|
I also had a binder full of those airplane mini-booklets. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2d4HQ8ZM_2k Wright 3350 mounted on the back of a truck. True AI would be rigging up a variable pitch reversible prop and driving around.
|
# ¿ Mar 8, 2010 06:38 |
|
|
# ¿ Mar 28, 2024 11:51 |
|
Delivery McGee posted:No Thud yet? Shame. I find it hilarious that the Thunderbirds flew these for a short time. I bet that woulda been one hell of an airshow. I saw one on static display once, and it truly is a huge aircraft.
|
# ¿ Mar 12, 2010 07:44 |
|
I'd like to give a shout-out to the best fighter that almost was: The Northrop F-20 Tigershark. Based on the F-5 airframe, the Tigershark was updated with cutting edge avionics, a slightly different design for better aerodynamics, and a MUCH more powerful engine. If the F-5 is the Miata of jet aircraft, the F-20 is the Miata with a LSx swap. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kw9nlgnPq3E I'd have loved to see these flown by a military demonstration team. Would have been perfect for, say, the Thunderbirds, but instead they fly the incredibly overrated F-16.
|
# ¿ Apr 14, 2010 04:24 |
|
Boomerjinks posted:WINGS. I can still remember the music and narrator's voice from Wings of the Red Star. I used to have a ton of episodes I had taped.
|
# ¿ Apr 14, 2010 19:25 |
|
IOwnCalculus posted:Nice timing for all of the Hornet love. Easiest way to identify whether a Hornet is an A/B or C/D model: Those two small bumps on the spine of the plane right behind the cockpit are only present on the F/A-18C and D models. The more you know.
|
# ¿ Apr 19, 2010 03:06 |
|
InterceptorV8 posted:I can't be the only person here who thinks the first time someone beats the SR-71's speed record, they'll take one out of storage, dust it off, hammer down, take the record back, put it back into storage and be all I've always got the feeling that the SR-71s published top speed was sort of a "wink nudge" sort of thing, anyway. At the same time, the speed record has probably been beaten many times since then and we don't know about it.
|
# ¿ Apr 20, 2010 03:16 |
|
CommieGIR posted:I'll see if I can shoot some photos of the C-130s and the engine shop at work Aww look at it's little turbines. Even if they're probably as powerful as those radials.
|
# ¿ Apr 29, 2010 05:27 |
|
CommieGIR posted:Yeah, I was just confused because I was hearing jets but seeing radials. I thought they were fuel tanks till he turned around to take off and I saw the exhaust and intakes. Are those Westinghouse J34s? Jet engine awesomepost: ( because jet engines fascinate me.) The General Electic God-Damned J-79: Powered a number of aircraft from the previously mentioned B-58 Hustler, to the F-4 Phantom, to the "missle with a man in it" F-104 Starfighter. It also has powered a number of vehicles attempting to break the land speed record. This was the yardstick for jet engines for decades. It was loud, smokey, and not all that fuel efficient compared to modern engines, but at over 17' long and with 17 compressor stages, it was a monster of internal combustion. The General Electric GE-loving-90: Currently the largest and most powerful jet engine produced. With a nacelle diameter larger than the fuselage of a Boeing 737, two of these bad boys power the long range varients of the -777. One of the fan blades for this engine is also on display at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City. http://www.geae.com/aboutgeae/presscenter/ge90/ge90_20041116.html The General Electric (notice a trend here?) J-85: Powers the F-5 Freedom Fighter, T-38 trainer, and a few Learjet variants in it's civilian (CJ610) guise. It's small size and light weight offers it an excellent thrust to weight ratio. This would be the engine I'd like to stuff in an old muscle car to make a completely ridiculous drag vehicle. While completely impractical for automobiles, in my opinion turbine engines are way cooler than piston engines. You can even build one yourself with an old turbocharger and a little bit of fabrication know-how. Too bad turbines don't sound as good as a well tuned piston engine. Really though, let's see a piston engine literally sweep a man off his goddamned feet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jxcSY1AwrM That guy actually survived. Despite what you read online (and may have seen on TV) it wasn't because his "helmet jammed" the engine. While his cranial did get sucked off his head and cause major FOD to the motor, he survived on the account of the J58 having stationary guide vanes in front of the first compressor stage. Seeing as it's also a relatively small engine, his body sort of wedged against those and the disrupted airflow and FOD caused a compressor stall. Other victims haven't been so lucky. There are some particularly gory photos of the aftermath of a Chinese engine mechanic getting sucked into a 737-700 motor, and it's not pretty. Previa_fun fucked around with this message at 07:30 on Apr 29, 2010 |
# ¿ Apr 29, 2010 07:01 |
|
Any truth to what I once read somewhere stating that Swiss F/A-18s have a stiffer wing and reprogrammed fly by wire software that allows them to do 9g vs the standard Hornet's 7.5g?
|
# ¿ May 31, 2010 08:37 |
|
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/frheft/FRH0008/FR0008f.htm "Apart from this incident, the Hornet's entry into service went remarkably smoothly, and all bodes well for F-18 operations over the next few decades. The fighter will probably remain in service for 5000 flying hours or 30 years. To achieve this service life, design modifications included strengthening the airframe by constructing some of the frames out of titanium. This measure means that in wartime a software amendment permitting the maximum loading on the Swiss F-18s to be raised from +7.5g to +9g can be activated. " \/\/
|
# ¿ May 31, 2010 19:26 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqc_hoZ9E1w G-suits are for pussies.
|
# ¿ Jun 14, 2010 21:38 |
|
azflyboy posted:After the team experienced a fatal crash while practicing for a show in 1999 (caused by a pilot blacking out in a high G turn), the Navy considered forcing the team to wear G-suits, but relented after it was determined that the accident pilot was suffering from a rib injury that kept him from tensing up properly during flight. Don't forget the crash in 2007 which was also attributed to GLOC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Blue_Angels_South_Carolina_crash
|
# ¿ Jul 2, 2010 22:41 |
|
I don't see how the Phantom got the nick name "Double Ugly" when all I see is a beautiful aircraft.
|
# ¿ Jul 6, 2010 01:18 |
|
ApathyGifted posted:Hell, the Blue Angels still fly F/A-18A's, which I could have sworn were completely phased out for the E/F models until I read Wikipedia. For the 2010 show season Blue Angels number Edit: I was wrong, it's numbers 1 and 4. Previa_fun fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Jul 25, 2010 |
# ¿ Jul 25, 2010 21:43 |
|
slidebite posted:^^ That's drat cool. The second coolest thing I've ever seen at an airshow was watching the Starfighters fly. They really do sound like nothing else out there. Beautiful aircraft, too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zddqLO1H0s First coolest thing was the late Bobby Younkin doing aerobatics in his Lear 23. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjzr-muZpEw
|
# ¿ Feb 27, 2011 05:32 |
|
Re: F-16 bastard children Don't forget the F-16/79. An F-16 re-engined with a heavier, less powerful, thirstier engine (General Electric J-79) for export sales. The J-79's long length (17 stage compressor) made for a comically extended tailpipe, too.
|
# ¿ Mar 8, 2011 06:08 |
|
I think in 2008 they received block 52s. Mo powa. I believe the Blue Angels are also slowly transitioning to C model Hornets to replace their aging As, which are some of the earliest Hornets built.
|
# ¿ May 10, 2011 01:23 |
|
BookaT posted:Its in production. http://www.microsoft.com/games/flight/ Time to start saving for a new computer...
|
# ¿ Jun 11, 2011 18:10 |
|
Mr. Despair posted:The sad thing is that he landed it just fine, they just couldn't put the fire out in time to save it it seems. Oh my god. How many B-17s are still flight worthy today?
|
# ¿ Jun 14, 2011 00:18 |
|
angryhampster posted:Great airshow pictures Our town used to get the Blue Angels for our Bi-annual airshow. In the last ten years or so, however, it's been the Thunderbirds. Having seen both several times, I have to say the Blues put on a far better show. The dirty loop blows my mind every time. I will say, though, the Thunderbirds' F-16s seem to be a LOT louder than the F/A-18s the Blue Angels fly. Maybe it's the one big engine versus two small(er) engines that have to do with that. Edit: Oh and Blue Angel pilots land fighter jets on boats and don't wear g-suits. Previa_fun fucked around with this message at 04:58 on Jun 20, 2011 |
# ¿ Jun 20, 2011 04:55 |
|
Mr.Peabody posted:My wife has a really nice certificate and tie pin for pulling 9Gs in her F-16. Sooo.. I don't know what's so great about being limited to around 4G maneuvers. 7.5, sir. http://youtu.be/gqc_hoZ9E1w
|
# ¿ Jun 21, 2011 21:21 |
|
If anyone wants a nice heaping helping of hatred for humanity just read the comments on this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kHa3WNerjU
|
# ¿ Jul 3, 2011 05:39 |
|
aswert1223 posted:Toured Kennedy Space Center yesterday. Not jets, but I think OP would approve... Awesome pictures! What has always amazed me about rocket engines is their incredible thrust compared to their (relative) small size.
|
# ¿ Jul 4, 2011 02:20 |
|
BonzoESC posted:An excerpt from Techniques for the new Airbus Pilot: The fact that the Airbus' throttle levers don't physically move when auto thrust in engaged is so loving to me. Even moreso after it was noted it was probably a contributing factor in the crash of flight 447. I am not a pilot though.
|
# ¿ Jul 19, 2011 02:09 |
|
greenscag posted:God, I love the Phantom. Beautiful airplane, in my opinion. Great pics.
|
# ¿ Jul 20, 2011 05:21 |
|
ack! posted:The tube thing on the front-bottom of the engine and the thing behind the nose wheel are anti-FOD equipment. The engine tubes blast air to push dirt and rocks out of the intake bath and the nose wheel attachment abates stuff from getting kicked up by the wheel since it often was operated on dirt and low quality runways. Thank you for this photo. I read a description of a similar device years ago in a book about gas turbine engines and never really could visualize it and never saw one as far as I knew. Another interesting passage from the same book was something like, "...In 1943 Michael Daunt realized it was possible to get sucked into a Meteor inlet..."
|
# ¿ Aug 25, 2011 19:10 |
|
Boat posted:Ah, so that's what they are! The beach I spent a lot of time at on my Bahamas vacation was directly in the flight path to the airport, and good god, those things are easily 2x as loud as every other jet that came over. And those low bypass turbofans were a huge advance in sound compared to what came before. I'd give a nut to see/hear an old 707 or DC-8 still equipped with turbojets fly over. I've read the DC-8s equipped with the Rolls Royce Conway turbojets were LOUD.
|
# ¿ Aug 26, 2011 20:24 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isP1LVVZ6nU Some great footage of an old Convair-880. The engines are civilian versions of the General Electric J79 used in the F-104, F-4 Phantom, and several other military jet aircraft of the time. That's one smoky takeoff. Love the backdrop of wind turbines, too.
|
# ¿ Aug 29, 2011 04:29 |
|
Anybody with a passing interest in turbine engines needs to check out this YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/AgentJayZ He works at a turbine engine overhaul shop and makes a lot of videos really detailing the inner workings of these engines. He's also very responsive to messages and has answered several questions I've sent in.
|
# ¿ Sep 8, 2011 06:30 |
|
Schindler's Fist posted:I'm no engineer either. According to the numerous aero-loser books I own on the topic, the Blackbird could exceed Mach 3.2, but as the heat built up, past that speed it would start to lose systems. In Paul Crickmore's "SR-71 The Secret Missions Exposed", theres a story of a flight over Libya where they exceeded 3.2 - some silly misunderstanding involving missile launches - and had no problems. They attributed it to being colder than usual at altitude. My favorite thing I've read (albeit on Wikipedia) about the SR-71 is this quote: "If a surface-to-air missile launch was detected, the standard evasive action was simply to accelerate and outrun the missile."
|
# ¿ Sep 16, 2011 09:15 |
|
YouTube is pulling down the videos real quick.
|
# ¿ Sep 17, 2011 03:42 |
|
MrChips posted:Here's a better look at the front of a CJ805: Awesome shot. I have never seen a photo that gives a good look down the intake of a CJ805. Very strange looking. They did some weird stuff in the early days of turbofans...for example the TF39 with the "1 1/2 stage" fan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_TF39
|
# ¿ Sep 21, 2011 23:19 |
|
Nebakenezzer posted:F-15SE (that's Silent Eagle, not special edition.) I figured as much, but I had to Google to confirm that "silent" in this case was referring to its stealth features, because goddamn are F-15s loud.
|
# ¿ Sep 24, 2011 02:40 |
|
Fort Smith regional airshow is taking place this weekend and I'll be going Sunday. My buddy is bringing his DSLR; he's a pretty competent static photographer...we'll see how he does focusing on aircraft racing across the sky. I'll try to post up some pictures here as soon as I can.
|
# ¿ Sep 29, 2011 22:50 |
|
Got back from a long day at our regional airshow this afternoon. The weather today was beautiful for flying and there was a huge turnout as always. I would have liked to have seen more modern military demos (only jet demo was an F-15E and drat did he really throw it around the sky) but it was a lot of fun. Highlights include: Matt Younkin flying aerobatic maneuvers in a Beech 18. I was fortunate enough to see his father, the late Bobby Younkin, fly a similar routine in his Learjet in 2003 and I had never seen anything like it before. Matt's routine in the Beech doesn't disappoint. It's breathtaking to see an aircraft never built for aerobatics doing half-cubans and a roll on takeoff. The Aerostars: an aerobatic team made up of three pilots flying Yak-52s. Skip Stewart put on a HELL of a show in his modified Pitts; he hung himself in the air on his propeller for what seemed like almost ten seconds, at which point my friend turned to me and said "Congratulations, you're now flying a helicopter." The bottoms of his maneuvers were also right on the deck. And a ton of your usual airshow fare: lots and lots of . I'm still going through pictures so hopefully I can do a photodump later.
|
# ¿ Oct 3, 2011 02:16 |
|
helno posted:Yeah the actual air and space museum was a bit of a let down and packed with people when I went a few weeks ago. I thought so too. I was really looking forward to visiting it on my trip to D.C. last year but came away feeling it was a bit half-assed for such a big name museum at our nation's capital. Oh well, I can't complain when it was free. Great pictures, I'll definitely make it a point to check that out if I get a chance to go up there again.
|
# ¿ Oct 3, 2011 03:42 |
|
As much as the Rhino is hated by some, I think they're great looking aircraft. I'm biased because the Hornet is, in my opinion, one of the best looking fighters out there. Every time I've gotten to see a demo, however, I miss it for one reason or another, but I've seen some impressive maneuvering on video. Countdown to Blue Angels flying Rhinos? I believe it's more likely they'll downsize to T-45s though.
|
# ¿ Oct 22, 2011 05:18 |
|
iyaayas01 posted:Speaking of the A-4 years... I had a book about the history of the Blue Angels when I was much younger and I recall a passage about an incident that happened during the early A-4 years that stuck with me: As I recall, the pilot was practicing full stick deflection vertical rolls. He ended up getting the airplane rolling so fast the fuel in the wings popped a few of the outer wing rivets. After that incident they limited the rolls to 3/4 stick deflection max. They say the A-4 had a maximum roll rate of about 720 degrees per second, or two rolls every second.
|
# ¿ Oct 24, 2011 00:50 |
|
Cygni posted:Was told by some brass who are in my work building from time to time. Hey, feel free to not believe me, but I was told flatly that the F-35C will replace the standard Hornet. But like I said, it wont be for at least 15+ years. Basically, it will take the last Hornets and the first F-35's getting rotated. It really shows how much longer fighter development takes in the post cold war era. The Blues flew the A-4 for 13 years and at the time that was the longest they had ever operated one aircraft. Now they're at 25 years in the Hornets and with no suitable replacement for the next 10-15 years. They've only in the past few years starting getting a few C model Hornets.
|
# ¿ Oct 24, 2011 07:56 |
|
|
# ¿ Mar 28, 2024 11:51 |
|
It's too bad the super-luxo airliners and airships never became viable. On one hand it's easy to see why air travel is so relatively cheap these days: the cattle car like conditions for economy class passengers. If you don't like it, pay more to get business or first class. On the other hand it'd be nice to have a real "flying hotel" with bars, lounges, private rooms, etc. Kilonum posted:Speaking of A-4s, they are some of my favorite planes in Strike Fighters 2 to fly. Would you mind doing a quick review or a pros/cons post about this game? I have eyed a lot of Third Wire's products (Strike Fighters 2 and Wings over Vietnam specifically) and never could bring myself to pull the trigger. The graphics look good but something about the site leads me to think it might be a cheap sim. My basis of comparison is Free Falcon 5 if I want to fly fast stuff and Microsoft FSX if I want to fly slow stuff. I've heard good things but I don't want to pay for a sim where all the planes fly the same. Previa_fun fucked around with this message at 08:02 on Oct 27, 2011 |
# ¿ Oct 27, 2011 07:52 |