|
buttcrackmenace posted:Going to work this into the next trivia contest. "What was the last American military aircraft built without on-board radar?" Probably actually the T-52. Apparently the U-28 actually has a weather radar which was my other guess.
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 09:38 |
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:I especially liked the one that was modded for special forces airborne insertion. That one did the greatest service to the US - no, the world - out of any of them. Ever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
Phy posted:Guys Canada can't buy black planes, how are they supposed to paint a cockpit on the bottom?  yup, shelve that idea!!I always found that a little embarrassing tbh. It's one of those "can't hurt" things but c'mon, it just seems like some wacky fighter jet version of a folk remedy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Probably actually the T-52. Apparently the U-28 actually has a weather radar which was my other guess. I mean does weather radar count? Cause there are a lot of aircraft that only have that. I mean I know some don't even have that either. V-22 doesn't, pretty sure -53's, -60's, UH/AH-1's don't either....there are quite a lot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:I especially liked the one that was modded for special forces airborne insertion. Whoever runs this page https://m.facebook.com/RipStevenSeagal should update it to reflect his actual cause of death: f-117.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
Ambihelical Hexnut posted:Whoever runs this page https://m.facebook.com/RipStevenSeagal should update it to reflect his actual cause of death: f-117. The fun thing is they advertised that movie in Germany around Steven Seagal, despite him biting it like 20 minutes in.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
Bob A Feet posted:I mean does weather radar count? To be fair he never specified "search radar..."
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
Phy posted:Guys Canada can't buy black planes, how are they supposed to paint a cockpit on the bottom? priznat posted:
Come on, guys: the A-10 already has/had that as standard equipment. Seriously, at this point, I'm starting to believe the ol' Thunderbolt II was MADE for  Ed:  Buy it and save it you maple-lickers. 
Duke Chin fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Jul 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
Gibfender posted:I've only just gotten round to reading the 117's wiki page and lol Why is disorientation such a problem?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
Barnsy posted:Why is disorientation such a problem? The invisibility field prevents the pilot from seeing the horizon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:The invisibility field prevents the pilot from seeing the horizon. Teeny windows?  Also, I had never heard the follow-up on the 117-loses-a-wing crash from ages ago.  'ing at the "missing wing bolts... whoops."
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
Barnsy posted:Why is disorientation such a problem? Honestly, because they flew mostly at night. It is very easy to get disoriented flying in darkness, even more so if you are flying a high-performance aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Honestly, because they flew mostly at night. It is very easy to get disoriented flying in darkness, even more so if you are flying a high-performance aircraft. Alright, but what about the F-117?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
Barnsy posted:Why is disorientation such a problem? Because we still haven't figured out how to stop killing ourselves in over a century of aviation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:Because we still haven't figured out how to stop killing ourselves in over a century of aviation. loving gravity... and mountains... and lovely maintenance... and buildings... and cost-cutting... and bad egos. Get rid of all of those things and aviation would be perfect!
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
DoubleAughtMeowMix posted:Alright, but what about the F-117? I know you're joking around, but in my world "high performance" typically has one or more turbine engines of any form. Trust me when I say you can get all kinds of disorientated in even something as meagre a King Air or Pilatus PC-12 doing a missed approach on a dark night.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
MrChips posted:I know you're joking around, but in my world "high performance" typically has one or more turbine engines of any form. Trust me when I say you can get all kinds of disorientated in even something as meagre a King Air or Pilatus PC-12 doing a missed approach on a dark night. The "meagre" PC-12 has performance similar to late WWII fighters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
I kind of know this person who just became the youngest woman to fly around the world. She did it in a PC-12: Her name is really Amelia Earhart
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
You really don't see the word "aviatrix" enough I just realized.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
priznat posted:You really don't see the word "aviatrix" enough I just realized. I went to high school with a girl who was getting her pilot's license (carried Jeppesen manuals everywhere), and she had a t-shirt that had variations of "I'm an aviatrix" misspelled and crossed out, with "I'm a pilot" at the bottom. Bonus points for anyone that can use the proper plural aviatrices.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
DoubleAughtMeowMix posted:Alright, but what about the F-117? I know that the prototypes (HAVE BLUE and SENIOR TREND) that lead to the F-117 had issues with the canopy framing leading to fairly poor visibility from the cockpit, which certainly wouldn't have helped with spatial disorientation issues. Combine that with missions that involve flying exclusively at night in a high-stress environment, and spatial disorientation is pretty likely to ensue. The SR-71 actually suffered from a similar problem (the canopy design lead to disorientation during refueling and at night), and eventually a system was installed that used a stabilized laser to draw a horizon line across the instrument panel so the pilot had a reference to where "up" was in their peripheral vision.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
I suppose it may be a dumb thought, but looking at all the new photos on Airliners.net, it does bug me that there is a bigger US military presence at this year's Farnborough airshow than there was at the Dayton airshow.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
Plastic_Gargoyle posted:I suppose it may be a dumb thought, but looking at all the new photos on Airliners.net, it does bug me that there is a bigger US military presence at this year's Farnborough airshow than there was at the Dayton airshow. Probably a lot less military hardware buyers at Dayton (taxpayers don't count they already got your dough)
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
Captain Bravo posted:This It wasn't snark. The F-117 had no air-air capability, and unlike the F-105 and F-111 (referenced in below link) it never had it, even in development - paper-only N variant notwithstanding. It is decently likely the F- designator was originally part of the secrecy around the program.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 05:34
|
|
did not get nearly enough love. 
|
If Canada wants a dual engined supersonic fighter with stealth capabilities, they should reanimate a zombie Kelly Johnson and have him build them a fleet of YF-12s
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
gently caress it we'll just load up on BOMARCs (again)
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 05:58
|
|
|
Well it's certainly one way to intercept a Bear.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 09:08
|
|
|
buttcrackmenace posted:Going to work this into the next trivia contest. "What was the last American military aircraft built without on-board radar?" hobbesmaster posted:Probably actually the T-52. Apparently the U-28 actually has a weather radar which was my other guess. Depends if you go from first flight or IOC. It might be one of the trainers, but a lot of those are designed and flying with civilians or other nations well before we buy them. If not those, it's probably the MQ-9 or some sort of helo, I can't remember if we've bought any new ones lately.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 14:19
|
|
|
priznat posted:I bet the #1 reason why the F-35 is continuing in Canada is because DND wants them and DND wants them because the higher mucky mucks are probably pals with the US DoD mucky mucks. There's talk here in Belgium about buying some too, to replace our (rather small) collection of F-16s. There's quite a bit of opposition to the idea, but primarily from the 'why do we need any fighter jets at all? we could just use C-130's to do our part in NATO/EU/whatever' camp. There are very few calls to consider something else than the F-35, primary reasons given are that the F-35 will be a NATO/EU standard and that we should just use the same, and that the F-35 is the only option if you have to carry nukes (that we officially don't have in our country but we totally do and everybody knows where.) I wish more people would argue against the F-35 not because we shouldn't have any fighters at all, but because it sucks and there are better planes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:It wasn't snark. The F-117 had no air-air capability, and unlike the F-105 and F-111 (referenced in below link) it never had it, even in development - paper-only N variant notwithstanding. It is decently likely the F- designator was originally part of the secrecy around the program.  We know.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/malaysian-plane-crash-russia-border-2014-7 Malaysian 777 said to have gone down in Eastern Ukraine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
Not a good year for triple-sevens is it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
revmoo posted:Not a good year for triple-sevens is it? Not a good year for Malaysian airlines.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
Malaysia Airlines reporting they haven't found it yet, but that they have some promising leads.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
Intel5 posted:http://www.businessinsider.com.au/malaysian-plane-crash-russia-border-2014-7 What are the symptoms of a stroke
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Not a good year for Malaysian airlines. In fairness, rumor is that Ukraine shot it down, and there's not much you can really blame Malaysian for there, well, unless they were playing at radio silence again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
The missing plane had actually fallen through a time vortex and rematerialized on top of the other 777. Ukraine did nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
That link claims it may have been Russian separatists?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
langoliers
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 09:38 |
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:That link claims it may have been Russian separatists? It could be (  ):
But really until someone steps up and say "Yeah we did it", we won't know for sure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 16:53
|
|