|
Speaking of Raptors, would it be uncouth to ask them on-frequency if they're wearing radar reflectors like F-117s used to, or is that sort of thing considered to be sensitive? I just talked to a pair of them, and was curious.
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 18:33 |
|
|
Generally speaking, no, you shouldn't ask about their radar signature. Also, they're busy flying the plane and probably don't want to answer airshow questions from whoever happens to be on their freqency.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Generally speaking, no, you shouldn't ask about their radar signature. Also, they're busy flying the plane and probably don't want to answer airshow questions from whoever happens to be on their freqency. It's not their frequency.  That's what I figured, though.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Speaking of Raptors, would it be uncouth to ask them on-frequency if they're wearing radar reflectors like F-117s used to, or is that sort of thing considered to be sensitive? I just talked to a pair of them, and was curious.  F-22 with a Luneburg dingleberry
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
SeaborneClink posted:
I can't see the airplanes I'm talking to, sadly. Also, Raptor-Dingleberry is hilarious. I didn't realize that's where they mounted it. IIRC, the F-117's was on one of the engine lumps on the top of the aircraft.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Speaking of Raptors, would it be uncouth to ask them on-frequency if they're wearing radar reflectors like F-117s used to, or is that sort of thing considered to be sensitive? I just talked to a pair of them, and was curious. Didn't know they used those. I just assume that if they aren't squawking I won't see them and therefore there are unknown Raptors and B2's flying around without talking to anyone all the time.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
SeaborneClink posted:
There's other things they use that I won't talk about.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
I caught a snippet of a segment on NPR about the original test pilot for the f-117 telling his story about how he got the gig. Sounded pretty interesting. I haven't heard the whole thing but it's here if anyone is interested. http://www.npr.org/2015/05/10/405241044/after-a-fiery-speech-a-top-secret-job-offer-in-the-desert
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
SeaborneClink posted:
That tiny little thing makes them return a radar signature eh? Neat. Luneburg Lens
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
I had become convinced that it was impossible to have a gullwing flying boat that was ugly... Meet the Shorts Knuckleduster  I believe the weird-rear end things over the engine cowlings are part of the steam-cooling system for the engines (Rolls Royce Goshawks, a predecessor of the Merlin).
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
Well, you can't hang the radiators under the engines, they'd get full of water.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
Some footage here of a SkyWest CRJ making a partial gear landing at LAX this morning: http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/05/11/jet-makes-hard-landing-at-lax/ Left main landing gear failed to extend and they made a nice and gentle landing.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
What was that jet that had its nose gear cocked 90 degrees off and you could almost hear CNN hoping for it to explode in a fireball?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
Gibfender posted:What was that jet that had its nose gear cocked 90 degrees off and you could almost hear CNN hoping for it to explode in a fireball? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JetBlue_Airways_Flight_292 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epKrA8KjYvg
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
There have actually been several A320 nose wheel failures. They all ended with the plane making lots of scary looking sparks but thats about it.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:That tiny little thing makes them return a radar signature eh? Neat. F-35 has a dingleberry too.  And two hip warts 
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
If there is anything on a current-gen aircraft that should be called a "chode", it should be that right there.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:If there is anything on a current-gen aircraft that should be called a "chode", it should be that right there. But then what would we call the pilot?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:But then what would we call the pilot? Lt./Capt/Major Dingleberry
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 01:44
|
|
|
Is civilian radar really that bad, or is stealth technology really that good? I had always assumed jet stealth technology was just good enough to keep third world weapons from locking on to them at a distance of > 3 miles. I would have figured that civilian air radar in 2015 would be good enough to pick up 1980s era stealth jets.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 01:44
|
|
|
Hadlock posted:Is civilian radar really that bad, or is stealth technology really that good? I had always assumed jet stealth technology was just good enough to keep third world weapons from locking on to them at a distance of > 3 miles. I would have figured that civilian air radar in 2015 would be good enough to pick up 1980s era stealth jets. Civilian air traffic radar usually doesn't work by sending out a pulse and getting a radar reflection off the target. It's transponder-based; the radar sends out a signal to the transponder on the aircraft and the transponder sends back a signal saying "Here I am!" Radars that work the way you're thinking are still around, but they're backup systems. In the event that you need the data from them, you're not going to want the signal obscured by stealth technology. Stealth isn't a binary "Yes I can see you"/"no you can't" operator, for a given set of conditions where you can see a conventional aircraft at 40 miles, maybe you can see a stealth one at 10. In an ATC situation you wouldn't want a stealthed aircraft suddenly showing up on your scope at some close range without any warning. Hence, reflectors.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
They just rely on their RCS being lower than the radar's noise floor and that the analytical algorithms would filter out their signal much as a it would say a flock of migrating geese.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 02:15
|
|
|
Hadlock posted:Is civilian radar really that bad, or is stealth technology really that good? I had always assumed jet stealth technology was just good enough to keep third world weapons from locking on to them at a distance of > 3 miles. I would have figured that civilian air radar in 2015 would be good enough to pick up 1980s era stealth jets. The ARSR-4 is the newest long-range primary ATC search radar in the U.S., and it dates to the late eighties. The approach radars are generally a bit newer, though. Phanatic posted:Civilian air traffic radar usually doesn't work by sending out a pulse and getting a radar reflection off the target. It's transponder-based; the radar sends out a signal to the transponder on the aircraft and the transponder sends back a signal saying "Here I am!" Primary and secondary radar operate alongside each other, and we're always looking at both, simultaneously. In fact, the only time we're not viewing primary radar data is when the airspace we're working only includes flight level 180 and up. (Class A airspace.) Even then, the primary radar data is literally a single key press away. Secondary-only coverage exists, but is pretty uncommon in the conterminous US, to my knowledge. We do have a bunch out in our oceanic airspace, though. (I don't work in that area, though.)
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroper%C3%BA_Flight_603 Happened in part because the ATC altitude was supplied by the plane's transponder (to which the plane was feeding faulty information). ATC thought they had primary radar for altitude but in reality they had the same messed up info the pilots did.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 03:12
|
|
|
simplefish posted:http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroper%C3%BA_Flight_603 Terrible Monday morning quarter backing but whenever I've read the incident this always strikes me: quote:The air traffic controller had instructed a Boeing 707 to take off and help guide the 757 back in to land, but before the 707 could take off, the 757's wingtip struck the water approximately 25 minutes after emergency declaration, making the pilots realize the true altitude of the airliner; Why didn't they point the nose above the horizon and apply climb power until they had the escort? Answer I suppose: they trusted the ATC reports, and wanted back on the ground asap. Also they may not have trusted their attitude due to the rest of their instruments not working. Which would have ironic because that would have been the only one working correctly since the gyro is completely independent.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 03:23
|
|
|
Air France crashed prexisely because they pointed the nose above the horizon... E: also I've never flown so I don't know how clear the horizon is at night over water. Also, there were 17 seconds between water wingtipping and crash, so I suppose it was an unrecoverable situation. And if ATC and your instruments agree causing you to trust faulty data, that's what I was calling a contributing factor. simplefish fucked around with this message at 03:32 on May 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 03:25
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Terrible Monday morning quarter backing but whenever I've read the incident this always strikes me: I was wondering why the didn't check the radar altimeter, but that would require knowing it was a hosed static tube I guess
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
simplefish posted:Air France crashed prexisely because they pointed the nose above the horizon... And if they looked at the attitude indicator like they were trained they wouldn't have touched the controls. One pilot knew this.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:And if they looked at the attitude indicator like they were trained they wouldn't have touched the controls. One pilot knew this. Yeah I know. If you read the transcript the guy pulling back tells the other pilot that he's pushing forwards too, so it seems more like a technical fault to the other pilot.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
simplefish posted:http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroper%C3%BA_Flight_603 Mode C indication is received by the secondary radar, along with the mode A beacon code. Primary radar is actual radar. Aeroperú Flight 603 was cause by the static ports being completely blocked. While yes, ATC wasn't getting accurate altitude information, and therefore couldn't issue an altitude alert, the flight crew had much bigger problems.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 03:36
|
|
|
Of course losing situational awareness will always gently caress you over. A cousin (once removed, USN, flew F-4s) described his first irregular attitude recover under the hood: Instructor: what are you doing? Him: Sir, I'm pulling up but the airspeed keeps increasing! Instructor: *audible sigh into mic* MY AIRPLANE He was focusing on the altimeter.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
Hypothetical: Let's take either a 707 or 747 as your inspiration. Cost no object. Using the most modern, lightweight materials, best available engines, etc... What kind of ballpark performance and stealth characteristics could you get out of it? Call it a replacement for Air Force One.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
707? A stealth long range aircraft with a MTOW around 300,000lb is called a B-2
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
Hadlock posted:Is civilian radar really that bad, or is stealth technology really that good? I had always assumed jet stealth technology was just good enough to keep third world weapons from locking on to them at a distance of > 3 miles. I would have figured that civilian air radar in 2015 would be good enough to pick up 1980s era stealth jets. I've actually tried to track stealth aircraft on conventional aircraft. They're pretty good at not being seen when they don't want to be seen. Inside of 3 miles, you're looking visually.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
Tide posted:Hypothetical: Radar absorbent paint might help. The general shape and geometry of a 707 doesn't lend itself nicely to stealth. I mean the goddamn jet has 4 pods hanging below the wings.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
Tide posted:Hypothetical: Don't bother, just put frickin laser beams on it.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Mode C indication is received by the secondary radar, along with the mode A beacon code. Primary radar is actual radar. I know that. But for the pilots to ask ATC to supply an altitude because they didn't trust their own, and for the controller to believe he was helping, all 3 must have assumed the controller had a source of altitude information that wasn't coming from the plane. The only alternative source would be primary radar. I didn't mean about issuing alerts, the controller was reading the pilots their altitude as shown on his screen, and they were relying on him. It was a contributing factor, though not the only problem, and not the underlying cause.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Secondary-only coverage exists, but is pretty uncommon in the conterminous US, to my knowledge. We do have a bunch out in our oceanic airspace, though. (I don't work in that area, though.) Secondary-only is more common than you might think, and it's going to get a lot more common in the next couple decades. Multilateration systems (basically, a series of antennas designed to interrogate and triangulate transponders) are being installed (or have been installed) at several airports in Canada, where traffic levels are significant and PSR/SSR is either too expensive or redundant. Additionally, these systems are easily upgradable to work with ADS-B (or they're already ADS-B compatible), so there is a level of future-proofing as well.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
simplefish posted:E: also I've never flown so I don't know how clear the horizon is at night over water. Almost impossible, especially on a dark, moonless night. Just ask JFK Jr. about that one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_Jr._plane_crash
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 18:33 |
|
|
Tide posted:Hypothetical: The problem is that for propulsion I`m using two GE 90s and I`ve had to move them inboard, so the front and rear cabins are only accessible via a B-36-like soundproof tunnel Imagine if a senator got stuck in there I`m imagining something like a Victor with the flat geometry of a F117 but the size of a 747
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 05:11
|
|
