|
MrChips posted:I can't imagine it's good for passenger comfort. Avanti needs no passengers. Or crew. 
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 22:37 |
|
|
Inacio posted:The fact that that thing flies is a great reminder of how little I know about aerodynamics. With sufficient thrust pigs fly fine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
Sometimes, sufficient thrust is hard to come by.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
e:nm
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
Ardeem posted:Sometimes, sufficient thrust is hard to come by. Such bullshit that you build one fighter with a thrust to weight ratio worse than a CRJ-200 and the Navy never wants to deal with you again!
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
Gervasius posted:Avanti needs no passengers. Or crew. Psh with those non-LO props the enemy will see it too easily! Anecdotal but I talked to an avanti pilot once who claimed he could tell when there were too many bugs on the canard because of the pitch change they created.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
VOR LOC posted:Anecdotal but I talked to an avanti pilot once who claimed he could tell when there were too many bugs on the canard because of the pitch change they created. I believe that completely.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
Going to the Hill AFB museum next week just outside of Salt Lake. Anyone familiar with it give me a rough idea how much time I should plan on spending? Debating if I should just tell Mrs. Slidebite to stay at the hotel for the time I'm there, but if it'll only be a couple of hours I'll drag her along.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
Ardeem posted:Sometimes, sufficient thrust is hard to come by. If we're going to be talking about naval fighters with a low thrust to weight ratio, there's only one aircraft worth mentioning. \/ Senator, there is not enough thrust in all of Christendom to make that the fighter we want. \/ iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 02:02 on Sep 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
Ardeem posted:Sometimes, sufficient thrust is hard to come by. Quote from the article: Wikipedia posted:...the F-111B suffered development issues and changing Navy requirements for an aircraft with maneuverability for dogfighting. Once again Kelly Johnson's rules of management ring true. #15: Don't do business with the Navy, they don't know what the hell they want and will drive you up a wall before breaking your heart or a more exposed part of your anatomy. My life would be so much easier if other aerospace companies, or even Lockheed themselves now, followed the other 14 rules.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
I always thought that was a slightly weird rule, because other companies like Douglas and Grumman did just fine with navy contracts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
MRC48B posted:I always thought that was a slightly weird rule, because other companies like Douglas and Grumman did just fine with navy contracts. Yes, but Douglas and Grumman were building Navy fighters before the Navy got funny like that. e: that is to say, all the famous WWII Navy birds were Douglas and Grumman for the most part, so "legacy".
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:Yes, but Douglas and Grumman were building Navy fighters before the Navy got funny like that. Vought 
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
Did the Navy push for fighter aircraft to ditch guns in favor of the totally reliable (not) sidewinders and AA/AG missiles and the promptly got their rear end handed to them by MiGs in Korea? Or was that mainly the Air Force?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
Spaced God posted:Did the Navy push for fighter aircraft to ditch guns in favor of the totally reliable (not) sidewinders and AA/AG missiles and the promptly got their rear end handed to them by MiGs in Korea? Or was that mainly the Air Force? Neither, there weren't any missiles in Korea (just some unguided rockets). The Navy got relegated to primarily A2G roles in Korea because (as has been pointed out) their jet fighters were terrible until the F-4 rolled around (minor exception made for the F4D I suppose). Both services went into Vietnam with a primary missile armament, the only gun air superiority fighter utilized by either service was the Navy's F-8, but despite much being made of their being the last gunfighter most of their kills were with Sidewinders. There were other aircraft with a cannon armament when Rolling Thunder kicked off (Super Sabres, F-104s, etc) but for various reasons they were never utilized heavily in an air to air role. The Sidewinder was easily the most reliable A2A missile in the early part of Vietnam. The BVR SARH Sparrow (used by both services) was largely garbage until late in the war and the IR Falcon (used only by the USAF early in the war as opposed to the originally Navy only Sidewinder) was so bad that the USAF voluntarily utilized the Navy's missile on the USAF-only F-4Ds (the F-4Cs that the USAF started out with were basically USN/USMC F-4Bs modded to USAF spec were wired from the factory to support Sidewinders). One of the many many unauthorized things Robin Olds did was order his wing on his own volition to retrofit their F-4Ds to utilize the Sidewinder (before the USAF saw the light and ordered a fleet wide modification). Eventually improvements were made to the Sparrow and it (along with the Combat Tree IFF interrogator) became the preferred weapon of choice by the time Linebacker rolled around. e: While much has been made of the missile/gun dichotomy, the fact of the matter is that most kills in Vietnam with cannon armed aircraft (whether F-8s or F-4Es) were still made with missiles. The larger issue wasn't whether or not the aircraft had a gun, it was the severe lack of air combat training given to US pilots, both in the USAF and USN/USMC. This was due to an emphasis on nuclear strike, particularly in the USAF. The USN took the lessons from Rolling Thunder and used them to start to develop a school built around DACT, Fighter Weapons School (TOPGUN). The USAF took the lessons from Rolling Thunder and used them to justify better technology (i.e., the internal Vulcan on the F-4E) without any thought given to better training. The USAF got spanked during Linebacker, and the USN didn't, despite the USN not having any cannon armed air superiority fighters (all their Phantoms were missile only). The USAF learned their lesson this time and developed Red Flag, intended to give a pilot his first 10 combat sorties (after which his chances of survival increased drastically) in a controlled training environment. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 02:46 on Sep 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Going to the Hill AFB museum next week just outside of Salt Lake. Anyone familiar with it give me a rough idea how much time I should plan on spending? It's no Wright Pat, but you can spend an afternoon there easy. I haven't been in a couple of years, but they used to have another F-4 (not the one on a stick out front) that they were actually restoring as an exhibit. Panels were opened up, and if the guys were working that day you could watch. I'd look at it on google maps and look at the size of the museum for an idea how much time you'll spend. It's about a 45 minute drive from SLC, too. Edit: The SR-71C and their P-38 are cool as poo poo. The P-38 display has a bunch of unrestored stuff that was recovered from the ice. Godholio fucked around with this message at 02:50 on Sep 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:The BVR SARH Sparrow (used by both services) was largely garbage until late in the war and the IR Falcon (used only by the USAF early in the war as opposed to the originally Navy only Sidewinder) was so bad that the USAF voluntarily utilized the Navy's missile on the USAF-only F-4Ds (the F-4Cs that the USAF started out with were basically USN/USMC F-4Bs modded to USAF spec were wired from the factory to support Sidewinders). I've read that one of the big problems with the Sparrow in Vietnam was that the ROE didn't let pilots actually employ them BVR. Since the Sparrow was designed to shoot non-maneuvering targets at long range, it royally sucked when you try to shoot it at a maneuvering WVR target in a dogfight. I'm not surprised that Sidewinders did better, since they're designed for that regime.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:I've read that one of the big problems with the Sparrow in Vietnam was that the ROE didn't let pilots actually employ them BVR. Since the Sparrow was designed to shoot non-maneuvering targets at long range, it royally sucked when you try to shoot it at a maneuvering WVR target in a dogfight. I'm not surprised that Sidewinders did better, since they're designed for that regime. The Sparrow also suffered from reliability issues. When the Sparrow was originally designed, the idea was that the missile would be removed from the aircraft for service after a few missions, but in Vietnam, the missiles were left on aircraft far longer than that, and the combination of heat, humidity, and vibration (which were exacerbated on Nacy fighters) and relatively fragile electronics meant that the Sparrow wasn't terribly reliable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
I remember reading something similar about Sparrow reliability - one thing I saw was missile carts going across perforated metal sheets acting as tarmac jarred them apart. Same vibration, different place.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
The AIM-7's issues with vibrations went away with the F model as it was all solid state
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
Ardeem posted:Sometimes, sufficient thrust is hard to come by. Ah, yes, the aircraft that killed the SR-71...and then turned out to suck at everything all the time. Seriously, who the gently caress orders production of a totally unique aircraft shut down and all the special tooling needed to build them destroyed? McNamara, apparently, because he was afraid that someone might start building Blackbirds again cause they were so awesome and take money away from his pet project (The F-111). That's just loving spiteful.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
^^^ I thought the tooling / die destruction was in regards to the F-14? Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if it happened to multiple airframes.Kilonum posted:The AIM-7's issues with vibrations went away with the F model as it was all solid state Tube missiles? Hell yeah, I bet they had great warmth and sustain unlike those shrill solid state missiles.  (sorry, guitar amp jokes in a plane thread)
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:The USAF took the lessons from Rolling Thunder and used them to justify better technology (i.e., the internal Vulcan on the F-4E) without any thought given to better training. The USAF got spanked during Linebacker, and the USN didn't, despite the USN not having any cannon armed air superiority fighters (all their Phantoms were missile only). Addendum: the post-Vietnam Navy Phantoms (-N and -S) didn't have guns, either. The USAF wanted a fighter-bomber first and the gun supported that role. The USN wanted an interceptor first and were unwilling to give up any volume from the radar.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
It would not surprise me if the pentagon destroyed tooling for everything so the Soviets couldn't steal it. Of course if they ever got the tooling they'd probably take one look at it and wonder why we were building fragile stuff that breaks constantly and is difficult to work on when you can just build everything out of steel and add MORE POWER. (Also use vodka as a hydraulic fluid)
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
Ironically, most of the titanium used in the SR-71 was sourced from the Soviet Union through layers upon layers of shell companies (at least according to Ben Rich's book).
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 06:12
|
|
|
Watching old episodes of Mayday and I just got to the one on TACA Flight 110. Possibly one of the ballerest captains ever deadsticks a 737-300 onto a grass levee in the middle of a thunder storm in a landing so good that the aircraft was flown out again after the engines were repaired. Also he had one eye because some South American rebels shot out the other one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 06:39
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:(at least according to Ben Rich's book). It's in the CIA Library. https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol48no1/article09.html
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 09:57
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Watching old episodes of Mayday and I just got to the one on TACA Flight 110. Possibly one of the ballerest captains ever deadsticks a 737-300 onto a grass levee in the middle of a thunder storm in a landing so good that the aircraft was flown out again after the engines were repaired. There are some truly impressive feats out there. I like the gimle glider. Captain is a recreational glider pilot so ends up slipping a 767 like a glider.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 12:30
|
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flypast#Flypasts_associated_with_World_War_II "The largest flyover in history occurred 69 years ago today. 3,000 carrier aircraft and 400 bombers flew over Tokyo Bay during the signing of the peace treaty that ended World War 2 as a show of force" quote:The largest flypast in history occurred on the signing of the Japanese Instrument of Surrender which formally ended the war between Japan and the allied powers in Tokyo Bay on 2 September 1945. 400 B-29 bombers and 3000 carrier aircraft participated. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 13:29
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:I've read that one of the big problems with the Sparrow in Vietnam was that the ROE didn't let pilots actually employ them BVR. Since the Sparrow was designed to shoot non-maneuvering targets at long range, it royally sucked when you try to shoot it at a maneuvering WVR target in a dogfight. I'm not surprised that Sidewinders did better, since they're designed for that regime. Here's a good paper on BVR in theory vs. BVR in practice: http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/11/09.pdf quote:What is more disturbing about radar-guided missile performance is that the vast
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 14:24
|
|
|
Part of the reason for a low pK BVR is that it's standard to shot twice. Guaranteed not to break 50% under that tactic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Part of the reason for a low pK BVR is that it's standard to shot twice. Guaranteed not to break 50% under that tactic. Also a problem with patriot batteries. Not going to put up good statistics if you always fired 4 missiles as a SCUD.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Also a problem with patriot batteries. Not going to put up good statistics if you always fired 4 missiles as a SCUD. In a good engagement, you shoot two interceptors per ballaistic missile. But they still calculate individual pK separately from p2sK. If you want to reach a certain pK overall, you use the pK of a single interceptors to determine how many interceptors you will fire. Hence firing two missiles per interceptor to ensure a very high probability that you kill the ballistic missile. During flight tests, they always keep track of whether the first or second interceptor gets the kill, and you can develop single shot pK numbers from that, as well as simulations. We certainly don't list the single shot pK below 50%. If a sniper shoots a man in the head twice every time it doesn't make the first bullet any less lethal. It just makes your ammo costs higher. mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 15:56 on Sep 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 15:53
|
|
|
Spaced God posted:Okay that was taken at Oshkosh but it's still the same thing I knew Oshkosh made trucks, never knew it was an actual town  When I was a kid in the air cadets, the airports we visited often had Oshkosh fire trucks and they were the loving bomb. So that sent me on a GIS nostalgia trip and I found out the company makes other stuff, too. Now I want an Oshkosh loader more than life itself. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
ApathyGifted posted:Quote from the article: I know a guy who used to design intakes and flight surfaces for Grumman in the 60s-80s. He met Kelly a good many times and once told a Navy Admiral in front of Kelly "The problem is Kelly's a genius, and the Navy has no idea how to handle that. You guys only know how to deal with idiot-savants." Said it made Kelly and his two assistants laugh so hard they choked
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 16:23
|
|
|
Godholio posted:It's no Wright Pat, but you can spend an afternoon there easy. I haven't been in a couple of years, but they used to have another F-4 (not the one on a stick out front) that they were actually restoring as an exhibit. Panels were opened up, and if the guys were working that day you could watch. Thanks for the heads-up, I'll plan on 4 hours-ish.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
This popped up on the internet. Hashtags say it's from Singapore.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:I knew Oshkosh made trucks, never knew it was an actual town It's not just a town, it's host to the largest Fly-in and airshow in the world (citation needed)
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
Tubesock posted:This popped up on the internet. Hashtags say it's from Singapore. Crap those marshaling signals aren't in the book!
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 22:37 |
|
|
Plane ID required. Some two-engine that Hideo Kojima took to E3 and back home, the chromed engine casing (?) caught my interest.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 20:52
|
|
