Aeronautical Insanity: switching to secondary tolerances

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Automotive Insanity > Aeronautical Insanity: switching to secondary tolerances

«‹›2241 »

marumaru: May 20, 2013

Those are some cool loving photos.

# ? Feb 26, 2019 14:33

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 27, 2024 08:34

ewe2: Jul 1, 2009

Raikyn posted:

Processed some more warbirds shots

awesomeness

If someone has flown this type, how do they handle, are they twitchy or forgiving?

# ? Feb 26, 2019 14:37

n0tqu1tesane: May 7, 2003; She was rubbing her ass all over my hands. They don't just do that for everyone.; Grimey Drawer

My wife's got a collection of Coca-Cola stuff, and I noticed this bookmark last night. Thought the choice of examples was interesting.

# ? Feb 26, 2019 15:25

drunkill: Sep 25, 2007; me @ ur posting; Fallen Rib

A new drone has been unveiled.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-27/combat-drone-secretly-developed-by-raaf-and-boeing-unveiled/10851000

quote:

A large drone designed for electronic warfare, which could eventually carry bombs, will be publicly unveiled today after being secretly developed with the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF).

The unmanned system is roughly the size of a traditional jet fighter and was quietly developed in Brisbane by aerospace giant Boeing, in collaboration with the RAAF and the Defence Department.

A prototype of the yet-to-be-named unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is expected to be unveiled this morning by Defence Minister Christopher Pyne at the Avalon aerospace trade show outside Melbourne.

Details of the classified "Loyal Wingman" project remain scant, but the ABC believes the UAV is designed to fly up to several thousand kilometres.

Its primary purpose would be to conduct electronic warfare and reconnaissance missions, particularly in environments where it is considered risky to send manned aircraft.

On the aircraft's underside is a large payload bay that can carry a sensor or electronic warfare equipment, but industry sources said it could also be used to one day carry bombs.

The UAV could be deployed alongside existing RAAF aircraft such as the P-8A Poseidon to provide crucial support in combat operations.

It is the first combat aircraft to be designed and developed in Australia in more than half a century, and the ABC understands it could be in production by the mid-2020s.

In November the Government announced the American-produced MQ-9 Reaper had been selected as Australia's first armed remotely piloted aircraft system.

Last year former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull also announced Australia would purchase six American-made unmanned Triton spy planes, which do not carry weapons, at a cost of $7 billion.

The cost of the Boeing "Loyal Wingman" project is not known, but it is believed to be the company's largest investment of its kind outside the US.

Once fully developed, the Australian-designed aircraft could eventually be exported to other nations, government sources said.

Expect footage later today at the announcement. It is apparently ~12m long.

Those are amazing photos.

Airshow on here this weekend but I'll be missing it this year. However planes have started to show up already and this year they've got a ground display B52, I saw it do a flyby from Guam at the last airshow in 2017 but some planespotters got incredible footage of it arriving on Friday.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNXw2xHJoGg

# ? Feb 26, 2019 17:08

Psion: Dec 13, 2002; eVeN I KnOw wHaT CoRnEr gAs iS

drunkill posted:

A new drone has been unveiled.

YF-23 rides again, drone edition

# ? Feb 26, 2019 21:23

Big Mean Jerk: Jan 27, 2009; Well, of course I know him.
He's me.

Raikyn posted:

Processed some more warbirds shots

These are fantastic. What kind of lens did you use?

drunkill posted:

A new drone has been unveiled.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-27/combat-drone-secretly-developed-by-raaf-and-boeing-unveiled/10851000

Expect footage later today at the announcement. It is apparently ~12m long.

I swear I fought these in Ace Combat 7.

# ? Feb 26, 2019 23:31

BalloonFish: Jun 30, 2013; Fun Shoe

Inacio posted:

Those are some cool loving photos.

They really are :swoon:

ewe2 posted:

If someone has flown this type, how do they handle, are they twitchy or forgiving?

By all accounts the SE5 is one of the better-handling Allied fighters. Certainly more predictable, stable and less vicious than the Camel and many of the other rotary-engined aircraft and it lacked any aerodynamic quirks like the RE8 and its nasty spin/stall behaviour. It was developed at a point in the war when the knowledge of aerodynamics and which control systems did/didn't work was rapidly improving, and there was an effective dialogue between operational squadrons and the designers at the Royal Aircraft Factory as well a new ethos at the RAF about designing aircraft which considered the skills/training/survivability of the pilots rather than just producing 'a good fighter' on paper and expecting the fly-boys to deal with whatever handling or performance issues arose. Apparently the SE5 is very unusual for its time in that it can genuinely be flown hands-off which is something of a boon, especially when you're standing up to change the drums in the top-mounted Lewis gun! It was also much more structurally sturdy than earlier fighters, giving pilots greater confidence to throw it about in aerobatics, push its limits in terms of airspeed and Gs and making it better at shrugging off rough landings.

Fake edit: Rather than trying to recall stuff from memory and hearsay, have it from the horse's mouth:

http://thevintageaviator.co.nz/projects/se-5a-reproduction/flying-se5a

"Compared to other Great War fighters it is rugged, reliable and very stable, and an excellent gun platform allowing an accurate shot from a greater distance. If I were comparing it to a more modern aircraft I would have to relate it to a 1950s era Great Lakes trainer, the SE5a certainly doesn�t feel like a ninety year-old design."

# ? Feb 27, 2019 01:44

HookedOnChthonics: Dec 5, 2015; Profoundly dull

BalloonFish posted:

especially when you're standing up to change the drums in the top-mounted Lewis gun!

Nitpick on a good post but you don�t have to do this; as you can see in the photos the top gun is on a curved rail called a Foster mounting to allow it to be pulled down so that it sits vertically with the body of the gun right in front of the pilot for precisely such operations

Now of course you're still fiddling with cantankerous mechanicals using gloves hands while strapped into a confined space with wind and oil and vertigo and potentially bullets battering you in the face at 100kn so it was hardly easy, but still better than unstrapping and standing

HookedOnChthonics fucked around with this message at 07:57 on Feb 27, 2019

# ? Feb 27, 2019 07:39

SeaborneClink: Aug 27, 2010; MAWP... MAWP!

drunkill posted:

Airshow on here this weekend but I'll be missing it this year. However planes have started to show up already and this year they've got a ground display B52, I saw it do a flyby from Guam at the last airshow in 2017 but some planespotters got incredible footage of it arriving on Friday.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNXw2xHJoGg

The B-52 has to be one of the most mental airplanes ever made to sit in on the design stages of.

Dual Mains: :stare:

Dual Nose: :catstare:

WINGTIP SINGLES: :rock:

# ? Feb 27, 2019 08:09

ewe2: Jul 1, 2009

BalloonFish posted:

"Compared to other Great War fighters it is rugged, reliable and very stable, and an excellent gun platform allowing an accurate shot from a greater distance. If I were comparing it to a more modern aircraft I would have to relate it to a 1950s era Great Lakes trainer, the SE5a certainly doesn�t feel like a ninety year-old design."

Thanks! That site is terrific, too. It's incredible how quickly the technology advanced by the end of the Great War.

# ? Feb 27, 2019 08:15

HookedOnChthonics: Dec 5, 2015; Profoundly dull

SeaborneClink posted:

The B-52 has to be one of the most mental airplanes ever made to sit in on the design stages of.

Dual Mains:
Dual Nose:
WINGTIP SINGLES:

I mean...

# ? Feb 27, 2019 08:28

I would blow Dane Cook: Dec 26, 2008

https://twitter.com/OfficialDGISPR/status/1100641491679150080

# ? Feb 27, 2019 09:27

Raikyn: Feb 22, 2011

Big Mean Jerk posted:

These are fantastic. What kind of lens did you use?

I swear I fought these in Ace Combat 7.

Used a 600mm lens. Does an alright job.

# ? Feb 27, 2019 11:59

Nebakenezzer: Sep 13, 2005; The Mote in God's Eye

On bad flights: Ferry Command used to fly PBY Catalina to Britain, via Bermuda. Bermuda BTW is about 1000 km (600 miles) off the US coast. Even so, flying a Catalina from Bermuda to Wales took aprox. 29 hours

# ? Feb 27, 2019 13:51

Platystemon: Feb 13, 2012; BREADS

I didn�t know anything came that close to the Double Sunrise.

# ? Feb 27, 2019 14:02

BalloonFish: Jun 30, 2013; Fun Shoe

Nebakenezzer posted:

On bad flights: Ferry Command used to fly PBY Catalina to Britain, via Bermuda. Bermuda BTW is about 1000 km (600 miles) off the US coast. Even so, flying a Catalina from Bermuda to Wales took aprox. 29 hours

Catalinas were also used on the Indian Ocean Service, established by a joint effort between QANTAS and the RAAF to re-establish an air line between Australia and the rest of the Empire which had been cut by the Japanese invasion of Malaya and the conquest of Singapore. Faced with nearly 3500 miles of over-ocean flying, the Catalinas flew direct and non-stop across the eastern Indian Ocean between Perth and Ceylon/Sri Lanka. You'll probably notice that this puts them right nearby large parts of the East Indies then well-supplied with Japanese fighter aircraft. The Catalinas had to maintain radio silence the entire way and could not use any form of radio navigation - it was all done by astro-nav- and they could not receive en-route weather reports. The trip was the longest scheduled over-ocean air leg in the world at the time. It was timetabled to take 29 hours but unfavourable winds and weather could extend that to over 32 hours.

In order to carry enough fuel to make the trip the Catalains had to be largely stripped of their interiors. They only carried three passengers and no more than 150lbs of high-priority mail. The Catalinas carried so much fuel on take-off that if one of the engines failed during the first 10 hours of the flight the aircraft wouldn't be able to stay aloft, but that never happened.

By the end of 1944 the service was able to use B-24s which could carry five times the payload and shave 10 hours off the trip.

Platystemon posted:

I didn�t know anything came that close to the Double Sunrise.

You got a certificate to prove it on the QANTAS flights:

BalloonFish fucked around with this message at 16:32 on Feb 27, 2019

# ? Feb 27, 2019 16:29

tactlessbastard: Feb 4, 2001; Godspeed, post; Fun Shoe

BalloonFish posted:

They really are

By all accounts the SE5 is one of the better-handling Allied fighters. Certainly more predictable, stable and less vicious than the Camel and many of the other rotary-engined aircraft and it lacked any aerodynamic quirks like the RE8 and its nasty spin/stall behaviour. It was developed at a point in the war when the knowledge of aerodynamics and which control systems did/didn't work was rapidly improving, and there was an effective dialogue between operational squadrons and the designers at the Royal Aircraft Factory as well a new ethos at the RAF about designing aircraft which considered the skills/training/survivability of the pilots rather than just producing 'a good fighter' on paper and expecting the fly-boys to deal with whatever handling or performance issues arose. Apparently the SE5 is very unusual for its time in that it can genuinely be flown hands-off which is something of a boon, especially when you're standing up to change the drums in the top-mounted Lewis gun! It was also much more structurally sturdy than earlier fighters, giving pilots greater confidence to throw it about in aerobatics, push its limits in terms of airspeed and Gs and making it better at shrugging off rough landings.

Fake edit: Rather than trying to recall stuff from memory and hearsay, have it from the horse's mouth:

http://thevintageaviator.co.nz/projects/se-5a-reproduction/flying-se5a

"Compared to other Great War fighters it is rugged, reliable and very stable, and an excellent gun platform allowing an accurate shot from a greater distance. If I were comparing it to a more modern aircraft I would have to relate it to a 1950s era Great Lakes trainer, the SE5a certainly doesn’t feel like a ninety year-old design."

Frederick Libby, author of Horses Don't Fly, was an American cowboy who joined the Canadian Army and wound up in the RAF had nothing but nice things to say about the SE5.

# ? Feb 27, 2019 17:41

Plastic_Gargoyle: Aug 3, 2007

I would blow Dane Cook posted:

https://twitter.com/OfficialDGISPR/status/1100641491679150080

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=222337

Slightly weird that it's in an accident database, if you think about it, but here we are.

# ? Feb 27, 2019 18:02

drunkill: Sep 25, 2007; me @ ur posting; Fallen Rib

BalloonFish posted:

Catalinas were also used on the Indian Ocean Service, established by a joint effort between QANTAS and the RAAF to re-establish an air line between Australia and the rest of the Empire which had been cut by the Japanese invasion of Malaya and the conquest of Singapore. Faced with nearly 3500 miles of over-ocean flying, the Catalinas flew direct and non-stop across the eastern Indian Ocean between Perth and Ceylon/Sri Lanka. You'll probably notice that this puts them right nearby large parts of the East Indies then well-supplied with Japanese fighter aircraft. The Catalinas had to maintain radio silence the entire way and could not use any form of radio navigation - it was all done by astro-nav- and they could not receive en-route weather reports. The trip was the longest scheduled over-ocean air leg in the world at the time. It was timetabled to take 29 hours but unfavourable winds and weather could extend that to over 32 hours.

In order to carry enough fuel to make the trip the Catalains had to be largely stripped of their interiors. They only carried three passengers and no more than 150lbs of high-priority mail. The Catalinas carried so much fuel on take-off that if one of the engines failed during the first 10 hours of the flight the aircraft wouldn't be able to stay aloft, but that never happened.

By the end of 1944 the service was able to use B-24s which could carry five times the payload and shave 10 hours off the trip.

You got a certificate to prove it on the QANTAS flights:

If people want more information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Double_Sunrise

They remain the longest ever commercial flights in history (in terms of length not distance)

# ? Feb 27, 2019 18:15

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

drunkill posted:

They remain the longest ever commercial flights in history (in terms of length not distance)

Did commercial airship services not count as a "flight"?

# ? Feb 27, 2019 18:46

Nebakenezzer: Sep 13, 2005; The Mote in God's Eye

hobbesmaster posted:

Did commercial airship services not count as a "flight"?

# ? Feb 27, 2019 19:44

meltie: Nov 9, 2003; Not a sodding fridge.

hobbesmaster posted:

Did commercial airship services not count as a "flight"?

it's not 'flight' unless it's provided by aerodynamic lift FIGHT ME

# ? Feb 27, 2019 20:41

simplefish: Mar 28, 2011; So long, and thanks for all the ~~fish~~ gallbladdΣrs!

If it's not a flight, what is it then?

2 Lift 2 Luxurious: Dirigible Drift?

# ? Feb 27, 2019 20:47

vessbot: Jun 17, 2005; I don't like you because you're dangerous

simplefish posted:

If it's not a flight, what is it then?

2 Lift 2 Luxurious: Dirigible Drift?

Amazing

# ? Feb 27, 2019 21:07

Cat Mattress: Jul 14, 2012; by Cyrano4747

simplefish posted:

If it's not a flight, what is it then?

A float. A buoyance.

# ? Feb 27, 2019 21:19

Slo-Tek: Jun 8, 2001; WINDOWS 98 BEAT HIS FRIEND WITH A SHOVEL

Kind of interesting. F-117 still flying 11 years after the official retirement. May be using it for sensor testing. May be worth having in the budget to say "That black triangle you saw? it is old news, nothing interesting, don't worry about black triangles".

http://thedrive.com/the-war-zone/26662/behold-the-most-detailed-photo-taken-of-an-airborne-f-117-nighthawk-in-over-a-decade

# ? Feb 27, 2019 22:23

Finger Prince: Jan 5, 2007

Slo-Tek posted:

Kind of interesting. F-117 still flying 11 years after the official retirement. May be using it for sensor testing. May be worth having in the budget to say "That black triangle you saw? it is old news, nothing interesting, don't worry about black triangles".

http://thedrive.com/the-war-zone/26662/behold-the-most-detailed-photo-taken-of-an-airborne-f-117-nighthawk-in-over-a-decade

I thought they converted some to targeting drones?

# ? Feb 27, 2019 22:57

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

Finger Prince posted:

I thought they converted some to targeting drones?

Probably what they were doing? The story that has been pieced together about area 51 is that its where the testing of stealth technologies and radars is done. So an F-117 flying circles around area 51 was probably testing some sort of radar on the ground to see how it does against "old" stealth technology.

Or maybe they were testing some of the alien stuff there, who knows.

# ? Feb 27, 2019 23:04

FuturePastNow: May 19, 2014

I think another poster here said, last time this came up, that the F-117 has the most well-studied and documented radar cross section of any plane so it's ideal for testing radars and their ability to track things that don't want to be tracked.

# ? Feb 27, 2019 23:08

I would blow Dane Cook: Dec 26, 2008

There's no way the F-117 is a real plane.

# ? Feb 27, 2019 23:21

MrChips: Jun 10, 2005; FLIGHT SAFETY TIP: Fatties out first

SeaborneClink posted:

The B-52 has to be one of the most mental airplanes ever made to sit in on the design stages of.

Dual Mains:
Dual Nose:
WINGTIP SINGLES:

You forgot about the really mental bits of the B-52 - eight engines that were still only barely adequate for the job, mostly useless control surfaces, a 1940s and 50s understanding of aircraft stability and handling, and in early models little screaming air turbines driving every system you can imagine all over the aircraft, being fed by bleed air from the engines that was so hot the ducts carrying it would be glowing cherry red.

# ? Feb 27, 2019 23:27

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

I would blow Dane Cook posted:

There's no way the F-117 is a real plane.

Well yeah thats why everyone thought it and the have blue were alien spaceships

# ? Feb 27, 2019 23:34

drgitlin: Jul 25, 2003; luv 2 get custom titles from a forum that goes into revolt when its told to stop using a bad word.

hobbesmaster posted:

Probably what they were doing? The story that has been pieced together about area 51 is that its where the testing of stealth technologies and radars is done. So an F-117 flying circles around area 51 was probably testing some sort of radar on the ground to see how it does against "old" stealth technology.

Or maybe they were testing some of the alien stuff there, who knows.

Groom Lake was first set up when they were developing the U-2 and then the SR-71.

It�s also where the CIA kept the first captured MiGs before the Red Eagles were set up. Coincidentally, the Red Eagles were also based at Tonopah; they flew MiGs during the day and had to be on the ground before dark. The F-117s flew at night and had to be on the ground before dawn.

# ? Feb 27, 2019 23:36