|
I HATE CARS posted:
Beaten with the igor link and everything. And I even posted it like a twat in the (other) AIest pics thread. About that BD-5 kitplane jet, I don't think there are many flying examples and Mr Bede certainly aren't making them anymore. His contraptions killed quite a few early adopters. This counts as a youtube thread as well right? Some dramatic ones from the world of small aircraft. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvbS-oHi9ro Pilot of small stuntplane pushes his center of gravity limit a little, ends up in flat spin and very close to death. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXQKaxp6Rlk BRS parachute deployed in actual emergency as tow rope goes in prop. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXO16bTySHQ Chasing the demons downriver in an RV-4.
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2010 23:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 1, 2024 03:44 |
|
|
That Victor incident is awesome. Came across a nice one I found a few months ago, wondering what "cartridge start" entailed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9fkmqPHTDE From comments: quote:theres three cordite charges inside the nose cone, one is fired, the exhaust goes through a small turbine and gearbox thats coupled on to the front of the avon compressor. theres a clutch that disengages when the starter shaft slows down.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2010 21:45
|
|
|
DerDestroyer posted:An F-15 just fires (and forgets) an AMRAAM and starts maneuvering to evade any R-27s the Russians fire. The Russians also have an active homing missile in service, the R-77. It's been exported to several other countries as well. But yeah, internet discussions about modern jets fighting is usually just like a game of top trumps. I guess that's why stories from Vietnam, the Six Day War and stuff like that is more interesting to me as it actually happened and it happened with vacuum tubes, turbojets and non-regulation handlebar mustaches. Cockpit audio from real fighting is pretty drat rare, here are two of the gems I know of: Intercom recording from a Lancaster, apparently over Berlin in 1944 (footage unrelated of course) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoRVStgnTa8 Bloody good show!  This is from Vietnam: quote:On June 2, 1972 at approximately 1330 hours, Brenda 01, a hard-wing F-4E, tail number 68210, flown by Major Phil Handley shot down a MiG-19 with 20mm cannon fire, approximately 40 miles northeast of Hanoi. At the time of the kill, the estimated flight parameters were: F-4 speed over 1.2 mach (800+ kts); MiG-19 speed mach 0.77 (500 kts); altitude above terrain 500 feet; slant range 200-300 feet; and flight path crossing angle 90 degrees. This was the only MiG-19 shot down by cannon fire during the course of the war in Southeast Asia, and is believed to be the highest speed gun kill in the history of aerial combat. MP3 and transcript: http://www.nickelonthegrass.net/MiG_Kill.htm That's that gun baby. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2010 23:40
|
|
|
leica posted:Wasn't this recreated in the dogfight series on the History channel? Yes it was. It was a cool show but it annoyed me that the animators had no understanding of the actual maneuvers. This gun kill happened with the MiG travelling at 90 degrees across the nose of the Phantom but it was animated as tail on, completely missing out on how impressive the shot was. Another was an F-8 Crusader shooting down a bunch of -19s or -17s. He had a big speed advantage but in order to stay behind them he would do an oblique barrel roll, climbing steeply to minimize the horizontal travel, then rolling inverted and pulling down on the targets again. It makes perfect sense when you play a flight sim or whatever, but in the animation the F-8 just does a quick aileron roll about its own axis and the viewer is none the wiser. Feel free to spergsay this. Ola fucked around with this message at 11:23 on Mar 11, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2010 11:18
|
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:I saw one crash while standing next to a kid whose dad was on board. That was not a good day. I went to click your profile looking for Alaska before I noticed it in your title. Was it the one that lost its engines due to birds?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2010 17:31
|
|
|
-Spiffy- posted:I always liked the F-16, looks best with perfect proportions. If you're thinking of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z00gU-OQdQI That's a Canadian CT-155 Hawk trainer. And considering the various lawn darts of history, this one was a bargain.  The student in front was fine but unfortunately the instructor suffered a spinal injury or something that ended his flying career.Here's some intense F-16 action from Desert Storm. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uh4yMAx2UA While attacking a refinery in Baghdad, they get attacked by SA-2 and SA-3s - which are basically Mach 3 telephone poles with 200 or 400 pounds of high explosive on the tip. Full story is here: http://www.lucky-devils.net/afm.html
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2010 10:20
|
|
|
decahedron posted:I'm not saying that it's not important to retain the cannon for the "Oh poo poo" moments, but if you are getting to the point where you are using the cannon, especially in the kind of wars we fight against fourth-rate regional powers, someone hosed it up. The gently caress-up in Vietnam was: Military doctrine: Radar guided missiles, kill at beyond visual range Political doctrine: Gotta get a visual ID first champ
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2010 16:47
|
|
|
Phy posted:Plane question, and something I've wondered about for years: What dictates cockpit placement in fighters? Should the pilot be placed on the roll centerline of the craft? Because it seems like most fighters stick them above, for what I'm guessing is better visibility. Yep. Visibility, unimpeded ejection and of course room for all the systems and computers and poo poo.  But centerline seating, like on this X-3 Stiletto, probably has some advantages in that it's less disorientating. But fighter pilots have amazing spatial awareness, so it's no point making airframe sacrifices for it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2010 13:10
|
|
|
How about an F-14, a fleet defense / air superiority fighter, strafing in an urban environment? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=typFoXRW91Y From the Speed and Angels DVD which is amazing. Looks like all of it's on youtube.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2010 00:10
|
|
|
That An-2 procedure is amazing, a real treat of a fun fact. I suppose it "doesn't stall" when the pilot pulls the stick fully back because one of the wings stall before the other, moves the center of lift back and causes the nose to pitch down.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2010 21:21
|
|
|
Manny posted:The same idea, scaled up a bit: The same idea, scaled up a lot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvCMrt1JPwo After all the cutesy bits, at 2:00. Only video I could find.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2010 11:37
|
|
|
eggyolk posted:We're not done with planes until I finally get my goddamned supersonic flights from NYC to LA. HURRY UP ALREADY! That capability was commercially available in 1976 and reitred in 2003. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2010 19:22
|
|
|
But the people who flew on it were either ridiculously skinny (supermodels) or ridiculously short (British heavy metal artists) so it seemed spacious.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2010 20:23
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYQS3qAIjAo I just got something in my eye, just a piece of..d-dust or something...*sulk* edit: Concorde, Red Arrows and QE2 in one frame, this is  for Brits.
Ola fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Mar 19, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2010 20:41
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:I challenge you not to replay this at least once: I failed this challenge.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2010 21:37
|
|
|
oxbrain posted:These are driving me nuts. I want to say B-57, but the wing shape and nose shape are wrong. dammit, you figured it out before I could quote you. Most definitely R/WB-57 with the high altitude wing. It's even done service in Afghanistan, as  weather recon This pic has both the original Canberra and the WB-57:  The original one has the squared off wedge-shaped wings and skinny turbojets. Nebakenezzer posted:I want to say F15s, but the wings look kinda swept. Vigilante bombers, maybe? The square intakes (and wing sweep) are dead giveaways for the F-15, but it seems to have its tailplane removed. Vigilantes are huge, even bigger than F-14s.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2010 10:50
|
|
|
Holy gently caress...it's....how can so good pics be taken?  If you browse flickr.com's highest rated it's usually cats, artfully lit models or randomers in the street taken with fashionable equipment. But the pics of the rocket shot, the Mirages, the....fuh. Expensive equipment for sure, but goddamn they work hard for their fives.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2010 23:44
|
|
|
InterceptorV8 posted:http://www.homeofheroes.com/wings/part2/09_ploesti.html Amazing link, thanks much. Lighter note, here's a page from Trade-a-plane, 1964.  edit: according to Wolfram Alpha, $10K in 1964 equals just under $70K of todays. So cheap yes, but not given away with corn flakes exactly. Ola fucked around with this message at 15:59 on Mar 25, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2010 15:49
|
|
|
Here's one in great shape: http://www.trade-a-plane.com/specs/78153 1.8 million.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2010 16:00
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:
Funny how they lucked out on development. Their heatseeking missile program got a bonus leap when an undetonated Sidewinder was pulled from a North Korean MiG-19 and shipped to the Soviet Union.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2010 01:49
|
|
|
You can fly a great rendition of the Su-25 in Lock On. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p18rcs7nJF8 Before you complain about the music, consider that this is one of the least retarded Lock On videos on youtube. Just look for yourself. Also:  http://pissoffbiggles.com/
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2010 19:33
|
|
|
Tetraptous posted:The Micheal Yon article they're from is misleading, and blames it on static electricity. The truth is simpler - during brownout conditions, sand can strike the titanium abrasion strips that coat the leading edge of the rotor and cause it to spark. Although these images are somewhat augmented, it can be a real problem at night during insertion operations because it can reveal the location of the helicopter to the enemy. I suppose the article is referring to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Elmo's_fire Glowing plasma around rotors, propellers and basically anything in motion can happen without sand being present.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2010 11:15
|
|
|
Wombot posted:"1.6 miles every second" is a fairly precise embellishment. But he's not at sea level, he's way the hell up into the stratosphere. And he wasn't doing 1.6 km/s, but one mile every 1.6 s which is 1 km/s. http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/mach.html 25908 meters altitude (85k feet) and 1000 m/sec = Mach 3.369 This is based on a standard day so unknown factors are exact altitude and the temp/pressure of that day. edit: so excited about sperging I missed the others, but at least I brought a NASA link to the game.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2010 09:25
|
|
|
Mobius1B7R posted:Wow a double post, I am an idiot. Well lets make something fun out of this, what is the best engine noise to your ears? I personally love the howl of the RBs on the 757. I don't know if it's my favorite, but the Starfighter howl is something special. Here's two taxi demos from Bodø, Norway: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-v8m7A63otQ Howling at 1:46-ish https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozIRwMhRVRY Howling at 0:53 This resonance happens somewhere around the throttle setting used for approach, so since it was easily heard from the ground the Starfighter got its local nickname; "the Westfjord Bull". Ola fucked around with this message at 09:17 on Apr 9, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2010 09:15
|
|
|
Discussion about G-forces tend to include some misunderstandings and some facts taken as absolutes, here's a little low-down: The G-limit of a plane is the strength of the structure. Just about any plane is capable of overstressing itself. In general aviation it's called Vma, or maneuvering speed. Below that (not counting mixed inputs) you can move the controls to their limits without causing damage. Above you cannot. There's one case of an F-15 in an inadvertent dive pulling nearly 30 G as the pilot discovered his mistake, breaking the wing spar and crashing. Fly-by-wire uses all kinds of wizardy like measuring the onset of G and pitch rate to keep the plane within its limits, yet it can still break those limits in certain situations. Over-G is a regular occurrence in military aviation (perhaps less now) and requires costly downtime for inspection and repair. Over-G in a civil aircraft can be very dramatic indeed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPbhQS6IljU Aerobatics planes are very light, very simple and can be built very strong, so they have higher G-limits. But an Extra 300 at 12 G bleeds off its speed awfully fast so they don't sustain those forces for long, even if they want to. Fighter planes could easily be built to withstand 15 G but it would be very heavy and since the driver can't take 15 Gs in the Z-axis for much time, there's no point. (I mentioned mixed inputs. Say you are pulling 9 G and curving through the sky just fine. Then while in the turn, you move the stick to the lower corner so it barrel rolls. By mixing pitch and roll, you have overstressed the outboard wing which moved up in addition to the 9 G it already had.) The G-limit of a human being tends to be quoted at 9, also when talking about Formula 1 drivers. But they don't pull much sustained G in the Z-axis (head to toe), but X (accel/brake) and Y (cornering). The most often mentioned limit refers to blacking out when you pull G in the Z axis and prevent blood from getting to your brain. The early astronauts were pulling 8-10 G on launch and 12-14 G on reentry, sustained for several minutes. They were awake and talking all the time because - in addition to being fantastically well trained - they were on their backs and taking the forces in the X axis. I suppose the limit of 9 (many fighters are 7.5 or 8) is chosen by design at some point. What's the maximum G we can limit a reasonable (weight/complexity) fighter design to? And what's the maximum G we can reasonably expect well trained pilots to sustain on a regular basis? The limit of injury tend to be quoted around the experience of that rocket guy ApathyGifted posted. Obviously less time of force applied means less work done on your poor cells, but given enough time of repeated strains even within those limits you can develop injuries . Detached retina is a work hazard of drag racers. And apparently, so the rumor has it, G-straining in fighter planes causes huge hemhorroids. Think about that the next time you see a fighter pilot walking with a broad legged swagger.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2010 21:53
|
|
|
ApathyGifted posted:For the record, I only brought up that aerodynamic limit thing because I wanted to talk about the square-cube law. It still applies to the structural mechanics you were discussing, but I sort of went off on a tangent and never got back. It wasn't meant to prove anyone wrong, just an excuse to go off on my tangent. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2010 01:17
|
|
|
movax posted:(The SH is considered 4.5+ isn't it?) I suppose that depends on who you ask. Jane's Aircraf? 4.5th. Procurement lobby? 5th.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2010 21:06
|
|
|
movax posted:Curious...do they just light up old airframes from boneyards for training, or is there just a designated skeleton they light up every single time (placing the crew dummies in, then lighting that fucker on fire)? It's a purpose built skeleton made from steel.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2010 18:27
|
|
|
When I was 14 or 15 we had a "work week" at school. I got to spend a week at the airport with the aviation authorities, chilling in the tower and participating in a fire drill. Very cool stuff, the fire engine had a joystick on the dash for shooting water and I got to try it out. They didn't have a metal skeleton of an airframe, just a pile of old cars which they doused in gas and lit up. The guy driving couldn't quite put it out so he had to drive the fire engine around to the other side of the car while saying "bastards put gas in the glove box". Good times.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2010 12:25
|
|
|
jandrese posted:People are still working on SSTs? Not seriously no. And it makes sense too. There isn't really any screaming market demand for quicker long distance travel and there is no real urge for technological advancement like in the 50s and 60s.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2010 14:52
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Airplane youtube post Here's a Russian plane that changes is mind. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4DNEZbuivc Have posted it before, but it's a good'un.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2010 12:14
|
|
|
D. melanogaster posted:Here's a Russian plane that changes its mind and pulls it off. Holy hell that is a boatload of alpha. So close to making a very big mistake, the hook almost caught the wire and would have written off the airplane in a huge pancake splat. Continuing the series, here's a Russian plane that had its mind changed for it and not only didn't pull it off but pushed itself off. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1V4S5zsTlMU
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2010 12:37
|
|
|
azflyboy, that's a pretty bad example of automotive reliability although it was definitely interesting and postworthy. I've been reading quite a bit about auto engines in kit planes and yes, the track record isn't all that good. But the common failure scenario is not due to mechanical failure under higher than normal stress. One big deal is reduction gear which is needed to bring the 4-5000 rpm powerband of the auto engine down to sub-3000 rpm at the prop. The power pulses causes torsional vibration which can eat up the cogs. Then there's electric reliance. Most auto engines need electricity for ignition and fuel delivery. Kit builders are often very skilled and do a lot of research but it only takes one poor ground to put your rear end on the ... uuh..ground...poorly. A "Lycosaur" just needs to spin, gravity supplies fuel and magnetos supply spark. Then there's cooling. Even if these kit builders are often very skilled, designing a good cooling system in your garage that can shed heat effectively from an auto engine running at high power at high altitude is a real engineering challenge. And without the help of a stress rig with simulated air flow and density, you can only rely so much on what previous builders have done. Every installation is unique and the early flights become real test pilot stuff - and there's no ejection seat in an RV-7. Cost and technological superiority are the most common reasons for choosing auto engines. But given the modifications, fabrication, redundancy and limitations, it often ends up as costing more, weighing more, developing less hp while needing to shed more heat, burn more fuel and being systemically less safe due to higher complexity. Of course, some auto installations work very well and have 1000+ hours. And every week there's one or more Lycoming failures somewhere in the world that ends in a forced landing. The next big thing is of course diesel. The first to hit the market properly was Thielert, R.I.P. Underpowered, overweight and critically reliant on electricity to run the FADEC - utterly failing to capitalize on the inherent advantages of a diesel. The two (or was it just one? don't remember) in service in Norway suffered multiple cooling, mechanical and software problems. One in Sweden had a complete electric failure during (if I remember correctly) a student's first solo x-country. He had to land in a fairly built up area and came away with minor injuries and no small amount of kudos for the feat. Then there's a British company called Wilksch, don't know much about the design but they do have some 100/120 hp engines flying in customer installations. The most interesting company is Deltahawk http://deltahawkengines.com/ They've been around the corner for years and years but they seem to be spending their time properly on testing, they seem to have good funding and their design is quite inspired. Two stroke, V4, dual charged (parallel charged is a more apt term I guess), liquid cooled, mechanically fed, jet fuelled compression igntion. No need for reduction gear, runs without electricity, but in sum the installtion is more complex and probably heavier than a Lycoming.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2010 08:04
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:A wikipedia article I read once mentioned something about "navy (f-18s) have extra strengthening for carrier landings." I've heard that as well, but it's not cheaper to sell the F-18 without carrier gear when you have to change the production line and fit weaker gear on export versions. I submit the Finnish F-18:  It even has the arm on the nose gear that connects to the steam catapult shuttle and I'm pretty sure Finland doesn't have any aircraft carriers.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2010 11:09
|
|
Oh well. Good to know.
|
slidebite posted:oopsie Looks like the brakes were jammed on. "Feet alive" is an important pre landing checklist point for a taildragger pilot so I suppose it's possible that one of the pilots inadvertently held the brakes down, but I bet it was a mechanical failure.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2010 14:18
|
|
|
Atlantis' last ride into space. Be a patriot and click for big.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2010 21:55
|
|
|
It is an aerobatic plane with full inverted fuel/oil systems. I talked a bit with the pilot on youtube and if you read through the comments he explains himself very well. Seems like a top guy as opposed to the masses of twats in the comments. Here's a video with his explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TT1QGG1510w
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2010 18:48
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:Sitting here, calmly thinking about it. It's a logical solution. You've got one wing going forward, the other going backwards. Instead of making differential lift, you'd get all lift, or all downforce from the way ailerons are setup. At least in a spin. As I understand it, the aileron wasn't even making much lift when it got him out. It only created additional drag on the outside wing which helped slow the spin to a fall, center of gravity takes over and the nose starts tipping over, normal airflow ensues and he can complete the crash in a safer manner. If you move the stick to the left in a left turning spin, normally all you do is further stall the inner wing and tighten your spin. As you mentioned, in a flat spin the plane is falling almost straight down and the airflow across the rudder (which is usually lengthwise over the airframe, even in a normal spiral spin) is hit by airflow from below and one side, making it utterly useless. Same for the elevator, when the airflow isn't flowing over it from front to back, it can't do its job. The loads you feel on the stick is the force of the air pushing on the control surfaces as they are deflected and action-reaction means that the airflow is doing something to your plane. If the stick goes all floppy, the surfaces aren't loaded and can't do their job. So basically, he did what is normally really bad to make something really bad go quite well and deserves much kudos.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2010 17:43
|
|
|
Hahaha that's amazing. If you search for "mach loop" on airliners.net you will be treated to a huge amount of action shots like these, a few of them shows the crew waving to the photographers (who are there almost all the time). A funny one was a C-130 banked at 45 degrees, seriously low level and the right seater was eating an apple.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2010 19:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 1, 2024 03:44 |
|
|
ehnus posted:http://www.airliners.net/photo/UK---Air/Lockheed-Martin-C-130J/1340854/L/&sid=22a2cedec5cc54b620fab9a7cd1c7f80 Holy hell, I remembered it wrong. That's way beyond 45 degrees, but perhaps the photographer was at a higher altitude (!) as well, adding to the vertical bank effect.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2010 16:45
|
|