|
c355n4 posted:http://www.nms.ac.uk/our_museums/museum_of_flight/games__fun/360_degree_cockpit_views.aspx That's just awesome. I still can't get over how amazing Concorde was. I was looking round the cockpit thinking, "complicated, but fairly typical for cockpits of the time I guess", then spotted the four big yellow buttons with the words "REHEAT" printed on them. Aw yeah.
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2010 08:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 10:52 |
|
|
is there anything more NAZI SUPER SIENCE than the ME 323   are helicopters allowed to play in this thread? anyone can identify this its just labeld as nom nom1.jpg 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2010 19:55
|
|
|
Trench_Rat posted:is there anything more NAZI SUPER SIENCE than the ME 323   are helicopters allowed to play in this thread? anyone can identify this its just labeld as nom nom1.jpg CH-37 Mojave 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2010 20:57
|
|
|
Trench_Rat posted:is there anything more NAZI SUPER SIENCE than the ME 323 There are a few other crazy Nazi designs out there... The He-111Z was created as a tow aircraft for the ME-323, and was built by just taking two He-111 bombers, attaching them at the wing, and adding a fifth engine at the middle of the new wing.   Click here for the full 1024x904 image. A total of 12 were built in 1942, and by the end of the war (after an unremarkable career), eight had been shot down or bombed on the ground, and the remaining four examples are presumed to have been destroyed. In 1939, the Luftwaffe began work on the Me-163, which remains the only rocket powered fighter to ever enter service.  Click here for the full 800x414 image.  Entering combat service in 1944, the Me-163 would take off from a jettisonable wheeled dolly, climb at a 45 degree angle to around 35,000ft, and then make one or two high speed (around 500MPH) passes on Allied bombers before having to glide back to base after running out of ammo and fuel. The Komet was powered by a rocket engine that ran on a mixture of methanol and hydrazine hydrate (which burn when mixed), which gave the Me-163 an alarming tendency to explode after a hard landing or even when sitting on the ground, since the metal fuel lines tended to develop leaks. Although the Me-163 was far faster than any Allied fighter and was almost impossible for defensive gunners to hit, it's short flight time and the difficulty in hitting a target at high speeds meant that the Komet only managed to shoot down about 16 Allied bombers during 1944-1945.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2010 22:17
|
|
|
The greatest thing about the Nazi super weapons is that despite being so awesome in concept they were so overly complicated, impractical and failure prone that their existence didn't help their war effort. I really wish they'd built a few P. 1000 Ratte's, they would have made great museum pieces.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2010 23:35
|
|
|
EvilJoven posted:The greatest thing about the Nazi super weapons is that despite being so awesome in concept they were so overly complicated, impractical and failure prone that their existence didn't help their war effort. I really wish they'd built a few P. 1000 Ratte's, they would have made great museum pieces. They didn't help the war effort because they were TOO LATE. If they had been present any earlier in the war...it could have been a turning point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2010 00:09
|
|
|
All this talk of German aircraft reminded me of one that I can't remember the name of. It was also from WW2, and was special because the undercarriage took up essentially the entire underside of the aircraft. Literally dozens of wheels, small ones. It was made for taking off and landing in rough conditions - really rough. It was allegedly able to roll right over ditches up to 6 feet wide with no issues.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2010 01:28
|
|
|
ApathyGifted posted:All this talk of German aircraft reminded me of one that I can't remember the name of. It was also from WW2, and was special because the undercarriage took up essentially the entire underside of the aircraft. Literally dozens of wheels, small ones. It was made for taking off and landing in rough conditions - really rough. It was allegedly able to roll right over ditches up to 6 feet wide with no issues. Arado Ar 232  Why do i know this???
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2010 03:01
|
|
|
Flux Wildly posted:That's awesome, thanks for posting it. The rear crew area of the Vulcan really puts into perspective how tight it was - getting out of there in a hurry without ejector seats must have been scary poo poo. Back in school our avionics instructor used to be in the RAF as a Vulcan mechanic. The entire course consisted of listening to him tell RAF stories, learning about the whorehouses of the world and new swears. Then before each test he would basically give us the answers then talk about the RAF some more. I think the curriculum was different if there was a girl in the class. Apparently in the "V-Force", Vulcan crews thought the Valiant and Victor crews were fairies and vice versa. I actually like the Victor the most but never said it to his face until after i passed the course. British engineering of the time comprised of all kinds of weird poo poo like pressurized engine bays in the Vulcan... smooth jazz fucked around with this message at 08:38 on Oct 8, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2010 03:10
|
|
|
tripsevens posted:Arado Ar 232 I don't know, but you're awesome. If it weren't for the fact that I knew about this plane in the first place I'd say that I've never even heard of Arado. I kept searching for Dorniers and Heinkel. (Heinkel is funny if you keep saying it repeatedly.) Also, maybe you had those "Aircraft of the World" cards when you were a kid. That's how I know about it. Edit: Holy poo poo, turns out all those little wheels are in one line, like some insane tandem stretch tandem bicycle. ApathyGifted fucked around with this message at 04:35 on Oct 8, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2010 04:28
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:They didn't help the war effort because they were TOO LATE. If they had been present any earlier in the war...it could have been a turning point. With most of the German superweapons, putting them into service a couple of years earlier would have done nothing more than possibly prolong the war by a year or two, since the major mistakes Hitler made (failing to close the Atlantic, shifting the bombing of England away from factories and airfields, and invading the USSR) were strategic decisions that technology couldn't have overcome. The invasion of the USSR was pretty much doomed from the start by Russian winters and Stalin having no qualms about massive casualties in battles. Aside from those factors, Hitler's refusal to allow Nazi troops to retreat from hopeless situations combined with his constant replacement of experienced officers with "yes men" made a bad situation progressively worse, which is something giant guns and rocket powered fighters couldn't change.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2010 04:29
|
|
|
joat mon posted:CH-37 Mojave   Among the many innovations was the rear-facing bubble, which allowed the crane operator an unparalleled view of what he was doing. And modular pods which would strap into the belly, which allowed it to operate as a troop transport or conventional cargo helicopter as well as a sky crane.  I was fortunate enough to see one flying as a kid, and even to sit in the cockpit. It's a massive and extremely impressive machine! As impressive as the Skycrane was, I find it even more impressive that so many modern helicopters can match or exceed this, but get nary an "oh, by the way". For instance, the MV-22 can match its 20,000lb payload capacity, albeit internally vice underslung. (MV-22 only has 15,000lbs underslung payload capacity.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2010 16:57
|
|
|
I just think the Skycrane looks awesome because it looks like it really is the bare minimum of what needs to be there to call it a helicopter. Not even a goddamn engine cowling.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2010 18:10
|
|
|
THE RUSSIANS ARE COMMING   the chechens shot down a Mi 26 120+ russians soldiers died in the crash 
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2010 20:04
|
|
|
grover posted:
We get about half a dozen of the skycranes dotted all over the country here in australia each summer. They spend their time dropping a medium trucks weight in water on bushfires- awesome to watch 9 tonnes of water being dropped at close range by one of them. Less awesome to have 9 tonnes of water dumped ON you...
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2010 08:19
|
|
|
I saw one in person as it flew low over my girl's small BC hometown (they use them for logging up there). I got super excited and giddy like a 12 year old and she didn't think it was very interesting 
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2010 18:36
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:With most of the German superweapons, putting them into service a couple of years earlier would have done nothing more than possibly prolong the war by a year or two, since the major mistakes Hitler made (failing to close the Atlantic, shifting the bombing of England away from factories and airfields, and invading the USSR) were strategic decisions that technology couldn't have overcome. Yes, nonetheless, it would have made quite an impact. If Hitler HADN'T invaded Russia, he could have actually finished the Battle of Britian victoriously and the War may have been a little different
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2010 19:19
|
|
|
SpaceShipTwo made it's first free flight today (click for big):     I like the last shot, it is reminiscent of the classic shot of NASA's NB-52 making a low pass over Bill Dana and his HL-10: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2010 23:29
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Man, you can even tell it's Burt Rutan from the back. What sideburns  [e] and I guess the one I assumed was a woman at first is Richard Branson
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2010 00:01
|
|
|
Trench_Rat posted:THE RUSSIANS ARE COMMING God I love the Russians  .....is that wrong since I work for the USAF?Oh, not to mention the Russians do not do FOD sweep because their engines don't mind the FOD
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2010 16:47
|
|
|
They also do a full rebuild every 300 flight hours vs USAF's 10k+ hours.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 01:10
|
|
|
Godholio posted:They also do a full rebuild every 300 flight hours vs USAF's 10k+ hours. It's a different doctrine, not just different maintenance schedules. Russians have conscripts doing aircraft maintenance, so they don't do troubleshooting or repairs on the field. The engines run virtually without maintenance for (say) 300 hours, then they simply pull the engines and send them into a central site. This classic example of commernist centralization probably works best in a world where cruise missiles / stealth bombers don't exist and your central maintenance site won't get blown up on day 1 of the war.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 15:27
|
|
|
I know it's a whole different mindset, but it's hard to say their engines are better because they're more willing to eat small pebbles.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 15:56
|
|
|
Godholio posted:but it's hard to say their engines are better because they're more willing to eat small pebbles. That's exactly why the Jeep 4L is a better engine  Ola posted:It's a different doctrine, not just different maintenance schedules. Russians have conscripts doing aircraft maintenance, so they don't do troubleshooting or repairs on the field. The engines run virtually without maintenance for (say) 300 hours, then they simply pull the engines and send them into a central site. Y'know, it's weird, but this example of commernist thinking seems to me what Wal-Mart would do if it operated an air force.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2010 23:03
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I know it's a whole different mindset, but it's hard to say their engines are better because they're more willing to eat small pebbles. Yeah and I don't think the pebble statement is very true either. The Soviet have often designed their aircraft with rough runways in mind, either high mounted intakes or FOD doors. Nebakenezzer posted:Y'know, it's weird, but this example of commernist thinking seems to me what Wal-Mart would do if it operated an air force. Chinese stealth invasion. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2010 23:42
|
|
|
BLUE DAWN
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2010 15:44
|
|
|
Definition of SEXY. THe F-104 leading edge is so sharp they put a foam cover on it so pilots and crew dont cut themselves on it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2010 17:22
|
|
|
It makes a special sound at certain throttle settings, a howl that dubbed it "the West Fjord Bull" amongst the people living around Bodø airbase in northern Norway. You can hear it at 0:54 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozIRwMhRVRY
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2010 18:21
|
|
|
Ola posted:It makes a special sound at certain throttle settings, a howl that dubbed it "the West Fjord Bull" amongst the people living around Bodø airbase in northern Norway. F-104s make a pretty unique sound when they fly overhead as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaHuns8nr0w Both this sound and the "Moose Call" are due to how variable guide vanes inside the engine interact with the airflow. I've actually heard this sound in person before (this is going to date me a bit) - at the old Edmonton Air Show. I was maybe three or four years old at the time, but the howl and the terrified reaction of the crowd is one of the few things I remember so clearly from that time of my life.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2010 23:56
|
|
|
I feel it is only right that we follow up with the F-104s brother, the F-105 Thunder Chief Click here for the full 800x533 image. Taken at Sheppard AFB  Click here for the full 700x340 image. When the last F-105s were retired in the late 80's, on their final flight the F-15s relieving them of duty had issues keeping up at full throttle
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2010 21:21
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:When the last F-105s were retired in the late 80's, on their final flight the F-15s relieving them of duty had issues keeping up at full throttle As neato as the F-105 is, I find this hard to believe. The F-15 has more than 50,000 pounds of thrust in full afterburner and nominally weighs about 45,000 pounds, while the F-105 weighs in at 35,000 pounds and has 24,000 pounds of wet thrust. The 105 looks cleaner, sure, but I don't think that can account for it having less than half the engine power. (fun fact: the F135 engine that goes in the F-35 has been rated at up to 50,000 pounds of thrust by itself. That's as much as the F-15 from a single powerplant in a smaller, lighter airframe, and only 30% less than the F-22 makes with two nearly-as-modern engines.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2010 21:37
|
|
|
orange lime posted:As neato as the F-105 is, I find this hard to believe. The F-15 has more than 50,000 pounds of thrust in full afterburner and nominally weighs about 45,000 pounds, while the F-105 weighs in at 35,000 pounds and has 24,000 pounds of wet thrust. The 105 looks cleaner, sure, but I don't think that can account for it having less than half the engine power. According to Wikipedia: The Pratt Whittney F100 engine is only capable of 29,160 ft/lbs of thrust on afterburner. The Pratt and Whittney J75 is capable of 24,500 ft/lbs with afterburner. You are probably right, but none the less it hold the record for being able to carry the most on a single engined combat aircraft
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2010 21:59
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:According to Wikipedia:  there are two engines in the F-15
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2010 22:05
|
|
|
orange lime posted:
Oops. I thought he was talking about per engine. My bad
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2010 22:13
|
|
|
routlej1 posted:That's just awesome. I still can't get over how amazing Concorde was. Is that a fold-down cupholder over the circuit breakers on the left (in front of the jump seat behind the pilot)? No, wait, I think it's an ashtray.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2010 06:07
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
Delivery McGee posted:Is that a fold-down cupholder over the circuit breakers on the left (in front of the jump seat behind the pilot)? No, wait, I think it's an ashtray. Actually.... I can attest that our C-130Hs have cup-holders in them, one even has an old pencil sharpener installed near the Navs station. I suspect the aircrew installed them
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2010 06:56
|
|
|
I believe this is true AI. Kenyan Does six months intensive research on the internet, then makes his own light aircraft. Here's hoping this one actually makes it up and doesnt end up like the previous two kenyan attempts. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujU1DjaYfs4& Judging by the nosewheel it could be some time before the aircraft is anywhere near reaching take off speed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2010 16:02
|
|
|
Colonel K posted:I believe this is true AI. That plane looks incredibly heavy. After seeing that it took four guys to pick up the horizontal stabilizer I doubt it will ever fly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2010 01:42
|
|
|
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/10/russian-moon-mission/?pid=428 Pics of the Soviet lander. Thing looks like a boiler compared to the Grumman LEM.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2010 02:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 10:52 |
|
|
slidebite posted:http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/10/russian-moon-mission/?pid=428 It looks suspiciously like the Lander from Fallout 3 in the Science Museum  Maybe Bethesda copied it
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2010 02:41
|
|