Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
azflyboy
Nov 9, 2005

KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:

Man the Peacemaker is loving ugly, no wonder the B-47 kicked its rear end.


Thanks to the huge wing area of the B-36, it was actually more maneuverable at high altitudes (lightened aircraft commonly cruised at 50,000ft) than most of the fighters of the 1950's, which annoyed the Air Force and Navy to no end, since their fighters either couldn't reach those altitudes at all, or if they could, they were essentially ballistic projectiles and found themselves outmaneuvered by a 400,000lb bomber.

There was also a great story in Air & Space a few years back about B-36 crews messing with fighter pilots.

As part of exercises, interceptors were often scrambled to intercept "enemy" B-36's, and the fighter pilots greatly enjoyed harassing the slow moving bombers.

During one such exercise, an F-89 pilot tried to form up with a B-36 to show off, only to find himself whizzing past the larger aircraft. Undeterred, the fighter pilot set himself up for another attempt, with the same results as before.

Somewhat annoyed by this point, the F-89 pilot extended flaps and speed brakes in an attempt to pace the B-36, which ended with the fighter stalling and losing several thousand feet in the recovery, at which point the pilot gave up and went home.

Some time later, the F-89 pilot was told by a former Peacemaker crewman that the B-36 was capable of controlled flight at around 100MPH when lightly loaded at lower altitudes, which was far slower than the jet powered F-89 was capable of flying.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Godholio
Aug 28, 2002

Does a bear split in the woods near Zheleznogorsk?

jandrese posted:



Someone may have mentioned this earlier in the thread, but I still like it.

Please tell me you have a high-res of this. Even if you don't it's going to be my desktop at work.

jandrese
Apr 3, 2007

by Tiny Fistpump
Sorry, I just made that off of the picture on Wikipedia. I'm sure there are some higher rez photos available if you go looking.

Nebakenezzer
Sep 13, 2005

The Mote in God's Eye

KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:

Man the Peacemaker is loving ugly, no wonder the B-47 kicked its rear end.

Sometimes, I look at the B-36 and think it was an enormous waste, in a military sense. The work on the B-52 started in 1945, and surely the Korean war proved that prop planes could no longer be on the frontline. Yet, even knowing that it was doomed to be obsolete shortly, they spent a king's ransom building and maintaining a fleet of them.

It's an awesome machine, though, don't get me wrong :I

ApathyGifted
Aug 30, 2004
Tomorrow?

Nebakenezzer posted:

Sometimes, I look at the B-36 and think it was an enormous waste, in a military sense. The work on the B-52 started in 1945, and surely the Korean war proved that prop planes could no longer be on the frontline. Yet, even knowing that it was doomed to be obsolete shortly, they spent a king's ransom building and maintaining a fleet of them.

It's an awesome machine, though, don't get me wrong :I

Well, we could have had the B-60 instead of the B-52. The YB-60 was a derivative of the Peacemaker which basically had the same wing design as the B-52: high, swept, and with 8 jet engines underneath. It shared about 70% of it's fuselage with the B-36 to save money.

However from the outset the B-60 was just a backup to the B-52 in case Boeing failed to come through.

Ola
Jul 19, 2004

Atlantis' last ride into space. Be a patriot and click for big.

Manny
Jun 15, 2001

Like fruitcake!

Ola posted:

Atlantis' last ride into space. Be a patriot and click for big.



Not even American but goddamn :patriot:

Tindjin
Aug 4, 2006

Do not seek death.
Death will find you.
But seek the road
which makes death a fulfillment.
I suck at photoshop but I actually like this one better. Just made it my phone's wallpaper (in muuuch smaller form).


Click here for the full 1313x1599 image.

Tindjin fucked around with this message at 03:02 on Jun 12, 2010

Fayez Butts
Aug 24, 2006

might as well go all the way, this is so much better.

Fayez Butts fucked around with this message at 05:06 on Jun 12, 2010

Captain Postal
Sep 16, 2007

Ola posted:

Atlantis' last ride into space. Be a patriot and click for big.



First thought: awesome overload!
Second thought: Wow. They must be really loving paranoid to think someone is going to hijack the shuttle. Are the republicans back in power?

Full Collapse
Dec 4, 2002

Captain Postal posted:

First thought: awesome overload!
Second thought: Wow. They must be really loving paranoid to think someone is going to hijack the shuttle. Are the republicans back in power?



They've been flying CAP over shuttle launches for a long time. More to keep other aircraft from being damaged by the blast, ramming into the shuttle pre-launch, or magically getting hit by the shuttle as it ascends into orbit.

Manny
Jun 15, 2001

Like fruitcake!
I bet those pilots have one of the best seats in the house.

Frosty-
Jan 17, 2004

In war, you kill people in order to change their minds. Remember that; it's fuckin' important.

Captain Postal posted:

They must be really loving paranoid to think someone is going to hijack the shuttle. Are the republicans back in power?
Those crazy Republicans and their paranoid photo ops involving airplanes. What'll they do next?

Godholio
Aug 28, 2002

Does a bear split in the woods near Zheleznogorsk?

Manny posted:

I bet those pilots have one of the best seats in the house.

Obviously, since that's the photographer's wingman. Also F-15E means TWO of the best seats in the house! :black101:

Phy
Jun 27, 2008



Fun Shoe

Minto Took posted:

They've been flying CAP over shuttle launches for a long time. More to keep other aircraft from being damaged by the blast, ramming into the shuttle pre-launch, or magically getting hit by the shuttle as it ascends into orbit.

Plus they can shoot it down if sleeper agents have infiltrated NASA and are planning to fly the shuttle into the Florida State Capitol Building

One twitch off the prescribed flight plan and they're spamming amraams

spamraams

cakesmith handyman
Jul 22, 2007

Pip-Pip old chap! Last one in is a rotten egg what what.

I just read through the whole of this awesome thread.

Anyway, there was only a single mention, in passing, of my sorta favourite aircraft, the Fairey Rotodyne, a giant gently caress-off compound Gyrocopter.





Literally all the info I have is from Wikipedia, so if anyone can shed a little more light on this lump I'd be very grateful.

I said sorta favourite, because the Supermarine Spitfire exists. I know the Hurricane did far more and the Spit was basically a racing aircraft with guns nailed to it, but goddamn. Also, I have the misfortune of living in Stoke-on-Trent, birthplace of Reginald Mitchell. Museum here has a mk16 in a perpetual state of never-being-restored. Saddest poo poo here. If I win the lottery I'm paying them enough to finish the restoration, then getting someone to build me a Rotodyne.

CommieGIR
Aug 22, 2006

The blue glow is a feature, not a bug


Pillbug

Cakefool posted:

I just read through the whole of this awesome thread.

Anyway, there was only a single mention, in passing, of my sorta favourite aircraft, the Fairey Rotodyne, a giant gently caress-off compound Gyrocopter.





Literally all the info I have is from Wikipedia, so if anyone can shed a little more light on this lump I'd be very grateful.

I said sorta favourite, because the Supermarine Spitfire exists. I know the Hurricane did far more and the Spit was basically a racing aircraft with guns nailed to it, but goddamn. Also, I have the misfortune of living in Stoke-on-Trent, birthplace of Reginald Mitchell. Museum here has a mk16 in a perpetual state of never-being-restored. Saddest poo poo here. If I win the lottery I'm paying them enough to finish the restoration, then getting someone to build me a Rotodyne.

We need more of these

cakesmith handyman
Jul 22, 2007

Pip-Pip old chap! Last one in is a rotten egg what what.

CommieGIR posted:

We need more of these

People who hate Stoke, or 15 ton Autogyros?

InitialDave
Jun 14, 2007

I Want To Believe.

Cakefool posted:

People who hate Stoke, or 15 ton Autogyros?
Yes.

CommieGIR
Aug 22, 2006

The blue glow is a feature, not a bug


Pillbug
Nazis were douches, but cool douches


Click here for the full 940x651 image.


The Horton Ho 229B


Click here for the full 1280x853 image.


Arado 234B


Click here for the full 1800x1202 image.


Messerchmitt Me 262

This plane deserves a special mention even though its not a jet, due to the fact that it was the inspiration for the A-10 (Hans Ulrich Rudel was called in to advise on the design for the A-10, he being a Stuka ace had on record destroyed 800 Vehicles, 519 Tanks, 150 Artillery Guns, A destroyer, Two Cruisers, One Soviet Battleship, 70 landing craft, 4 armored trains, several bridges and nine aircraft.)He ran for 6km from chasing Russians after his plane landed in an attempt to pick up another Stuka crew that had crashed, swam 600m across the icy Dniester river, got captured, escaped, and made it back to Germany. He continued to fly even after his leg was amputated below the knee,


Click here for the full 577x800 image.


Junkers Ju-87 Stuka

When going into its dive, it could submit the pilot to 6-8.5g's which the pilot could only sustain for 3 seconds

CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 18:43 on Jun 13, 2010

slidebite
Nov 6, 2005

Good egg
:colbert:

Anyone know what that is next to the engine? It looks like a packed chute in front of it for whatever it is.

Boomerjinks
Jan 31, 2007

DINO DAMAGE

slidebite posted:

Anyone know what that is next to the engine? It looks like a packed chute in front of it for whatever it is.

Wiki says it is an original RATO pack, possibly the last example of it's type.

KYOON GRIFFEY JR
Apr 12, 2010



Runner-up, TRP Sack Race 2021/22

CommieGIR posted:

When going into its dive, it could submit the pilot to 6-8.5g's which the pilot could only sustain for 3 seconds

The Stuka had a very clever auto-pull out feature that would prevent the plane from crashing if the pilot blacked out due to g forces in the dive.

Octoduck
Feb 8, 2006

Rudy had heart,
but he still sucked.

CommieGIR posted:

When going into its dive, it could submit the pilot to 6-8.5g's which the pilot could only sustain for 3 seconds

Why only 3 seconds?

jandrese
Apr 3, 2007

by Tiny Fistpump

Octoduck posted:

Why only 3 seconds?

Because G-Suits had not yet been invented. The blood rushes out of your head, the brain starves for Oxygen, and out you go.

Sterndotstern
Nov 16, 2002

by Y Kant Ozma Post

Octoduck posted:

Why only 3 seconds?

No g-suits and vertical g. Ever felt 8g? Your eyes go all woggly at like 3g.

Octoduck
Feb 8, 2006

Rudy had heart,
but he still sucked.
G suits provide maybe 1g of protection. I was thinking they hadn't really thought of anti-g straining medically yet.

joat mon
Oct 15, 2009

I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

slidebite posted:

Anyone know what that is next to the engine? It looks like a packed chute in front of it for whatever it is.

It's a RATO unit:

oxbrain
Aug 18, 2005

Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip and come on up to the mothership.

Octoduck posted:

G suits provide maybe 1g of protection. I was thinking they hadn't really thought of anti-g straining medically yet.

Mostly it was the seats. Tunnel vision and greying out are caused by the eyes being in front of the heart and losing blood flow before the rest of the head. A 10 degree seat back puts your eyes roughly straight over your heart. Older planes had nearly upright seating for the pilot, and didn't always even have a backrest for the navigator/bombardier. Here's an example of the Ju-87 cockpit.


Click here for the full 699x825 image.


Modern fighters recline the seat 20-30 degrees. At 30 degrees the pilots have neck problems otherwise they'd recline further. Laying flat on their back, people have taken 17g for several minutes without blackout.

Octoduck
Feb 8, 2006

Rudy had heart,
but he still sucked.
Yah that will definitely have an effect. The reason I asked is because I went for a spin in the centrifuge at NAS Lemoore and the flight doc told us that you should be able to take a high amount of G's (20+) for 3-5 seconds without any straining.

Anyway, back to cool pictures of jets.

Previa_fun
Nov 10, 2004

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqc_hoZ9E1w
G-suits are for pussies. :v:

natsea
May 31, 2005
Any comments on the fact that the media is claiming Russia's new "5th generation" jet is better than the F-22?

Also, more SR-71 discussion please. I have been in love with the plane ever since reading the gizmodo article.

Slo-Tek
Jun 8, 2001

WINDOWS 98 BEAT HIS FRIEND WITH A SHOVEL

natsea posted:

Any comments on the fact that the media is claiming Russia's new "5th generation" jet is better than the F-22?

Also, more SR-71 discussion please. I have been in love with the plane ever since reading the gizmodo article.

If it delivers on-weight, and on price, then the t50 will have better range, and more thrust vectoring, and be cheaper. Of course, it won't be delivered on weight or on price, though it pretty much has to be cheaper.

It probably won't have anything like the avionics that the F-22 has now, nevermind what they'll be cramming in it 15 years down the way when/if they start building the t50 in volume.

Russians generally build capable airframes, and powerful engines.

So, yeah, by the metrics they choose to emphasize, for an aircraft that doesn't really exist yet (prototypes don't really count, there is a ton of engineering between first flight and an actual production aircraft), and only 14 years later than the F-22, then sure, it might very reasonably be better.

Of course, no matter how good the F-22 is or isn't, there are only 120 of them, so being second best with the numbers to be everywhere f-22's aren't is way better than being 'best'.

Slo-Tek fucked around with this message at 05:58 on Jun 19, 2010

grover
Jan 23, 2002

PEW PEW PEW
:circlefap::circlefap::circlefap:
:circlefap::circlefap::circlefap:
:circlefap::circlefap::circlefap:
:circlefap::circlefap::circlefap:
:circlefap::circlefap::circlefap:
:circlefap::circlefap::circlefap:
The Smithsonian Udvar-Hazy center at Dulles loving KICKS rear end, btw. Sitting right next to the Ar-234 is a Do 335A-1 Pfeil, Horton Ho III f (glider), He 219A and FW-190:


Closeup of the Do 335A-1 Pfeil:


Under the same roof:

Bell XV-15 (Concord in the background):


Northrop P-61 Black Widow, Enola Gay, Northrop N-1M and tail of a Nakajima JINI-S Gekko:


Closeup of that Northrop N-1M:


X-35B (Prototype for F-35B):

grover fucked around with this message at 15:11 on Jun 19, 2010

Cocoa Crispies
Jul 20, 2001

Vehicular Manslaughter!

Pillbug

grover posted:

The Smithsonian Udvar-Hazy center at Dulles loving KICKS rear end, btw.

God yes it does. Only time I was there I sperged hard and took like 200 pictures (139 good ones).

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bonzoesc/sets/72157603795819604/

That Works
Jul 22, 2006

Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy


slidebite posted:

Anyone know what that is next to the engine? It looks like a packed chute in front of it for whatever it is.

It's a RATO pack like others have said. Also it is a packed chute on the front. After RATO they jettisoned the pod and it floated down on the chute for re-use.

Nebakenezzer
Sep 13, 2005

The Mote in God's Eye

Slo-Tek posted:

Of course, no matter how good the F-22 is or isn't, there are only 120 of them, so being second best with the numbers to be everywhere f-22's aren't is way better than being 'best'.

There's something to be said for affordable unit cost.

Speaking of which, a bipartisan committee released a report a few weeks ago, on cutting the military budget. It bears mentioning in this thread as two of their suggestions are 1)ending the Osprey program, 2) ending/limiting the buys from the F-35 program, and building advanced versions of existing fighter types instead :v:

Godholio
Aug 28, 2002

Does a bear split in the woods near Zheleznogorsk?
Jesus. A new F-15 costs $100 million nowadays, yeah let's buy those since they're so affordable (vs the 130-180M per F-22).

ApathyGifted
Aug 30, 2004
Tomorrow?

Godholio posted:

A new F-15 costs $100 million nowadays

Is this a matter of inflation or new technologies getting thrown in?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

grover
Jan 23, 2002

PEW PEW PEW
:circlefap::circlefap::circlefap:
:circlefap::circlefap::circlefap:
:circlefap::circlefap::circlefap:
:circlefap::circlefap::circlefap:
:circlefap::circlefap::circlefap:
:circlefap::circlefap::circlefap:

ApathyGifted posted:

Is this a matter of inflation or new technologies getting thrown in?
A little of both. F-15E Strike Eagles are still in production, so we know what they cost- pretty much what a Eurofighter, F-35, F-22 or any other capable modern fighter costs. Modern fighter aircraft are simply extremely expensive. Stealth is a lot of the cost difference between the F-15 and F-22; the precision and techniques necessary to reduce the RCS are much more expensive than simple sheet metal and rivets. But the survivability stealth brings gives an exponential return on investment vs old technology. The F-15SE Silent Eagle is more expensive than a normal F-15, and really isn't very stealthy at all. Vectored thrust and the new RADAR add costs, too.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/articles/communiques/FighterCostFinalJuly06.pdf

quote:

Rafale M $68.9M
JAS-39C Gripen $68.9M
F-18E Super Hornet $78.4M
F-15E Strike Eagle $108.2M
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter $115.0M
Eurofighter Typhoon (UK) $118.6M
F-22A Raptor $177.6M


Not to get all D&D on the Sustainable Defense Task Force report, but it was "bipartisan" as it was sponsored by Ron Paul and Barney Frank, both of whom want to make HUGE defense spending cuts, cuts most of the rest of congress are rational enough to know are asinine. So it's no wonder they're recommending deep cuts. I have to wonder why they want to cancel the F-35 and replace it with less capable aircraft that cost more money? Unless they want to go back and buy P-51 Mustangs at about $1M a pop. Cheap! Rather worthless as fighters on the modern battlefield, but we can afford a whole slew of them!

grover fucked around with this message at 03:10 on Jun 20, 2010

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply