Aeronautical Insanity: switching to secondary tolerances

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Automotive Insanity > Aeronautical Insanity: switching to secondary tolerances

«‹›10 »

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Hot radials on this bird, two 2,250hp Pratt & Whitney R-2800-65W Double Wasp radials to be exact. Was the first US aircraft designed from inception to use radar, and our best night-fighter of WWII.

Four .50 cal machine guns coaxially mounted under the main fuselage
Four .50 cal machine guns in a dorsal turret (removed in later models)

Testing a ramjet for NACA:

P&W Double Wasp:

# ¿ Mar 8, 2010 18:26

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 4, 2024 22:51

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

It's even worse at take-off when the wing tanks are heavy with fuel. After watching that 777 wing-flex-to-failure test, I'm a lot less worried about a small bit of movement during flight.

Wing flex doesn't bother me nearly so much as wing oscillations. Watching that wing-tip flap up and down about 6' in-flight is pretty disconcerting.

# ¿ May 21, 2010 13:03

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Godholio posted:

I've never heard that, but I doubt it. Wings are expensive, and a 9G limit is for the airframe, not for weapons. Most weapons can be damaged by that kind of force, so a 9G limit is usually only in a "clean" configuration. I don't see why Switzerland would spend that kind of money for a capability that can't be used except in airshows.

I don't know about that; it seems very plausible that a Swiss manager would have specced 9G performance on their guidespec, and McDonnell Douglas fit the order to make a bid. Fly-by-wire would know what weapons are loaded, and could very easily limit performance based on the loadout, fuel load, etc. There's really no reason NOT to strengthen the wing. 9G wings would also be expected to suffer less lifetime fatigue from repeated 7.5G maneuvers than 7.5G wings, etc. By the late 90s, the F-18 airframe was 20 years old and a lot of lessons had been learned that were incorporated into the latest production aircraft.

# ¿ May 31, 2010 15:00

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Nuclear Tourist posted:

Well that was extremely nice of them. I wish I was smart enough to be an engineer

One of Lockheed-Martin's recruiters gave me the best frisbee when I talked to them once at a job fair. Was a thing of beauty.

# ¿ Jun 3, 2010 10:49

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Nebakenezzer posted:

OK, that beats mine. Yours has retractable landing gear, too.

Going by youtube, lots and lots of people are trying to claim the crown of "world's largest RC plane."

Army Air Corps made real B-17s R/C in WWII. JFK's brother was killed on one, actually. (Rather ironic to be killed piloting an R/C plane, I know.)

World's largest would therefore have to be larger than that.

# ¿ Jun 9, 2010 10:56

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

CommieGIR posted:

Click here for the full 1280x853 image.

The Smithsonian Udvar-Hazy center at Dulles loving KICKS rear end, btw. Sitting right next to the Ar-234 is a Do 335A-1 Pfeil, Horton Ho III f (glider), He 219A and FW-190:

Closeup of the Do 335A-1 Pfeil:

Under the same roof:

Bell XV-15 (Concord in the background):

Northrop P-61 Black Widow, Enola Gay, Northrop N-1M and tail of a Nakajima JINI-S Gekko:

Closeup of that Northrop N-1M:

X-35B (Prototype for F-35B):

grover fucked around with this message at 15:11 on Jun 19, 2010

# ¿ Jun 19, 2010 14:55

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

ApathyGifted posted:

Is this a matter of inflation or new technologies getting thrown in?

A little of both. F-15E Strike Eagles are still in production, so we know what they cost- pretty much what a Eurofighter, F-35, F-22 or any other capable modern fighter costs. Modern fighter aircraft are simply extremely expensive. Stealth is a lot of the cost difference between the F-15 and F-22; the precision and techniques necessary to reduce the RCS are much more expensive than simple sheet metal and rivets. But the survivability stealth brings gives an exponential return on investment vs old technology. The F-15SE Silent Eagle is more expensive than a normal F-15, and really isn't very stealthy at all. Vectored thrust and the new RADAR add costs, too.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/articles/communiques/FighterCostFinalJuly06.pdf

quote:

Rafale M $68.9M
JAS-39C Gripen $68.9M
F-18E Super Hornet $78.4M
F-15E Strike Eagle $108.2M
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter $115.0M
Eurofighter Typhoon (UK) $118.6M
F-22A Raptor $177.6M

Not to get all D&D on the Sustainable Defense Task Force report, but it was "bipartisan" as it was sponsored by Ron Paul and Barney Frank, both of whom want to make HUGE defense spending cuts, cuts most of the rest of congress are rational enough to know are asinine. So it's no wonder they're recommending deep cuts. I have to wonder why they want to cancel the F-35 and replace it with less capable aircraft that cost more money? Unless they want to go back and buy P-51 Mustangs at about $1M a pop. Cheap! Rather worthless as fighters on the modern battlefield, but we can afford a whole slew of them!

grover fucked around with this message at 03:10 on Jun 20, 2010

# ¿ Jun 20, 2010 03:06

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Mobius1B7R posted:

Is it easy to get to there from the actual airport? I was thinking of actually taking advantage of my flight benefits and taking a day trip up there to see it.

It's literally at Dulles, about a mile or so south of the main terminal. There's a shuttle bus between the main terminal and the museum.

http://www.nasm.si.edu/udvarhazy/

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...018411&t=h&z=16

grover fucked around with this message at 11:28 on Jun 20, 2010

# ¿ Jun 20, 2010 11:25

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Godholio posted:

Absolute dollars is a pretty lovely way to compare spending now vs decades ago. I'm not sure if you're doing that, or including the cost incurred by two active wars.

Using absolute dollars, or even inflation-adjusted dollars can be misleading; % of GDP is much more meaningful as it reflects that our nation is far wealthier now than in years past. By % GDP, Obama is spending more on defense than Clinton, yet less than virtually any other time since before the Korean war, and doing so while actively fighting two wars.

# ¿ Jun 21, 2010 00:59

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

SyHopeful posted:

I just found it intellectually dishonest that Grover seemed to be asserting that the military hasn't been getting loved lately when according to his own graph we're spending more than ever since WW2, independent of GDP.

Anyway, not going to derail this thread. Somebody do a writeup about the NK-12.

Well, now that the derail has devolved into namecalling, sounds like the perfect segue into massive soviet turboprops! They were first built in, what, 1947? And are STILL the post powerful turboprop ever built? Over twice as powerful as the MV-22 Osprey's engines and about 3x more powerful than C-130's.

That said, there are more powerful gas turbines than this, and the F-35's engine does, technically, couple more power into the liftfan shaft than the NK-12 is capable of outputting, but the F-35B's P&W F-135 isn't considered a turboprop.

grover fucked around with this message at 02:52 on Jun 23, 2010

# ¿ Jun 22, 2010 22:38

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

I see your high performance air races, and raise you an X-29:

Minto Took posted:

grover, did you go posting in LF?

See, LF would probably have actually made it funny.

grover fucked around with this message at 01:12 on Jun 23, 2010

# ¿ Jun 23, 2010 01:09

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Minto Took posted:

I always thought the X-29 was cool as hell. Would the airframe have any military value?

None whatsoever. (Hence why we don't see any forward-swept fighters, vaporware russian fighters aside.) Would be awesome at air shows, though, wouldn't it?

# ¿ Jun 23, 2010 01:19

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

FullMetalJacket posted:

grover, you're wrong.

forward swept wing designs have better higher angle of attack behavior then straight or rearward swept wings, and also are more maneuverable. There are drawbacks although, like increased flight loads and needing a computer to help the pilot fly the drat thing in the first place but you can say the same of all modern fighters.

Which is precisely why we don't see any FSW fighters (vaporware russian fighters aside), but they would be awesome at air shows. There are some other tradeoffs in transonic flight and stealth, too. But weight was the big one. Takes a lot of structure to make the wings stiff enough to overcome the negative torsional stability of the FSW.

Speaking of vaporware russian fighters:

grover fucked around with this message at 02:37 on Jun 23, 2010

# ¿ Jun 23, 2010 02:30

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

2ndclasscitizen posted:

What's the idea behind a turboprop anyway? Why go to the effort of fitting a jet engine to a plane, and then have it spin a propeller rather than move the plane itself?

It's far more fuel efficient with more power:weight then a straight turbojet engine, though the tradeoff is slower speed. Turbofan engines used on jetliners are similar- if you look closely, you'll see the actual turbine part is tiny compared to the massive compressor blades on a turbofan.

For example, take the Rolls Royce Trent 800 on Boeing 777s. HUGE engine, right? MASSIVE! But if you look closely, you can see daylight through it- despite outward appearances, those giant blades are functioning much like a propeller, albeit one that's far more efficient and works at speeds much closer to mach 1.

There are other twists on the turboprop, too:

grover fucked around with this message at 03:01 on Jun 23, 2010

# ¿ Jun 23, 2010 02:59

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Nerobro posted:

Now in the spin, the wintips were sticking out in to clean-ish air. So they still did have some useful airflow across them. That's why his ailerons had some stick feel. And why they were useful in recovering the plane.

He had the presence of mind to realize they were not acting as roll control anymore, but that the drag from using them was useful in yaw control and slowing the spin. I can't believe how calm the guy was, I think I'd be freaking out!

# ¿ Jun 25, 2010 15:18

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Delivery McGee posted:

I know that one is about twice the size of the other, but seeing them together just breaks my brain. And the P-51 is actually smaller than it looks, what with the perspective and all.

P-51 max takeoff weight: 12,100 lb
F-15E external fuel/ordnance capacity: 24,250 lb
Progress!

Speaking of modern-WWII comparisons:

B-17G length: 74'
F-15E length: 64'

B-17G max takeoff weight: 65,500 lb (29,700 kg)
F-15E max takeoff weight: 81,000 lb (36,700kg)

B-17G max bomb load: 8,000 lb
F-15E max bomb load: 24,250 lb

# ¿ Jun 27, 2010 14:46

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Not technically aeronautical, but along similar lines:

Indiana class Battleship (1895-1919): 351 ft long
Arleigh-Burke class Destroyer (1991-present): 509 ft long

They're virtually the same tonnage, too.

Relevant (almost), because Arleigh-Burke class destroyers are powered by 4 General Electric LM2500-30 gas turbines- the same engine used in the Boeing 747, Boeing 767, Airbus A300, Airbus A330 and others. I saw one after it'd been pulled from a Perry class frigate and it was amazing just how small it is. I mean, when you compare it to the massive triple expansion steam engine of the Indiana, or even more recent steam turbines, it's astounding how small the engine itself really is.

And only half this is the actual turbine, the rest is intake and exhaust ducting:

grover fucked around with this message at 17:56 on Jun 27, 2010

# ¿ Jun 27, 2010 17:44

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Sterndotstern posted:

I never got to ask the obvious follow-up question: Where is the next great unsolved problem for aerospace engineering?

Scramjets, for one. All turbojet and ramjet engines have subsonic internal air speeds; even at supersonic speeds, the inlet design slows the air. Eventually, we reach a point where it's just not possible to slow the air enough, which is where scramjets come in. Scramjets work with supersonic air, but are notoriously difficult. If we can master scramjets, we can increase aircraft to beyond hypersonic speeds without having to carry oxidizer. This is a key enabling technology for single-stage to orbit spacecraft.

grover fucked around with this message at 03:32 on Jun 29, 2010

# ¿ Jun 29, 2010 03:28

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

How is the hydraulic fluid coupled into the spinning propshaft?

# ¿ Jul 23, 2010 14:21

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Shamlessly cross-posting Funkameleon's post from GiP:

"Pilot Capt. Brian Bews ejects as his a CF-18 fighter jet plummets to the ground during a practice flight at the Lethbridge County Airport on Friday, July 23 for the weekend airshow in Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada. The pilot was taken to Chinook Regional Hospital with undetermined injuries."

http://photoblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/07/23/4739027-pilot-ejects-an-instant-before-fighterjet-crashes

Ironically, the music for his flyby pumped to the grandstands was Bee Gee's "Stayin' Alive"

The official cause of the crash:

1st Canadian Air Division posted:

Unfortunately today, something happened. He was going through his practice sessions and something happened. He had to eject and the aircraft impacted the airfield.

# ¿ Jul 24, 2010 01:35

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

MA-Horus posted:

If you watch the video, he was at low speed at a high pitch-up. Then you see the wing dip to the right, and he rolls right on in. Lucky he bailed out when he did.

Something is wrong with one of the engines, too, as one nozzle is tight while the other is open. And only one is spouting flames during the impact, but that might be coincidence.

# ¿ Jul 24, 2010 02:15

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

BonzoESC posted:

It really is ghastly and disproportionate: too short/fat and it kind of looks like an A318 with smaller windows and a stupider forehead.

It's one of the uglier airliners, that's for sure. It looks like it has downs.

What's really sad is that while A380 and B787 might make economical sense for the airlines, neither aircraft addresses what we frequent fliers really want- another 6" of legroom, and an empty seat beside us. A decent meal on domestic flights would be nice, too. I do like the 787 over the A380 with one big respect, though- more flights on the same routes, and thus shorter layovers and better chance of getting a seat within a reasonable amount of time if a flight is delayed for whatever reason.

Edit: brain fart on the airbus #

grover fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Jul 24, 2010

# ¿ Jul 24, 2010 18:49

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

BonzoESC posted:

Fly first class like I do (unless it's intra-Florida with Southwest.) More legroom, more horizontal room, and a decent meal on domestic flights.

Edit: are you getting A318 (tiny 100-passenger A320) and A380 (massive 800-passenger behemoth) confused? Also, the B7E7 is the B787 now.

I WISH I could fly first class

All I ever get is cattle coach. Couple hundred thousand miles now, all but about 500 miles of which is coach. Ugh. And yeah, I mean A380, had a brain fart there. I've seen 787 used all over the media, but hadn't realized 7E7 was officially dropped.

# ¿ Jul 24, 2010 20:23

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Nebakenezzer posted:

I distinctly remember harriers doing all sorts of hovering in True Lies.

And while landing on ships at sea.

# ¿ Jul 25, 2010 23:12

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

# ¿ Sep 3, 2010 20:28

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

joat mon posted:

CH-37 Mojave

The CH-37 was an impressive aircraft for its time, but even more impressive is the CH-54/S-64 Skycrane developed from it.

Among the many innovations was the rear-facing bubble, which allowed the crane operator an unparalleled view of what he was doing. And modular pods which would strap into the belly, which allowed it to operate as a troop transport or conventional cargo helicopter as well as a sky crane.

I was fortunate enough to see one flying as a kid, and even to sit in the cockpit. It's a massive and extremely impressive machine! As impressive as the Skycrane was, I find it even more impressive that so many modern helicopters can match or exceed this, but get nary an "oh, by the way". For instance, the MV-22 can match its 20,000lb payload capacity, albeit internally vice underslung. (MV-22 only has 15,000lbs underslung payload capacity.)

# ¿ Oct 8, 2010 16:57

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

MisterSparkle posted:

success!

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/SR-71/Large/EC98-44817-2.jpg

3000x2690 big enough for you?

Thanks! Q. The caption says it's on max afterburner; isn't that only possible for the SR-71 at supersonic speeds?

# ¿ Oct 23, 2010 14:29

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

slidebite posted:

It acts as a ramjet at high speeds.

Yeah, that's what I meant. The turbojet doesn't have the same power or compression at low speeds as the ramjet at Mach 3.2.

# ¿ Oct 23, 2010 17:01

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Ah, OK, that makes sense. Full afterburner, but not necessarily max thrust. Same is true of any engine on a test stand, really.

# ¿ Oct 23, 2010 17:44

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Ola posted:

The engine sucking water is #1, the close up is of #2 - the engine that blew up. Note the kangaroo logo on #1 and then notice how that entire part of the nacelle is missing from #2.

Flying debris causing damage to wing:

Great, now my "irrational" uncomfortableness when sitting aside the engine is confirmed. Thanks, Airbus.

# ¿ Nov 5, 2010 00:09

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Linedance posted:

-edit; never mind, found something!
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2010/11/05/qantas-raises-a380-design-flaw-possibility/
I'm sure I'll find out in a few days once they've determined what got damaged. Word gets around quick.

This seems like a great opportunity for someone to pitch a smaller, more economical jet than the A380, which will do more flights on more point-to-point routes so that travelers have to spend fewer hours in their air towards out-of-the-way "hubs" just so that we can wait many extra hours waiting for a giant aircraft full of middle-middle seats that inevitably flies no less than 99.9% full (or they will find a reason to cancel the flight to ensure the NEXT one flies 99.9% full).

Seriously, I really hate the whole super-mega-transport concept. I'd rather fly direct to my destination in a CRJ or Emraer than fly hours in the wrong direction on 3 hops with lengthy layovers. Basically, why can't everyone be like Southwest?

Also, bring back in-flight meals, and stop charging for checked luggage, you assholes.

# ¿ Nov 5, 2010 13:32

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

2ndclasscitizen posted:

You do realise that an A380 is perfectly suited to QANTAS' operations don't you? Sydney <-> Singapore isn't a short-hop, it's a long rear end flight that pretty much anyone flying from Australia to West Asia and Europe has to make (if not Singapore, then Hong Kong, or maybe KL). The gently caress does the 787 or Embraer have to do with A380s doing mass-haul flights have to do with anything?

Sydney-Singapore is a huge flight because they're both hubs. You have little choice in the matter but to fly through these cities (or similar giant hub cities), regardless of it's your destination or not, so yeah, it's a major flight! If I wanted to go from, say, Las Vegas to Melbourne, I'd rather get one one small plane going directly from Las Vegas to Melbourne than Las Vegas to San Francisco to Sydney to Melbourne. Go plug in Las Vegas to Melbourne in a travel search engine. Or Phoenix to Perth. Or Naples to Abu Dhabi; poo poo, you couldn't fly Naples to Abu Dhabi without flying through Amsterdam or Frankfurt and literally doubling your mileage vice a direct flight.

Even if the small direct flight only went once a day or once every other day, there's no connections or layovers to worry about, and I'd warrant most travelers would much prefer it. The biggest hurdle with a model like this is that smaller planes don't have the legs for intercontinental flights. 787 does, though. As could virtually any size passenger aircraft, if the demand was there for the designers so build it.

Even if I did want to go from Singapore to Sydney, I'd rather see 3 planes with 1/3 the capacity leaving every 2 hours than 1 giant plane leaving every 6 hours. Scheduling layovers really sucks; I can't tell you how many times I get a choice of 45 minutes (which means stress and running through the airport and missing my connection a good % of the time if the flight is delayed in even the slightest bit) or 5 hours of dreary boredom. The airlines seem to actually prefer this- they love having a captive audience to sell overpriced "duty free" crap and $10 hamburgers to.

grover fucked around with this message at 14:57 on Nov 5, 2010

# ¿ Nov 5, 2010 14:40

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

CommieGIR posted:

I do not ever want to step on one of those planes

I've been on far, far, worse in Africa. I'm talking literally duct tape on the wings worse. :gonk:

But, it didn't crash. That particular airline had been fatal crash free for 6 months when I flew with them, too!

# ¿ Nov 5, 2010 21:58

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

dietcokefiend posted:

Serously... I can understand a 2-4 passenger private plane, but a military fighter with bleeding-state-of-art computer tracking, etc. I would think they would have to the second tracking of any of these worldwide.

You'd think they could just pull up radar records like they do every other time a plane disappears off.... oh gently caress.

Perhaps he defected to Canada?

# ¿ Nov 17, 2010 23:19

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Godholio posted:

The F-35B should've been scrapped 5 years ago.

And keep the Harrier around another 30 years?

The F-35B is, of the 3 variants, the one where there is really NO alternative at all but to fix it. In the whole scheme of things, reinforcing parts of the structure doesn't seem to be that big of a deal. There are always engineering changes/updates in projects this big.

# ¿ Nov 22, 2010 02:47

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Last time I saw a plane with duct tape on the wings, I was in Africa, and they were proud to have been crash-free for 6 months...

I'm never flying Kenyan Airways again.

# ¿ Nov 27, 2010 22:57

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

The Electronaut posted:

A little late on .mil plane talk from last page, but all the arguments you guys brought up were things Col. John Boyd brought up many years ago. He noted how airframe costs had risen exponentially each generation and fewer and fewer were built. He was part of the lightweight fighter mafia that got the F16 built (and to a certain degree, the F18) with a strong design principle of a simple, cheap and easy to produce airframe that if you lost one it wasn't that big of a deal total numbers wise. He also developed a methodology for measuring performance and systematically analyzed airframe performance of the US arsenal in 60's and 70's and determined features like swept wings like the F14 were a bad trade off for the little benefits they gave; in addition, that the US was behind compared to everything the USSR had.

An amazing thinker and visionary. The more I've read about him, the more I've gotten pissed by the way .mil procurement has gone on in the US.

Also,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boyd_%28military_strategist%29

History has proven him wrong, though. Simple and cheap leads to less effective, which means FAR more are required, which ends up much more expensive in the long run as life cycle costs often exceed acquisition costs. Take the F-15 for example; 104 kills to 0 losses. You'd need at least 104 aircraft for every F-15 and even then, the F-15-equipped air force would still come out ahead. You have 104x as many pilots to train, 104x as much maintenance, etc. There's no savings there.

Also, the F-14 and F-15 that Boyd so hated were the aircraft that finally did actually put the US ahead of the USSR.

grover fucked around with this message at 15:41 on Nov 28, 2010

# ¿ Nov 28, 2010 15:38

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

VikingSkull posted:

well that and the USSR collapsing

Well, that made it rather easy to maintain our lead... But back in the 70s when these aircraft were developed, it was a very deadly contest. Incidentally, on the Soviet site, the Mig-29 was also built on the premise of "smaller cheaper but lots and lots" to counter the F-16 and hasn't performed very well either, nor is much cheaper than the much more effective Su-27.

# ¿ Nov 28, 2010 15:55

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Nebakenezzer posted:

It's strange to think, but in the end the USA air force superiority is not maintained by technology, but by superior training, especially by having lots of real life seat time.

Training is a huge part of it, too, as is WACS support, but we're talking aircraft here. Given equivalent training, the difference between many aircraft is simply night and day. For example:

quote:

The only way an F-15 eagle is going to get in there and kill an F-22 Raptor, is if the Eagle has a driver with 3,000+ hours, and the raptor driver is fresh from HOT training. Also, it would have to be 2 on 1. And the raptor driver had to have drunk the whole night before. And he drank during the flight. Also he passed out. - Anonymous F-15 pilot

Germany operates a lot of Mig-29s and is as highly trained as any western nation. The Mig-29's HMS plus high off-boresight Archers and low-speed maneuverability gave it an edge in close dogfighting during the first joint exercises until US pilots learned the tactics to counter it. After that, combat was squarely in favor of the F-15, F-18 and even F-16. In real-life combat, the Mig-29s would be dead before they even close to dogfighting range.

Here's a clip from a video about F-18 vs Mig-29:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5DAaknkJWU&feature=related

# ¿ Nov 29, 2010 13:03

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 4, 2024 22:51

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Geoj posted:

Apparently the Air Force has money in the budget to maintain a golf course in the loving desert

Not only that, but there's people on virtually every hole! Shouldn't they be out defending freedom or something?

# ¿ Jan 6, 2011 02:49

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Automotive Insanity > Aeronautical Insanity: switching to secondary tolerances

«‹›10 »