|
slidebite posted: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. Are Tomcats really big? That photo makes it look huge.
|
#
?
May 28, 2010 00:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 01:47 |
|
|
Holy poo poo, they're 62 feet long according to Wikipedia. Six building stories when stood on end.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2010 00:22
|
|
|
Revolvyerom posted:Holy poo poo, they're 62 feet long according to Wikipedia. Six building stories when stood on end. A bit of Wiki-ing has the F/A-18 at 56ft, Super Hornet at 60, and the F-15 is 63! I've never seen a fighter jet up close, but I had no idea they were 20 loving metres long. I think the Tomcats just look longer since they're thin, which makes them seem stretched out in pics.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2010 00:39
|
|
|
Tomcats are amazingly gigantic. You don't really get a sense of the size of a modern fighter until you see one parked near a B-17 (the Tomcat is exceptionally big).
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2010 00:40
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Russian Prop Plane of some sort Looks like a Texan to me. Nice looking CF-18, too. (The CF-18 of course being the Canadian version of the F-18. I think that means it has the Marines airframe, but the landing gear, arrestor hook, and folding wings of the carrier version. The Canadians kept those bits because they figured they were all useful details for primitive airfields.)
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2010 01:34
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Looks like a Texan to me. Nice looking CF-18, too. (The CF-18 of course being the Canadian version of the F-18. I think that means it has the Marines airframe, but the landing gear, arrestor hook, and folding wings of the carrier version. The Canadians kept those bits because they figured they were all useful details for primitive airfields.) Yes I didn't know what it was, my wife took the pictures
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2010 01:38
|
|
|
Revolvyerom posted:Holy poo poo, [F-14s] are 62 feet long according to Wikipedia. Six building stories when stood on end. The B-17B was only six feet longer.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2010 01:42
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Looks like a Texan to me. Nice looking CF-18, too. (The CF-18 of course being the Canadian version of the F-18. I think that means it has the Marines airframe, but the landing gear, arrestor hook, and folding wings of the carrier version. The Canadians kept those bits because they figured they were all useful details for primitive airfields.) Apart from the lettering on the side, there are no meaningful differences between a USMC F/A-18 and a Navy F/A-18, especially when comparing the old A/B models. There are some differences between their C/D models, but that's entirely down to the avionics. As for the CF-18, the only differences from its F/A-18A/B contemporaries are the identification light on the port side of the forward fuselage and ILS that can be used with civilian ILS approaches (something the Navy didn't originally opt for). Of interest, the Canadian Forces almost bought F-14s from Iran instead of the CF-18 for the NFA procurement program; once the Iranians discovered our role in rescuing a good number of hostages from the American embassy, that deal fell through.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2010 02:48
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Tomcats are amazingly gigantic. The F-22 is a lot bigger than it looks too -- I always thought it was fairly small for a jet until just now. It's as big as the Eagle. Fun fact: the A-10 and P-51 have about the same top speed.  And as you can see in this video, the WWII fighters were similarly bigger than their Great War ancestors. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6PnKUEFX8g Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 03:02 on May 28, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2010 02:57
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
slidebite posted: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. awesome I was there last week too while hitting up boeing and kenmore.  I can't help but think LBJ had to have taken a dump here at one point or another:  Click here for the full 540x720 image.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2010 03:06
|
|
|
Butt Reactor posted:awesome I was there last week too while hitting up boeing and kenmore. The prez's shitter was nearer in his room, and it's HUGE for an aircraft. My first apartment had a smaller bathroom than that one. Sadly, the photo I took didn't turn out. 
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2010 03:12
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Tomcats are amazingly gigantic. Reposting for size comparison because F-15s, F-14s, and F-22s are big:  The F-5 is small and awesome* We've been seeing the usual steady stream of NASA F-5 flights along with a bunch of F-22 flights lately, and the F-22s are monsters compared to the F-5s. *I know they're not that capable next to modern aircraft, but I love them anyway. I got a real kick out of their mad suicide runs trying to use dumb bombs on us in our last joint exercise. It didn't work well for them.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2010 04:21
|
|
|
Are you sure they're NASA's F-5s and not Air Force or Navy T-38s? Both services use T-38s as aggressors. The Navy uses them more, but the AF routinely puts F-22s against T-38s. Small RCS, high maneuverability, and good acceleration offer a different set of challenges from fighting F-15s and even F-16s, even if the Talon doesn't have a radar.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2010 05:04
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Apart from the lettering on the side, there are no meaningful differences between a USMC F/A-18 and a Navy F/A-18, especially when comparing the old A/B models. There are some differences between their C/D models, but that's entirely down to the avionics. As for the CF-18, the only differences from its F/A-18A/B contemporaries are the identification light on the port side of the forward fuselage and ILS that can be used with civilian ILS approaches (something the Navy didn't originally opt for). A wikipedia article I read once mentioned something about "navy (f-18s) have extra strengthening for carrier landings."  Oh well. Good to know. Today I checked out the North Korean air force on Wikipedia. They have bombers (Il-28s) and lots of Russian jet fighters from the 1960s! But no fuel to fly them. Also most pilots get almost no actual flying time in an average year. Good thing they spent all that money on the Raptor 
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2010 05:04
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Are you sure they're NASA's F-5s and not Air Force or Navy T-38s? Both services use T-38s as aggressors. The Navy uses them more, but the AF routinely puts F-22s against T-38s. Small RCS, high maneuverability, and good acceleration offer a different set of challenges from fighting F-15s and even F-16s, even if the Talon doesn't have a radar. To clarify, the ones we "fought" in the joint exercise were Marine trainers IIRC, maybe Air Force? The ones I see in El Paso are definitely NASA painted shock white. We have a bunch of NASA planes here, including a super guppy. edit: this article makes some offhanded mention of the NASA T-38s in El Paso http://www.nasa.gov/centers/wstf/news/shuttle.html I also use T-38 and F-5 interchangeably which is technically wrong, but whatever. mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 05:19 on May 28, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2010 05:11
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Looks like a Texan to me. Yak 52. e: Rooshia trainer, certified for aeros, can be bought for relative pennies. Little or no dihedral. Remember reading an article on them by a guy selling them about the extensive training in the 6 or 7 stall/spin modes you are likely to encounter which they give in an effort to slightly extend the average purchaser's lifespan. ee: "52TW" to be precise... Saga fucked around with this message at 10:41 on May 28, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2010 10:34
|
|
|
Saga posted:Remember reading an article on them by a guy selling them about the extensive training in the 6 or 7 stall/spin modes you are likely to encounter which they give in an effort to slightly extend the average purchaser's lifespan. I got a little stick time on one of these during the 2008 BVI Air Show. 3200 lbs, a 400 HP radial and no hydraulics. I had major respect for the aerobatic routine the pilot performed with this beast... those controls were heavy. BTW - this was a great show. My two mates and I were invited (and paid!) to perform four aerobatic demo routines with our big r/c planes - two on Friday, two on Saturday, about 45 minutes total. The Friday show went off without a hitch. On Saturday the FBOs that held the contract to supply the airshow teams only working fuel truck broke down (!) so we r/c guys ended up providing most of the entertainment for the crowd that morning until all the full-scale planes returned from refueling in St. Thomas. We were flying off the main (active!) airport runway. We had a port authority rep assigned to us who was on the radio to the tower... They'd notify him of incoming traffic, he'd honk his horn and we'd land and refuel, then blast off once we got the all-clear. IIRC we burned seven gallons of gas and five gallons of smoke oil among our group - all in one morning. Glorious. Ninja edit : the airshow's site is still valid! http://www.bviairshow.com/ BTW - the BVI port authority decided to not make this an annual affair. Apparently the person in charge of the money for this event up and disappeared, taking all the proceeds with him
buttcrackmenace fucked around with this message at 20:05 on May 28, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2010 19:58
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Which day were you there? I was there pretty much all Thursday afternoon until closing. haha, no poo poo. My group wandered in about an hour before close, you probably saw us as a bunch of noisy college kids either outside in the air park or main hall  I'm definitely going back though, an hour is way too short to explore that place and I didn't even make it in to the Red Barn
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2010 01:23
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:A wikipedia article I read once mentioned something about "navy (f-18s) have extra strengthening for carrier landings." I've heard that as well, but it's not cheaper to sell the F-18 without carrier gear when you have to change the production line and fit weaker gear on export versions. I submit the Finnish F-18:  It even has the arm on the nose gear that connects to the steam catapult shuttle and I'm pretty sure Finland doesn't have any aircraft carriers.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2010 11:09
|
|
|
Ola posted:I've heard that as well, but it's not cheaper to sell the F-18 without carrier gear when you have to change the production line and fit weaker gear on export versions. I submit the Finnish F-18: I doubt it's a specific design feature, but it is kinda handy to tell your allies "Hey if the poo poo hits the fan, we can catch your planes on our carriers and you can continue fighting with us if your nation falls." Cold War thinking 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2010 11:35
|
|
|
Butt Reactor posted:haha, no poo poo. My group wandered in about an hour before close, you probably saw us as a bunch of noisy college kids either outside in the air park or main hall I think I even briefly spoke to one/two in the giftshop, commenting on the price of the small 1/144 models and how they weren't giving them away by any means @ $50. I had to literally blow through red barn. Pitty, because you could easily spend 3 hours in there alone.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2010 00:34
|
|
|
Ladies and gents, I give you the Credible Sport: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSFjhWw4DNo It's like Fat Albert on years of steroids.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2010 01:42
|
|
|
angryhampster posted:Ladies and gents, I give you the Credible Sport: Can't get that video to load, but 1:06 here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7hOSPeVfu8 . That's absurd, it's off the ground in 20 feet!
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2010 01:56
|
|
|
You don't need rockets to do that.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfeMLQNe57E
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2010 18:02
|
|
|
oxbrain posted:You don't need rockets to do that. That's astonishing. I love the extra large tires. Back to waterbombers for a moment. They were using these things in the waterbomber role well into the '90s. I like the paint job.  Of course, they were eventually replaced. 
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2010 21:02
|
|
|
In a similar line, I have the biggest hardon for the OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). These wonderful yellow birds are busy year round be it putting out fires, or checking ice in the winter.      Disclaimer: Some (read most) of the aircraft pictured are no longer in service, but they rock so hard they need to be pictured
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2010 22:12
|
|
|
DiscoDickTease posted:Disclaimer: Some (read most) of the aircraft pictured are no longer in service, but they rock so hard they need to be pictured Are they still using those S-2 Trackers?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2010 22:44
|
|
|
I wish! That would be rad... but to my knowledge they don't edit: Does anyone know when the Canadian reg switched from CF to C? There is something nice about seeing a CF-OOO reg... DiscoDickTease fucked around with this message at 05:58 on May 31, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2010 05:38
|
|
|
DiscoDickTease posted:I wish! That would be rad... but to my knowledge they don't January 1, 1974. Any aircraft registered before that date can still legally use a CF- registration.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2010 07:12
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
I've never heard that, but I doubt it. Wings are expensive, and a 9G limit is for the airframe, not for weapons. Most weapons can be damaged by that kind of force, so a 9G limit is usually only in a "clean" configuration. I don't see why Switzerland would spend that kind of money for a capability that can't be used except in airshows.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2010 14:50
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I've never heard that, but I doubt it. Wings are expensive, and a 9G limit is for the airframe, not for weapons. Most weapons can be damaged by that kind of force, so a 9G limit is usually only in a "clean" configuration. I don't see why Switzerland would spend that kind of money for a capability that can't be used except in airshows.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2010 15:00
|
|
|
AirSpray out of Alberta had a beautiful fleet of A26 Invaders that it flew right up until recently. Sadly, they've all been mothballed but a few have been sold to Air Museums as they are all WW2 or Korea action aircraft. I'll always remember hearing engines of these overhead when fighting a fire just outside of my home town about 10 years ago.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2010 15:44
|
|
|
Something new in the air - fan wing aeroplanes. The concept is surprisingly simple, you get lift by having air move over the wing surface. This is normally done by having an engine move the entire plane and can be assisted by having the engine blow air straight over the airfoil. Basic stuff, right. Now, imagine if your wing was capable of generating its own air movement. Not, I'm not talking about ornithopters flapping about like in Dune. I'm talking about something a little more practical.  The vertical cylindrical fan sends a steady flow of air over the rest of the wing as it rotates. This allows not only for incredibly steep angles of attack, but by tilting the wing, can even allow the craft to hover (and even fly backwards). It's only in the prototype stage right now, as far as I know, but a scale version is up and running. Check the links below for video and more pics. Flight Blog link here Gizmodo link here
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2010 16:37
|
|
|
After reading The Right Stuff earlier this year I feel that sometimes we forget about the totally rockin' dudes who flew the amazing planes we have such a hard on for (not saying I don't) How about :  Scott Crossfield Guy did some pretty amazing things and would possibly have been one of the first men in space if the whole rocket plane thing had gone ahead instead of Mercury (feel free to correct me)
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2010 16:50
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:Something new in the air - fan wing aeroplanes. drat, that's pretty amazing. Seeing this kinda stuff makes me miss getting popular science/mechanic, they were always full of those kind of ideas.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2010 17:01
|
|
|
Strabo4 posted:drat, that's pretty amazing. Seeing this kinda stuff makes me miss getting popular science/mechanic, they were always full of those kind of ideas. watch out for fod! it also looks like an upside-down lawnmower
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2010 18:51
|
|
|
My first thought is: what's the fuel consumption on a contraption like that? It looks cool, but the practicality is a big question mark for me.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2010 19:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 01:47 |
|
|
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
|
|