|
I am a sucker for big bombers. Especially big fast cool looking bombers. I have a soft spot for the Hustler, but my  is with the B70. Imagine the sky full of these beautiful beasts, streaking at Mach 3+ towards Moscow. Of course, it would have meant the end of the world as we know it but drat, we would have gone out with fuckin' style.Over half a million pounds in weight, 6 engines, droop wings, Mach 3.1 and 74,000' cruise and the mere thought of it made the soviets poo poo their pants. What's not to love? It and and A12/SR71 should have got together and made babies. 
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2010 06:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 1, 2024 10:55 |
|
|
VikingSkull posted:If I had to bet money, I'd say the most capable -29 squadrons in 2010 belong to the Indian Air Force. The Luftwaffe doesn't fly them anymore, do they? Speaking of 29s, I really like this photo. A couple of F15s intercepting Mig29s on their way to Canada for the Abbotsford Airshow in 1989.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2010 00:12
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Color me informed, didn't know the Luftwaffe used them! Yeah, they inherited them from the unification. I'm 99% sure they don't fly them anymore though, unless they maybe have a couple for aggressor training or something. Edit: Doesn't look like they have them anymore, all sold to Poland except one museum piece... although the US might have one still. slidebite fucked around with this message at 00:26 on Mar 11, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2010 00:19
|
|
|
Some Guy From NY posted:Can the F-5 do this?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2010 15:24
|
|
|
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. I largely agree with that. However, with Stealth/low observable tech becoming the new flavor for fighters, is it crazy to think that aircraft won't get within a couple miles of each other?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2010 16:47
|
|
|
decahedron posted:The effective range of a 20MM (or 23 or 30 for the russkies) revolver cannon or Gatling is like sub-1000M. In order for combat to take place at that range, both sides are going to have to have incredibly stealthy aircraft, which seems somewhat... unlikely, for the foreseeable future.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2010 16:57
|
|
|
decahedron posted:If things are really that undetectable people will just fly around blundering in to each other like retards though and the quickness of closing the range will make it very difficult to bounce people or get a good pass off. You're talking fighting WWII dogfights at 3x speed. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2010 17:43
|
|
|
MATLAB 1988 posted:The It was deemed cheaper to just build Endeavour from spare parts in the end though. Kind of unfortunate, as I really wanted Enterprise to fly. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2010 18:33
|
|
Space Shuttle 
|
ApathyGifted posted:I present to you bitches, the LOUDEST loving PLANE ever made.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2010 17:30
|
|
|
The Third Man posted:In the related videos... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu21rM9ahkY&NR=1 poo poo like that is just cool ab0z posted:Have you ever flown in a plane? Your drink doesn't suddenly hit the rear bulkhead when you set it down. Everything in the plane is traveling at the same speed. If you poo poo your pants in the Concorde it would be just like the last time you did it at your computer desk. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2010 23:45
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Wow, even some B-1s. Maybe they are B-1As? I'm digging the vietnam era camo on some of those old girls.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2010 15:02
|
|
|
Anyone ever been to the Museum @ Hill AFB in Salt Lake City? Supposedly they have the SR71C there and I'm darn tempted to make the 10 hour drive just to see that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2010 19:13
|
|
|
Godholio posted:It's about 40 minute north of SLC, but yes I've been there several times. Every time I visit family in the area I take my son there. He's 9 and loves it every time. It's actually a really good aircraft museum. I think I'll take a weekend trip this year. Probably going to Seattle and the Museum of Flight this May, so it'll have to wait until June/July. Might be a nice bike ride.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2010 21:49
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Canada bought a few of these not so long ago, and at the time I thought it was very stupid. We were also considering buying some An-124s from the Ukraine for $100 million a pop, which is literally half the C-17's asking price. And while the C-17 has good lift capibility, it can't land on rough runways, despite that this was one of the big goals of the design program. Is this plane poo poo, or am I missing something? I suspect a lot of still comes down to it being Russian/Soviet design. Being dependent on them for many parts/spares would probably have been deemed as a potential risk, especially for the military.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2010 22:12
|
|
|
Slung Blade posted:I'd bet it would land pretty well once the fuel ran out. It would then land, not necessarily well.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2010 01:17
|
|
|
Sterndotstern posted:It's amazing to me that, 20 years after the first operational jet fighter, the jet had already reached its logical extreme, Mach 4 ramjets. Absolutely. Similarly it amazes the heck out of me that barely 8 years after the first manned spaceflight we had people on the moon. Nothing like a war or a race to make technological leaps in a hurry.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2010 20:53
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I'm thought about this too. It comes down to will, really. In the 60s we didn't really have the technology, but we still went to the moon. Nowadays our technology is much more advanced, but we completely lack the will and direction to do anything ambitious with it. If the farthest planning horizion you have is the next two fiscal quarters, it's no big suprise that there are no more heros. Combination of that but we're also a heck of a lot more safety conscious now too. Apollo would never fly today based on their calculated failure rate which I read somewhere was something like 8% each launch for a loss of vehicle event (don't ask for the cite, I just remember that as a kid). And that doesn't even include the risks of gamma rays and other high energy particles when in deep space.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2010 04:05
|
|
|
Boomerjinks posted:This is the greatest, most amazing pile of airplane porn I have ever seen in one sitting. I CAN NOT miss the next Edwards open house. This is an awesome shot: 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2010 04:32
|
|
|
More clever than the Concorde or XB70?
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2010 16:37
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:No? What's your point? No point, it was a question. You pointed out the droop nose in the Tu-144 as "intellectually loving clever" and not the others. I'm wondering why you singled out the Tu in particular, or if you just mean droops in general are pretty clever and that was just what came to mind.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2010 21:15
|
|
|
monkeytennis posted:http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=SDbQ5xvsrIU gently caress. Me. That is beyond 
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2010 02:15
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Airplane youtube post
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2010 02:19
|
|
|
iqarus posted:well there's his problem, those bastard engines explode/catch on fire/spin bottom end rod bearings with monotonous regularity. I think you might be confusing engines? The basic VG30 is very reliable and was the Nissan workhorse from about 1983 to not all that that long ago in one form or another. The only thing that they had issues with IIRC was valve buckets ticking and the odd exhaust manifold issue. I don't recall any bearing issues with them at all and I've owned a couple and had many friends with them that abused the hell out of them (Zs in particular). I seem to recall a company selling Subaru 2.5 engines modded for aircraft duty. Ninja Edit: Not the link I was thinking of, but thought it might be of interest to some. http://www.maddyhome.com/canardpages/pages/alwick/index_files/Page404.htm slidebite fucked around with this message at 21:04 on May 12, 2010 |
|
#
¿
May 12, 2010 20:54
|
|
|
I spent a day last week in Seattle and had to stop by the Museum of Flight. An aircraft nut like myself could easily spend an entire day in that place. Unfortunately, my camera batteries died towards the end of the trip so I didn't get as many photos as I wanted of WWI/II birds. Probably just as well though as we stayed pretty much right to closing time and I think Mrs. Slidebite would have killed me if I asked to go back the next day. Mockup of the new Mars Rover.  Click here for the full 1024x768 image. It is much larger than the existing Pathfinder rovers, probably about the same size as a small car. It's also powered by nuclear decay so it won't be dependent on favorable light for power like the earlier ones as well. Also, coincidentally, I was at the OMSI a couple days earlier and got saw a great model of the pathfinder/Athena rovers.  Click here for the full 1024x768 image. One of the main reasons I had to go to this museum was for this beauty:  Click here for the full 1024x437 image.  Click here for the full 1024x748 image.  Click here for the full 1024x768 image. Weee!  Click here for the full 1024x714 image. Mig 15 Fagot (tee-hee-hee)  Click here for the full 1024x768 image.   Click here for the full 1024x768 image. Replica of the Wright Flyer  Click here for the full 1024x534 image. Now for the AI crossover  Click here for the full 1024x768 image.  Click here for the full 1024x768 image. F104  Click here for the full 555x1024 image. I remembered hearing stories about the leading edge being so sharp that they had to install protectors at times to keep ground crews from gouging their heads open, so I go roughly inline with the wing and tried to take a shot of it. Yep, not much of a stretch to imagine it as a blood letting device.  Click here for the full 1024x768 image. One of their newer acquisitions  Click here for the full 1024x449 image. A view I've seen a few times in FSX but never in the flesh.  Click here for the full 971x768 image. Old Air Force One conference room:  Click here for the full 1024x768 image. GET ME LANGLEY!!!  Click here for the full 1024x768 image. I pictured whomever putting this plane here just landing it right on this spot, tossing the keys to the museum and walking away.  Click here for the full 1024x432 image. Sadly, my Tomcat photos looked like poo poo. My batteries were completely dead (my camera wouldn't even power on after this) and it started to rain.  Click here for the full 1024x445 image. Saw this in Northern Washington while on the highway heading home.  Click here for the full 1024x695 image.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2010 18:42
|
|
|
Butt Reactor posted:awesome I was there last week too while hitting up boeing and kenmore. The prez's shitter was nearer in his room, and it's HUGE for an aircraft. My first apartment had a smaller bathroom than that one. Sadly, the photo I took didn't turn out. 
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2010 03:12
|
|
|
Butt Reactor posted:haha, no poo poo. My group wandered in about an hour before close, you probably saw us as a bunch of noisy college kids either outside in the air park or main hall I think I even briefly spoke to one/two in the giftshop, commenting on the price of the small 1/144 models and how they weren't giving them away by any means @ $50. I had to literally blow through red barn. Pitty, because you could easily spend 3 hours in there alone.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2010 00:34
|
|
|
AirSpray out of Alberta had a beautiful fleet of A26 Invaders that it flew right up until recently. Sadly, they've all been mothballed but a few have been sold to Air Museums as they are all WW2 or Korea action aircraft. I'll always remember hearing engines of these overhead when fighting a fire just outside of my home town about 10 years ago.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2010 15:44
|
|
|
This is the way airshows should be done, live ordinance and all. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmseXJ7DV4c
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2010 18:23
|
|
|
Those had to be blanks, or at least I hope they were. If they were live rounds he would have lobbed those shells miles as he was still firing when pulling up.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2010 20:38
|
|
|
Here is a picture of said bear and ejection capsule. Looking at those capsules though, I've gotta wonder about leg/feet room. Is the pilot supposed to suck his legs in when he punches it? Because it looks to me like he'd lose his feet if he didn't (or, more likely I guess, the capsule wouldn't close properly).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2010 21:25
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:From what I've read, the capsules were configured with bars that automatically pulled the occupants' legs into a fetal position as part of the ejection sequence. That makes sense, thanks! quote:Which is probably why they used a bear, depending on age or size they are probably a good representation of the human form. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2010 21:52
|
|
|
oopsie http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2010/06/08/von.antique.plane.crash.cnn?hpt=T3
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2010 19:14
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Man the Peacemaker is loving ugly, no wonder the B-47 kicked its rear end. Shut your dirty mouth, that looked awesome.  I like the quote from wiki: quote:The B-36 was not a particularly enjoyable aircraft to fly. Its overall performance, in terms of speed and manuverability, was never considered sprightly. Lieutenant General James Edmundson likened it to "...sitting on your front porch and flying your house around." I giggle imagining that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2010 21:23
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2010 17:29
|
|
|
LOO posted:Tiny and very scary looking Home-built 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2010 14:12
|
|
|
Well poo poo. A CF18 just lawn darted while practicing for the airshow we're having this weekend. Reports are the pilot ejected OK but not a good way to kick it off.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2010 20:36
|
|
|
dietcokefiend posted:What generally happens when a plane is crashed in the military. Is the entire playing field level... aka crashing an old prop cargo plane has the same disciplinary action as crashing say a brand new F22 or B2 bomber? Is anyone ever giving a pass for a stupid mistake or are you basically hosed no matter who you are when you down an aircraft?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2010 18:51
|
|
|
dietcokefiend posted:How do militaries justify the costs of airshows and other times when planes go down for no other reason then showing off maneuvers. Are most classified as training missions and thus not really losing a plane while playing around? AFAIK, ticket sales at an airshow like this do not share revenue to the military, even foreign powers. This airshow for example, usually has US Military demos and static displays.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2010 22:11
|
|
|
BeastOfExmoor posted:Not that this thread really needs something to generate replies, but I've been thinking for a while about which military aircraft has proven to be the best investment over time. To me it's between the C-130 and the B-52, but I'm curious to hear other positions. I think you picked a couple of really strong candidates. I would also probably throw the UH1 series in there too. They've been used for everything. Edit: For a fighter, the F16 has got to be in there. Still in production well after 30 years, and I bet various airforces will still be flying them for another 30 years, if not more. slidebite fucked around with this message at 22:21 on Jul 24, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2010 22:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 1, 2024 10:55 |
|
|
dietcokefiend posted:I was joking about the ticket sales going to pay for the planes In other happy news, 10 years ago this weekend. I did not know this until just recently, but there is a team dedicated to restoring one for flight duty in time for the 2012 Olympics.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2010 22:29
|
|
