|
I visited the Wings Over the Rockies Air & Space Museum here in Denver a few months ago with some friends. This is one of my favorite museums because it has my very favorite aircraft: B-1A Lancer: This is one of only a very few of the "A" model, the B-1B is the one that made it to production. The A could do Mach 2.2 at altitudes as low as a few hundred feet. This particular airframe set most of the records for the Lancers, has the most flight time, and the highest top speed. It can carry more bombs than even the B-52. Also, in that pic you can see a BLU-82 "Daisy Cutter" sitting underneath. They've got some other sweet planes two, but I only got pics of my other favs: See, the F-14 isn't fat, its lean! And I can only imagine how much fun this light weight interceptor is to fly: Also at the museum is Luke's X-Wing: This is the actual model that was stuck in the swamp. My buddy's in the Air Force working up in the tower down in Phoenix, AZ. The other day the airbase got a special visit from some VIPs: Also here's a picture of my grandfather circa 1950s, never met him but I felt a big connection when I first saw this picture:
|
# ¿ Mar 10, 2010 04:26 |
|
|
# ¿ May 6, 2024 04:24 |
|
Nothus posted:B-1B's I think. Didn't the B-1A have a more pronounced dorsal spine? It makes sense that they're being scrapped. They weren't that all that great for what they were designed for, and we wasted quite a lot of money building them. The B-52 holds more bombs and the B-2 is better at penetration. The B1B can carry almost twice as many bombs than a B-52, 125,000 lbs vs. 70,000 lbs. It was also designed to use a Rotary Cruise Missile Launcher, and I think the B-52 may also be able to use this. This is when I realized what the cold war was about : 8 nuke-tipped cruise missiles in each bay, three bays on a B-1. The front winglets that look like whiskers are completely computer controlled and are there to keep the plane stable in the turbulent low altitude air. It was designed to fly supersonic at only a few hundred feet. It basically was designed to do the Wild Weasel's job on its way to its primary target. It had a highly advanced ground following radar to accomplish this mission. It had a crew escape capsule to ensure the crew's safety if they had to eject at over Mach 2. It is also a monstrous aircraft, it actually makes a B-52 look kinda petite (in person). NathanScottPhillips fucked around with this message at 02:07 on Mar 23, 2010 |
# ¿ Mar 23, 2010 00:24 |
|
Frosty- posted:Which is a thing no shuttle has.
|
# ¿ Mar 23, 2010 02:06 |
|
PurpleFender posted:Quoting from a while back... That top row are P-3 Orions. I used to live on a Navy base where they still flew those. Bonus content, that base was home for this beast, the USS Macon. And Hangar One in the background is absolutely retardedly huge. Mythbusters uses it a lot. I believe Lead Balloon was tested in that Hangar. I posed his pic back on page 3, but I'll post it again cuz I think it's awesome: Here are some paintings my grandfather had. The First of the Flying Tankers The Race that Never Was Requiem for the Daughter of the Skies The Day the Navy Sunk Itself NathanScottPhillips fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Mar 23, 2010 |
# ¿ Mar 23, 2010 15:48 |
|
jandrese posted:That goes beyond balls of steel to outright insanity. Who in the world thought this was a good idea? Boomerjinks posted:Er, sorry. That is actually a 3/4 scale model originally built for promo purposes in Japan (get it because they are short?), but was bought and is currently being "rebuilt" by the local 501st Star Wars Costume Club.
|
# ¿ Mar 24, 2010 15:13 |
|
AnimalChin posted:quote:47 Ships Sunk by Kamikaze Aircraft Cheap? Check Simple? Check Small? Check Fast? Check Being made of composite materials will lower their radar cross section, along with being able to fly at high speed at extremely low altitude it would be nearly impossible to stop an attack against a warship. Here's their prototype:
|
# ¿ Sep 29, 2010 16:32 |
|
Godholio posted:quote:On February 25, 1991, during the first Gulf War, the Phalanx-equipped USS Jarrett (FFG-33) was a few miles from the USS Missouri (BB-63) and the destroyer HMS Gloucester (D96). The ships were attacked by an Iraqi Silkworm missile (often referred to as the Seersucker), at which Missouri fired its SRBOC chaff. The Phalanx system on Jarrett, operating in the automatic target-acquisition mode, fixed upon Missouri's chaff, releasing a burst of rounds. From this burst, four rounds hit Missouri which was two to three miles (about 5 km) from Jarrett at the time. There were no injuries.[14] A Sea Dart missile was then launched from the Gloucester, which destroyed the Iraqi missile, achieving the first successful engagement of a missile by a missile during combat at sea. Also remember, Iran has a history of massive human-wave attacks and in any scenario where these things are being flown as kamikazes, there will be several hundred Iranian cruise missiles in flight at the same time.
|
# ¿ Sep 30, 2010 04:47 |
|
Wanna read about some balls?quote:The X-1 was in principle a "bullet with wings", its shape closely resembled the Browning .50-caliber (12.7 mm) machine gun bullet that was known to be stable in supersonic flight.[2] The pattern shape was followed to the point of seating the pilot behind a sloped, framed window inside a confined cockpit in the nose, with no ejection seat. 1947, that Nazi tech was some goooooood poo poo. quote:he Bell X-2 was developed to provide a vehicle for researching flight characteristics in excess of the limits of the Bell X-1 and D-558 II, while investigating aerodynamic heating problems in what was then called the 'thermal thicket.' quote:Inertia coupling was essentially unknown before the introduction of high-speed jet aircraft. Prior to this time aircraft tended to be wider than long, and their mass was generally distributed closer to the center of mass. This was especially true for propeller aircraft, but equally true for early jet fighters as well. It was only when the aircraft began to sacrifice aerodynamic surface area in order to lower drag, and use longer fineness ratios that lowered supersonic drag, that the effect became obvious. In these cases the aircraft was generally much more tail-heavy, allowing its gyroscopic effect to overwhelm the small control surfaces. quote:The X-15 set speed and altitude records in the early 1960s, reaching the edge of outer space and returning with valuable data used in aircraft and spacecraft design. It currently holds the official world record for the fastest speed ever reached by a manned rocket powered aircraft.[1] That's a thick tail, must be thin air up there. quote:Adams' seventh X-15 flight, flight 3-65-97, took place on 15 November 1967. He reached a peak altitude of 266,000 feet; the nose of the aircraft was off heading by 15 degrees to the right. While descending, at 230,000 feet the aircraft encountered rapidly increasing aerodynamic pressure which impinged on the airframe, causing the X-15 to enter a violent Mach 5 spin. As the X-15 neared 65,000 feet, it was diving at Mach 3.93 and experiencing more than 15-g vertically (positive and negative), and 8-g laterally, which inevitably exceeded the design limits of the aircraft. The aircraft broke up 10 minutes and 35 seconds after launch, killing Adams. The United States Air Force posthumously awarded him the Purple Heart and astronaut Wings for his last flight. NathanScottPhillips fucked around with this message at 05:45 on Sep 30, 2010 |
# ¿ Sep 30, 2010 05:34 |
|
grover posted:The F-35B looked like it was working pretty well when the marines conducted shipboard flight tests last month. This landing style and the short take-off (as opposed to vertical take-off) tells me they're still worried about scorching the decks.
|
# ¿ Nov 22, 2011 20:27 |
|
Tubesock posted:I just came across the goofiest looking plane I've ever seen. It's a Transavia PL-12 Airtruk. Apparently it was designed for crop dusting or whatever but drat is it ugly. It looks like it came out of a cartoon. http://youtu.be/v-asgD0s5Ss
|
# ¿ Jun 28, 2013 16:31 |
|
|
# ¿ May 6, 2024 04:24 |
|
What are people's thoughts on F-35/F-22/B-2 style radar stealth becoming obsolete within 50 years? Seems like the elephant in the room no one wants to talk about is thermal imaging sensors that are becoming very advanced. Here's a quote that sums up the theory pretty well: http://news.usni.org/2015/02/04/cno-greenert-navys-next-fighter-might-not-need-stealth-high-speed posted:“You know that stealth maybe overrated,” Greenert said during a keynote at the Office of Naval Research Naval Future Force Science and Technology Expo. He's got a point, an aircraft big enough to carry a person travelling at supersonic speeds makes a lot of heat and atmospheric disruption.
|
# ¿ Feb 13, 2016 00:05 |