|
EdibleBodyParts posted:To be fair, the US has both crocs and alligators, so it is a bit understandable that most people will freak out on seeing the less scary one since they don't think to check which one it is when they see it. I got a couple of scars on my ribs and forehead from when one of those scaly fucks tried to eat me in the swamps of Louisiana. gently caress all reptiles.
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 15:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 19:10 |
|
|
LeJackal posted:gently caress all reptiles. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
Draw me like one of your French Geckos Jack.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
Memento posted:Nice plane, it's missing a little bit of something though. This one isn't missing anything, but I assume it was a bit of a tooth-rattling ride while the pilot was flying ~150 miles back from a strafing run where he got a little low.  The most  propeller plane was the F4U Corsair, which once got an air-to-air kill by effectively using its propeller as a giant blender. I'll let Wikipedia explain:quote:One particularly unusual kill was scored by Marine Lieutenant R. R. Klingman of VMF-312 (the "Checkerboards"), over Okinawa. Klingman was in pursuit of a Kawasaki Ki-45 Toryu ("Nick") twin-engine fighter at extremely high altitude when his guns jammed due to the gun lubrication thickening from the extreme cold. He flew up and chopped off the Ki-45's tail with the big propeller of the Corsair. Despite missing five inches (127 mm) off the end of his propeller blades, he managed to land safely after this aerial ramming attack. He was awarded the Navy Cross.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:Yeah, we find it funny watching Americans freak out over Alligators. Those things are fuckin' scaly pussycats that just want to get on with lazing in the sun, and when provoked will (generally) run away. They're the exact opposite of salties that will kill you when they're not even hungry, just because. (And alligators are much smaller too). 
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
ninjahedgehog posted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Kazakov This dude was the first one to do it successfully (by surviving the attack) all the way back in 1915. He also has a bitchin moustache.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
ninjahedgehog posted:
Does the military still have any use for prop planes? Or are those days long over?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
Not single-seat fighters, but there's still the C-130 and all its variants.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
Raimundus posted:Does the military still have any use for prop planes? Or are those days long over? The use various types for transport and training. Edit: Also reconnaissance. Here's a list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_States_military_aircraft MadMattH has a new favorite as of 00:25 on Apr 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
I forgot that there's so much variety. I haven't been to an airshow since I was in elementary school. It's interesting that there are Soviet aircraft on that list. Raimundus has a new favorite as of 00:34 on Apr 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
Raimundus posted:I forgot that there's so much variety. I haven't been to an airshow since I was in elementary school. Look into how they got some of those in the first place, that's where it gets really interesting. Well, some of them anyway, a few they just up and paid somebody for.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
Small prop planes are good for stuff like counter-insurgency support, since stuff like that needs planes that can loiter around for a while at lower speeds than fighter jets usually do. I don't know if the US has a prop plane currently in that role, but stuff like the OV-10 Bronco used to do that job pretty drat well. I believe the Super Tucano is going to be integrated into the US military at some point in the future.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
Detective Thompson posted:Small prop planes are good for stuff like counter-insurgency support, since stuff like that needs planes that can loiter around for a while at lower speeds than fighter jets usually do. I don't know if the US has a prop plane currently in that role, but stuff like the OV-10 Bronco used to do that job pretty drat well. I believe the Super Tucano is going to be integrated into the US military at some point in the future. The USAF used A-1 skyraiders back in Vietnam because they were slow enough to work in tandem with rescue helicopters, with a long loiter time and heavy firepower.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
Detective Thompson posted:Small prop planes are good for stuff like counter-insurgency support, since stuff like that needs planes that can loiter around for a while at lower speeds than fighter jets usually do. I don't know if the US has a prop plane currently in that role, but stuff like the OV-10 Bronco used to do that job pretty drat well. I believe the Super Tucano is going to be integrated into the US military at some point in the future. As late as the 1980s, Piper was trying to sell the US government on a P-51 Mustang derivative, the PA-48 Enforcer, for just that purpose:  Never made it, but surprising to see a WWII fighter being pushed on the USAF so long after.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
Raimundus posted:I forgot that there's so much variety. I haven't been to an airshow since I was in elementary school. If you want more info on how the whole aggressor program got started with Soviet AC read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Red-Eagles-Americas-General-Aviation/dp/1846039703 The whole thing is pretty badass because of what they were flying with/repairing/constant crashes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
 5.04m (16ft 6in, according to google) Great White tagged off the coast of Western Australia.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 08:38
|
|
|
Raimundus posted:Does the military still have any use for prop planes? Or are those days long over?  Tu-95 is roughly equivalent of B-52 and still going strong. Just a little bit slower, but greater range and capacity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 14:15
|
|
|
pigdog posted:
That plane looks like an angry Muppet. Kind of like Waldorf here. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
Raimundus posted:Does the military still have any use for prop planes? Or are those days long over? Yeah, the DoD wants to convert a bunch of crop-duster designs as CAS/FAC birds for use in urban and jungle environments. Cheap, doesn't have the seriously negative stigma drones have earned faster than choppers, but slow enough to be trusted in 'danger close' close air support situations http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-08-29/air-tractors-crop-duster-other-planes-revamped-for-military-use
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
pigdog posted:
Turboprop engines are pretty badass by themselves. Something like a P51 Mustang uses an engine that is essentially the same as the engine in your car, with a propeller attached to the driveshaft. Turboprops aren't having any of that direct drive reciprocating engine poo poo. That fucker is attached to the compressor shaft of a motherfucking jet engine via a reduction gear. The propeller blades on the TU-95 break the sound barrier at the tip.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
pigdog posted:
Are you sure you were not looking at the wrong aircraft when comparing them (maybe clicked on the B-47 instead of the B-52)? Wiki is telling me the Buff has 1200km more ferry range, and can carry 3x as much weight in munitions. Hard to believe that the B-52 is actually older and has been in service longer than the bear. While they have similar shapes, the turboprops, nose and cluttered look of the Bear makes it look like it belongs in WWII rather than the cold war. It's also possibly the second loudest aircraft ever made (after the thunderscreetch). XF-84H "Thunderscreech" The jet who's entire existance was, "Let's put three razor blades on a 5,850 hp turboprop!"  The wiki article is  , read all of it here!
Blistex has a new favorite as of 16:43 on Apr 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
CommanderApaul posted:The propeller blades on the TU-95 break the sound barrier at the tip. Isn't this or some other super sonic prop plane the source of the entire "brown note" thing?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
Darth Freddy posted:Isn't this or some other super sonic prop plane the source of the entire "brown note" thing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_note Not really, but it seems to have started with NASA testing on astronauts. Wikipedia posted:The XF-84H was quite possibly the loudest aircraft ever built (rivalled only by the Russian Tupolev Tu-95 "Bear" bomber[15]), earning the nickname "Thunderscreech" as well as the "Mighty Ear Banger".[16] On the ground "run ups", the prototypes could reportedly be heard 25 miles (40 km) away.[17] Unlike standard propellers that turn at subsonic speeds, the outer 24–30 inches of the blades on the XF-84H's propeller traveled faster than the speed of sound even at idle thrust, producing a continuous visible sonic boom that radiated laterally from the propellers for hundreds of yards. The shock wave was actually powerful enough to knock a man down; an unfortunate crew chief who was inside a nearby C-47 was severely incapacitated during a 30-minute ground run.[17] Coupled with the already considerable noise from the subsonic aspect of the propeller and the dual turbines, the aircraft was notorious for inducing severe nausea and headaches among ground crews.[11] In one report, a Republic engineer suffered a seizure after close range exposure to the shock waves emanating from a powered-up XF-84H.[18] That right there is some awesome stuff, I'd love to see a film or picture of it. EDIT: I have seen both pictures and video and heard the sound it makes ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YItexQxJS9U ). None of them seem to show what is said to have happened though. MadMattH has a new favorite as of 19:13 on Apr 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
Russia likes to send bears to challenge the US and others' air space from time to time and they get to play intercept. It's almost tradition!   This one is pretty loving ballsy:  http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_285.shtml
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
mng posted:Russia likes to send bears to challenge the US and others' air space from time to time and they get to play intercept. It's almost tradition! In this one the tail gun isn't pointed up. Did the Russians stop doing that? I know during the cold war there were always careful to point it away from incoming escorts because the tail run radar liked to put inadvertent radar lock on planes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:In this one the tail gun isn't pointed up. Did the Russians stop doing that? I know during the cold war there were always careful to point it away from incoming escorts because the tail run radar liked to put inadvertent radar lock on planes. I don't know about Soviet/Russian procedure for the gun, but I know that standard interception procedure is to approach more from the side, so as to stay out of the rear gun's firing arc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
  I wish I were half as badass as this 13 year old girl. She's learning to hunt with an eagle. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26969150
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:In this one the tail gun isn't pointed up. Did the Russians stop doing that? I know during the cold war there were always careful to point it away from incoming escorts because the tail run radar liked to put inadvertent radar lock on planes. Dusseldorf posted:In this one the tail gun isn't pointed up. Did the Russians stop doing that? I know during the cold war there were always careful to point it away from incoming escorts because the tail run radar liked to put inadvertent radar lock on planes. It doesn't matter. These are called reaction/interception flights. The reacting fighters are there in as much a political sense as the bombers (which are likely doing marpats), if the fighters were there to engage they would do so BVR making a tail mounted gun completely moot. The US stopped with tail guns decades ago. I'd wager it's the same for that TU-95 but they just didn't remove the weapon system and on some variants they were replaced with an extended fairing that houses different emitters. But yes, it is usually in the up position for the very reasons you stated. Also, it may simply not work which would be my best guess. dr cum patrol esq has a new favorite as of 22:12 on Apr 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
 13-year-old eagle huntress in Mongolia
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
Is it a different huntress from the one three posts up?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
Ah, well, yes, because you see, even though I follow the thread very closely, I somehow skipped past that ONE POST, and so THIS is the eagle huntress that I actually read about.  Weird.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
Hi-res for some reason:
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
Raimundus posted:Hi-res for some reason: He earned more than a kiss on the cheek. Pop a viagra my man.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 06:06
|
|
|
Was this photo taken 2 seconds before he dropped dead from a heart attack ?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 06:46
|
|
|
Istari posted:Was this photo taken 2 seconds before he dropped dead from a heart attack ? Uh dude that doesn't look anything like the Ultimate Warrior.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 07:01
|
|
|
Did he do anything significant? I guess Evan Brasset surviving the Pearl Harbor attacks on the USS Rigel without firing a shot then surviving until 2013 doesn't really scream bad-rear end to me. If we're going to call militarism or jingoism bad-rear end, let's put some effort into it beyond a photogenic moment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 08:45
|
|
|
mng posted:This one is pretty loving ballsy: It's actually pretty loving un-ballsy. By law you can get within 500ft of a ship, a rule we use often to send aircraft to other vessels to take pictures if they are of interest. Occasionally civilian lookeeloos will fly that close to have a look at a ship and it pisses people off. But the situation in the picture was likely pretty lame but sadly was probably the highlight of the day since the pilots got a break from flying donuts to play escort.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 14:14
|
|
|
By law sure, but we generally keep 5NM away from warships with whatever aircraft I'm controlling and 10NM outside of a CV. Try putting something inside 10NM of a carrier and watch what happens  e; Nautical Miles Ruse has a new favorite as of 16:12 on Apr 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 14:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 19:10 |
|
|
Ruse posted:By law sure, but we generally keep 5nm away from warships with whatever aircraft I'm controlling and 10nm outside of a CV. Try putting something inside 10nm of a carrier and watch what happens I read nm as nanometres and was immensely confused for a couple of seconds. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 14:42
|
|
