|
So it wasn't Hoser who bought it in California, not that it makes the loss of life any less tragic: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Pilot-killed-in-Yosemite-crash-was-veteran-at-5809564.php
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 14:22 |
|
|
Heliosicle posted:An F-15 just crashed in Lincolnshire (pilot is apparently safe) How long is the Air Force talking about flying the F-15C/D for? Until 2040? poo poo I know my jet was as old as I am and it was a newer model F-15.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:Total engine failure on a V-22 is "bailout". Single engine failure is handled via a pair of gearboxes and a cross airframe driveshaft. So.. there's never a "asyemtrical thrust" situation. If there is, (eg, gearbox becomes metal slush) that too is a "bail out and pray" situation. It glides. It also autorotates. How well? Who knows. Not as well as a real airplane sure, and not as well as a real helicopter. But a total power loss in any aircraft is a really bad day.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
Is "bail out" an actual option on a V-22? Do pilots carry parachutes and are there ejection seats?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:I literally lifted this from the Karem website for their entrant, the "Optimum Speed Tilt Rotor." At this point we should pretend to be contractors and come up with the most expensive looking picture to sell. I'm thinking 10 V-22s daisy chained with an F-35 in tow. e: B-2 needs to be in the picture as well Job Truniht fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Oct 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:At this point we should pretend to be contractors and come up with the most expensive looking picture to sell.  semperfi.jpg
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
ehnus posted:
What's the fuel burn rate for the f35 to be in partial(?) vtol mode like that? Is what's happening in that image like some kind of aeronautical human centipede?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
ehnus posted:
"But it's burning more fuel than it's taking in!" "We'll just fly it attached. It'll have increased combat range!" *news footage of f-35 bombing targets while attached to a V-22* *cuts over a terrorist interview* "The locals call it Dragon Fly"
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:How long is the Air Force talking about flying the F-15C/D for? Until 2040? Something like that. But realistically, there won't be a sixth generation fighter until probably a decade after that, if we start now. The program that resulted in the F-22 started in 1981. IOC was 2005 IIRC...and these things only get slower each time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
Hank Killinger posted:What's the fuel burn rate for the f35 to be in partial(?) vtol mode like that? Is what's happening in that image like some kind of aeronautical human centipede? Why don't they do it with the V-22 in normal flight so the F-35 doesn't have to have AB on?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:How long is the Air Force talking about flying the F-15C/D for? Until 2040? Not sure what the current internal plans are. All I could find was 2025 on Wiki. As of a JUL2013 report to congress USAF F-35 IOC is supposedly between AUG2016-DEC2016. https://www.f35.com/assets/uploads/downloads/12994/f-35_ioc_joint_report_final.pdf Yeah, I'm sure they'll stick to those dates this time... Shockingly the Marines are trying to beat everyone to IOC. I'm sure the B model will be hunky dory by this time next fall. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
Bob A Feet posted:It glides. It also autorotates. How well? Who knows. Not as well as a real airplane sure, and not as well as a real helicopter. But a total power loss in any aircraft is a really bad day. From what I've read it's a nightmare to get the flare timing right for auto rotation. Has that changed in the last year or two? I mean compared to a -60. I really hope you or anyone else will never have to give it shot for real.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 03:17
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Something like that. But realistically, there won't be a sixth generation fighter until probably a decade after that, if we start now. The program that resulted in the F-22 started in 1981. IOC was 2005 IIRC...and these things only get slower each time. Given how stupidly expensive the F-35 has gotten, they should restart F-22 production (and allow Canada and Australia to buy it) to replace the 15's. It's not like there is anything else even on the drawing boards anywhere in the world (that I'm aware of) that can compete with it for air superiority.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
Barnsy posted:Why don't they do it with the V-22 in normal flight so the F-35 doesn't have to have AB on? CS 6 doesn't support level flight mode yet. Supposed to be in the next patch.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
The Locator posted:Given how stupidly expensive the F-35 has gotten, they should restart F-22 production (and allow Canada and Australia to buy it) to replace the 15's. It's not like there is anything else even on the drawing boards anywhere in the world (that I'm aware of) that can compete with it for air superiority. We couldn't even if we wanted to. The whole "securing sales by spreading jobs" extends to partner countries as well. F-35 is a huge employer of engineers in Australia, Canada, UK and every other country that's buying it. That's why we're all buying it. Lock-Mart are evil, but they're not stupid. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:We couldn't even if we wanted to. The whole "securing sales by spreading jobs" extends to partner countries as well. F-35 is a huge employer of engineers in Australia, Canada, UK and every other country that's buying it. That's why we're all buying it. Lock-Mart are evil, but they're not stupid. I didn't mean to cancel the F-35, I meant to replace the F-15's in the air superiority role, not in the huge quantities that they are talking about for the F-35, but more along the lines of the original number that was authorized for the F-22, so that we'd have a credible air superiority force to protect the F-35's from getting strafed while they are on the runways burning.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
Tremblay posted:From what I've read it's a nightmare to get the flare timing right for auto rotation. Has that changed in the last year or two? I mean compared to a -60. I really hope you or anyone else will never have to give it shot for real. Bailing out is not an option but yeah an autorotation is a worst of the worst case. Thankfully the plane has plenty enough brawn to fly on a single engine and we don't hang out in the helicopter mode either, which really reduces the likelihood. It has low inertia blades so if you don't nail the autorotative entry its pretty hard (requires lots of all altitude) to regain that rotor speed. And because of that the flare has to be done high. We only have simulator models of it and tests dones to a simulated hard deck at altitude, so no one really knows. We do it in the simulator occasionally but to even properly enter it we have to put ourselves at altitude we'd never see in VTOL. All engines failed is pretty bleak in any aircraft that doesn't have a pop top on it. I see lots of people hate on helicopters/tilt for it, but hell even in a fixed wing aircraft your chances are slim unless you happen to be over some nice pavement.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
Barnsy posted:Why don't they do it with the V-22 in normal flight so the F-35 doesn't have to have AB on? Because that's photoshopped. u-unless that's the joke
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 14:01
|
|
|
The Locator posted:It's not like there is anything else even on the drawing boards anywhere in the world (that I'm aware of) that can compete with it for air superiority. Yeah let's just go ahead and dust off my YF-23 love letters and fanfic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
The Locator posted:It's not like there is anything else even on the drawing boards anywhere in the world (that I'm aware of) that can compete with it for air superiority. I know this thread likes to play the 'America #1 Rah Rah Rah' routine, but you have to at least admit that the Pak Fa is competitive to the F22, even if it does have some engine teething problems.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:I know this thread likes to play the 'America #1 Rah Rah Rah' routine, but you have to at least admit that the Pak Fa is competitive to the F22, even if it does have some engine teething problems. I guess I need to keep up on things better before commenting!
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:I know this thread likes to play the 'America #1 Rah Rah Rah' routine, but you have to at least admit that the Pak Fa is competitive to the F22, even if it does have some engine teething problems. Is it really though? I mean, has the pak fa even reached a level of testing that would show that it might be competitive? I mean, it seems closer to a stealth eagle than an f-22 from what googling I've found (pak fa claiming to be 30 times stealthier than an su-27, versus an f-22 which claims to be 250 times stealthier than an f-117). At least from the underside the pak fa even looks like an su-27 with some extra doors and new wings added on 
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
Bob A Feet posted:It glides. It also autorotates. How well? Who knows. Not as well as a real airplane sure, and not as well as a real helicopter. But a total power loss in any aircraft is a really bad day. "glides" Something tells me a V-22 glides like the space shuttle. Or a Leerjet with the thrust reversers on. They might be able to auto-rotate, but that's only useful if the gearboxes and driveshafts are intact. Something tells me if you need to auto-rotate, at least one of those gearboxes won't be functioning. When I say "bail out" I actually mean "die." Total power loss on most airplanes is "concerning" but not "really bad day."
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:I know this thread likes to play the 'America #1 Rah Rah Rah' routine, but you have to at least admit that the Pak Fa is competitive to the F22, even if it does have some engine teething problems. Do we even know anything about the PAK-FA to make a claim like that? VERTiG0 fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Oct 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:
Wait, what? In forward flight, advancing blade has a higher airspeed than the retreating blade, and generates more lift than the retreating blade, which generates assymmetry of lift. That's with a rigid blade. That's specifically why you get away from rigid rotors and let the blade flap: the increased lift just causes the advancing blade to flap upward a bit, which reduces its AOA and its lift. Retreating blade does the opposite, flaps downward and increases AOA and lift, and all that together equalizes lift across the rotor disc. Rigid rotors are the cause of lift assymetry, not the solution to it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
It's just nero, don't get mad
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
There's no way that an auto in the V-22 does anything more than slow your crash slightly. Those rotor blades have like zero inertia.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
A Melted Tarp posted:There's no way that an auto in the V-22 does anything more than slow your crash slightly. Those rotor blades have like zero inertia. Isn't that what all autos are for? To be able to walk or be carried away from the scene of the crash, right? Except for autogyros, autorotating down isn't something you're doing on the regular.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
babyeatingpsychopath posted:Isn't that what all autos are for? To be able to walk or be carried away from the scene of the crash, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:No if you don't gently caress up it's a p smooth landing. It's something you can practice outside a sim in normal rotaries. This. It's like dead-stick landings in fixed-wing, it's part of your standard training and you need to be demonstrate proficiency in them before you're even allowed to be a pilot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:No if you don't gently caress up it's a p smooth landing. It's something you can practice outside a sim in normal rotaries. Even for V-22 sized rotor wings like a CH-53 or chinook?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Wait, what? You're right that they'd have more asymmetry of lift, but what he meant they'd "fix" was the result of that asymmetry, the disks tilting opposite directions. The fix for the asymmetry itself is the rotors going opposite directions and cancelling out each other's asymmetries.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Is it really though? I mean, has the pak fa even reached a level of testing that would show that it might be competitive? I mean, it seems closer to a stealth eagle than an f-22 from what googling I've found (pak fa claiming to be 30 times stealthier than an su-27, versus an f-22 which claims to be 250 times stealthier than an f-117). It's pretty clear from that picture that the thing isn't anywhere near as stealthy as an F-22. The 22 maintainers have these electronic scanner tools that run along the surface and look for misaligned panels or tiny gaps on the order of <1mm. Everything is designed to fit perfectly flush and leave no unintentional radar reflections. It's amazingly smooth. Meanwhile, the PAK-FA has visible rivets, louvers all over the place, gaps that you could get your fingers caught in and what appears to be a poorly executed stick weld all over the bottom of the fuselage. Relevant comparison image:  Makes it all the more amazing that the YF-23 supposedly had an even smaller signature than the F-22 did. (and it was faster and looked way more wicked and probably would have been cheaper but that's neither here nor there, I'm not mad  )
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:I know this thread likes to play the 'America #1 Rah Rah Rah' routine, but you have to at least admit that the Pak Fa is competitive to the F22, even if it does have some engine teething problems. Yeah I've actually defended the PAK-FA in this thread (or the TFR one) before but putting it on the level of the F-22 is a major stretch because for the most part it's a Flanker+ with weapon bays right now. None of the major systems like the planned engine or the full radar suite are off the ground yet IIRC, and Russia is running into some real problems funding its buildup plans when oil prices are slipping under $80 a barrel. It will probably be an improvement of the Flanker family, which is by all means a good airplane, but we're still far from knowing how good. The Flanker is very comparable to the F-15 family more so then the F-22. What can probably be said though is that if it comes in around $100m+ with most of its promises, it will likely be a much more interesting G5+ export option then the F-35, at least for a lot of countries where Lockheed can't dig their claws deep or where they've sold well in the past. That's also assuming Putin doesn't lose it and turn everything into molten glass by then or whatever. Mazz fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Oct 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:In forward flight, advancing blade has a higher airspeed than the retreating blade, and generates more lift than the retreating blade, which generates assymmetry of lift. That's with a rigid blade. *snip* It was a comment specific to coaxial rotor systems. Rigid blades don't cross paths like rotors with hinges do. Airspeed is the cause of lift asymmetry. Flappy rotor hinges stop the rotor heads from ripping themselves apart. Modern (read composites) let you build stiff enough rotors to withstand the lift asymmetry, and with coaxial rotors your total lift is symmetric. evil_bunnY posted:No if you don't gently caress up it's a p smooth landing. It's something you can practice outside a sim in normal rotaries.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
Neato, google is doing a new thing.  Narrow win for the F-22 there. Anyway, had to read the wiki article on the F-22 again, it has some amazing facts. quote:In 2007, the F-22's radar was used as a wireless data transceiver during tests, transmitting data at 548 megabits per second and receiving at gigabit speed, far faster than the Link 16 system Which is probably happening at some not-inconsiderable range as well! And... quote:The F-22's software has some 1.7 million lines of code, the majority involving processing radar data. ...it's only about half the size of a HP printer driver for Win XP. Ola fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Oct 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
Ola posted:...it's only about half the size of a HP printer driver for Win XP. Assuming LockMart isn't shoving 500mb of advertisements for their other products in with the actual program. (They aren't, they send those directly to post-retirement-consulting-jobs@af.mil.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
Ola posted:
1.7 million lines of C++ rather than Ada 
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
Ola posted:Anyway, had to read the wiki article on the F-22 again, it has some amazing facts. That's really really impressively fast. God drat. 1Gbps downstream is insane even for residential fibre.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 14:22 |
|
|
Range 5,500 km? Shenanigans.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 22:31
|
|
