|
CharlesM posted:The only thing I can tell you is I'm pretty sure it had a blue flag of some kind on the tail. Wish I could be more help, I'm surprised I've created such a mystery! Sorry my cell phone camera sucks too, haha. Could it not be French? 
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 11:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 01:07 |
|
|
OptimusMatrix posted:Here's that Dayton crash from two different vantages. Yeah, this is not abstract plane crash video, it's low and close. I would advise skipping it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 15:23
|
|
|
CharlesM posted:The only thing I can tell you is I'm pretty sure it had a blue flag of some kind on the tail. Wish I could be more help, I'm surprised I've created such a mystery! Sorry my cell phone camera sucks too, haha. Australia? New Zealand?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 15:48
|
|
|
LOO posted:Could it not be French? Wrong roundel. Honestly it looks like a British roundel, but they don't have a blue flag. Ola posted:Australia? New Zealand? Neither fly E-3s. USAF, Britain, France, Saudi Arabia, NATO. That's why it's so weird...it doesn't match any of them. Time to go through my facebook friends and make sure I don't know anyone else who's gone up to Seattle. Edit: Even seeing which engines it has would narrow it down, or being able to tell if that's actually a refueling probe.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 16:32
|
|
|
Ola posted:Australia? New Zealand? As I said earlier, it looks exactly how a RAAF E-3 would look, but they fly 737 wedges for their early warning. The only other thing I can think of is if it's been painted like that for use as a movie prop, but that seems unlikely. e: Realistically, the most likely plane it is, would be a Saudi E-3 with the overcast grey casting the green flag & roundel to look blue (the other distinguishing feature would be the arabic text, but that area is beneath what looks like some scaffolding). I guess it's also possible it's a new RAF livery (it's an anniversary year, so repainting planes wouldn't be too surprising). p. sure it's not a USAF E-3 as they all appear to have the chin radar added by now. SybilVimes fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Jun 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 16:49
|
|
|
Ola posted:Australia? New Zealand?  at the idea of New Zealand having a functional Air Force, much less an AWACS (no, a couple P-3s, Hercs, and helos does not constitute a functional air force.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 16:54
|
|
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_Royal_New_Zealand_Air_Force You weren't really exaggerating. Helos, some transports, trainers and a handful of king airs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 17:05
|
|
|
slidebite posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_Royal_New_Zealand_Air_Force Don't forget the 2 757s! Really it's kind of sad, because up until 2001 they flew A-4s and MB-339s, and had plans to buy some Block 15 F-16s. Not exactly top of the line or anything but considering the size/population of the country nothing to sneeze at either. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kByY0KnM9xk iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 17:30 on Jun 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 17:26
|
|
|
Eldest daughter and I dropped momma and baby sister off at DTW this morning for a flight to Atlanta. Since it was early and we had the whole day ahead of us, we decided to park off the 94 service drive and watch some airplanes come in. Saw a shitload of boring CRJs, a couple of heavier liners I couldn't ID, and a Mad Dog. We also watched a Delta 767 (I think) idle for a while letting the smaller planes come in then spool up and take off. We saw the Mad Dog early, and every CRJ that came in after (which, to a three year old sorta looks like a Mad Dog) she'd wave at and shout "Hello, Mad Dog!" 
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 17:28
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Don't forget the 2 757s! Yeah as much as I'm dismayed at the loss of our Air Force, on a pragmatic level it makes so much sense. There's a near-zero chance we'll be involved in any sort of conflict that doesn't draw in our allies (Aus, U.S. (yes I know about ANZUS blah blah) U.K. etc) who have more than enough air assets between them to make up for our lack of them. In any sort of Multi-lateral intervention/peacekeeping situation we are drawn into, we simply pull our weight in other areas while not having to pay for the upkeep of a permanent strike force. It's not ideal but it make some sense.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 19:12
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:As I said earlier, it looks exactly how a RAAF E-3 would look, but they fly 737 wedges for their early warning. The only other thing I can think of is if it's been painted like that for use as a movie prop, but that seems unlikely. I think this theory is the closest we'll get to an answer. It's definitely not USAF. Also, yeah the chin antenna (it's not a radar) has been in place on all USAF E-3s for at least 15 years. There's also a tiny one at the tail. They're part of the Passive Detection System (along with the "cheeks").
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 21:24
|
|
|
polpotpotpotpotpot posted:Holy poo poo, I just finished reading the whole thread. They've not arrived yet, but I've got some shots from RAF Fairford in about 1993 (I think): First visit from a TU-95 to the UK. They were going to fly it, but it spooled up one of it's engines, there was a loud "phut" and a puff of blue smoke, and that was the end of the display:  A Bear and a BUFF  Amazing to think that just 5 years before, the only British people who got to see a TU-95 at all (let alone this close) were Tornado pilots making less-than-friendly interceptions over the North Sea  Fulcrums! The only aircraft at the time (and maybe still) that was capable of making a 3-point turn in mid-air.  I'll tell my dad to get his act together with the vintage airliners.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 22:04
|
|
|
Axeman Jim posted:Fulcrums! The only aircraft at the time (and maybe still) that was capable of making a 3-point turn in mid-air. What do you mean by this? I'm just an enthusiast and never heard this term before that I can recall.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 00:30
|
|
|
jaegerx posted:What do you mean by this? I'm just an enthusiast and never heard this term before that I can recall. I'm trying to find video, but I'm guessing it's where the pilot begins a loop, then throttles back to let gravity take over, then throttles back up to finish the loop. Mig-29 has very powerful engines and doesn't seem to give a gently caress about angle of attack. edit: Wing stall? What's that? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oF345YYCWeE edit 2: Mind you, Russians have rather a worse record for accidents at airshows than American teams. Jonny Nox fucked around with this message at 01:22 on Jun 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 01:14
|
|
|
So basically a bad cobra maneuver. Cobra from what I understand has a good effect in radar evasion since you basically stop moving and most radar systems ignore under a certain kph.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 02:31
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:I'm trying to find video, but I'm guessing it's where the pilot begins a loop, then throttles back to let gravity take over, then throttles back up to finish the loop. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 02:38
|
|
|
MY GIRLFRIEND and I had the opportunity to get a ride in a Navy N3N that a friend owns. This was both of our first time at the controls of an aircraft, and it was a loving blast. Did some basic turns and some minor high-g banks and rolls. A++ would fly again.       My 318 felt so smooth after riding in it, because of how it vibrated. I need to learn how to fly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 03:05
|
|
|
jaegerx posted:So basically a bad cobra maneuver. Cobra from what I understand has a good effect in radar evasion since you basically stop moving and most radar systems ignore under a certain kph. This is only true in certain circumstances, which generally dont apply when missiles are in the air. Godholio fucked around with this message at 03:47 on Jun 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 03:42
|
|
|
Isn't the r/w/b MiG-29 in that vid the OVT display type? Not exactly standard issue.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 10:20
|
|
|
jaegerx posted:What do you mean by this? I'm just an enthusiast and never heard this term before that I can recall. Sorry if I wasn't clear. The MiG 29's party trick was to fly straight up, throttle back until it was basically hovering, then throttle back some more and effectively fly "backwards" in a tail-slide. The pilot would then pull back, toppling the plane over backwards in a stall, then kick the engines back in, going back the way they came. The propaganda at the time claimed this manoeuvre could dodge missiles or force pursuing aircraft to overshoot, similar to the Harrier's "viff", but more likely it was just something fun to do at airshows (or a really special way to write off a fighter jet if you mess it up, which was known to happen).
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 14:29
|
|
|
Axeman Jim posted:Sorry if I wasn't clear. The MiG 29's party trick was to fly straight up, throttle back until it was basically hovering, then throttle back some more and effectively fly "backwards" in a tail-slide. The pilot would then pull back, toppling the plane over backwards in a stall, then kick the engines back in, going back the way they came. Pretty sure that sort of tale slide is doable by plenty of planes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 14:50
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Pretty sure that sort of tale slide is doable by plenty of planes. Most 4th gen fighters have some super maneuverability. Basically if you have a thrust to weight ratio greater than 1 theres all sorts of stunts you can do but they only get really useful if you have thurst vectoring. Pugachev's cobra looks cool but mostly is a way to commit suicide in a dogfight (speed = life). A J-turn might be useful though. I'm not sure that a fighter in actual combat with a full fuel and missile load and external tanks would be able to do any of these maneuvers. Not that dog fights are likely to happen at all these days.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 15:02
|
|
|
Being able to maneuver like that means you can point your missile rails, and guns, in the right direction. There's some use to it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 15:15
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:Being able to maneuver like that means you can point your missile rails, and guns, in the right direction. There's some use to it. ACtually very little. They have more than enough nose authority, especially with thrust vectoring, to be able to point themselves wherever they want without doing a zero airspeed maneuver which is overall a pretty bad idea in an air-to-air engagement. The Cobra maneuver really is just something to show off at airshows and as pointed out already to spectacularly write off a very expensive aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 15:44
|
|
|
You can let the missiles do the turning anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 15:46
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:Being able to maneuver like that means you can point your missile rails, and guns, in the right direction. There's some use to it. In a dogfight gen 4.5 and 5 fighters only have to point their nose within 40 degrees or so of the enemy to use heat seeking missiles.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 16:03
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:In a dogfight gen 4.5 and 5 fighters only have to point their nose within 40 degrees or so of the enemy to use heat seeking missiles. With previous-generation equipment, yeah. But helmet-cuing systems and high off-boresight missiles (ie, JHMCS and AIM-9X) are going to ensure there's never other real within-visual-range engagement that's not a suicide run by one party. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g4_jzqBJnA
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 16:26
|
|
|
Godholio posted:With previous-generation equipment, yeah. But helmet-cuing systems and high off-boresight missiles (ie, JHMCS and AIM-9X) are going to ensure there's never other real within-visual-range engagement that's not a suicide run by one party. Uh, that's what I said. That demo was apparently only 22 degrees off bore sight too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 16:28
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Uh, that's what I said. That demo was apparently only 22 degrees off bore sight too. That's not what you said at all. 40* off centerline is nothing if we're talking modern IR weapons. That's 1970s/80s capability. Now they can take shots as far around as the pilot can crane his neck. There are 9x tests at basically any angle off boresight. That's the first youtube result for "AIM-9x" and while it doesn't show extreme angles, it's a fun watch and shows the ridiculous maneuverability of modern missiles.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 16:31
|
|
|
"Bad Analogy Time" These type of low-speed high-G maneuvers are the equivalent of doing a twisting backflip in a gunfight to point at an enemy behind you, instead of taking the same amount of time to just turn around and not disorient the hell out of yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 17:09
|
|
|
Yeah but don't you see they won't be expecting you to intentionally disadvantage yourself, therefore giving you the advantage because
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 17:11
|
|
|
Has anyone else seen World War Z? I've been trying to figure our what kind of plane they used to go planet hopping in the movie'a first act. It's done up in USAF livery and I thought it was a C-27 but that has 2 engines and the one in the flick had 4 and a glazed nose. Is it even a real aircraft or is it a BS-111 MacGuffin?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 17:37
|
|
|
Let's see: JATO off a carrier 200 miles east of Philadelphia and don't touch down ever until you hit South Korea. That's 6256 nautical miles over the north pole in a 2-engine military transport aircraft with no refueling. I didn't catch the plane's type, but I'm pretty sure it was a C-130 Edit: It was an AN-12. According to Wikipedia (for what it's worth), the range of a C-130J is 2835 nmi. Even a C-17 fully hollowed out only was has a range of 5600ish nmi, and I don't think they do JATO. So yeah, IMO Macguffin. ctishman fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Jun 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 17:57
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:Has anyone else seen World War Z? I've been trying to figure our what kind of plane they used to go planet hopping in the movie'a first act. It's done up in USAF livery and I thought it was a C-27 but that has 2 engines and the one in the flick had 4 and a glazed nose. An-12, maybe?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 18:00
|
|
|
Madurai posted:An-12, maybe? Yep that's what it was. The whole "round-the-world on a tank of gas" was a little  -worthy but then I remembered I was watching a movie about zombies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 18:06
|
|
|
ctishman posted:I didn't catch the plane's type, but I'm pretty sure it was a C-130 Edit: It was an AN-12. According to Wikipedia (for what it's worth), the range of a C-130J is 2835 nmi. Even a C-17 fully hollowed out only was has a range of 5600ish nmi, and I don't think they do JATO. I and about 100 of my closest friends and all our palletized crap rode a C-17 from Germany to Oklahoma. Fake edit: And now that I look up the distances, that's only about 5,000 miles.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 18:22
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I and about 100 of my closest friends and all our palletized crap rode a C-17 from Germany to Oklahoma. The Pacific is loving huge.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 18:29
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I and about 100 of my closest friends and all our palletized crap rode a C-17 from Germany to Oklahoma. Yeah, distances aren't as bad as they seem, once you start going over the pole. What's interesting is that the new A400M has a range of nearly 6400nmi.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 18:31
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:The Pacific is loving huge. Yeah, this was only about an 11 hour flight iirc. Of course, that's long enough in a loving C-17 with the fuselage and centerline seats (not the airliner configuration). At least there are power outlets.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 18:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 01:07 |
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:Yep that's what it was. I'm sure there are people sperging out on other forums about zombie crowds behaving like fluids and ferro-fluids.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 18:38
|
|