|
Nebakenezzer posted:Help would be appreciated if you can hook a brother up with PDF files off of jstor or some such Tell me what you'd like and I'll have it for you in 10 minutes
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 20:29 |
|
|
mhsneon posted:I saw my first 737 with the new winglets this weekend at the airshow. Alaska landed a 737-800, and Horizon did some fly-by's of the Q400. Word on the street is that those split-tip winglets don't seem to provide any added benefit over the standard blended winglet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:There is just a school of thought amongst certain "drone advocates" that believes removing the human element will drastically reduce costs to the point that you could just crank out hundreds of drones in place of one manned fighter to the point that you just overwhelm you enemy with sheer numbers. Basically, the idea is if you took an F-22 and built it without the pilot, the cost savings would mean a squadron, or even an entire wing of unmanned fighters with the same capabilities as the F-22. The idea that an F-22 without a cockpit would be significantly cheaper is stupid. But the F-22's role in any actual air combat situation is not to be a dogfighter; it's a missile boat. Spot the enemies before they're aware you're up there, fire six AMRAAMs, blow up six targets, go home. A drone with the same radar and missile loadout, loitering somewhere tactically important, is going to have basically the same effect. You actually could build eight Reapers and outfit each one with six AMRAAMs and two Sidewinders for the flyaway cost of a single F-22. Yada yada interceptions, warning shots, escort duties, etc. Those things can all be accomplished with a fraction of the USAF's current fighter inventory. For actual combat, drones are more logical.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Word on the street is that those split-tip winglets don't seem to provide any added benefit over the standard blended winglet. The street is right. Aviation Partners, however, says that is because there is not enough data yet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
Ardeem posted:Huh, a Mustang that isn't in D-day stripes, isn't quite in Red Tails livery, and doesn't seem to be in racing paint. The red mustang is "Val-Halla" http://www.heritageflight.org/content/collections/p-51-mustang/ The stripes one is "Fragile but Agile" http://www.crazyhorseap.be/Mustangs/Mustangs/N98CF%20Fragile%20But%20Agile/N98CF.htm
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
mhsneon posted:The red mustang is "Val-Halla" Thanks, I'd never heard of the 57th FIS before.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
Another Mustang quote:The huge compass rose on Rogers Dry Lake formed a backdrop for a genuine National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) P-51D Mustang owned and flown by William C. Allmon. Mr. Allmon flew the plane during a visit to the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center in California's Mojave Desert Sept. 15, 2000 for a reunion of former NACA employees.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
ThisIsJohnWayne posted:Tell me what you'd like and I'll have it for you in 10 minutes OMG OK, I'm looking for a paper out of "Aerospace Historian" - a journal that has had a lot of name-changes over the years. The particular article is called "World War II German Distance Flights: Fraud or Record?" by a Dr. Kenneth Werrel. It's in the June or possibly summer edition, 1988.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:The belief is generally held that human lives shouldn't be given a price. That's why losing a $100 million drone is better than losing a $100 million fighter. No, losing a drone is better than losing a fighter because it takes a few minutes to flash the firmware of the next drone on the production line vs multiple years and $millions to train a new pilot to an acceptable standard.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:No, losing a drone is better than losing a fighter because it takes a few minutes to flash the firmware of the next drone on the production line vs multiple years and $millions to train a new pilot to an acceptable standard. Dos Gringo is never not relevant to this thread. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8-kNPKNCtg edit: Oh my god this is a great story. quote:“He [the Raptor pilot] flew under their aircraft [the F-4s] to check out their weapons load without them knowing that he was there, and then pulled up on their left wing and then called them and said ‘you really ought to go home'” Spaced God fucked around with this message at 23:04 on Sep 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:
For a mythical war where the ROE is "engage everything BVR" sure. But realistically the only time we've done that was Desert Storm. In every other situation the drone is insufficient. So do you build for the most liberal ROE possible, the more realistic and restricted ROE, or do you design and build two different aircraft for what amounts to the same mission? Edit: not too sure about your "fraction of the current inventory" bit. The current fighter fleet is mostly intended to be used as bombers with air to air capability. Are you including those? Godholio fucked around with this message at 23:24 on Sep 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
Barnsy posted:That's actually not the case. In many countries the government attributes a monetary value to a life (I think a blend of potential earnings/impact on the economy/cost to the country). In Australia it's somewhere along 3million per under 25, with value decreasing after that. That's more civil/social side of things and gets into some serious D&D crap about if people are "worth it" to give things like basic medical care. Generally speaking, most militaries don't place a monetary value on an individual beyond training/logistical costs (and for those purposes), and losing an experienced person is an immeasurable cost because: Captain Postal posted:No, losing a drone is better than losing a fighter because it takes a few minutes to flash the firmware of the next drone on the production line vs multiple years and $millions to train a new pilot to an acceptable standard. and you lose possible intel and experience against the enemy to help train newer pilots/soldiers on how to deal with the Real poo pooTM in the field. When it comes to calculating "acceptable loses" money is almost never a parameter when dealing with the human side of things. Money may dictate decisions regarding material loses, but generally never personnel.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
I'm saying that most of the air-superiority roles the USAF undertakes today are essentially ceremonial. Escort away a Cessna that flew over the Pentagon, go and form up on some Bears poking around Alaska, etc. A handful of F-15s and -16s could handle all of that. And what hypothetical war scenario are you thinking of where (1) we have a genuine defense need for serious air-to-air combat and (2) BVR is out of the question? If the USA is fighting Syria or Iran or North Korea, a handful of last-generation fighters are more than enough to handle everything they can throw at us. If the enemy is someone with a remotely modern air force (Russia or China), they also have effective BVR weaponry so that's what we have to use, in which case eight cheap missile boats are better than one expensive missile boat. Or it's total nuclear war and no one gives a poo poo either way. Basically the F-22 is overkill for the situations it's being placed in right now, and in the hypothetical situation it's designed for, better solutions already exist. But fighter jocks gotta fly something, I guess
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLp3YkxsUmc I give up. I've searched through Jstor, ResearchGate, fuckin' Questia, SöderScholar, ProjectMusePremium, FAN OCH HANS MOSTER! I've found all kinds of interesting poo poo but absolute bupkuss even pertaining to German Long Distance Aviation. The guys name's Werrell btw, with two L's. It's so bad that the only reference I found of it was of the god damned wiki on the Ju390... and I can see why you'd want that article. It's late, this is  and maybe tomorrow is a better day. gently caress You Jstor I thought yus was cool 
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:OK, I'm looking for a paper out of "Aerospace Historian" - a journal that has had a lot of name-changes over the years. The particular article is called "World War II German Distance Flights: Fraud or Record?" by a Dr. Kenneth Werrel. It's in the June or possibly summer edition, 1988. ThisIsJohnWayne posted:the only reference I found of it was of the god damned wiki on the Ju390 It's a long shot, but maybe try contacting the user on Wikipedia who made that edit, and ask where he got a copy of the article.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
ThisIsJohnWayne posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLp3YkxsUmc Thanks anyway! I came across references to it on nerdy history forums, and it appears to be one of the few authoritative sources talking about this that was 1) in English, and 2) a journal, so possibly electronic, and 3) addressed the question across airframes. I suspect that to actually get the article in question, it's gonna require one of my aforementioned friends getting an inter-library loan. Which is a far bigger favor than "can you get me this poo poo on Jstor"...
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
mhsneon posted:The heritage flight was also pretty cool at the show this year. How fast/slow were they going? So weird to think that they can all fly together. I'd honestly believe that a F-22 wouldn't be able to fly level at 500km/h or less. loving thing looks like it's meant for Mach 30+.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 01:48
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Word on the street is that those split-tip winglets don't seem to provide any added benefit over the standard blended winglet. They look loving rad, that has to count for something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
Inacio posted:How fast/slow were they going? So weird to think that they can all fly together. They fly with a really high AoA compared to the mustang...etc.  I forget where I heard it but the mustang is basically going balls to the wall and the F22 is basically slowly falling flat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
Inacio posted:How fast/slow were they going? So weird to think that they can all fly together. All those planes can fly quite happily above the 250 knot speed limit; thats the real problem for that formation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:All those planes can fly quite happily above the 250 knot speed limit; thats the real problem for that formation. Speed limit?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
Inacio posted:How fast/slow were they going? So weird to think that they can all fly together. This was the P-51 that was eventually built (back) into the Galloping Ghost and crashed at the 2011 air races: http://allthingsaero.com/military-aviation/aircraft/gallery-world-s-fastest-formation
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:Speed limit? I was working a K35R into KBLV one time and he told me he wouldn't be able to make the crossing I gave with the speed restriction. It didn't cross my mind that when I told him there were no speed restrictions that he was talking about the whole 250kts below 10000 ft thing. Whoops.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:I'm saying that most of the air-superiority roles the USAF undertakes today are essentially ceremonial. Escort away a Cessna that flew over the Pentagon, go and form up on some Bears poking around Alaska, etc. A handful of F-15s and -16s could handle all of that. Oh, I see. You have no idea what you're talking about. Maintenance cycles, crew manning issues, the fact that those F-16s spend most of their time training air-to-ground because the Air Force doesn't have enough bombers to rely on...yeah let's forget all that and just reactivate Air Defense Command and give it 4 half-strength squadrons, one at each corner of North America. You're really handwaving away a lot of poo poo, and it makes it seem like you have basically zero idea what you're talking about. quote:And what hypothetical war scenario are you thinking of where (1) we have a genuine defense need for serious air-to-air combat and (2) BVR is out of the question? If the USA is fighting Syria or Iran or North Korea, a handful of last-generation fighters are more than enough to handle everything they can throw at us. If the enemy is someone with a remotely modern air force (Russia or China), they also have effective BVR weaponry so that's what we have to use, in which case eight cheap missile boats are better than one expensive missile boat. Or it's total nuclear war and no one gives a poo poo either way. Let's pretend we're making decisions that will set up the United States' defense posture through the 2050s, maybe longer. Now let's pretend that the current threat picture doesn't carry that far. Same for the political situation. As for a hypothetical scenario, I'll just say that EVERY loving AERIAL CONFLICT EXCEPT DESERT STORM meets that requirement. They have ALL had ROEs that included restrictions precluding BVR shots. Korea obviously. Vietnam. Allied Force. Provide Comfort. Etc. quote:Basically the F-22 is overkill for the situations it's being placed in right now Well, that's because it's supposed to counter near-peer capabilities for several decades. You're correct that beat-to-poo poo Syria isn't really on that list. quote:and in the hypothetical situation it's designed for, better solutions already exist. quote:But fighter jocks gotta fly something, I guess The last Chief of Staff was an A-10 pilot. Previous one was a cargo/special ops pilot. The one before that got fired...the last successful fighter pilot in that office was Jumper. Edit: Oh yeah, one more major problem with relying on drones: when things go wrong, you don't have someone you can pin the blame on and fire to appease the politicians and/or public. It may seem like that's an excuse, but the Air Force created an entirely new rated officer career field (Air Battle Manager) just to put the target on personnel senior enough to soak up the blame. That's literally the reason officers replaced enlisted controllers, even though the enlisted dudes had years of experience because they spent their whole careers in that job, while the officers spent at most 4 or 5 years (and that's if they actively avoided upgrading, and focused on being instructors/evaluators as long as possible). Most ABMs are out of the controller's seat in 2 years or less. Godholio fucked around with this message at 03:07 on Sep 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:http://allthingsaero.com/military-aviation/aircraft/gallery-world-s-fastest-formation Oh my god that's amazing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
fknlo posted:I was working a K35R into KBLV one time and he told me he wouldn't be able to make the crossing I gave with the speed restriction. It didn't cross my mind that when I told him there were no speed restrictions that he was talking about the whole 250kts below 10000 ft thing. Whoops. Yeah. Operational necessity negates that all day long. I expect a formation flight of military aircraft has a waiver or other such operationally necessary need to exceed 250kts below 10k. They're not going to get busted on that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
Inacio posted:How fast/slow were they going? So weird to think that they can all fly together. F-22s have thrust vectoring, they can go, like, 40kts if they want to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:F-22s have thrust vectoring, they can go, like, 40kts if they want to. Thrust vectoring and a TWR greater than 1, which is the important bit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 06:46
|
|
|
Also, as you can tell from the pictures, practically the entire plane is lifting surface.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 09:10
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Word on the street is that those split-tip winglets don't seem to provide any added benefit over the standard blended winglet. Just looking at them, I can guarantee that they have a significant logistics cost over the standard one - unless the lower section can be easily removed for transport. A standard winglet will fit in the aft hold of a 737 (been there, done that - you have to wiggle it in carefully, and depending on which side it is rotate it by 180 degrees as it goes in), but that extension means you simply can't do that. So shipping them around for urgent changes is a problem - and you also can't send a plain wingtip out and put them in the hold to bring them back to base (we only did that once, it was easier to just send a winglet and portable crane out to the plane). The old ones are also man-portable with two people (preferably three), but the length of that extension looks like that wouldn't work either - it would be inside the ground as you're carrying it. Not that anyone considers the logistics of these things when they design/install them! The winglets tend to take the brunt of any lightning strikes on any 737NG (along with the vertical and horizontal stab tips, which are both easily-replaced fibreglass sections), so it's not uncommon to need to change one away from base. They also get involved in towing/taxiing accidents fairly often. Brovine fucked around with this message at 21:31 on Sep 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
This counts as aeronautical insanity mostly for the hot flying shots in episode 2, but mostly it's nautical, but you will enjoy this 1976 proto-docu-soap about life aboard Ark Royal greatly, I'm sure. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsdBsiXtXaA The Royal Navy used to be rum, sodomy and the lash, in 1976 it was about nine pints of scrumpy cider, stripping and smashing your head on a beam. Then there's part 2, with Phantoms and Buccaneers landing, some for the first time, some needing a few goes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YPpAR1Swok Click through for the rest in related.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:Mach 1.7 vs Mach 2.8 You know nothing
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
Ola posted:This counts as aeronautical insanity mostly for the hot flying shots in episode 2, but mostly it's nautical, but you will enjoy this 1976 proto-docu-soap about life aboard Ark Royal greatly, I'm sure. This is great. Just showing up hammered haha. Edit: what was the buying power of 10 pounds in Britain in 1976? Preoptopus fucked around with this message at 01:31 on Sep 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:You know nothing A tail chase is a losing proposition, almost always guaranteed. Nobody has the fuel and aerodynamics to catch up to anyone else except the one-off MiG25/31 chasing a milpower jet. Intercepting a high-fast flyer is something we practiced a loving ton of, and if you hosed up the geometry or failed to start the intercept early enough, you loving lost (because they were almost always coming after YOU). Between exercises and the sim, I've probably controlled 200 intercepts like that. You just don't catch up. You're hosed by geometry, you're hosed by fuel, and you're probably hosed by gravity. Trying to close on someone from behind AND laterally takes a lot longer than being directly behind them...in which case you're still hosed anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
Brovine posted:Just looking at them, I can guarantee that they have a significant logistics cost over the standard one - unless the lower section can be easily removed for transport. A standard winglet will fit in the aft hold of a 737 (been there, done that - you have to wiggle it in carefully, and depending on which side it is rotate it by 180 degrees as it goes in), but that extension means you simply can't do that. So shipping them around for urgent changes is a problem - and you also can't send a plain wingtip out and put them in the hold to bring them back to base (we only did that once, it was easier to just send a winglet and portable crane out to the plane). I don't know about the 737, but other aircraft with winglets usually allow for flight with the winglet removed. It might require some sheet metal fabrication or lots of speed tape, but you can get back to base at least. Usually, there shouldn't be a need to ship a winglet to where the aircraft is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
Preoptopus posted:This is great. Just showing up hammered haha. I was just looking this up last night, actually, because I was watching Fawlty Towers, and the best data I could find has it nearly 10:1 with 2014 dollars. 10 pounds in 1976 is equal to 62.80 today, or a little under a hundred dollars. Explains why Basil Fawlty was so aghast at being asked to loan 200 pounds to a tenant.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:I was just looking this up last night, actually, because I was watching Fawlty Towers, and the best data I could find has it nearly 10:1 with 2014 dollars. 10 pounds in 1976 is equal to 62.80 today, or a little under a hundred dollars. You're low, it'd be ~73,26 sterling or just about $120. Although I guess it depends which end of the year you're talking about, UK inflation ran about 16% over '76, in that rather dark time before Thatcher literally saved England
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 04:19
|
|
|
Barnsy posted:I am surprised that many countries seem to be going for ultra-high-tech drones with epic stealth capabilities rather than say more predator drones with some missiles tacked on (though from my understanding those predators still cost a crapload). Preds cost about $3M a pop, Reapers are about $10M baseline, although once you hang all the toys and gadgets on them that they almost always fly with operationally it's closer to $15M a piece. Sagebrush posted:The idea that an F-22 without a cockpit would be significantly cheaper is stupid. But the F-22's role in any actual air combat situation is not to be a dogfighter; it's a missile boat. Spot the enemies before they're aware you're up there, fire six AMRAAMs, blow up six targets, go home. A drone with the same radar and missile loadout, loitering somewhere tactically important, is going to have basically the same effect. You actually could build eight Reapers and outfit each one with six AMRAAMs and two Sidewinders for the flyaway cost of a single F-22. Except kinematic performance is still quite important (to a point) even if we're only talking BVR without getting into a furball. The USAF didn't spec out the F-22 to have things (that have little impact on a WVR fight) like supercruise and a really high service ceiling just for shits and giggles. And outfitting an RPA to be capable of similar kinematic performance to a Raptor (or at least a baseline manned fighter, as opposed to an overgrown Cessna 172) is, as has already been pointed out, going to cost almost the same amount as a Raptor (or other manned fighter). You aren't strapping some Slammers to a Reaper and sending it up against Flankers in a BVR fight and expecting the Reapers to do anything other than die, $15M at a time. Also Godholio's other points. Godholio posted:Edit: Oh yeah, one more major problem with relying on drones: when things go wrong, you don't have someone you can pin the blame on and fire to appease the politicians and/or public. The rest of your points were valid but believe me, RPA pilots can and do get held accountable/hung out to dry as the situation and bosses warrant. It's not like you can prang a plane because of pilot buffoonery and then the pilot just gets a get out of jail free card because "well it's not like I really fly it!!!" Snowdens Secret posted:in that rather dark time before Thatcher literally saved FTFY Shocked at your oversight, frankly
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
Linedance posted:I don't know about the 737, but other aircraft with winglets usually allow for flight with the winglet removed. It might require some sheet metal fabrication or lots of speed tape, but you can get back to base at least. Usually, there shouldn't be a need to ship a winglet to where the aircraft is. IIRC there is no listing in the CDL for a missing or damaged winglet on the 737NG, meaning it can't even do a ferry flight in that condition. In extenuating circumstances you could probably get regulatory approval to make the flight, but that would be beyond messy paperwork-wise. Beyond that, it isn't a super-complicated job to replace a 737 winglet - I recall hearing from a wrench-bender friend that it's 3-4 hours of work with three mechanics working on it. It's best to just ship the winglet and the mechanics to fix it (or borrow one from Southwest, if you're Westjet).
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 20:29 |
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:
The way we'd have to employ drone fighters, they're not going to be controlled by dudes in trailers at Creech. Although you might be partially right...they'll find a way to pin it on AWACS like they did with the Blackhawk shootdown despite a loving VID.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 05:13
|
|