|
Phy posted:Oh, neat. I was wondering what the flags on Edmonton's mast signified; apparently those are its radio callsign. Yeah, I looked those up too. Both Canadian ships have their radio callsigns spelled out in flags.
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 21:25 |
|
|
This is nice. Early F-4 mockup, before they discovered they had to origami-fold the wings and tail to get decent yaw stability. Without the dihedrals and anhedrals, it looks exactly like what any 8 year old in the world would draw if you say "draw a fighter jet"
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:This is nice. Early F-4 mockup, before they discovered they had to origami-fold the wings and tail to get decent yaw stability. Without the dihedrals and anhedrals, it looks exactly like what any 8 year old in the world would draw if you say "draw a fighter jet" So pretty... That's just begging for a "When did this... become sexier than this..." image.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:This is nice. Early F-4 mockup, before they discovered they had to origami-fold the wings and tail to get decent yaw stability. Without the dihedrals and anhedrals, it looks exactly like what any 8 year old in the world would draw if you say "draw a fighter jet" Excuse me, when I was 8 I would draw a Sukhoi Su-15 Flagon. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
PhotoKirk posted:So pretty... That's just begging for a "When did this... become sexier than this..." image. The production Phantom is still a pretty airframe, just with too much crap hanging off it. If you shave off all the pylons, pods and antennas it's quite elegant, even with the anhedrals and dihedrals. The YF-4 is a good example:  Or here's an actual production one cleaned up. Take off that little pod under the nose (gun?) and it'd be really clean.  I'm always amazed at how early some of these prototypes were flying. I think of the Phantom as a '60s through '70s fighter, but the first photo above was taken in 1951  PhotoKirk posted:It wasn't at mach 1.8, but this happened... From a few pages back, but just incidentally this is a rural China thing. Not making GBS threads on airplanes specifically, but rural Chinese babies don't wear diapers -- they just have crotchless pants and go wherever they are. In the cities, you'll sometimes see mothers holding their kid over a drainage grate in the street or whatever while the kid takes a dump, but the more urban, westernized and modern-leaning people look down on this and put their kids in diapers because the crotchless pants are seen as a relic of the past and a bit of an embarrassment. The story is basically the Chinese equivalent of something you'd see on the Beverly Hillbillies. iyaayas01 posted:lol USMC Aviation: Fuel goes in, fuel goes out. Fuel goes in, fuel goes out. Fuel goes in, fuel goes out. I wonder now what the ratio is between consumption in full burner : tanker transfer rate. Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Aug 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:This is nice. Early F-4 mockup, before they discovered they had to origami-fold the wings and tail to get decent yaw stability. Without the dihedrals and anhedrals, it looks exactly like what any 8 year old in the world would draw if you say "draw a fighter jet" Notice that mockup is a single-seater; it was so early in the Phantom program that it was still the so-called "Super Demon".
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Excuse me, when I was 8 I would draw a Mirage F1. Fixed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Excuse me, when I was 8 I would draw a
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Excuse me, when I was 8 I would draw a TIE Fighter.  I do like the Phantom though. Something about it's just pretty in an ugly sort of way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
vessbot posted:a whole bunch of terrible pseudophysics Man this derail was almost as good as people arguing that planes can't take off from treadmills.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Or here's an actual production one cleaned up. Take off that little pod under the nose (gun?) and it'd be really clean. The 'Donkey Dick' is housing for an antennae that is part of the radar, the gun (when it was added with the F-4D) is on the left side just behind where the radome is painted black, and a longer radome fairing is used. You can see the little gun port if you can find a good port-side picture of a F-4 beyond the D variant. Even the -D retained the Donkey Dick, although it was a reduced size by the time of the RF-4C and in the case of many Navy variants (and the UK F-4K) gone entirely. Some of the current F-4Es / F-4 2020s and so on still have it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
If there's one thing I've learned in a decade of aviation work it's that every aircraft has some part on it somewhere that crew members call the donkey dick.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:This is nice. Early F-4 mockup, before they discovered they had to origami-fold the wings and tail to get decent yaw stability. Without the dihedrals and anhedrals, it looks exactly like what any 8 year old in the world would draw if you say "draw a fighter jet" F-15. That's my default "is fighter jet."
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:From an aerodynamic standpoint, the wings on a V-22 basically do nothing while hovering, since the aircraft is being held up by the thrust generated by the rotors. In forward flight, the wings work exactly like they do on an airplane, with the rotors simply providing enough thrust to keep the V-22 moving fast enough for the wing to produce the required lift. from a couple pages ago but don't forget that the thrust vector can be changed from full forward to a vertical-horizontal component by changing the nacelle attitude i.e. during transition and that they have enough thrust to overpower lift effects. also, those little stubby wings don't do much; the fuselage also contributes lift. V-TOLs are fascinating designs but have been so poorly implemented they've gotten a (deservedly) bad rap.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:This is nice. Early F-4 mockup, before they discovered they had to origami-fold the wings and tail to get decent yaw stability. Without the dihedrals and anhedrals, it looks exactly like what any 8 year old in the world would draw if you say "draw a fighter jet" My kid brain's idea of a fighter jet was a F-1 or an F-14 I guess. Early Rafale airframes are painfully beautiful too. evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 00:05 on Aug 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
What would be an F-104 with pointier wings, a standard empennage and no tip tanks? Cause that's A Fighter Jet as far as 10-year-old me was concerned. e: a missile
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Man this derail was almost as good as people arguing that planes can't take off from treadmills. Vessbot is right though, with the exception of one minor detail. Don't act like he's spouting off poo poo like bumblebees can't fly. His points are totally relevant for most jet engines, especially commercial turbofans. Supersonic military jets operate with choked flow nozzles under high thrust and afterburner. This means that the pressure at the nozzle exit is much greater than the pressure of the surrounding air, a so called underexpanded nozzle. Therefore, the final term of the thrust equation cannot be ignored. An afterburning supersonic fighter can produce huge pressures at the nozzle exit. Incidentally, this is the source of the shock diamonds you see in all the cool jet engine photos. For a more detailed explanation see here: http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/SPRING/fluids/Spring2008/LectureNotes/f20.pdf
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:What would be an F-104 with pointier wings, a standard empennage and no tip tanks? Cause that's A Fighter Jet as far as 10-year-old me was concerned. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
Psion posted:as promised, sort of: Thanks for the shots, Psion. Coincidentally, an Osprey just flew over my office with the nacelles fully down - while I could hear it coming it was surprisingly quieter than I had thought it would be when directly overhead. I'm sure that's a different story at 90°.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:What would be an F-104 with pointier wings, a standard empennage and no tip tanks? Cause that's A Fighter Jet as far as 10-year-old me was concerned. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:What would be an F-104 with pointier wings, a standard empennage and no tip tanks? Cause that's A Fighter Jet as far as 10-year-old me was concerned.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 02:53
|
|
|
F-16 is the only true fighter jet in my heart if we're going on looks alone.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
Jalopnik article on the plane flying ebola victims to the US: http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/this-amazing-jet-will-transport-ebola-victims-from-afri-1614420685
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
Spaced God posted:F-16 is the only true fighter jet in my heart if we're going on looks alone.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
Kilonum posted:Jalopnik article on the plane flying ebola victims to the US: Looks like a similar type of cargo door installation as used by Gulfstreams of the Japanese air force and US Navy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
Yep, there we go. A Mirage F1 is pretty much exactly the plane in my notebooks. Sometimes with two exhausts and twin tails but definitely that wing, tail, and intake configuration. e: and that level of pointiness too
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
Kilonum posted:Jalopnik article on the plane flying ebola victims to the US: quote:The US Army's SMART-AID, Special Medical Augmentation Response Team- Aeromedical Isolation Team, part of the US Army's Medical Research Institute For Infectious Diseases, is the Pentagon's crack outfit that was established to carry out this exact kind of task, even in a war zone environment. They are equipped with top of the line equipment and have been on high alert during the Global War On Terror. Seeing as this is the first time an Ebola patient has been brought to the United States, one would think that such a unit would want to handle the mission instead of a government air ambulance contractor. one would think, but one would also not be surprised when we hire contractors anyway
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
Prop Wash posted:one would think, but one would also not be surprised when we hire contractors anyway Its an army team so they can't be trusted with airplanes. Now if you'd like to fund a redundant air force team...
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Its an army team so they can't be trusted with airplanes. Very specialized
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 06:19
|
|
|
With the added capability of causing hind pilots to crash due to laughing so hard!
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 06:36
|
|
|
Insert name here posted:That's a weird way to spell F-15 And this is a weird way to spell F-14.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 12:09
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:And this is a weird way to spell F-14. ...in Jolly Rogers livery. Literally the only correct answer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 12:53
|
|
|
 (Credit to some poster who got this from their family, it's been my desktop background ever since) The Phantom is goddamn beautiful
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 13:26
|
|
|
How about a Jolly Rogers livery for this one as well. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 14:07
|
|
|
All of my childhood fighter jets were F-5s  But then I learned how to draw the cowling on the F-15s and that's what they became.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 14:21
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:All of my childhood fighter jets were F-5s Yep, you're all wrong, the F-5 is the most fighter-jet looking fighter-jet.  Sleek lines, long pointy nose, nimble, stubby little straked wings with AIM-9s on the tips. It just screams pure utilitarian fighter.  
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 15:25
|
|
|
simplefish posted:http://flightclub.jalopnik.com/watch-these-seat-soiling-crosswind-operations-from-birm-1541878105/+flyingphotog At 4 minutes in, there's a plane landing that looks like it has air brakes on its engines? Never seen that before, are those indeed brakes and what kind of plane is that?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
uXs posted:At 4 minutes in, there's a plane landing that looks like it has air brakes on its engines? Never seen that before, are those indeed brakes and what kind of plane is that? They're just thrust reversers (more accurately the exhaust doors for them), on a A330... 
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 15:42
|
|
|
They also look like this: Or this:  EDIT: Oops, had one showing just an open cowling in there. If there are other types I'd like to see them, these are just the two I've seen most often.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 21:25 |
|
|
uXs posted:At 4 minutes in, there's a plane landing that looks like it has air brakes on its engines? Never seen that before, are those indeed brakes and what kind of plane is that? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yz3AC93DvDo Poor old Steve.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 15:50
|
|
