|
iyaayas01 posted:e: So you all should check out this ppt featuring pictures of the Naval Aviation heritage paint schemes. I know there's a couple that aren't depicted there (VX-9's, for starters although that one apparently wasn't an "official" heritage scheme and was just done up by the unit) but it is a pretty good round up. I think my favorite has to be the P-3 scheme that is identical to the scheme that the first P-3s were delivered in. I've always thought that the Coral Sea-Midway color scheme was baller as gently caress. Simple and stylish like a good suit. The '30s schemes are just plain pimp poo poo, though.
|
#
¿
May 6, 2013 20:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 12:44 |
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I'm always learnin' stuff in this thread. In their defense at least part of the reason they keep building new tanks is to keep the production facility in operation so they don't lose the construction specialists.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2013 21:24
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:They're very rare these days. I think they got a namedrop in Goldfinger. Not a namedrop, but it was the jet at the end of the film that Gert Fröbe got sucked out of.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2013 02:26
|
|
|
Picnic Princess posted:Hey aircraft goons, I saw this at the Kuching airport in Borneo. Anybody know what it is? Nebakenezzer posted:I'm going to say a DHC-4 Caribou Yeah, that's a Caribou. They're pretty much unmistakable.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2013 15:25
|
|
|
Leviathor posted:I love these post, Neb--your German LTA posts were fantastic, and I'm looking forward to whatever's next. I suggest a fact-check on the Airacobra; I'm pretty sure the first USAAF kill was a P-40 setting alight a Condor's engine, with a P-38 finishing her off. You mean the first USAAF kill in Europe, right? But yeah, you're remembering right: Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 16:01 on Aug 1, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2013 15:59
|
|
|
Are autopilots really so good as to be able to fly a plane with a dead crew that far? Assuming they actually found wreckage from 370, that is.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:I'm firmly convinced Dulles is the worst airport on the planet I was going to argue but then I remembered that almost every time I flew between Dulles and Heathrow my luggage invariably arrived a day after I did. Heathrow is its own brand of misery though.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2014 07:13
|
|
|
You wouldn't think there'd be a wrong way to criticize the F-35, but I'm sure Pierre Sprey managed it somehow.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
Living the dream.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I thought all US carriers had free beer/wine in Y on transoceanic flights. In business/first class yeah.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:I think from the pilot perspective, it wasn't an Airbus design problem at all (if you excuse running primary and backup controls next to each other - which is probably a reasonable thing to do in a non-combat aircraft). I'm not an aircraft engineer (or any kind of engineer), but no, that's not a reasonable thing to do under any circumstances IMO. If you're designing something that needs a set of backup controls, you drat well keep them as separate as possible from the primaries for exactly the reasons illustrated by QF32.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
Tevery Best posted:What does the GR in British plane names stand for? Ground Attack/Reconnaissance There's a whole big list of 'em here.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2014 08:01
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney has a theory on how that jetliner went down: She's the one whose father blamed some nefarious group called the "J-E-W-S" for her losing an election after she assaulted a Capitol policeman asking her for ID. Pretty sure one of these turned up in a Clive Cussler novel. It might've been the same one that featured the  Moller Skycar
Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 06:00 on Jul 20, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2014 05:58
|
|
|
movax posted:Was that the one with the neo-Nazis/Fourth Reich/crystal skulls/creating a flood to kill all the ~~lesser races~~/giant-rear end ark ships/secret Antarctic nazi base? Yeah the Nazi Antarctica one had the  Skycar in it, but I can't remember if the 609 was in the same novel.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2014 10:08
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:a resurgent Prussia takes the field Man, that color scheme was so much cooler than today's.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
Insert name here posted:That's a weird way to spell F-15 And this is a weird way to spell F-14.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2014 12:09
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Well we said "one of the few pictures with anything flying in it"...that implies owning at least a few airplanes capable of flying. Literally the RAF's fault.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Tell them the same thing the USAF told the Army* after the C-27 debacle: Not my job, actually. What happened was that the British government was looking for cutbacks, and set their eyes on either the Tornado or the Harrier (which was shared between the RAF and the FAA). Now, before finances went south the plan was to keep the Harrier in service to fly from the new carriers until the F-35B entered service around 2020 or whenever the gently caress LockMart said it would enter service back in the mid-2000s. Why the F-35B, you ask? Because the design phase of the British carrier project was a long, drawn out clusterfuck that started with the ships being CATOBAR (the same configuration, basically, as every last goddamned  carrier since the Langley: flat deck, catapults for shooting planes into the air, wires to bring planes to a halt on landing) until some brilliant mind decided to buy the F-35B because OMG STOVL (short take-off, vertical landing), so the carriers were redesigned to have a skiramp in front like the Kuznetsov. Of course by the time they realized this was a stupid loving decision, the ships were already under construction and it was so late in the day it would cost like $10 billion or some horrendous figure to rework them into the sort of carriers that God intended navies to use.So basically for the Fleet Air Arm it was a case of either keeping the Harrier and sharing them with the RAF, or having no fixed wing air whatsoever. It's not just a question of the pilots not having toys to fly around, either. The maintenance and flight deck crews would be standing around with their thumbs up their asses without the Harrier. Which is bad for keeping up efficiency and competence at doing basic carrier operation stuff. The Fleet Air Arm really, really loving needed the Harrier. And the government was looking at retiring the Harrier or the Tornado. Now, guess which aircraft the RAF brass hats all flew for most of their careers? It wasn't the Harrier. This was around 2010, and the Tornado fleet was at a point where they needed major rebuilding and overhaul, with the sizable price tag such things require. No problem, said the RAF, rehabbing the Tornadoes isn't nearly as expensive as we said it would be. No, really, would we lie to you? Oh gently caress yes. The British Cabinet buys the rubbish the RAF tells them hook, line, and sinker. Goodbye Harrier. The last ones are sent off to be sold to the Indians or whoever else flies them something like a month before the Arab Spring kicks off, and the British find themselves with no naval air capability but some Apaches. I heard all of this when I was still an American doing grad school abroad. Got it second hand from my thesis advisor who heard it from the muckity-mucks in the RN.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
I'll never say a bad word about US Air because they saved me from missing the opening of a conference in Galveston I was a speaker at when every other goddamned airline in Newark had no flights to Houston left scheduled for that day.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2014 07:22
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Being in Sigonella, Sicily from 1991 to 1993, the only brand-name ~fast food~ we had access to was a pitiful excuse for a Wendy's on the airfield part of the base. It was shut down twice during the time I was there, and once because the base CO bit into his burger and found still-living maggots in the meat. People still lined up after it was reopened. Reminds of what happened to my father at the NSA Naples commissary. He bought some packages of corned beef that turned out to have expired a year before he bought them.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:Going to the Air Force Museum in Dayton tomorrow (finally). Any photo requests? All the obscure '20s and '30s planes that nobody remembers today and that are all done up in that kickass blue and yellow color scheme.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
Inacio posted:I still dream of one day building either a Long-EZ or an E-Racer. That looks like a plane built to throw James Bond out of.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2014 07:28
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I'm not sure how much these have improved... I would bet they haven't. San Francisco-London is still basically 12 hours in the air.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:Ung Va-voom.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2014 13:22
|
|
|
It's obviously a turtle without its shell.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2014 09:26
|
|
|
david_a posted:Did the Soviets/Russia ever ponder replacing the turboprops on the Bear? It seems like the landing gear are already pretty tall so maybe a gigantic modern turbofan would fit? Does Russia even make any suitable engines for a hypothetical replacement? (I assume no Western engines would be considered) Tu-95 is fine now. Why change?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2014 04:54
|
|
|
david_a posted:I realize it would never happen for a variety of reasons. There were plans to replace those ancient engines on the B-52; I was just curious if the Russians even daydreamed about it. Can't find any references to any such projects. Although I'm sure there were probably some what-if rough proposals scrawled on napkins by Tupolev engineers during meetings and lunches and the like, nothing seems to have come of them in any major way. Anyway part of the reason for the turboprops in the first place was to get the maximum operational range out of the plane. Russian jet bombers of the Bear's era were either short-ranged like the Tu-16 or disasters good for propaganda but not war, like the M-4. By the time better jet engines are available, there's ICBMs to do the heavy nuke-throwing work and no particular need to fiddle with the turboprops because they're already Good Enough for whatever else the Bear does that needs doing. Any proposals to that effect would've been met with "Da, we could comrade, but why bother? Spend on vodka instead." and shoved either into the trash or into archives where they haven't been seen or heard from since. EDIT: Watch, I'll be proved completely wrong on this by someone. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 06:41 on Nov 22, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2014 06:33
|
|
|
Nuclear doesn't count. We were talking about replacing the turboprops with jets. Also note that the nuclear-powered Bear would still be using turboprops.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
bitcoin bastard posted:New coach-sleeper seating class. I'd definitely fly an airline that shot me full of tranqs before a ten-hour flight.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:The 1950's was a magical period of time where not a single defense contractor or aeronautics bureau was told "No." Sometimes the loving contractors were the ones to say "No." The Lockheed Suntan being one example. The link doesn't tell the whole story. The Skunk Works was given close to $100 million to build a supersonic recon aircraft fueled by liquid hydrogen. Kelly Johnson et al produced a sketch design, realized the thing wasn't going to work, and sent back the money. Curtis LeMay's declaration that he wasn't going to put his crews into what amounted to a "loving bomb" probably helped.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2014 14:34
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:lol Yeah, I remember seeing them at NAS Norfolk during the '89 airshow.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:You know how I've said the photoshop of the Osprey refueling the F-35B is USMC_Aviation.jpg? Why they never tried just stripping the guts out of an old Hawkeye or a Greyhound and fitting a gas tank and the usual air refueling geegaws is something I'll never understand. Like, poo poo dudes, the Air Force figured that out in the 1950s.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 09:10
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:But you see, hawkeyes can't STOVL. Slap another engine on each wingtip and it will.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 10:43
|
|
|
Four engined aircraft just plain look better.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2014 13:44
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Regarding wx...  Yikes.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The Atlas: Holding the World Up, one Engine at a time (It takes 3) Reminds me of the story that veteran astronauts called the Saturn an old man's rocket because the liftoff was pretty gentle compared to the Atlas and the Titan boosters. Difference between a purpose-built launch vehicle and converted ICBMs, I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
David Hartman was right, that nosewheel strut was mushy!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
The PC-12 looks like a Super King Air someone kitbashed because they lost one of the engines.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
Ola posted:Lamentably cumbersome reality: I'm imagining this plane speaking in a Gilbert Gottfried voice.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2015 10:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 12:44 |
|
|
I'm the one on the left.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2015 08:32
|
|
