|
Xir posted:I live two miles from the west gate of Barksdale. As awesome as the BUFF is I look forward to the air show every year to see some fighters. Driving near Tinker on business was an absolute pleasure, getting to watch f-16s do touch and go's. You haven't lived till you saw 2 or 3 galaxies lined up. Flying so slow and low over 1 of San Antonio's major freeways doing them. I'm surprised I never wrecked my truck since I spent the entire time watching them. So amazing. Only fighters we get down here are the trainers and they're up north of town and suck.
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 19:00 |
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:The time to get those would've been about a decade ago. They needed to be fast tracked under some sort of Big Safari-ish type program where you give an O-6 and a small staff money and a desired end goal within 12 months and let them go execute. Trying to do things through the traditional procurement channels led to the complete waste of time and money that was LAAR/LAS. A bit late, but the answer to the COIN requirement was and always will be OV-10X.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
jaegerx posted:Best thing about San Antonio was seeing c5s doing touch and gos all day. I have no idea how those planes stay in the air. On a giant column of leaking hydraulic fluid?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
priznat posted:Wow, the RAAF is planning on ordering up to 100 F-35As even after getting a bunch of F/A-18Fs? I always had assumed the Aussies had an even more cash starved military than us Canucks but I guess not. The Australians had a more, ah, alarming time in WW2 than we did. At one point it was all 1) the Japanese are going to invade, 2) there are literally no combat aircraft in the entire continent, 3) the British had just suffered their worst loss in military history and were all like 'welp, good luck with that.' The whole thing made them ask some serious questions, and the result was that they take defense a little more seriously than we do. Either that, or not having the united states literally next door Also, the only reason at this point we're sticking to the F-35 at this point is b/c somebody told Harper it was a bad idea, right? Oh, are we using this as some sort of threat in the whole keystone pipeline thing? "You will give us our pipeline, or we will
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:On a giant column of leaking hydraulic fluid? Obligatory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTvt5kMAsf4
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
priznat posted:I'm still holding out hope that one of the other bids (c'mon Rafale!) pans out in the "revamped" competition the RCAF is having. It's a pipedream most of the time but ever since it blew my eardrums out while I was visiting the Paris Air Show last year the Rafale is my sentimental favorite for every fighter competition.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 02:53
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:The Australians had a more, ah, alarming time in WW2 than we did. At one point it was all 1) the Japanese are going to invade, 2) there are literally no combat aircraft in the entire continent, 3) the British had just suffered their worst loss in military history and were all like 'welp, good luck with that.' The whole thing made them ask some serious questions, and the result was that they take defense a little more seriously than we do. So when are you going to make an effort post on RAAF participation during the second world war and CAC aircraft? I found a few models on ebay! (I'm not being sarcastic at all! I like what you do, don't ever stop!)
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:It's a pipedream most of the time but ever since it blew my eardrums out while I was visiting the Paris Air Show last year the Rafale is my sentimental favorite for every fighter competition. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:It's a pipedream most of the time but ever since it blew my eardrums out while I was visiting the Paris Air Show last year the Rafale is my sentimental favorite for every fighter competition. But Dassault's representative is so whiny! I'll take the Gripen, the Gripen is cuter and cooler. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
Saw the Blue Angels practice today, supposedly the first time since the sequester. No photos since I only had an iPad and good luck shooting them with that. One thing I did notice is that they do come straight towards the crowd, which I thought was a big no-no. Is that a thing you can do since it isn't a "real" airshow?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:One thing I did notice is that they do come straight towards the crowd, which I thought was a big no-no. Is that a thing you can do since it isn't a "real" airshow?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 05:34
|
|
|
jaegerx posted:Best thing about San Antonio was seeing c5s doing touch and gos all day. I have no idea how those planes stay in the air. I've said it many times, but I miss the C-5's at Stewart ANG here in NY. I spent almost two years working at an aircraft reconditioning shop, repainting everything from Pipers to Barons, Citations, Learjets, a Dauphin or three, even a Starship. Our shop was right on the runway, and multiple times every day one of those huge fuckers was either taking off or landing about maybe 200 yards away. They are amazing and I really miss that sound  Here's the C-5 routine from the last time they had an airshow at Stewart, in 2003. Here's some other flights from that show, just because it owned. F-15 routine. The Blue fuckin' Angels and Fat Albert! Seizure Meat fucked around with this message at 12:24 on Mar 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 11:55
|
|
|
I grew up in the sticks outside of NAS - New Orleans and got to see a lot of cool poo poo. We were right on the end of the Mississippi river so we got to occasionally see the ANG A-10's doing low level stuff right over the river now and then, I guess maybe lining up on some of the ships or something? Also the local ANG F-15's were always around and occasionally we'd see some F-18's now and then along with a bunch of different Marine rotary stuff.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 13:44
|
|
|
Xir posted:I live two miles from the west gate of Barksdale. As awesome as the BUFF is I look forward to the air show every year to see some fighters. Driving near Tinker on business was an absolute pleasure, getting to watch f-16s do touch and go's. You have good timing then...only 707 variants are based at tinker, though b-1s and b-52s go there for depot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 14:58
|
|
|
MagnumHB posted:I have definitely seen the Blue Angels make a formation pass and break directly over the crowd at show center from back to front during a full show. Wikipedia confirms my instincts on this, which are basically that this is allowed due to the relative simplicity of the maneuver, as it is a straight-and-level pass (until the break occurs past and heading away from the crowd). A loop or high-G turn would not be allowed in the same manner. They did a break and one was briefly diving towards the crowd.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
Godholio posted:You have good timing then...only 707 variants are based at tinker, though b-1s and b-52s go there for depot. Do the Tulsa Guard Vipers come over there frequently? That's who I imagine he saw.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
madeintaipei posted:So when are you going to make an effort post on RAAF participation during the second world war and CAC aircraft? I found a few models on ebay! (I'm not being sarcastic at all! I like what you do, don't ever stop!) It's a good suggestion; I always feel a little guilty that I don't know Commonwealth WW2 history as well as I should. I should add that you are welcome to do a infodump in the aeronautical insanity thread if you can brew one up on the RAAF. Oh, and if you like the kits, you should know about this site: http://www.scalemates.com/products/ If the kit exists, this site can usually find it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
Godholio posted:You have good timing then...only 707 variants are based at tinker, though b-1s and b-52s go there for depot. If you drive down the road just outside the eastern perimeter of Tinker, you can see the hangers where they do maintenance. I've seen a few B-1s with the skin stripped off. It's pretty neat. I seem to think I've seen fighters over the base more than a few times, and I don't go out that way very often.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Do the Tulsa Guard Vipers come over there frequently? That's who I imagine he saw. Not really. Seeing AF fighters is pretty rare. Maybe once a month...T-38s (stopping for gas, I assume) and Hornets were more common. Edit: or maybe I just never saw them. For all I know Tulsa could show up for off-station approaches every day at 9, when I was inside. We didn't spend much time on the flight line outside the jet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
The USAF just fired 9 of the nuclear missile commanders for cheating. Reuters posted:The head of the nuclear missile wing at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana resigned on Thursday and nine commanders were removed from their jobs for command failure over a classroom test cheating scandal that involved 91 missile launch officers, the Air Force said.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
Breaky posted:I grew up in the sticks outside of NAS - New Orleans and got to see a lot of cool poo poo. Like a 737 landing dead stick on a levee?  (it landed on the longer portion running perpendicular to where it's pointing in that picture) Story for those that don't know because it's pretty cool: A TACA (now Avianica) 737-300 was flying from Belize to New Orleans in May 1988, this particular plane was literally brand new with less than 100 flight hours, TACA had only operated the plan for a couple weeks. On approach into New Orleans there were heavy thunderstorms, they tried to avoid the worst of them by following their weather radar but they still had to fly threw some very heavy storms. While decending through 16,000 both engines flame out and would overheat when they attempted to restart. Due to the weather their glide ratio was crap, had the weather been normal they probably could have made the airport. The pilot sees the canal adjacent to that levee and assumes he's going to ditch in the water. At the last moment he sees that levee on the right side of the canal and decides to put it down there instead, landing without further damaging the aircraft and everyone got off the plane safely. But the story doesn't stop there, the recovery is just as awesome as the landing. Boeing first thought they'd have to dismantle the plane and float it out on barges. Instead, they just changed out the damaged engines, and then took off using Saturn Blvd (which had been where an old runway was located). Google map of the area: https://www.google.com/maps/@30.0189201,-89.9190468,2049m/data=!3m1!1e3 The cause of the accident was due to insufficient testing of water and hail ingestion in the engines, after this incident the testing was revised. The plane is now owned and is still being operated by Southwest Airlines.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
Sweet mother of  tell me they filmed that takeoff
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
I wish, the only video of this incident that I have ever seen is just the plane sitting on the ground with emergency slides deployed. The following from MSNBC has that footage and an interview with the pilot, who was already a badass before he landed a commercial airliner on a levee. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPn8G7enbF4 There's also this from Smithsonian/Discovery, it's kind of cheesy like most plane accident re-enactment shows but it's entertaining. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XX54q552Zac
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
That guy puts Captain Sully to shame.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
Doctor Grape Ape posted:I wish, the only video of this incident that I have ever seen is just the plane sitting on the ground with emergency slides deployed. The following from MSNBC has that footage and an interview with the pilot, who was already a badass before he landed a commercial airliner on a levee. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPn8G7enbF4 Best part is that after the investigation they had to get the plane out of there and they could not cut it up b/c it was a perfectly good plane so they fixed it and just flew it out of there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
That was back when Boeing built quality. I've noticed that the talk of a 787 Air Force One supplement has gotten really quiet ever since all the problems have started cropping up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
So Aviation Week thinks they saw a thing over Texas...  Click for big quote:The photos tell us more about what the mysterious stranger isn't than what it is. The size is very hard to determine, for example, although the image size at contrailing height suggests that it is bigger than an X-47B. However, the basic shape - while it resembles Boeing's Blended Wing Body studies or the Swift Killer Bee/Northrop Grumman Bat unmanned air system - is different from anything known to have flown at full size, lacking the notched trailing edge of Northrop Grumman's full-size designs. Probably just a variation on the X-47/UCAV development prototypes but cue another spin on the Aurora conspiracies 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:On a giant column of leaking hydraulic fluid? What was the joke about the C-5? Something like, "what does it mean when you see 3 C-5s in the hanger and 2 on the tarmac? They ran out of jacks!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 01:29
|
|
Doctor Grape Ape posted:Like a 737 landing dead stick on a levee? Thanks for this. I remember that being on the news when I was a kid! I wanted to get my dad to drive us over there to check it out but he wouldn't. The airshow at NAS-New Orleans was always really good. Since we were close, the Confederate Air Force out of Harlingen, TX always did a huge flying and static display and also the Blue Angels came every other year. Lots of other national ANG units flew stuff. All in all it was always a good show.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:That was back when Boeing built quality. I've noticed that the talk of a 787 Air Force One supplement has gotten really quiet ever since all the problems have started cropping up. Yeah, man, Boeing built quality back in the day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAir_Flight_427 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_585 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastwind_Airlines_Flight_517 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MetroJet_Flight_2710
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:That was back when Boeing built quality. I've noticed that the talk of a 787 Air Force One supplement has gotten really quiet ever since all the problems have started cropping up. That probably would be a 747-8 anyway, for maximum engine redundancy/dickwaving potential.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:That probably would be a 747-8 anyway, for maximum engine redundancy/dickwaving potential. If I'm not mistaken, the only reason that AF1 is still a 747-200 is that they found the -200 series had the strongest airframes, whereas the -400 compromised structural integrity for the extended upper deck. Something tells me the carbon fiber and composite nature of the 747-8 would flunk the 'near miss from a missile' test. Fun fact: The DC-10 was originally considered to be in the running for the replacement to the 707 airframes. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 07:17 on Mar 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 07:15
|
|
|
Terrifying Effigies posted:So Aviation Week thinks they saw a thing over Texas... It can't be that top secret if they're flying it around during the day over the general population surely?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 07:32
|
|
|
monkeytennis posted:It can't be that top secret if they're flying it around during the day over the general population surely? Yeah, that's my thinking, broad daylight and any yahoo can see it against a clear sky.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 08:00
|
|
|
movax posted:Yeah, that's my thinking, broad daylight and any yahoo can see it against a clear sky. That's precisely why you'd do it like that, it's not like anyone looking at the photo can actually identify it. Most people wouldn't even give an aircraft moving through a fairly active airspace an initial glance, much less a second one. Those that might have an inkling of what it might be, dismiss it with it a "Naw, they wouldn't do that. It'd be stupid".
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 09:03
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:If I'm not mistaken, the only reason that AF1 is still a 747-200 is that they found the -200 series had the strongest airframes, whereas the -400 compromised structural integrity for the extended upper deck. Its probably because the 747-400 hadn't even flown when the 747-200 was selected.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 09:27
|
|
|
MassivelyBuckNegro posted:Its probably because the 747-400 hadn't even flown when the 747-200 was selected. ...which is why I used the word "still." Because we all know the US Government isn't shy about buying things redundantly when a newer or flashier model comes out. And the very rare 747-300 series had the elongated flight deck and was available for order in 1980. Again, the -200B was settled on because it was a stronger airframe (and probably because there was a huge parts market for it). The current VC-25s *do* use the -400's engines, though. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 10:58 on Mar 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 10:37
|
|
|
IIRC the -300 was essentially a capacity-for-range tradeoff with the 747-200. It's also possible that the extra upper deck capacity wasn't required for the government's needs relative to the other qualities of the aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
They haven't been replaced, because the VC-25 program was hideously, stupendously expensive, and every VC and VH program (I'm looking at you, VH-71 program) since has had similar problems. I can't wait to see a president try to justify a two or three billion dollar program to build him a personal jet fleet. That ties into my feeling that we spend way too much protecting the president. I mean, if someone is dumb enough to off him, we get another one, and the news gets to orgasm in delight at all the drone strikes. The office is important, but the individual is not. And you can't shoot down the office. I'm very much of the opinion that if a C-17 or V-22 is good enough to move our military around, paint a couple white, and use them to move the President.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 19:00 |
|
|
MrYenko posted:They haven't been replaced, because the VC-25 program was hideously, stupendously expensive, and every VC and VH program (I'm looking at you, VH-71 program) since has had similar problems. I can't wait to see a president try to justify a two or three billion dollar program to build him a personal jet fleet. That's absurd, can you imagine what kind of a world leader would schlep around in such an undignifyingly populist manne-  (Agree completely)
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 17:19
|
|