Groda posted:

DERPA

Blistex posted:

Someone care to school me on why this is all wrong and why the F-111 is the best option?

ehnus posted:

Read this post four hours ago and I'm still laughing.


The F-111 is always the best option. Unless you're the US Navy.

Maybe with F-110's instead of the TF30s. Man, 7 year old me is all excited now.

Powercube posted:

So, the 787-9 flew yesterday. Apologies for the lack of pictures- nowhere I can legally share them from supports bbcode.
http://www.airlinereporter.com/2013/09/boeing-787-9-dreamliner-takes-first-flight/

Plinkey posted:

Ha, I worked on this software

Blistex posted:

The Swiss are surrounded by first-world nations (and Italy) that are armed with Eurofighters and Dassault's. They're landlocked, have an airspace that can be patrolled with a C172 in an afternoon, and a total of 7 military and 18 civilian airports.

1. Is "highway operation" really necessary?

2. Would they be better served with something that's 99% air superiority rather than bomb taxi? (they still have relatively young F-18s to do that)

3. Would going the Eurofighter route be better since there is closer access to the parts and service infrastructure as opposed to something on the other side of Europe?

4. Are they out of Nazi gold yet? Do they really have to think of cost being the first priority? If they are set on fighters, why not a Silent Eagle to give them some 4.5(ish) generation fighters with limited stealth capabilities and excellent intercept capabilities. (they have a small country, so faster intercepts would be a plus)

Essentially, what is the most likely thing they are going to use these fighters for? I don't know of them ever dropping a bomb in anger, and they only had limited engagements during WWII with a few skirmishes with German and US strays. Honestly, to me it would seem that the size of their nation would dictate that a top-notch SAM network would be a better deterrent than fighters.

Someone care to school me on why this is all wrong and why the F-111 is the best option?

SeaborneClink posted:

It was quite a flight too!

AzureSkys posted:

It's sitting on the ramp near a 747-8. Both had their anti-collision lights on and the 787 one is absolutely blinding. It was interesting to compare to what I'm used to. I guess it's a LED type now or something?

Sir Cornelius posted:

This will explain most of your questions. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/switzerland-replacing-its-f-5s-04624/

The short answer is politics.

quote:

AIRSERVICES Australia has stood down a traffic controller involved in Qantas's mid-air near collision earlier today.

It is understood that at about midday, QF581, the Sydney to Perth flight was flying at 38,000ft and the Perth to Sydney flight was at 39,000ft when the Perth-bound flight requested to climb to 40,000ft.

Air traffic control gave permission for the ascension when the on board warning system went off and the pilots sought evasive action.

As the plane ascended, it came into the pathway of QF 576 from Perth to Sydney, which was travelling at 39,000 ft.

After warning notifications went off, the planes involved swerved and narrowly missed each other.

"Our pilots followed standard operating procedures in re-establishing the required separation distance following the alert from the onboard notification system,'' Qantas said in a statement.

"There was no impact to passengers.''

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau was earlier notified that two planes came too close to each other west of Adelaide this afternoon.

Qantas said the two Airbus A330 aircraft had a "loss of separation'', when one flying from Sydney to Perth was granted permission by air traffic control to climb.

The other flight, coming in the opposite direction, was travelling from Perth to Sydney.

Qantas confirmed the two planes involved were a Sydney-to-Perth flight, QF581, which landed at Perth Airport about 1.30pm. The other, flying from Perth to Sydney, was QF576.

Passenger 'saw other plane'

Passenger Gary Martin, who was on the Sydney-to-Perth flight, said he saw the other Qantas plane fly beneath his plane, but was not worried.

“I just happened to look out the window somewhere over South Australia and happened to see a plane fly underneath,” Mr Martin said after landing at Perth Airport.

“I was not worried at all.”

Another Perth passenger, Leanne, said nobody on board was told about the incident.

"I'm a bit concerned that nothing was said, you still want to know what's going on and now I'm shaking," she said.

Former United Airlines maintenance technician Walter Bird said passengers noticed nothing at all during the flight.

"I didn't notice any violent manoeuvres or anything," he said.

"It's not uncommon actually, near misses and that sort of thing. It's just a matter of clear communications."

Most of the passengers coming off the flight said they did not know about the near-miss until asked by news crews at Perth Airport.

An ATSB spokesman said the authority knew of a “loss of separation” incident involving the two aircraft.

Qantas confirmed two of its aircraft had a “loss of separation” over Adelaide, but it denied there was any near-miss or immediate danger to the planes.

In a statement, Qantas said: “Indications are that the loss of separation occurred when one of the Qantas aircraft received clearance to climb from Air Traffic Control,” the statement read.

“Our pilots followed standard operating procedures in re-establishing the required separation distance following the alert from the onboard notification system. There was no impact to passengers.”

Airservices Australia, which has responsibility for air traffic management, said it had reported the incident to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) and had notified the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

It said updates would be provided to the ATSB and Airservices Australia would cooperate fully with any investigation.

An ATSB spokesman said it was gathering more information to determine if it was necessary to investigate the incident.

The Ferret King posted:

Oopsie. I wonder what the minimum distance was before they started increasing separation again.

I also wonder what factored in to ATC missing the altitude conflict and whether or not ATC issued any traffic advisories or instructions to affect separation prior to the flight crews' TCAS going off.

Linedance posted:

Yeah I saw Ethiopian's getting towed onto stand the other day and it's definitely an LED anti-col. The binary on/off was the giveaway.

Axeman Jim posted:

So the last two VC-10s still flying are, at the time of this post, on their last operational sortie for the RAF:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-24165590



Achingly beautiful aircraft, last big jet we built in the UK, will be missed

Axeman Jim posted:

So the last two VC-10s still flying are, at the time of this post, on their last operational sortie for the RAF:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-24165590



Achingly beautiful aircraft, last big jet we built in the UK, will be missed

grover posted:

As to why Gripen and not Eurofighter or Rafale? Yeah, politics. You don't buy weapons from the nations you're buying the aircraft to protect your sovereignty from.

rscott posted:

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20130920-707643.html

That's going to suck for them.

VikingSkull posted:

Yes, that's a stock car on a dirt track, as well.

slidebite posted:

Really late notice, but for Southern Alberta/Northern Montana or Idaho goons, the Lancaster in Nanton is doing a full power run up of the 4 Merlins tomorrow around noon.

She isn't air certified, but they'll run the engines at full throttle for a bit in the parking lot 20' from the Hwy2/I15 corridor

http://www.bombercommandmuseum.ca/event_merlinrunups.html

If I can, I'll try to make it. I'm a little over an hour away myself.

MrChips posted:

So by now I imagine many of you have heard of Paul Allen's Stratolaunch aircraft? The idea of converting two aircraft into one outsize cargo hauler wasn't exactly original. Enter, the Conroy Virtus:

MrChips posted:

So by now I imagine many of you have heard of Paul Allen's Stratolaunch aircraft? The idea of converting two aircraft into one outsize cargo hauler wasn't exactly original. Enter, the Conroy Virtus:

Nebakenezzer posted:

In 1917 during WW1 the Zeppelin flyers experimented with launching Albatros D.IIIs, both as a parasite defense fighter, and as a weird way to launch torpedoes. The D.III would tow behind it some sort of torpedo with biplane wings - essentially a second biplane built around a torpedo. The experiments were successful at launching airplanes at least, though the program was dropped at the end of 1917. Apparently Master of Airships Peter Strasser asked the engineers if they could build a parasite fighter that could be launched and recovered by the zeppelin, and also be a seaplane, and also be able to fly to 20,000 ft. The engineers said no, and Strasser said to forget the whole thing. Got a pic from the experiments somewhere around here...

Nebakenezzer posted:

The wing to engine size ratio is...messed up? It looks like a 737 flying with two jet turbines made from salvaged Saab turbos.

MrChips posted:

It looks messed up because the Virtus was designed to have a 450-foot wingspan...those "little" engines are actually Pratt JT9Ds.

StandardVC10 posted:

See those folks in the back there? They're standing next to Pratt and Whitney JT9Ds. That would have been a huge-rear end plane.

Polymerized Cum posted:

Do the same but with GE90s

ehnus posted:

MrChips posted:

So by now I imagine many of you have heard of Paul Allen's Stratolaunch aircraft? The idea of converting two aircraft into one outsize cargo hauler wasn't exactly original. Enter, the Conroy Virtus:

hobbesmaster posted:

Weren't there a couple of wacky shuttle hauler designs before hey figured out they could just throw it on the back of a 747 with a couple changes to the empennage?

ehnus posted:

From what I can find they're JT9D's.

iyaayas01 posted:

gently caress yeah, that was still probably the highlight of my drive up to Alaska back in '09. No idea that aircraft or museum was there, just driving through the back roads of Alberta and...is that a Canuck on a pole over there across the street? Holy poo poo that looks like a Lancaster in a hangar in the middle of this town what in the hell is going on here

6 hours later I was back on the road, haha.

ehnus posted:

From what I can find they're JT9D's.

nnnnghhhhgnnngh posted:

Yeah, including two C-5s strapped together like a Twin Mustang. That would've been interesting.

edit