|
Dr JonboyG posted:
Part F-8, part S-3, what's this one called?
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 00:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 14:45 |
|
|
Ola posted:Part F-8, part S-3, what's this one called? That is an A-3 Skywarrior. Designed by Douglas as an all-weather nuclear bomber for the Navy, they also sold a couple hundred to the USAF as the B-66 Destroyer. They got used for about everything over the years, tanker, electronic warfare, bomber, El-Int, etc. They were supposed to have a pretty capable ground-bombing radar suite, so both AF and Navy aircraft used to form up with them in bad weather and then when the A-3/B-66 let go, everybody else would too. Here be a B-66 with a bunch of F-105's doing that thing.  Didn't hit much, but used to scare the gently caress out of some monkeys. Slo-Tek fucked around with this message at 00:44 on Jan 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 00:37
|
|
|
Affectionately known as "The Whale," also affectionately referred to as "All Three Dead" (a play on its original Navy designation of A3D) due to the fact that the Navy aircraft did not have ejection seats as a weight saving measure, substituting them with an escape tunnel...this was justified by the fact that the Skywarrior was originally intended to be used as a high altitude nuclear strike aircraft. The AF's B-66s were equipped with ejection seats. Here's some Skywarrior pictures from Wikipedia (click through for huge):  Oops  The Navy used them initially in the bombing role in Vietnam.  A good shot just to show how loving big it is, as well to show off the black paint scheme they were in for night recon over the trail in Laos.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 01:28
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Affectionately known as "The Whale," also affectionately referred to as "All Three Dead" (a play on its original Navy designation of A3D) due to the fact that the Navy aircraft did not have ejection seats as a weight saving measure, substituting them with an escape tunnel...this was justified by the fact that the Skywarrior was originally intended to be used as a high altitude nuclear strike aircraft. The AF's B-66s were equipped with ejection seats. Wow, it has a tail turret? Also, what the heck was the Vigilante for if the Navy already had a nuclear bomber?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 01:51
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Wow, it has a tail turret? 8 very exciting years of improvement in surface to air missiles between them. The Skywarrior was an early 50's stopgap, the Vig was late 50's super-science. [edit] I goddamn love how barely-even-trying the A-5's folding wing and tail are. Slo-Tek fucked around with this message at 04:06 on Jan 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 02:05
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Wow, it has a tail turret? Yeah, remember, the requirement that the Skywarrior was developed around was being thought up in the late '40s, while the prototype flew in the 1952. At that time tail turrets were still definitely a thing (B-47 had one, so did the BUFF, hell, even the B-58 had one). As you can see in that sequence of pictures, it was removed fairly early in the service life (look at the last two pictures, both of which were taken in the mid to late '60s). As for why the Vigi was developed, same reason the USAF got the B-58 when it already had the B-47 and wanted the Valkyrie when it already had the BUFF: speed (and to a lesser extent, altitude). Incidentally, the comparison holds when you look at service life: the BUFF is still in service today and the Skywarrior was in USN service until the Gulf War while the last contractor operated bird retired earlier this year; in contrast the B-58 was out of service by 1970, the A-5 was retired by 1979, and the XB-70 never entered production. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 02:11 on Jan 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 02:09
|
|
|
Ah, makes perfect sense. Thanks. Happy new year, thread. May you still have the time to get excited about cool and awesome things. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 06:43
|
|
|
Another day in paradise from Airliners.net
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 15:27
|
|
|
So, attempted to see 3 aviation museums in 3 days, only to face a revolt from the family at the prospect of a 9th hour of aerospace engineering. Visited Air and Space, and the Udvar-Hazy annex, and we drove right past all the awesome bas-releif artwork on the freeway overpasses for the USAF museum, but was denied. Didn't take many pictures, but this one is kinda interesting. The restoration center doesn't look like they are really doing much yet, but they had a Sikorsky JRS-1 flying boat, a Curtis Helldiver, and this thing:  kikka by RReiheld, on Flickr If I am not mistaken, that is a Nakajima Kikka, a smaller, straight wing, experimental Japanese take on the ME-262 jet fighter. They are supposed to have the Horton IX flying wing on site for restoration, but I couldn't find it from the observation deck. There was also this, the Gemini with Rogallo parafoil wing. This was actually proposed, built, and tested fairly extensively, rather than a set of round parachutes, the Gemini capsule would have come down from space under it's own direction, on dry land, via a huge inflatable delta kite wing. Would have been awesome.  rogallo by RReiheld, on Flickr Like so:  rogallo2 by RReiheld, on Flickr Slo-Tek fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Jan 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 19:13
|
|
|
The most amazing R/C demo flight I've ever seen. Even though it's R/C, I figured everyone here might enjoy it. http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=tzowQtqOM_I
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 20:05
|
|
|
The Locator posted:The most amazing R/C demo flight I've ever seen. Even though it's R/C, I figured everyone here might enjoy it. I think that is actually, technically, a helicopter at some points.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 20:39
|
|
|
The Locator posted:The most amazing R/C demo flight I've ever seen. Even though it's R/C, I figured everyone here might enjoy it. I don't know, but the sound of it starting really makes me miss my old YZ125.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 21:46
|
|
|
The Locator posted:The most amazing R/C demo flight I've ever seen. Even though it's R/C, I figured everyone here might enjoy it. That's really, really skilled... but is it flight? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 23:38
|
|
|
meltie posted:That's really, really skilled... but is it flight? Falling with style.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 23:56
|
|
|
So about last week I diverted into Anchorage Intl which is just down the road from Elmendorf AFB. Our runway went to poo poo due to snow dropping runway condition down to an ice rink. Anyhow, the next day a crew was summoned to go fly our jet back to base. Now when we de-ice at our home station it's a typically lengthy, infuriating process because the regulations our maintenance guys follow are written to the level of an idiot. There's no room to be anything but utterly cautious so the whole thing goes off like a wet fart. Much to my shock I was greeted with what seemed to be every single de-icing truck the airport could muster to blow off our jet. They weren't even spraying it! Three more trucks rolled to the E-3 after I snapped this. Mind was blown. Our commander was out there and told me not to get used. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 00:39
|
|
|
The Locator posted:The most amazing R/C demo flight I've ever seen. Even though it's R/C, I figured everyone here might enjoy it. Don't think I've ever posted in this thread before.. drat. That kid has skill.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 00:55
|
|
|
HeyEng posted:So about last week I diverted into Anchorage Intl which is just down the road from Elmendorf AFB. Our runway went to poo poo due to snow dropping runway condition down to an ice rink. Anyhow, the next day a crew was summoned to go fly our jet back to base. So they were actually accurately reporting RCRs this time?  Why weren't they using fluid? Didn't want to make it slippery? The guys at Ted Stevens are pretty speedy though...got to watch them work when I flew out of here weekend before last.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 01:18
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:So they were actually accurately reporting RCRs this time? They were blowing off all the loose snow first. Can't do a proper pre-flight if the jet's a snowball, you know? Yea, last month I timed the ground crews. It took them about 4 minutes to de-ice a 737. Mighty impressed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 01:23
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:and we drove right past all the awesome bas-releif artwork on the freeway overpasses for the USAF museum, but was denied. Must be nice to be a kid in Dayton where the freeway overpasses are covered in little airplanes. You missed out on probably the best museum, I feel for ya. The Udvar-Hazy complex is really really terrific for aerospace in general, but I thought that USAF museum, especially with it's experimental annex, was neater from a "look and touch" perspective. Yeah, shuttle Enterprise is cool, but getting to hug an X-15 is slightly cooler.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 01:39
|
|
|
HeyEng posted:So about last week I diverted into Anchorage Intl which is just down the road from Elmendorf AFB. Our runway went to poo poo due to snow dropping runway condition down to an ice rink. Anyhow, the next day a crew was summoned to go fly our jet back to base. Efficiency is one of those "corporate" things the Air Force neglected to copy while they were busy designing a business-suit uniform and building up a system of job-seeking-via-acquisitions/contracts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 02:43
|
|
|
HeyEng posted:They were blowing off all the loose snow first. Can't do a proper pre-flight if the jet's a snowball, you know? Ah, I see. That makes sense...I was just wondering because we had the Marines up here doing Toys for Tots and their dudes took fooooorever because they didn't want to use glycol. It helps that their equipment is slick as gently caress and is quite a bit better than the older stuff the dudes at Elmo have to use, but 90% of it is the stupid regs that we have to follow. Godholio posted:Efficiency is one of those "corporate" things the Air Force neglected to copy while they were busy designing a business-suit uniform and building up a system of job-seeking-via-acquisitions/contracts. The sad thing is that we are more than capable of doing it fast, even with the restrictions from older equipment; it is literally just stupid AFI/tech data/whatever that holds us back. I know this because I have seen what a couple of my crew chiefs are capable of since in my current job we don't have to worry about QA, so we give no fucks about stupid rules.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 03:58
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Ah, I see. That makes sense...I was just wondering because we had the Marines up here doing Toys for Tots and their dudes took fooooorever because they didn't want to use glycol. The type of fluid used to anti-ice a jet can incur a penalty on performance during take off. De-icing fluid incurs no such hit. The AWACS at Elmo only uses de-icing fluid which doesn't carry with it a performance hit. So yea there is can be trepidation on a crew's part of what to shoot the jet with depending if they are needing to carry a large amount of gas or are performance-restricted for another reason right off the get go. Typically green snot looking poo poo is anti-icing fluid. What it does is create a boundary layer over a clean wing (yes, you de-ice if need be prior to applying green snot) so when the precipitation or ice forms it will shear off at some point in the take off roll. 80 knots comes to mind. Anyhow, the real big pain in the rear end for us is holdover times. The snot is only good for a certain period of time and after that it just dicks you over. That isn't something that works for us 99%. I've never anti-iced though so this is all book talk. De-icing fluid is pink and a bit thicker than water. I've spent an hour and a half dousing a jet, and I mean loving soaking that bastard, to no avail. If the weather is right and the mixture is a bit off the application of de-icing fluid is basically turning a jet into a popsicle. bloops fucked around with this message at 04:35 on Jan 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 04:33
|
|
|
nummy posted:drat. That kid has skill. And a follow up. Similar flight, this time showing the controls so that you can see what his hands are doing during the flight. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1u-TEb3RCpg
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 07:31
|
|
|
Going back up a bit, but gently caress YES a Kikka! I didn't know any survive. I think this is the airframe that the US took back to the states in secret and tested after the war. Both it's engines are original too, according to wikipedia. Awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 08:23
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:I think that is actually, technically, a helicopter at some points. The funny part about "3D" RC plane flying is that, when the plane is not moving (hovering), the control surfaces are just directing the air coming off the prop. It can do all the things a helicopter does but with a totally different control mechanism. It's also hard as balls.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 10:24
|
|
|
HeyEng posted:Yea, last month I timed the ground crews. It took them about 4 minutes to de-ice a 737. Mighty impressed. I flew out of Anchorage tonight and they had the plane doused in no time. I'm not even sure if there were 2 people in the truck, the nozzle was remote controlled. Alaska Airlines is amazing sometimes in their efforts to be on time or catch up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 11:01
|
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:I flew out of Anchorage tonight and they had the plane doused in no time. I'm not even sure if there were 2 people in the truck, the nozzle was remote controlled. Alaska Airlines is amazing sometimes in their efforts to be on time or catch up. If it was the trucks they had when I flew out the week before last there is actually a cab on it but the nozzle extends out like 15 feet from the cab; you can see one in the picture that HeyEng posted, it's the one in the back hitting the tail area. It's been too long since I flew on Alaska...United/Continental had some seriously cheap rates the last couple of times I've flown out that were too good to pass up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 11:16
|
|
|
What do you reckon these are? http://maps.google.com/maps?q=mojav...fornia&t=h&z=20 Not exactly X-37's. Probably glide test models or plywood mockups. Interesting though. [edit] Figured it out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_Sciences_X-34 Slo-Tek fucked around with this message at 23:17 on Jan 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2012 23:14
|
|
|
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/mos...king-order.html I knew nothing about this, but I think it is fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 02:36
|
|
|
Colonel K posted:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/mos...king-order.html Nice little video about this here: http://www.eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=1052416244001
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 03:01
|
|
|
HeyEng posted:... Awesome - back when I was on Nimrods, de-icing was two volunteer techies from our crew room, and the dozy civvy from the MT section with the truck. Up we popped on the access platform, and used the hand gun do de-ice the jet under the direction of its crew chief. We weren't allowed to use the main fixed gun, cause it could empty the bowser in 10 minutes, without having done half a jet. Always a good job on nightshift, cause you got an early stack for volunteering... Training was a quick 30 minute session every October to get the auth to do it, so no-one could get out of it...
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 04:24
|
|
|
From the end of this WaPo article about the Saudi F-15 deal...quote:Boeing, which manufactures the F-15, noted that it has a long history with the Saudis, having presented a DC-3 Dakota airplane to King Abdul Aziz ibn Saud, the kingdom’s founder, in 1945. I know that's technically correct lineage wise, but something tells me if you had gone back to 1945 and told Donald Douglas that Boeing had just presented Abdul Aziz ibn Saud with a DC-3 he would've given you a pretty strange look. Speaking of the deal, I know it's been coming down the pipe for a while, but holy poo poo, that's a big loving FMS case...like the biggest one ever. e: I love it when Bill Sweetman just got balls out on ripping the F-35 and its supporters a new one for their exaggerations, half-truths, and outright lies...this is a particularly prickly piece. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 10:28 on Jan 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 10:20
|
|
|
F-22 was a deal at twice the price, still don't care what people say. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 17:42
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:e: I love it when Bill Sweetman just got balls out on ripping the F-35 and its supporters a new one for their exaggerations, half-truths, and outright lies...this is a particularly prickly piece. I'm gonna have to start reading this guy. That is awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 17:46
|
|
|
The US Navy's own Human Centipede:
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 18:00
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I'm gonna have to start reading this guy. That is awesome. Bill Sweetman is one of the best aviation writers out there in my humble opinion...he's been around since the beginning of time, he's got an encyclopedic memory of all things aerospace, and he's got one hell of a wit. I literally laughed out loud sitting in my apartment by myself when I read the line that was something to the effect of "Oh no, it will cost too much money to convert from probe and drogue to boom refueling, I can see why though since it's not like anyone has ever done that before...except they did. In St. Louis. 50 years ago." ehnus posted:The US Navy's own Human Centipede: ITT post wacky refueling pictures:  
iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 03:28 on Jan 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 03:23
|
|
|
Something I've been curious about: How are jet engines started?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 08:21
|
|
|
2ndclasscitizen posted:Something I've been curious about : How are jet engines started? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4pqEzfKXcA basically explains it. In addition to using either an external start cart or an aircraft's APU for an air-powered start, some engines use electric start, or a cartridge of cordite burning to turn an air starter. Basically, you accelerate the engine to a speed where there is enough airflow to keep the engine from cooking itself when fuel is introduced, then add fuel. The igniters (which look something like an automotive spark plug) light off the fuel and the engine accelerates, with the help of the starter, to a self-sustaining speed, at which point the starter and igniters shut down. MrChips fucked around with this message at 08:42 on Jan 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 08:37
|
|
|
The start switch on a Boeing 707 is utterly loving satisfying to operate. Like there ain't a doubt in the world that you're about to crank up almost 20,000 lbs of thrust.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 08:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 14:45 |
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:What do you reckon these are? Scroll out and to the right is the Kia/Hyundai test track.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 10:05
|
|