|
mobby_6kl posted:It's not a Tu... It's known by the RAF as a NIMROD. It's essentially the same concept as a JSTAR but far better looking
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 18:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 09:08 |
|
|
River Raid posted:It's known by the RAF as a NIMROD. It's essentially the same concept as a JSTAR but far better looking Specifically the AEW3 Nimrod. The original Nimrod specialized in ASW, while the AEW3 is more about radar and early warning.  Sort of the difference between a P-3 Orion and an AWACS. Speaking of ugly-rear end British planes, I don't think any aircraft looks more awesomely monstrous than the Victor bomber. 
Boomerjinks fucked around with this message at 18:56 on May 18, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 18:53
|
|
|
Also: this picture is absolutely insane.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 19:04
|
|
|
MrChips posted:No, they're not mothballed Blackbirds, they're mothballed A-12s. There are a number of differences between the A-12 and the SR-71; most notably, the A-12 was a single-seater, and it is thought that the A-12's sensor suite was far less capable than that of the SR-71. Once the SR-71 entered service in 1968, the CIA retired their fleet of A-12s. Behold the HondaJet:   Made almost completely from carbon composites and combined with Honda redesigned GE engines makes it 30-35% more efficient than similar aircraft.  The engines are mounted in pods above the wings for increased interior room and also aerodynamic benefits.  Deliveries starting in 2011. drat it looks good.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 19:07
|
|
|
Wow, it's starting in 2011? I remember reading about that years ago.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 19:13
|
|
|
River Raid posted:It's known by the RAF as a NIMROD. It's essentially the same concept as a JSTAR but far better looking I was there many years ago when that one Nimrod decided to plow into Lake Ontario. One of the weirdest days ever...
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 19:36
|
|
|
ozziegt posted:Wow, it's starting in 2011? I remember reading about that years ago. They've had a lot of trouble with it. The price has also gone up from their targets if I recall correctly - they're now around $4M instead of closer to $3.5. Still, ought to be competitive in the very light segment, and their sales targets are quite modest. edit: according to AN you won't be able to get one until 2012, now. KYOON GRIFFEY JR fucked around with this message at 19:46 on May 18, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 19:42
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:It's not a Tu... ...polev?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 22:06
|
|
|
Boomerjinks posted:
Ugly? That is best British plane of all time. Except for the Vulcan. And the Spitfire. And the Sopwith Camel. OK, our friends across the pond have made a lot of great birds. And the Victor was one of them. Ugly, indeed. Sorry, rant over. I just wish I had posted one of those to this thread first. (To my eternal shame, I hadn't thought of it) Flint Ironstag fucked around with this message at 03:10 on May 19, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2010 02:59
|
|
|
Just had this photo sent to me by my uncle, by way of my dad. He flies for Con Air, fighting forest fires. He started out as a bird-dog, flying the way into fires for the DC-6, and then graduated up to the 6. Then, he went on to fly Westjet for a while, but got tired of just flying a bus all year long, and is now back doing what he enjoyed most. Flying small planes at low altitude over giant pillars of fire.   I'll try to get a few more details on the photo, as well as what he's flying, if you guys want.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2010 05:48
|
|
|
Spotted this today, Boeing on 787 aerial rendezvous with 1928 Model 40 Click for big version Jalopnik posted:That's a 1928 Boeing Model 40C, the very first passenger-carrying aircraft built by Boeing, flying in formation with a brand-spankin'-new Boeing 787, the company's youngest passenger-carrying aircraft
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2010 14:25
|
|
|
The wing on the 787 is beautiful. I think it may be the best looking pod-under-wing aircraft.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2010 14:46
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:The wing on the 787 is beautiful. I think it may be the best looking pod-under-wing aircraft. I just noticed that too, seems like it has a huge amount of dihedral compared to the other airliners though.
|
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2010 15:54
|
|
|
Simkin posted:Just had this photo sent to me by my uncle, by way of my dad. He flies for Con Air, fighting forest fires. He started out as a bird-dog, flying the way into fires for the DC-6, and then graduated up to the 6. Then, he went on to fly Westjet for a while, but got tired of just flying a bus all year long, and is now back doing what he enjoyed most. Flying small planes at low altitude over giant pillars of fire. That looks like an Air Tractor AT-802 Fire Boss to me. Kind of a unique water bomber - it's a converted agricultural aircraft that operates much in the same way as a Canadair CL-215/415 water bomber, only on a smaller scale; the aircraft will skim along the surface of a body of water, scooping water into the tank via inlets on the floats. I imagine since the AT-802 is a rather small aircraft, it affords a lot of flexibility as to what bodies of water you can use - rivers probably wouldn't be out of the question with that aircraft.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2010 22:44
|
|
|
Simkin posted:Just had this photo sent to me by my uncle, by way of my dad. He flies for Con Air, fighting forest fires. He started out as a bird-dog, flying the way into fires for the DC-6, and then graduated up to the 6. Then, he went on to fly Westjet for a while, but got tired of just flying a bus all year long, and is now back doing what he enjoyed most. Flying small planes at low altitude over giant pillars of fire. Hey are the Conair BBQs as awesome as everyone says??? I was on the weekend shift when I was at Cascade, so was never able to go...
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2010 01:23
|
|
|
Simkin posted:Just had this photo sent to me by my uncle, by way of my dad. He flies for Con Air, fighting forest fires. He started out as a bird-dog, flying the way into fires for the DC-6, and then graduated up to the 6. Then, he went on to fly Westjet for a while, but got tired of just flying a bus all year long, and is now back doing what he enjoyed most. Flying small planes at low altitude over giant pillars of fire. Hey they have a bunch of those at my airport! Make circuits a pain when all of them are taking off in a row though.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2010 06:41
|
|
|
How slow you think the 787 had to fly to stay with the Model 40 and a Bonanza?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2010 07:47
|
|
|
Mobius1B7R posted:How slow you think the 787 had to fly to stay with the Model 40 and a Bonanza? The Model 40's top speed is only 111 knots. I really doubt the 787 was actually flying formation with it. More likely they staged a flyby and snapped the picture at the right moment.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2010 10:14
|
|
|
Are the 787's wings always bent up that high, or they just under load in that pic?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2010 10:59
|
|
|
2ndclasscitizen posted:Are the 787's wings always bent up that high, or they just under load in that pic? In flight the 787's wings are designed to flex upwards.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2010 11:31
|
|
|
Sexual Lorax posted:It's not a Tu... Also works with Tu...maaah! but I hope I'm not explaining the obvious here.  Somewhere there's a great video of that test where everybody's like  as they gradually increase the load.
mobby_6kl fucked around with this message at 15:18 on May 20, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2010 14:44
|
|
|
Minto Took posted:In flight the 787's wings are designed to flex upwards. That'd freak the poo poo out of me if I had a window seat on the wings.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2010 14:59
|
|
|
2ndclasscitizen posted:That'd freak the poo poo out of me if I had a window seat on the wings. Even knowing that they can flex to some ridiculous degree and that it's part of the design?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2010 15:04
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Even knowing that they can flex to some ridiculous degree and that it's part of the design? If I didn't know it, yeah.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2010 15:21
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Even knowing that they can flex to some ridiculous degree and that it's part of the design? Even knowing it, the instant we hit turbulence and they started to bounce a little I would probably get somewhat nervous. Also, here is a vid of the wings unflexing upon landing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojMlgFnbvK4
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2010 15:22
|
|
|
THAT is loving awesome.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2010 15:26
|
|
|
MrChips posted:That looks like an Air Tractor AT-802 Fire Boss to me. Kind of a unique water bomber - it's a converted agricultural aircraft that operates much in the same way as a Canadair CL-215/415 water bomber, only on a smaller scale; the aircraft will skim along the surface of a body of water, scooping water into the tank via inlets on the floats. I imagine since the AT-802 is a rather small aircraft, it affords a lot of flexibility as to what bodies of water you can use - rivers probably wouldn't be out of the question with that aircraft. Ah, yes, that's what it is he flies. It seemed like a silly name for an airplane at the time, but it makes sense, now that you mention it as a repurposed agricultural plane. He's had to make an emergency landing on a highway in Alberta once, when he ran out of fuel (gauge problem or ?), but seems to love flying the things. My grandpa was a bush pilot and used to fly (mainly) a Beaver, and would talk about how they used to use that for forest fire fighting, skimming off lakes and rivers. Somehow the stories seemed less scary than his ones about doing short landings on glaciers, or other silly places that hunters or geologists wanted to be put down. As for the conair bbqs, I can ask, but I imagine that with the mentality of the pilots being what it is, that they'd be fairly entertaining.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2010 18:42
|
|
|
You know, the thing about 787 wing flex is that I've only ever seen people talk about it with regard to that airplane, and even then only in "OMG WE AL GON DIE  " terms.If you watch out the window of a conventional-wing airliner, though, the wingtips sit higher in flight than while on the ground and they look like they're outright going to snap off at any given moment in turbulence, and yet nobody ever whines about that. Think there's any reason for that?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2010 21:31
|
|
|
It's even worse at take-off when the wing tanks are heavy with fuel. After watching that 777 wing-flex-to-failure test, I'm a lot less worried about a small bit of movement during flight. Wing flex doesn't bother me nearly so much as wing oscillations. Watching that wing-tip flap up and down about 6' in-flight is pretty disconcerting.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2010 13:03
|
|
|
grover posted:Wing flex doesn't bother me nearly so much as wing oscillations. Watching that wing-tip flap up and down about 6' in-flight is pretty disconcerting. birds have been doing this for thousands of years what are you worried about
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2010 15:06
|
|
|
If an airplane exhibited the full range of motion of a bird's wing I think I'd freak out too.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2010 06:29
|
|
|
grover posted:It's even worse at take-off when the wing tanks are heavy with fuel. After watching that 777 wing-flex-to-failure test, I'm a lot less worried about a small bit of movement during flight. During early testing of the U-2, pilots encountered situations where the wings were flexing out of phase with each other, which had to be incredibly unnerving in an aircraft that delicate. When the U-2 is operating at lower altitudes, it actually requires a special "gust alleviation system" to keep turbulence from overstressing the fuselage and wings. When activated (normally when climbing to and descending from cruise altitudes), the deflects both ailerons 7.5 degrees above their neutral position, and it also drives the flaps upwards 6.5 degrees. By deflecting the flaps and ailerons, the system unloads the wing, which drastically reduces the forces that turbulent air can impart to the aircraft.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2010 07:03
|
|
|
Hope this applicable since it involves aeronautics. Take a high performance wingsuit capable of very slow descent rates and add a high performance parachute (both with skilled pilots) and viola, wingsuit surfing. http://raisethesky.org/2010/04/wingsuit-surfing/
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2010 23:15
|
|
|
I wish I could find that picture of the JU-52 flying in formation with a brand-spankin' new Lufthansa A-340. Apparently the 340 was flying with flaps full and slats out, barely above idle, and the Auntie Ju was flying balls to the wall, and could still barely keep up. Amazing the advances we've made.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2010 23:23
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Also works with Tu...maaah! but I hope I'm not explaining the obvious here. Saw that testing rig last weekend on a tour of the factory with a VIP guide. He explained that eventually they want to break the wings but they have to build a bigger rig first. The whole place is insane, we got a specialized tour where we walked through a 747-8 being built and saw several 787s in various stages of assembly. Even if you do the public tour (it costs something like $15) it's still worth it. No pictures though because of corporate espionage and they don't want people dropping cameras and other poo poo onto the factory floor below To make up for it I got some sweet looks at seaplanes and radial engines nearby at kenmore air:  Click here for the full 720x540 image.  Click here for the full 720x540 image.  Click here for the full 720x540 image.  Click here for the full 720x540 image.  Click here for the full 720x540 image.  Click here for the full 720x540 image. Kind of crazy that most of the aircraft (beavers, turbo beavers, and otters) and engines have been totally rebuilt because they're so old. I would kill for the chance to work there though 
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2010 06:13
|
|
|
Are we entering the age of hypersonic flight? http://www.physorg.com/news194161305.html quote:The X-51A Waverider was released from a B-52 Stratofortress off the southern California coast Wednesday morning, the Air Force reported on its website. Its scramjet engine accelerated the vehicle to Mach 6, and it flew autonomously for 200 seconds before losing acceleration. At that point the test was terminated.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2010 15:51
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Mig 15 Fagot (tee-hee-hee)  What's the divider in the nose for? Just structural bracing? Or is there another purpose it serves?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2010 19:08
|
|
|
Revolvyerom posted:Somebody learn me some airplane From what I understand, the nose splitter is primarily there to duct air around the cockpit to the engine. The way the Mig-15 is designed, the cockpit sits directly between the intake and the engine, so the splitter takes the incoming air and divides it into ducts that pass on either side of the cockpit and into the engine. During the Mig-15's operational life, the splitter also proved a handy place to mount things like landing lights and radar antenna, although those components got moved around quite a bit as production progressed.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2010 19:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 09:08 |
|
|
Watch this in HD to get full effect. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORVibQMaTs8 A flight in a B-17G from Chester County Airport in PA to Albany International in NY.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2010 20:27
|
|