|
Phanatic posted:How the gently caress. Seriously, it's loving ALSE, you can get this poo poo to work right in a goddamned unpressurized helicopter, you can't get it working in a $140 million pressurized cabin? Well, they did say it's "hypoxia-like", not "definitely hypoxia". Watch it turn out to be a physiological reaction to some kind of superior american adhesive offgassing into the oxygen system, or something. Nebakenezzar posted:The YAL-1A, the flying Laser, has been sent to the boneyard That's depressing -- that was an extraordinarily cool airframe. Are they continuing the research, at least?
|
#
¿
Feb 29, 2012 04:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 18:52 |
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Watch it turn out to be a physiological reaction to some kind of superior american adhesive offgassing into the oxygen system, or something. quote:"These guys are getting tested for toxins and they've [gotten] toxins out of their bloodstreams," the source said. "One of the guys was expelling propane." Nailed it. I have no idea how they got propane on a fighter jet, but hey. How does the OBOGS work? Is it sucking air from the outside and boosting the oxygen percentage? I should read up on that I guess. The report also says oil fumes and antifreeze. Propane, petrochemicals and organic aromatics, and that one that went down was from Alaska...I think it's pretty clear that the pilots are all sniffing glue. [e] yep, it's a nitrogen-adsorbing zeolite. Well, any time you're using outside air, especially from a source like an airfield, you're going to have to deal with contamination. What was wrong with an oxygen bottle in the first place? [e2] hm. Honeywell says they have "replaced the traditional clay binder with an advanced organic polymer" to better performance and other marketing reasons. Clearly the system designers would know best, but I would definitely look at the experimental polymer if I was having problems with strange organic compounds appearing in my air stream Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 15:46 on Feb 29, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Feb 29, 2012 15:37
|
|
|
Suicide Watch posted:e: was there specific USN doctrine during WW2 to use radial engines over piston? What, inline engines don't have pistons any more? There was indeed a reason, and it can be best described as "loving military procurement bullshit". Wiki: quote:In the US, NACA noted in 1920 that air-cooled radials could offer an increase in the power-to-weight ratio and reliability, and by 1921 the US Navy had announced it would only order aircraft fitted with air-cooled radials while other naval air arms followed suit ... So basically something that was true at one point remained doctrine 25 years later because of inertia and stubborn old men.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2012 21:55
|
|
|
thesurlyspringKAA posted:Wow, what a loving terrible pilot. If an aircraft commander ever did that to me I'd probably go straight to the wing safety office about it. Aww, did some godddamn son-of-a-bitch make you spill your coffee?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2012 17:00
|
|
|
Cygni posted:I know there are firebombing airframes I'm pretty sure that you're thinking of "waterbombing". Firebombing is...something else.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2012 18:59
|
|
|
Yep, that's pretty much every A-4 that the USA built that wasn't shot down, converted to a QA-4 or sold to Africans. There's a bunch of really neat F/A-18s just to the southwest of the A-4s that look like some weird new desert camo stealth jet. I assume it's just some new kind of shrinkwrap? Neat anyway. ...and all those Broncos up there being neglected.  Like, c'mon, USAF...can't I have just one?[e] what's this? I recognize the Canberra and the F-16 but not that last one, which seems to be an F-8 or A-7 but it's too pointy. I feel like it's something really obvious but I just can't tell... http://g.co/maps/au9ug Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 02:31 on Mar 10, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2012 02:23
|
|
|
They need to keep all the old airframes around for when the aliens arrive, and they blow up all the F-22s by installing a virus on their computers, and we have no pilots left except for a bunch of retired ex-fighter-jocks living in Sun City, who then ride their motorcycles down to Tucscon and climb in their old fighters and kick the aliens' creepy alien asses all the way back to saturn  see how many movies I ripped off there
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2012 06:05
|
|
|
InterceptorV8 posted:http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Reno-...no,+NV&t=h&z=19 Are those all...personal aircraft? It looks like there's some guys in a white pickup working on the L-39(?) so I would guess yes... Christ, I wish I could afford a MiG-21.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2012 18:05
|
|
|
co199 posted:Got $95,000? No, if I did then I would be able to afford a MiG-21. And I'd need the roughly $5000 per hour in fuel and money to pay for all the repeated experimental certifications and so on...but hey, that's still less than a Lamborghini. Definitely worth it. I hear that Michael Dorn (Lt. Worf) has one. True?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2012 03:40
|
|
|
From the same site as that ridiculous RC plane: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b64_1307935002 Pretty awesome.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2012 16:20
|
|
|
Well, it says that the private pilot requested the intercept, so I'd imagine it was more of a "sure, why not, they're just practising formation flying anyway" kind of thing. Besides, those A-10 pilots probably don't get to pretend they're fighter jocks very often.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2012 16:47
|
|
|
Reminds me of thisquote:On 14 February 1991, an F-15E scored its only air-to-air kill: a Mil Mi-24 helicopter. While responding to a request for help by US Special Forces, five Iraqi helicopters were spotted. The lead F-15E of two acquired a helicopter via it's FLIR in the process of unloading Iraqi soldiers, and released a GBU-10 bomb. The F-15E crew thought the bomb had missed its target and were preparing to use a Sidewinder when the helicopter was destroyed. The Special Forces team estimated that the Hind was roughly 800 feet (240 m) over the ground when the 2,000 lb (910 kg) bomb hit its target.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2012 16:55
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:The thing was that the ferrite paint that is authentic to the SR-71 doesn't look right until it's been cooked on at mach 3. I believe this, because I remember reading in Ben Rich's autobiography (this is the guy who ran the Skunk Works roughly between the U-2 and F-117 eras) that the paint actually turns kind of a steel-blue when the plane is at its cruising speed. By the way, I highly recommend the book, which I think is just called "Skunk Works". The whole episode surrounding the first real radar tests of the F-117 mockup is excellent. Something about using the McDonnell Douglas range, and Lockheed having to design a stealth pole to put their model on because the model's return was smaller than that of the support it was on, and the McD personnel saying something like "jesus christ, if they can do that with a goddamn POLE, what can they do with their airplane?"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2012 04:44
|
|
|
Better than that, if I'm remembering right. They got no return, turning up the power more and more, then suddenly a return appeared and the McD guy got all smug and went "ah, there it is,we got it". Turns out the bird had just landed on the model. There's also a bit about Ben Rich himself walking into a meeting with the DoD procurement people who had serious doubts about whether Lockheed could pull off what they claimed, dumping a sack of half-inch steel balls on the table and going "there, there's your aircraft on radar".
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2012 17:23
|
|
|
I think they mostly use it to carry the same kinds of things that a 124 could carry, but more of them at once. There can't be that many cases where you have a single object that is more than 36m long or weighs more than 160 tons, the limits for the 124. That said, Wikipedia says that the 225 has carried a pair of 46-meter wind turbine blades (world's longest air cargo) and a 189-ton generator (heaviest) so there's that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2012 18:42
|
|
|
quote:Then-Lt. Dorsey was taking part in a non-fire flight exercise over the Mediterranean Sea. Geez, I'd love to hear the justification he gave as to why he armed a live missile while participating in a training exercise. A training exercise over the Mediterranean, for that matter. Who did he think he was shooting at, the Egyptians?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2012 21:19
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Jesus Christ. How did he not go to prison? In an F-14 there's no loving way he should be able to mis-ID a goddamn Phantom, even in 1987. Well, we all know how those older IFF systems can be  But yeah, I just truly can't fathom what would cause someone to do that. Like, even if it actually was the Russkies rocketing out of a space-time vortex on their way to dispense communism all over the western world, shouldn't he have, I dunno, confirmed what he heard as an order to release a live missile during a training exercise? Particularly against a plane that he must have seen dozens of times, or even communicated with, participating in the exercise itself?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2012 00:28
|
|
|
I believe it's an XF2Y Sea Dart. The things sticking out the bottom are hydrofoils. Pretty unique plane -- the only supersonic seaplane ever built, if I'm not mistaken. [e] well it says YF2Y on the tail so I guess it's actually one of those. Xs are experimental, Ys are pre-production prototype.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2012 22:10
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:jesus christ all turboprop airliners need to be destroyed. Aw, come on, they're fun. I fly fairly regularly on Saab 340s and I actually enjoy the ride more than any jet airliner. The humming whirr of the engines is like soothing white noise and the bouncing, vibrating ride is like being rocked to sleep. Really quite nice. I am completely serious.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2012 05:41
|
|
|
Looked up the 340 out of curiosity and I found thisquote:One of the improvements introduced in the 340B Plus was the installation of an active noise and vibration control system in the cabin, reducing noise and vibration levels by about 10 dB during cruising flight. Welp. Still, I've flown on EMB-120s a few times and they didn't seem too awful either. Maybe your particular plane was missing some soundproofing? VVVV yes it was, only the 102 prototype had a tubular fuselage. They redesigned it halfway through when flight tests showed it was a pig. And the F-106 itself was basically just a heavily modified F-102 that they decided to give a new designation. Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 06:26 on Mar 17, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2012 06:22
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:but then I remembered that the Navy did all that and kept the same designation, so... I've heard that the Super Hornet is essentially an all-new aircraft that just happens to look a hell of a lot like an original Hornet in order to get the people in procurement to believe it's an "upgrade" instead of a new model. It's like 25% larger and heavier than the old version and everything from the pilot's seat back is a new part. Literally the only commonalities are the gun, radar, and ejection seat, or something ridiculous like that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2012 07:01
|
|
.
|
BonzoESC posted:It's a shame you won't get the two sonic booms it usually made landing at KSC.  every supersonic object makes two sonic booms
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2012 05:01
|
|
|
Swabbing the toddler's hands with an ion sniffer to see if he's been handling explosives?  Remember, you're paying that guy's salary.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2012 19:58
|
|
|
grover posted:Playing devil's advocate here, but what if a terrorist had hidden explosives in that wheelchair, figuring that TSA would never suspect a kid like that? Drug traffickers have certainly done far worse. Then it would be the very first time a TSA agent has ever caught someone trying to smuggle explosives through an airport security checkpoint. I always like to link people to this article because it shows quite clearly how every single one of the security measures put in place since 9/11 (except reinforced cockpit doors, those were a good idea) provides no real security and can be subverted by any average idiot. If someone really wanted to blow up a plane, they don't need to hide bombs inside children's wheelchairs -- they could just get a job working on the tarmac and have someone huck a backpack bag full of explosives over the fence. It's a multibillion dollar program that has failed in the most spectacular manner: the airport screeners are no more likely to catch a terrorist than they were before, but the illusion of increased security means that no one can ever de-fund it, while the only people being inconvenienced are toddlers and the elderly and other zero-threat average citizens. [e] Nebakenezzer posted:The Apollo module is so frickin' tiny. Also, the SR-71 and the Saturn 5: two of the great engineering feats of the twentieth century. Were they designed entirely by slide rules or were some computers involved? I like to think of it as "three men living in about as much space as there is inside an SUV, but with one little porthole." Fun. And I'm fairly sure that there were early computers involved in the design of the SR-71, but I don't know about the Saturn V. Have to ask Dr. von Braun. Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 21:59 on Mar 19, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2012 21:56
|
|
|
How much space is there when the lunar module is connected? At least on the way to the moon they'd have two "rooms", right?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2012 22:24
|
|
|
dissss posted:Can you actually access that space though, or is it just sitting back their taunting you? It doesn't look like you could even get out of the seat to me. I'm fairly certain that the seats could collapse and fold out of the way, since you obviously don't need them for most of the trip. In this video you can see that while it's small, there's a fair bit of space inside, and the seats are up in the narrowest part of the capsule so photos of that area are a bit misleading. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fs8gkiap6U I gotta watch Apollo 13 again, now. And The Right Stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2012 04:16
|
|
|
If you're a decent machinist (to make the supercritical drying equipment) and can come up with a good enough reason to buy the precursor chemicals, you can make aerogel at home, actually. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X24np30GS2o
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2012 21:43
|
|
|
Here's a birdstrike and total engine failure from inside an F-16 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zN_Zl64OQEw "Gear NOT down! Gear NOT down!" Why does it have a british accent?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2012 23:01
|
|
|
 duh. I even know what an F-16's HUD looks like, and that's clearly not it. One of the comments says it's a Hawk which makes much more sense.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2012 23:11
|
|
|
The Americans conducted years of expensive studies to determine the least-visible schemes for the majority of conditions under which their planes would be flying, increasing operational effectiveness by a small but definite margin. The Russians said "who cares about that poo poo, let's make it look loving cool". (fun fact: when they were developing the F-117, the Skunk Works did some studies to determine the least visible paint scheme for the high-altitude dusk raids that would be its main mission. The eventual conclusion was that the best color would be a dusty orangeish-pink. They painted it black because they thought no one would agree to fly a pink airplane.) 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2012 01:48
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Interesting how they've painted that one to give the wings an apparent planform like a MiG-21. Reminds me of the false canopies on the bottom of Canadian CF-18s 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2012 03:23
|
|
|
If you're looking at a plane's belly when you think you're looking at its back, everything you know about its likely motion vectors and maneuver limits is reversed. For instance you might see it making a lazy banked turn to the left, and you go into a lead pursuit...and then just as you realize you're looking at the bottom of the plane and it's flying inverted, it does a 7G reversal to the outside, requiring you to fly a negative-G maneuver that's way beyond your own limits to keep it in sight. It's not like it's an expensive modification, and anything that confuses your enemy for even a few seconds is a good thing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2012 03:58
|
|
|
I could never enjoy Top Gun back when I was a little  about military jets because "those aren't MiG-28s, they're just F-5s painted black with stars on them! And the Russians don't paint their planes black, either, they're mostly just shiny metal! And the MiG designations are all odd-numbered so there would be no MiG-28 anyway!"I got over it, but it still takes me out of the movie to this day.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2012 04:17
|
|
|
What's in the tail boom on that Blackbird? Sensors of some kind, I assume? Surely a MAD can't work from 80,000 feet?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2012 03:59
|
|
|
darknrgy posted:Edit: the heavy down elevator deflection on takeoff is a bit perplexing I assume it's to counteract the engine nozzle being pointed downwards -- that thrust angle combined with up elevator and I bet it would just flip onto its back. I wonder if that's automatic, though, or if the pilot has to do the corrections manually?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2012 22:43
|
|
|
Probably yes, because of editing, but I understand that the sweep is normally controlled by a computer depending on speed and angle of attack, so in a dogfight with lots of maneuvering they would probably be moving in and out quite a bit.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2012 01:39
|
|
|
Wow, I sure am glad for the CBS NEWS ANIMATION of an airliner cruising through some clouds. That really helped me understand exactly what those passengers were going through right at the moment! [e] ahahahahaa and the radial blur effect to show the captain "bolting for the door" from his perspective. Someone's been playing a little too much Need For Speed
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2012 01:14
|
|
|
Previa_fun posted:Then someone at some point decided this would be a brilliant role for the biggest gently caress off fighter/bomb truck they could find: I like that paint scheme, though. You can really see the thunderbird on the belly. I wonder how long before they transition to F-35s? Or maybe F-22s but I can't see them using something so big and expensive.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2012 20:40
|
|
|
Colonel K posted:That's a good point. I think I'm probably weighing my particular circumstances on it a bit too much. I've not got a huge amount of space when strapped into the front seat and certainly no way of reaching back to the baggage area. I just, um. Do you seriously not have enough room for a little card the size of a folded map? Surely there's got to be somewhere to stow it just in case.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2012 09:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 18:52 |
|
|
Plinkey posted:Me also. 400HZ 270V whine puts me to sleep in no time. I fly a lot of little short hops on Saab 340s and the dull hum of those CT7s just completely conk me out. It's like being back in the womb. While your mother was riding a half-assembled roller coaster made of shopping carts, granted, but still.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2012 01:36
|
|