 was also limited to below Mach 3. I believe the MiG-31 had something like 1 minute @ or above Mach 3 and it didn't matter how new the engines were, they had to go back to the factory to be overhauled.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 00:08
|
|
|
I'd be curious where you got that, since that's often quoted for the Mig-25 but I cannot find anything about the 31. Also that 'speeding ticket' at 3400km/h turns out about 3.2 mach at 60 000 feet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 00:14
|
|
|
Kafouille posted:I'd be curious where you got that, since that's often quoted for the Mig-25 but I cannot find anything about the 31. Some book about test pilots I read in high school. Wikipedia says that Mach 3.2 or higher requires an engine overhaul, but I can't find a 3.0+ source.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 02:10
|
|
|
I never see any difference listed for the interceptor being fully loaded with missiles either. Thats gotta be a few hundred knots when clean is over Mach 3. Also the G-limit on both was ridiculously low if I remember right. Then again the SR-71 shared that trait IIRC.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 02:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 23:19 |
|
|
mlmp08 posted:The Blackbird didn’t really operate over the USSR. It operated along its borders, but flying plane as day over the USSR would be too high risk. You are correct. The point remains, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 02:42
|
|