|
FullMetalJacket posted:i'm doing this while it's still the first page: It probably wasn't a great airplane, but I still love it  Sure the early ones had engines which were poo poo and a bit explodey, but it was the largest and heaviest fighter ever (still is maybe?) and the wings moved about and the engines were spaced miles apart. It resembles what a fighter jet would look like if a kid drew one. It was a maintenance nightmare but they still flew the drat thing off a carrier deck for 30 years, which is awesome. The F/A-18 looks kinda boring in comparison (and is boringly more reliable). And Top Gun ruled.  Edit: Put it this way, the closest thing we have in our country is the Sea Harrier  which is cool in itself, but its like comparing a Mini to a Cadillac.
Manny fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Mar 8, 2010 |
#
¿
Mar 8, 2010 16:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 10:57 |
|
|
InitialDave posted:I'd argue the Tornado, but I've always had a soft spot for them. Not that I dislike Harriers, mind. I was thinking of a comparison of carrier-based aircraft, but yeah I love the Tornado too. The best B-47 pic:  Click here for the full 1800x1416 image. Some crazy landing vids: "Don't be afraid" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-SQBgea0oA You don't need all that runway after all. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJoXMcehrYo This guy needed a bit more though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8yx5T2Oejc Manny fucked around with this message at 04:41 on Mar 9, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2010 04:33
|
|
|
This happened last year but I don't know how much coverage it got outside the UK. A Victor that had only been certified for taxi runs took off when the co-pilot froze up on the throttles, and the pilot had to recover it all on his own when he hadn't flown one for thirty years. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rh2YSzBdWFg An interview with the guy here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGjPu6DPzWU
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2010 21:19
|
|
|
I'm still waiting for our giant aircraft carriers made out of sawdust and ice.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2010 16:56
|
|
|
For an amazing noise, how about the Vulcan Howl: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqA6bgFPGWI I'm guessing its something to do with the shape of the inlets?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2010 06:00
|
|
|
The same idea, scaled up a bit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9633v6U0wo 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2010 04:52
|
|
|
FullMetalJacket posted:i love how each time we do an aviation thread it usually dissolves into banter about the sr71 and or the f14. I think we've done well to keep it fairly diverse so far.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2010 02:22
|
|
|
What about bombers returning with a full load of stores, do they ever have to jettison before they can safely land? (i'm guessing there's an emergency procedure, that Boeing report was interesting to read)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2010 16:48
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:There are some middling strange airplane pictures here: This one in particular caught my eye: 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2010 19:32
|
|
|
Silly harrier, that's not your ship! Click here for the full 1024x700 image.  Click here for the full 415x640 image.  Click here for the full 640x460 image. quote:As Sea Harrier ZA 176 settled on the slick containers, it began sliding backward. Watson tried to retract the landing gear. The main gear dropped off the back edge of the container. A delivery van on the ship, en route to a florist shop in Tenerife, suffered a blow as the rear of the Sea Harrier hit the deck. The captain of the Alraigo refused to let the drop-in visitor throw him off schedule: The British government was informed that Watson and the jet would arrive in Tenerife in four days. http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/Oldies__Oddities_.html
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2010 19:19
|
|
|
A twin-turbo twin v8 drone at that, and I'm guessing maybe twin counter rotating props too? Although that looks suspiciously like a canopy under the white sheet. Manny fucked around with this message at 22:23 on May 11, 2010 |
|
#
¿
May 11, 2010 22:18
|
|
|
I'm really intrigued to know more about this. It looks like it would be some kind of racer with such a thin wing, but it doesn't look that light, using a metal frame instead of a composite monocoque. Must have such a high wing-loading, unless there's more lifting surface we haven't seen.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2010 02:53
|
|
|
ApathyGifted posted:
[Mods] You put WHAT on your plane? Stupid poo poo we've seen people put on their planes
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2010 02:44
|
|
|
Ola posted:Atlantis' last ride into space. Be a patriot and click for big. Not even American but goddamn 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2010 22:19
|
|
|
I bet those pilots have one of the best seats in the house.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2010 13:04
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CB27K-wIsM Holy poo poo that was close. Edit: Just noticed this is a few weeks old but don't think it was posted here before?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2010 00:31
|
|
|
There's some decent vids bottom right of this page showing all the photographers and the planes coming through: http://www.mjaviation.co.uk/Lowfly.htm
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2010 17:07
|
|
|
 Click here for the full 800x601 image. The smeary background makes me think this has been manipulated somehow, but this type of event happened a few times. Found a cool story about one of them here.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2010 14:11
|
|
|
There's some good stories here and here about recovering the B-29 It's Hawg Wild from China lake and then flying it to Duxford museum in England. 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2010 11:09
|
|
|
LobsterboyX posted:
Are those ...windows in the fuselage?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2010 16:17
|
|
|
AnimalChin posted:From CNN: I can't help thinking that pic is a series of shots taken a few seconds apart and merged together, and the squadron is just one boat. Edit: after seeing the video, it looks like it is real, also the noise from their little prop engines only serves to make them more cute. Manny fucked around with this message at 11:32 on Sep 29, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2010 11:26
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_M.52 quote:In 1944, design work was considered 90% complete and Miles was told to go ahead with the construction of three prototype M.52s. Later that year, the Air Ministry signed an agreement with the United States to exchange high-speed research and data. Miles Chief Aerodynamicist Dennis Bancroft stated that the Bell Aircraft company was given access to the drawings and research on the M.52,[9] but the U.S. reneged on the agreement and no data was forthcoming in return. This has to be one of my favourite ever photos:  Click here for the full 1190x1024 image. And the rest are here for people that didn't know about this site: http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/Photo/index.html Manny fucked around with this message at 15:02 on Sep 30, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2010 14:56
|
|
|
grover posted:Take the F-15 for example; 104 kills to 0 losses. You'd need at least 104 aircraft for every F-15 and even then, the F-15-equipped air force would still come out ahead. As much as the F-15 is one of my favorite aircraft, I don't really understand your math 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2010 02:25
|
|
|
Another chance to post this video of Lexus' crazy carbon fiber weaver for the LFA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4DLr8qHliI
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2010 13:15
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:So are they keeping around those things just because, or does this mean they need the parts? I think they were made of titanium and other exotic materials which probably adds to the cost of scrapping them, and it's not like they take up much room. quote:Are they actually replacing bits of the fuselage? If you look at the one above, you can see where the wing blends in to the fuselage. It looks like they've removed these fairings and you can see the white bare ribs underneath. Maybe to check for fatigue on the wing joints/spar.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2011 13:55
|
|
Seriously, what's the white area?
|
If it's the same thing I see, I think its a RB-57/WB-57 which is a heavily upgraded Canberra, with the wing tips lopped off and tail feathers removed. Click here for the full 1715x1445 image. Manny fucked around with this message at 11:43 on Jan 12, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2011 11:39
|
|
|
I notice in one place they have one of each type of plane lined up. I wonder if someone just thought it would be cool to do that, or it's a museum allocation or something.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2011 11:38
|
|
|
That's a funny looking radial-powered spitfire they have
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2011 15:10
|
|
|
Fo3 posted:Saw that vulcan link and the next link YT gave me was this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIJOE_DC-n8&NR=1&feature=fvwp. I think partly due to the properties of the delta wing and partly due to low fuel loads and no bombs aboard. I don't think they do such hard take-offs any more because they're reaching the fatigue life of the airframe.  I've read this book recently and it's a great insight into the Black Buck raids and how close it was to being a real mess. And how they had to scrounge parts from junkyards and bodge solutions together to get enough operational airframes. (One such idea was that because the Victors had no defences, they'd fill the airbrake panels up with foil strips so when they popped the brakes, it dumped a load out as a make-shift single use chaff dispenser) http://www.amazon.co.uk/Vulcan-607-Rowland-White/dp/0593053915 It inspired me to create this infographic poster on it:  It stills needs some work as I need to show how some of the first tankers came back, refuelled and went up again to collect the returning crews. Also the first actual mission didn't go according to plan due to various malfunctions so I want to show how it really panned out. Manny fucked around with this message at 15:42 on Jan 26, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2011 13:57
|
|
|
Lilbeefer posted:Sorry to quote this again, but it is really cool. Took me a while to figure it out (before I bothered reading the text). monkeytennis posted:If you read the book there's quite a good diagram of the flight planning inside the front cover. Not taking anything away from yours mind it's a great piece of work. Thanks. The book version is what inspired me to see if I could make a better version - not sure if I succeeded or not. I do this kind of thing for a living, so this was a little personal project that could maybe go in the portfolio. There's still a few things that are bugging me about it, I think I might make a scaled down web-version as it's designed for A1 print and even on a big screen it's hard to take it all in. I wasn't sure if to post this in the RC cars thread or this one, but I've become really interested in 'multicopters'. The hard part about making these is the electronics to control it all, but someone's designed a circuit board that uses cheap helicopter gyros and so they're much more affordable. I've just bought a tri-copter frame with the aim to build a flying camera platform. It's controlled by 2 fixed motors and a third one which pivots for yaw control. I chose a tri over a quad as there should be less confusion with orientation in the air, and all the motors turn in the same direction, so you don't have to source counter-rotating props, which can be harder to find. Also the wider arm angle means they should clear the camera field of view.   Some more details here: http://quadframe.com/
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2011 14:39
|
|
|
I was inspired a bit by these: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozHoP_YThRI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S99O7sKcbBE Manny fucked around with this message at 16:03 on Feb 3, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2011 15:57
|
|
|
I didn't know if there would be interest, but then I didn't know there was a hobbies forum either! The pro stuff like that dragonflyer costs $thousands and this will be altogether lower budget. Although I've been flying RC stuff for years, I haven't got my hands dirty on the electronics side so it'll be a bit of a learning experience. I'd like to have a go at using a video downlink so you can fly 'first person', but I'm in the process of moving apartments right now, so that kind of money is allocated more for things like furniture. When I'm settled in and the parts arrive from Poland/Hong Kong, I'll see about making a thread.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2011 21:44
|
|
|
I'm still a bit of a beginner at stuff like this, but I'll try to explain best as I can. The FPV flyers use onscreen display modules, which act like a HUD. With the GoPro HD camera, I believe you can both record to SD card and send a video out signal simultaneously, by using a homemade wiring harness. The video out goes through the OSD module where you can add in more modules such as GPS and compass. You can do clever stuff here like mark your 'home' position, and it'll tell you how far you've gone and which direction you need to go to fly back, and with autopilot options you can even make it return to base on its own. There's also stuff like station keeping and waypoint following. That kind of stuff is way over my head right now. Then the video is sent through the onboard transmitter to a lcd screen or video goggles. The special controller board controls all the motors through standard speed controllers, and in the case of the tri-copter, the 'tail' motor pivot too. The idea is that you use a standard rc transmitter, and the controller board interprets your inputs and then adjusts the motors and motor pivot accordingly. The 3 gyros are mounted at special angles so they can measure rotation in all 3 axis. The gyros are there to stop all the massive control coupling that will happen with aircraft of this type For example, if you were to throttle up, as all the motors spin in the same direction, so you'd have an opposite torque reaction and it would start to yaw, the yaw gyro would detect this and the controller would pivot the yaw motor to counter it. However doing that would decrease the lift on that corner, which would be detected by another gyro, so the controller would throttle that motor up to compensate, and so on etc. At least that's how I *think* it works, I haven't flown one yet to find out Edit: For me the breakthrough for this recently has been the KK controller boards, which have provided a way of doing this on a smaller budget, and without needing to know how to program circuit boards. Another budget method people have found are taking the pcb out of the Wii Motion Plus controllers which have 3 neatly packaged gyros, and then connecting that to another board, acting as a controller. Manny fucked around with this message at 23:01 on Feb 3, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2011 22:57
|
|
|
The same company is selling a TSR2 engine, serial number 1 for £250,000.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2011 15:30
|
|
|
I do love the Lightning - it's just pure brute force. Bolt two engines together and stick a pilot on the front and 2 razor thin wings on the sides. Are there any other twin engine planes that have used that vertical stack configuration?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2011 12:04
|
|
|
I believe so, they have the clam-shell type design.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2011 11:21
|
|
|
ack! posted:How is the C-5 advantageous over something like a 747-400? Just curious why a 747 isn't reworked for military ops like the P-8/737-800 is as it seems cheaper than developing a whole new airframe (like the 707/kc-135 and 767 tanker in the works). The C-5 is sure neat, though. I was amazed when I got to go in one at an airshow as a kid. I know some of the capabilities of the c-17 regarding it's landing/short take off stuff wouldn't be found on any commercial airframes. As a layman's guess, I'd say it's because the C-5 is designed to go into unprepared destinations, where as other commercial options are designed around having a certain level of infrastructure waiting for them. I think the 747 needs a lift to get things out of the nose, where as the C-5 fuselage is so low, you can just use ramps and roll stuff straight off. Also I guess the C-5s are better suited for landing on rough/hastily prepared runways, again because of the fuselage/undercarriage layout. I don't know if 747s load from the back and the front too?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2011 16:21
|
|
|
Quantrill posted:Anyone want to go in with me on an SR-71 tail rudder? And in situ:  
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2011 12:27
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:I saw a picture today. Amazing photo
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2011 04:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 10:57 |
|
|
DC3?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2011 23:26
|
|