|
No Thud yet? Shame. Click here for the full 800x528 image. Sure, it was a maintenance nightmare, sucked down enough fuel to singlehandedly cause Peak Oil, had a turning radius measured in miles, and around half of them ended up scattered over North Vietnam. It's amazing they only lost half the total production, because Thuds were used for Wild Weasel. Mission profile: fly ahead of the bombers, goad the SAMs into shooting at you, then either fire a radar-homing missile and hope it got there before they got a shot off, or intentionally let them shoot then dodge the SAM and dive-bomb the launcher, located by seeing the missile take off. That would've been simply insane rather than flat-out suicidal, if not for the MiGs and AA guns also out for their asses.  
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2010 07:29
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 01:15 |
|
|
silversiren posted:This thing just seems like it would be extremely difficult to fly. quote:It would seem that the displacement of lift vs weight, and thrust vs drag, would have induced tendencies to yaw and roll requiring continual trimming to control, but the aircraft proved very stable and maneuverable. Indeed, Dr. Vogt had calculated that the greater weight on one side of the aircraft could be cancelled out by the torque of the propeller. The odd balance actually counteracted the torque steer. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2010 05:58
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:There are also several F-16's sitting out there that were supposed to be sold to Iran before the Shah was overthrown.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2010 05:28
|
|
|
orange lime posted:I dunno what turret you're thinking of, but the Sperry turrets were electrically powered and had backup hand cranks as well. Also have some early Kevin Costner and Kiefer Sutherland: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WD7B0cfTXlc&feature=related
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2010 09:13
|
|
|
An alumnus of the local engineering school's aero program came back for a visit today in his work vehicle. He let the students and teachers climb all over it, but said the government would kill him if anybody sat in it.      Click here for the full 800x541 image.  Click here for the full 800x522 image.  Click here for the full 800x530 image.  Click here for the full 671x800 image. The pilot:  Click here for the full 800x518 image. Not Pooh, he just borrowed Pooh's plane. The squadron CO and XO get their names on jets 1 and 2, but who actually flies which bird is randomly assigned based on which ones are working that day -- the F/A-18C fleet is getting a bit long in the tooth, but the Navy is trying to keep them flying until they get the F-35 rather than buying more Super Hornets. Your tax dollars dribbling out onto the apron:  Click here for the full 535x800 image. He wasn't kidding about them getting old. I forget the ridiculous number of hours he said were on that particular airframe, but it's a lot more than McDonnell Douglas intended.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2010 03:43
|
|
|
Godholio posted:The original Hornet design competed (and lost) against the F-16 in the early 70s. The Super Hornet is a totally new design, with about as much in common with the old Hornet as the new Camaro has with the old. SHornets entered production in the mid-late 90s, they are new planes, and among the most advanced fighters in the world. As for why the Super Hornet looks like the old one, the Navy needed a new plane but Congress wouldn't pay for a new one, so they made it look kinda like the old one, removed any indication of scale from the pictures, and told Congress it was just a revision of the tried-and-true. That happens a lot, though the only others I can think of offhand are the F-86D and the new, wider-bodied CH-53 the Marines might be getting soon. I think there's also an all-new F-15 in the works, but it might actually be an upgraded Mudhen, rather than a full redesign like the Sabre Dog and Super Hornet. Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 10:47 on Apr 18, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2010 10:45
|
|
|
Previa_fun posted:Easiest way to identify whether a Hornet is an A/B or C/D model:   orange lime posted:but only when it doesn't have crap on its wings. Here's a CF-18 with even the wingtip rails photoshopped off: 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2010 09:28
|
|
|
movax posted:So, how about those wacky Canadians and their fake painted cockpits on the underside of the CF-18? I thought there was another air force that did the same, but I can't think of it at the moment (IAF?)  In other A-10 news, they added a backseat to one for night/adverse weather operation, but the Air Force didn't buy it. It was embarrassing enough having the one slow mover, couldn't bear the thought of having two types taking attention from the sexy F-15 and F-16. Looks kinda  , but I've always liked it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2010 17:58
|
|
|
InterceptorV8 posted:They built that plane with loving SLIDE RULERS, how many of you fuckers have ever handled one? I actually used the slide rule on my watch while taking pictures of the Hornet -- somebody asked how much gas it carried, pilot gave a figure in pounds (because that's what they use in the military), I did the math and told the kid what it was in gallons. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2010 06:57
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Tomcats are amazingly gigantic. The F-22 is a lot bigger than it looks too -- I always thought it was fairly small for a jet until just now. It's as big as the Eagle. Fun fact: the A-10 and P-51 have about the same top speed.  And as you can see in this video, the WWII fighters were similarly bigger than their Great War ancestors. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6PnKUEFX8g Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 03:02 on May 28, 2010 |
|
#
¿
May 28, 2010 02:57
|
|
|
KlementGottwald posted:The Soviets must not have been particularly pleased with the names NATO gave their aircraft Jimmy Smuts posted:"Bear"... make up for those. Question: How do you start a rotary (Clerget, not Wankel) engine? I know you've got the mechanical-era equivalent of a squire out front cranking the thing over by hand, but what's the procedure inside the cockpit? As much detail as possible, please. I've been asked about this, and I'm not sure. I know the startup procedure for a WWII-era radial down to the number of blades you count going by in each step, but the Great War engines are beyond my knowledge (and probably far simpler). Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 05:13 on Jun 23, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2010 05:09
|
|
|
ursa_minor posted:I already posted this, but this is the best video I can find on rotary engines. It's not going to answer your question, but it has a lot of neat information.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2010 23:28
|
|
|
ehnus posted:http://www.airliners.net/photo/UK---Air/Lockheed-Martin-C-130J/1340854/L/&sid=22a2cedec5cc54b620fab9a7cd1c7f80 Wow, I never realized until that photo (and others from the same valley) how dirty/scratched airplanes get. Quite a few with panels replaced and not repainted to match, too, like a car with a junkyard fender after a minor wreck. Mudhen missing a lot of paint: http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Air/Boeing-F-15E-Strike/1678572/L/&sid=6c2f8c9c44c95c53d264dc0bec4139a8 Also F-15s are really disturbingly wrinkly in the right light. http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Air/McDonnell-Douglas-F-15E/1606731/L/&sid=6c2f8c9c44c95c53d264dc0bec4139a8
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2010 04:57
|
|
|
Alpine Mustache posted:that looks like it may be water vapor that forms on the leading edges of wings sometimes. And this one, while not lumpy, is so I had to rehost it and post inline. 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!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2010 07:53
|
|
|
Airplanes at the balloon race: THEY'RE LEGALLY AIRCRAFT SHUT UP  The bee ballons are adorable -- they take off holding hands!   
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2010 05:34
|
|
|
Quantrill posted:Seeing balloons lit up at night is a sweet, sweet thing. Where was this?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2010 18:09
|
|
|
routlej1 posted:That's just awesome. I still can't get over how amazing Concorde was. Is that a fold-down cupholder over the circuit breakers on the left (in front of the jump seat behind the pilot)? No, wait, I think it's an ashtray.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2010 06:07
|
|
|
MonkeyNutZ posted:Have a huge version you're willing to give up? Personal use only, no sales, please credit.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2010 07:03
|
|
|
I don't know which thread this should go in, but I'll post it here because it's both airplane and car related: Some friends and I were discussing James Bond cars and the essential features thereof. An ejection seat is mandatory, of course. That got me thinking about Martin-Baker's Tie Club. So I emailed Martin-Baker on the issue, and amazingly, they actually replied: If you were to use one of their seats to eject from a car, they'd give you a tie. ("driving off a cliff" and "armed villain passenger" were the exact car-ejection scenarios I asked about).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2010 08:58
|
|
|
ApathyGifted posted:Martin-Baker is now the coolest company ever. Yeah. I replied to that asking if you'd get a tie for using an ejection seat turned into an office chair (with the rocket motor and canopy breakers still attached, and assuming you're on the top floor with a conveniently-placed skylight) to escape from a burning building. Will post the verdict when I get it. He should be in by now, it's past 10am there. Edit: they also still own and use a pair of Gloster Meteors (half the still-flying Meteors in the world -- there's one other in the UK and one in Australia) for testing ejection seats. I am far too amused by the fact that neither has a canopy over the rear seat (I mean, it makes sense not bothering to replace it after every test, but still).  Click here for the full 800x508 image.  Click here for the full 800x532 image. Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 10:48 on Nov 26, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2010 10:25
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:I don't know which thread this should go in, but I'll post it here because it's both airplane and car related: Some friends and I were discussing James Bond cars and the essential features thereof. An ejection seat is mandatory, of course. That got me thinking about Martin-Baker's Tie Club. Dissent! The email paraphrased above, from Andrew Martin, Head of Business Development, stated simply "Yes they would." But a few days ago (I only just got around to checking that email account), Heather the Marketing Analyst emailed me thusly: Heather from Martin-Baker posted:Hello, Her name at the end was in some cutesy script font intended to signify signing it, and followed by her full name, title, and company address. So I replied, possibly a bit harshly: quote:But Andrew Martin replied the day after I asked saying the driver would qualify. I don't know who to believe! Well, actually, I'm going to go with his answer -- he got back to me sooner, he apparently outranks you, and he (halfway) shares a name with the company.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2011 04:41
|
|
|
I'm poking around on the F-15E site, and have come to the conclusion that the Mudhen* is pretty  The hottest poo poo in air superiority fighters, with an added crew member and extra fuel tanks, and bomb racks on the added gas tanks. It also has its amusing bits -- the bomber version has dual controls, but the WSO's gun trigger does nothing, and the "pickle" button only drops bombs (as opposed to the pilot's gun and bombs/air-to-air missiles, respectively). You'd think the if the bombardier was flying the plane because the pilot was incapacitated, he'd need all the air-to-air possible, but no, he gets nothing. The only defensive option when flown from the backseat is to dump the bombs, firewall the throttles and leg it at "over Mach 2.5" (apparently top speed is classified but if they'll admit to Mach 2.5+ actual top speed is probably closer to Mach 3).  Of the F-15's 101 or so (some sources say 104) air-to-air victories, only one was by an F-15E -- during Desert Storm, a Mudhen was providing close air support for some Special Forces troops, and dropped a GBU-10 2,000lb bomb on a Hind unloading Iraqi soldiers. The helicopter took off, the F-15E pilot thought the bomb had missed and selected a Sidewinder missile to have another go at it, but the helicopter was vaporized before he could pull the trigger -- the bomb had hit its target, estimated by the SF guys on the ground to be at 800 feet altitude on impact. The fighter-bomber crew was about to engage the other enemy helicopters, but a flight heavy bombers rolled in, so they broke off to avoid sharing the Hind's fate. They weren't officially credited with the kill until 2001.  Edit: Also the fucker can fly on one wing like it ain't no thang. In 1983, an Israeli F-15E had a midair collision with an A-4 during a training mission. The Skyhawk exploded on impact; the F-15 went into a spin. The pilot went to full afterburner and straightened it out, took a look at the damaged wing but couldn't see anything because of the cloud of leaking fuel, so he decided to try to land. He came in at twice the normal landing speed, tore off the tailhook, and finally brought it to a safe stop. He turned around to shake his WSO's hand and saw that he was missing an entire loving wing. When McDonnell-Douglas engineers came out to look at it, they assumed the crash had occurred while taxiing, because seriously there's no loving way that thing will fly with an arm off ... but it did. Apparently their simulations failed to take into account the fact that it has a greater than 1 power:weight ratio and therefore doesn't really need wings at full throttle, plus the engine intakes and wide fuselage provide quite a bit of lift. The pilot later said that if he'd been able to see how bad it was he would've ejected. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LveSc8Lp0ZE  Edit again: the one-winged one was a D-model two-seat trainer, not an E-model bomber, but it had two seats and the Israelis love their conformal fuel tanks, so it was a pretty much a Mudhen in all but ordnance. (Third edit: looking at the photos, it didn't have the CFTs mounted at the time.) *The Strike Eagle's informal nickname is fairly amusing too. In addition to the low-and-slow aspect vs. the majestic soaring Eagle, it's a joke about the CFTs and consequent loiter time -- its feathery namesake "have considerable stamina once airborne." Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 09:30 on Mar 18, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2011 08:39
|
|
|
Found on fatpita of all places, rehosted on my personal site. Helicopter picking up a boat. Must be a USMC bird. Marine pilots have a reputation for doing crazy poo poo like that. (Edit: I first thought it was a CH-53, but that round window and the angle of the fuselage over the ramp say Chinook.) Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 03:46 on Mar 19, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 03:42
|
|
|
Itzena posted:This is a Dornier Do-17 fast bomber AKA "The Flying Pencil" Sure the American PBY was a decent flying boat, but just look at this hard-rear end mofo. Take special note 18 seconds in when a wave crashes over the bow and all you can see is the wing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nU8JMbe9ljU One of the few aircraft to fly on both sides in WWII -- it was designed for the Dutch in the '30s, and sent some over to their part of the East Indies. When Germany invaded the Netherlands and Japan invaded the Indies, the Dutch gave them to the Aussies, and they flew search-and-rescue for the RAAF until the end of the war. Factories in Germany and occupied France kept building them until 1945. One made a forced landing in neutral Sweden and was impounded, bought off, and used until '52. Unlike the Catalina, the Do. 24 had no wheels, so most of the Nazi-held airframes were sunk at their moorings during the war; the Aussie, Spanish and Swedish planes were flown until they fell apart -- well into the '70s, in the case of some Spanish ones. Currently there are four and a half remaining: three whole and one raised-from-the-seabed forward fuselage in museums, and one refitted with turboprops, a better wing, and landing gear by the grandson of the man who designed it. He flew it around the world to raise money for charity, and plans to put it in passenger service with his charter airline in the pacific islands.    Sunshine89 posted:There also was no oil change interval- each engine needed an oil change after every flight, and missions were often cut short due to lack of engine oil.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2011 09:45
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I think it's more likely that NASA will either convert them to carry something else or mothball them (maybe at DM) until they have something worth carrying. I don't see these really getting scrapped, and I agree they'll never end up in a museum...they're just not interesting enough on their own for most people (even most aviation museum patrons). Maybe as a combined exhibit with an orbiter, but I doubt it. They should at least pull the mounting brackets and send them to museums. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2011 01:18
|
|
|
Colonel K posted:I love STOL bush planes, I particularly like the little tricks some of them have, like a button to pneumatically retract the flaps to kill the lift so they can hit maximum braking.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2011 05:28
|
|
|
LobsterboyX posted:Thank god the internet didn't exist when the Granville brothers were flying their Gee Bees.  It's bigger than you thought. Granville Bros. design philosophy: take an engine, strap on a cockpit and just enough wing to make it fly. It was a really big engine. And really small control surfaces. Despite that, the Gee Bee wasn't as murderous as it's hyped to be -- out of 11 Sportsters, there were only around five crashes, and only half of them fatal. But when the Gee Bee decided it was time for you to die, you drat sure as hell died: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KTyYVnSyq4 Direct link to 1:51, when everything is about to go to poo poo "This is fun! I think I'll just lazily turn in on final for landiOHGODTHEWINGFELLOFF"
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2011 03:34
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:Anybody made a decent documentary on McDonnell? (picked it up at a dollar store or something a year ago and forgot about it). It was made by the company itself in celebration of their 25th birthday. It's a 30-minute look at their history up to the Mercury program. Despite the title, Douglas is not mentioned. Thing I learned from it; at the christening ceremony for the Phantom II, the bottle would not break, despite having a metal plate with an edge sticking up strapped to the radome to smack the bottle on. The lady (SecNav's wife) took a couple whacks at it, then a couple with one of the guys assisting, and then the guys tried, and eventually they just popped the cork and poured the bubbly on the jet. Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 01:25 on Oct 25, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2011 01:20
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:your best use of resources for bomber-based nuclear deterrent aren't going to be ones that fly off of boats An A-5 could carry a 2800-pound nuclear weapon, a B-52 can carry an A-5 at max takeoff weight and still have room for a couple of those 2800lb nukes. (Vigilante payload: 1x2800lb Mk27, MTOW: 62953lb; BUFF payload: 70000lb of anything you want, MTOW: near enough to half a million pounds) Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 07:49 on Nov 7, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2011 07:45
|
|
|
BSAKat posted:
Yep. T-33 Shooting Star. quote:
Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Nov 15, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2011 19:15
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Hey, I was on that first one. A couple of my colleagues got similar pics on the Collings Foundation's B-17 and B-24, I had to drive the car back. Here are my ground-based photos (which I'm pretty sure I posted back at the beginning of this thread but gently caress it, see them again):   I was the only one of the three of us that knew how to use a Ma Deuce:   Self-portrait in the ball turret window: 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2011 02:30
|
|
|
Cygni posted:YOU GO TO HELL! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WD7B0cfTXlc Amazing Stories episode about the unthinkable happening to a ball turret gunner. Linked because it's a multi-parter.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2011 19:57
|
|
|
grover posted:There's at least one incident of it happening for real Yeah, in the linked Modern Marvels the late Andy Rooney claimed to have personally seen it happen, but it wasn't nearly as often as people think.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2011 07:02
|
|
|
Ola posted:In other news, the Dragon Lady might see 100 years of service. Myspace angle  Showing off to the Navy  "Hey guys, what's going on up front?"  With another member of the  Edit: I'm sure several children (and possibly grandchildren, by now) of B-52 crewmen have gone on to fly the BUFF themselves ("It's not your father's Air Force, but it may be your father's airplane") but has anybody been issued the same airframe their dad had? Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 02:55 on Feb 17, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2012 02:37
|
|
|
Wind-tunnel testing a Corsair: It looks pretty cool with the round nosecone. makes me wish for a jet version.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2012 07:47
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Things I've learned in the past few months: WW1 fighters were friggin' small. (I love the dazzle camo on the Fokker D.VII.)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2012 09:02
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Was the Hood a battle cruiser? Very much so. In fact, the last of the breed. Apparently some historians call Hood the first fast battleship, but they're clearly wrong. Real fast battleships (i.e. Iowa class) can shrug off any hit up to and including Armageddon, but Hood pretty much evaporated from one 15" shell hit.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2012 05:42
|
|
|
 From an old Timken bearings ad. Edit: Russian giant-seaplane makers Beriev are currently working on this monster:  400 feet long, 500-foot wingspan, max takeoff weight 2500 tons (not a typo, two and a half million kg). Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 01:03 on May 9, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 9, 2012 00:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 01:15 |
|
|
OptimusMatrix posted:Crazy to think that the Nazi's have been on U.S. soil before. The Nazis landed a group of saboteurs in Florida in 1942; from there they took trains to New York City and Chicago, and decided the mission was impractical and it was better here and gave themselves up. It didn't go as well as they'd hoped. Space Gopher posted:It was a night fighter. There was only one pilot; the other guy was a radar operator. That's fairly amusing, the F-15E -- it has a stick and throttle in the back seat in case something happens to the pilot and the bombardier has to fly home, but for some reason only the guy in front can pull the trigger on air-to-air missiles or guns -- the WSO's pickle switch only drops bombs and only when the pilot lets him, and the trigger on the backseat stick does nothing, whereas the pilot can use all weapons. I mean, it makes sense on the one hand -- the guy in back is the bombardier and shouldn't need missiles, and can't really see to aim the gun -- but on the other hand, if the pilot gets fragged and the WSO and airplane are still alive, the missiles might be useful. I guess in that case the WSO is expected to push his throttle all the way forward and call in the guys in the single-seat version. Speaking of firewalling the throttles, what do they mean by "Mach 2.5+"? How much "+"? Seems like the F-15 is old enough by now that it would've leaked or been made public.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2012 02:30
|
|