Boomerjinks posted:

I hate to burst your bubble, but I prefer my r/c B-29s with launchable X-1s.

KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:

Man the Peacemaker is loving ugly, no wonder the B-47 kicked its rear end.

Slo-Tek posted:

Of course, no matter how good the F-22 is or isn't, there are only 120 of them, so being second best with the numbers to be everywhere f-22's aren't is way better than being 'best'.

grover posted:

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

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.

Sterndotstern posted:

On a completely different topic, a while ago I posted that air-burning, air-flying technology reached its logical conclusion in approximately 1965 and stated (somewhat controversially) that we're "done" with aircraft. I never got to ask the obvious follow-up question: Where is the next great unsolved problem for aerospace engineering?

LOO posted:

Sterndotstern posted:

I'll see your B-36 and raise you a B-36 with a B-58 back.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pxrwpur_Op8&feature=related

Godholio posted:

The Aggressors (they pretend to be the bad guys in exercises) up in Alaska. The Aggressors at Nellis use similar paint schemes, but different colors. I'll try to dig up some pics.

LOO posted:

ME-163 (replica?)

Parabellum posted:

Starcraft be damned, only space-apache pilots get to say that

ssh posted:

Wait until the sunovabitch finds out his hands are just painted onto his legs.

joat mon posted:

Length: 8 ft
Width: 5 ft
Height: 4 ft
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mi-24-specs.htm
http://www.army.cz/scripts/detail.php?id=6298

And I thought the Seahawk was a squeeze... (height: 4 1/2 feet))
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/55-450-2/Ch1.htm

azflyboy posted:

That said, the Chinese students that train in the US have it far worse. Their training is paid for by an airline, but in return, the student essentially becomes an indentured servant for that company. When they sign the contract, those students are required to work for the airline for 20-30 years after finishing training (I've also heard of 99 year contracts as well), and they're automatically required to pay around $300,000 if they try and leave early.

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.

Skyssx posted:

Seeing as you can't just hover a Harrier or the engine will melt down, yeah. That movie was so horrible I had blocked it from memory. Thanks.

dur posted:

Gorilla Salad posted:

I always wanted an aeroplane that I could paint like that, but wrong.

Have the landing gear sign point to the door, the left wing sign point to the right wing, that kind of thing.

Just to piss off the accident investigators if I ever did have a crash.

orange lime posted:

Speaking of building models, I really want to try building a radio-controlled version of some of those crazy turn-of-the-century flying machine designs, just to see what they could have done with a modern engine and a good power:weight ratio. How awesome would it be to see these things flying around?







The first one in particular -- that poo poo's awesome.

Heid the Ball posted:

Well, a grand day out at RAF Leuchars. Great weather, great displays.

I've loaded the best photos of the day on Flickr here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/11790682@N02/

N183CS posted:

A couple of weeks ago I flew 550 miles north of the Arctic coast of Alaska to check out a US and Canadian Ice Breaker. Someone on the US ship took these amazing shots of us flying around. It was a rare and awesome opportunity, especially since I was sitting on the open cargo ramp....with a three star admiral.... who is second in charge of the US Coast Guard.








again

Godholio posted:

but it's hard to say their engines are better because they're more willing to eat small pebbles.

Ola posted:

It's a different doctrine, not just different maintenance schedules. Russians have conscripts doing aircraft maintenance, so they don't do troubleshooting or repairs on the field. The engines run virtually without maintenance for (say) 300 hours, then they simply pull the engines and send them into a central site.

This classic example of commernist centralization probably works best in a world where cruise missiles / stealth bombers don't exist and your central maintenance site won't get blown up on day 1 of the war.

slidebite posted:

Actually, I think a competition would have been good, but really, we've been openly planning to buy them for years I don't see why it's a shock.

slidebite posted:

Personally, we should say gently caress 'em all and sign up for Sukhoi PAK FAs just to piss off everyone.

quote:

The following rundown is drawn from second- or third-hand accounts, but I take it to be reliable. This, in a nutshell, is what the crew of Flight QF32 was dealing with.

* Complete, uncontained failure of No. 2 engine. As I noted in my original story, a four-engine jet can operate safely with the loss of one, and, in most cases, even two engines. Still, an engine failure is never taken lightly, especially one that has sprayed the airframe with red-hot pieces of metal.

* Shrapnel hole on one of the left wing-flap fairings (those long, canoe-shaped structures that jut from the bottom of the wing). This hole was described by once source as "big enough to fit your upper body through."

* Large shrapnel puncture clear through the forward section of the left wing. (Debris entered the bottom of the wing and exited, several feet later, out the top.)

* Assorted electrical problems. Electrical bus No. 2, normally powered via the No. 2 engine, will automatically switch to bus No. 1 in the event of failure. (Such auto-transfer capabilities are standard in commercial aircraft to keep important systems running if their normal power source is lost.) For reasons still unknown, this transfer didn't happen. Electrical buses 3 and 4, meanwhile, will supposedly power bus 2 in the event of an auto-transfer failure, but this didn't happen either. End result: Various components/systems/instruments were inoperative when they shouldn't have been.

* Total loss of all fluid in one of the plane's two main hydraulic systems. This required, among many other complications, a manual extension of landing gear.

* Substantial leaks in two of the plane's left wing fuel tanks. Literally thousands of gallons were pouring out.

* Electronic and/or mechanical failure of important fuel transfer functions. This prevented the crew from addressing a major fuel imbalance -- and subsequent flight stability issues -- brought on by the leaks.

Additionally, a substantial amount of fuel became trapped in the aft, so-called trim tank, leading to a serious center-of-gravity issue during descent and landing. The crew received repeated caution messages about this impending out-of-balance condition, but was unable to address it.

* Malfunction of the fuel jettison system. This hindered the ability to reduce weight for the emergency landing. Overweight landings entail higher landing speeds and a longer rollout distance (and though it's unlikely, there can be structural ramifications). Very overweight landings entail very high landing speeds and very long rollout distances.

* Partial failure of leading edge slats. These are the panels that slide forward from the leading edge of the wing. Similar to flaps, they increase lift and allow for slower takeoff and landing speeds. The lack of slats increased the plane's landing speed even further, perhaps beyond the rated groundspeed limits of its tires.

(Planes slow down in stages, deploying flaps, slats and gear at particular target speeds. These speeds are usually obtained from the flight management system, but reportedly there weren't enough data fields on the input screen to account for all the necessary corrections. The crew did the best it could, entering what it thought were the most critical corrections to come up with reasonable numbers.)

* Partial failure of speed brakes and ground spoilers. These are panels that lift from the wings to aid in deceleration, both aloft and on the ground. Not only was the landing roll going to be unusually long due to the aforementioned high approach speeds, but the ability to decelerate would also be hampered.

* Loss of brake anti-skid system. Ditto.

* Inability to shut down the adjacent, No. 1 engine using normal or emergency ("fire switch") methods. This was not discovered until after landing, but it meant there had been no fire protection available for the No. 1 engine after the uncontained failure of the one directly next to it. Had there been shrapnel damage to this engine as well, causing a fire, there would have been no way to shut it down.

* Plus a host of other, smaller problems and failures.

I have been told that the crew chose to commence its approach not because the problems were sorted out, but because of worries over fuel balance and center-of-gravity.

quote:

F-35 saga continues

The short takeoff, vertical landing (STOVL) variant of the F-35 Lightning II has encountered the latest in a long line of serious development problems, and some government officials are suggesting the model be scrapped.

Last week, Lockheed Martin announced that fatigue cracks had been discovered in the aft bulkhead of an F-35B variant during ground testing.

The cracks were found after 1,500 hours of fatigue testing and could indicate a serious design flaw in one of the aircraft's biggest and most crucial components. The airframe should have held up to more than 16,000 hours of the tests, officials said.

grover posted:

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.

BonzoESC posted:

If you think the B is expensive, wait until you see what a new VTOL airframe with different avionics, engines, controls, &c. from any other airplane costs.

Nerobro posted:

Taking great care as to what information reaches your pilot matters. I think not nearly enough thought has been put into this. I think this is something that would easily be solved by a very small group of people, instead of the very large committee style planning that goes on now.

Rot posted:

Oh hey, it's a build report!

http://www.our7a.com/20070708.html

This is amazing, it has everything and would be a classic for a human factors course. Some of the work isn't bad. Some is like "oh, I wouldn't do that" and other stuff is "HOLY poo poo!!"

You can see the point where he gets frustrated with the project and his work gets sloppier and sloppier as he gets more impatient.

ehnus posted:

Looks like the Lockheed D-21/M-21 drone.

LOO posted:

C-17's getting some heavy maintenance at the Long Beach Airport.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou....00071&t=h&z=21

Slo-Tek posted:

A Monogram model of the conjectural F-19 stealth fighter. It was way cooler than the Testors version.

Nerobro posted:

They're not dumb, and they've done it before.

Boomerjinks posted:

haha whatever, man.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CV35B-vfT4U

Manny posted:

I wasn't sure if to post this in the RC cars thread or this one, but I've become really interested in 'multicopters'.

benito posted:

Oh wow, this is the perfect post. Those Embraers are awesome, seemingly designed with human beings in mind. I had to be on a CRJ almost twice a week for two years, and grew to deeply despise that airplane. It reminded me of that thing how some public places install chairs that are seriously uncomfortable/anti-ergonomic so people don't hang around forever. Anything more than an hour on the CRJ and you arrive at your destination angry and miserable. Spend an extra hour sitting on the tarmac and you just know that the the actual flight is going to be pure torture.

Minto Took posted:

Further proof of that was the A-16 program where they tried to strap an Avenger on to an F-16. It was stupid inaccurate which is why the Air Force dropped it.

Boomerjinks posted:

Okay, last post of the night. Er, day. gently caress.



I think I love it. More here http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?cnsearch=1512/F016&distinct_entry=true

azflyboy posted:

With the pitot probes disabled, the flight crew had no clear indication of their airspeed, and the fly-by-wire system (and autopilot) would have shut off the built in protections as a result of the data loss. After the pitot probes failed, the aircraft would have thrown a massive number of warning messages at the crew, which would have made hand-flying the aircraft even more difficult than it already was.

Advent Horizon posted:

Imagine driving a car in the dark without a speedometer and the headlights are out. You don't know how fast you're going, and in fact (because it's an old Cadillac or some other equally numb land yacht) you can't feel that you're actually moving at all. Your two choices are assume you're going too slow and speed up, or assume you're going too fast and slow down. Also assume that if you go more than a few mph faster than you're supposed to the steering wheel will suddenly fall off the car. What would you do?

If you answered 'slow down and try to get my bearings', you just made the same choice the computer did. Congratulations, you crashed an Airbus.

azflyboy posted:

Airbus' fly-by-wire system requires information from the pitot-static system (among other things) to decide exactly what it will and won't allow the pilot to do in a given situation. If the system loses a critical input, it's designed to disable some of those limitations, since it can't determine enough about what the airplane is doing to decide whether the control inputs should be allowed or not.

Delivery McGee posted:

Not so much oil change as oil refill; radials as a rule leak oil like a sieve and burn the rest. That's why you see so many WWII planes with black streaks down the sides/wings behind the engines. But you're right, drat near everything with a radial (except possibly the hotrod fighters) was range-limited by oil capacity rather than gas. So why bother with air-cooled, oil-hungry radials when you had things like the Merlin V12? One small-caliber bullet to the radiator could kill a water-cooled engine, while a Wright Cyclone or P&W Wasp would chug along just fine with entire cylinders shot off and connecting rods flapping in the breeze. And aside from the rough running, you couldn't tell -- the things didn't use all that much more oil with the crankcase open to the airstream than in normal operation.

Gorilla Salad posted:

Airliners.net always has the best pictures.



Just the right amount of grime: