|
Godholio posted:A couple of serious Did the whole loving pylon come off in the last one? 
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 03:16 |
|
|
Spaced God posted:Did the whole loving pylon come off in the last one? Yes, and that was my reaction as well. Toss in a little  too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
Spaced God posted:Did the whole loving pylon come off in the last one? Hung store, so they dropped the rack to make sure that thing was gone when they landed. Since that's a nominally-armed bomb.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 03:19
|
|
|
Were those actual incidents or tests? If incidents, who was taking the video?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 05:52
|
|
|
Jesus those rear stabilizers just disintegrated. So, I was reading this thread about the minimum speed required for a sonic boom. The posters mostly discuss the details of wingtips going supersonic in a high G turn. But do you get sonic booms in the transonic buffeting regime in level flight? Especially at the low end, like Mach 1.1? e: here's an F/A-18 going transonic, I don't think there's a boom. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mr9tam_c9g DeusExMachinima fucked around with this message at 03:54 on Oct 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 03:51
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Jesus those rear stabilizers just disintegrated. As I understand it, you don't get the boom until you're actually going supersonic. Transsonic at M1.0, and you get that cool mach cone around the aircraft, but since the plane doesn't actually outrun its shock wave, the wave doesn't "detach" from the aircraft, which would leave a large pressure discontinuity in its vicinity: the sonic boom.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q48Swb2ATww Flying in a U-2 at 70,000 feet
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 15:58
|
|
|
I've made paper airplanes that need more of a takeoff roll than that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
With those dropexes, besides John Q Taxpayer, is the company involved with the test responsible for repairs, or is the plane written off as an operational loss due to misadventure?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
Ogrel72 posted:With those dropexes, besides John Q Taxpayer, is the company involved with the test responsible for repairs, or is the plane written off as an operational loss due to misadventure? I don't know that there is any liability possible to either the makers of the aircraft or munitions involved, since the only way to really if this is going to happen is to try it. IIRC, it's all military personnel doing it anyway. I don't know if VX-4 is still around as a navy squadron, but it's most of what they used to do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
Phy posted:I've made paper airplanes that need more of a takeoff roll than that. That's what happens when you put sailplane wings on a jet fighter. And by you I mean the obscure Lockheed aircraft designer, Kelly Johnson. wiki posted:Johnson's design, called the CL-282, attached long glider-like wings to the fuselage and used the General Electric J73 engine from the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter. So an airframe/powerplant designed to get the plane airborne with interceptor stub wings, given copious amounts of additional lift (at the expense of speed, but who cares).
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:That's what happens when you put sailplane wings on a jet fighter. And by you I mean the obscure Lockheed aircraft designer, Kelly Johnson. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8HMPMYL19E
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q48Swb2ATww At about 2:30, is than a civilian gps attached to the rear view mirror by rubber bands?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
Humbug posted:At about 2:30, is than a civilian gps attached to the rear view mirror by rubber bands? Not uncommon. The GPS systems that many USAF aircraft use is slow at picking up sats and generally only track 4-5 at a time, so the civvie GPS is used as a backup or to provide GPS to off the shelf avionics systems. Both on C-130 and JSTARS our navs utilize civvie GPS systems alongside their integrated and antiquated GPS
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
Plus you can turn on Morgan Freeman voice for directions!  "Turn left.. Fifteen thousand.. Feet.. Over Albuquerque"
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
Humbug posted:At about 2:30, is than a civilian gps attached to the rear view mirror by rubber bands? looks like a garmin 496 to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
I like how the video description says 70,000 feet, but about 80% of the video is taken within the 40000-45000 foot range according to the altimeter. The only part that is at 70 is at the end right before the landing sequence.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Not uncommon. The GPS systems that many USAF aircraft use is slow at picking up sats and generally only track 4-5 at a time, so the civvie GPS is used as a backup or to provide GPS to off the shelf avionics systems. Our handheld GPS was often the only working nav aid available (other than dead reckoning) after all our mil equipment had failed, many many times. Mind you, we only bought the handheld after being left with only dead reckoning one too many times saw us crash into the side of a mountain Not a plane, but the point stands
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
I tend to see the opposite for ground ops. Some idiot doesn't know how to use a DAGR or dislikes them, heads out with a civilian GPS that gets utterly wrecked by jamming or runs out of juice or breaks. It's also funny when idiots emplace a gun line based on their Iphone's compass when using an old-fashioned compass will ensure you don't end up pointing 60 degrees off target.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Our handheld GPS was often the only working nav aid available (other than dead reckoning) after all our mil equipment had failed, many many times. Mind you, we only bought the handheld after being left with only dead reckoning one too many times saw us crash into the side of a mountain It's actually even funnier/scarier, since I would imagine there's considerably more navigational equipment on a submarine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:I tend to see the opposite for ground ops. Some idiot doesn't know how to use a DAGR or dislikes them, heads out with a civilian GPS that gets utterly wrecked by jamming or runs out of juice or breaks. It's also funny when idiots emplace a gun line based on their Iphone's compass when using an old-fashioned compass will ensure you don't end up pointing 60 degrees off target. Cheap consumer GPS units can be off by more than 100ft - your car's navigation system of course can interpolate and has a pretty good idea that you're likely to be on a road so gets better results of course but I've seen people try and use those for surveying and dig in a completely wrong spot before. You can pay $5k+ for a civilian unit that uses all three satellite networks and can be calibrated down to the cm or something ridiculous. I can only imagine what the military markup would be on that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q48Swb2ATww What an amazing video. Thank you!
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 13:05
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Cheap consumer GPS units can be off by more than 100ft - your car's navigation system of course can interpolate and has a pretty good idea that you're likely to be on a road so gets better results of course but I've seen people try and use those for surveying and dig in a completely wrong spot before. My wife is a professional land surveyor and we've heard stories very similar to that too on a shockingly not-rare basis. They had been asked to do more than one RPR or legal survey because the property owner was sure the neighbor/city was encroaching on his property because his $60 NUVI says so  As you mentioned some multisystem units can do pretty well, but nowhere near the accuracy of a professional base station left in place for while. slidebite fucked around with this message at 17:30 on Oct 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 14:37
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:I tend to see the opposite for ground ops. Some idiot doesn't know how to use a DAGR or dislikes them, heads out with a civilian GPS that gets utterly wrecked by jamming or runs out of juice or breaks. It's also funny when idiots emplace a gun line based on their Iphone's compass when using an old-fashioned compass will ensure you don't end up pointing 60 degrees off target. But, see, the Air Force issues these: https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/in-the-air/portable-gps/gpsmap-696/prod14859.html
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 14:38
|
|
|
Humbug posted:At about 2:30, is than a civilian gps attached to the rear view mirror by rubber bands? Didn't the phony Iranian stealth plane have a Garmin glued to the instrument panel?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
Once you get away from entry-level consumer crap (and iPhones, ugh) the commercial stuff is actually quite good. It is, after all, what civilian planes and ships navigate with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 14:49
|
|
|
Let us take a second to talk about how silly this looks: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Americanfleaship.jpg  (I guess you can't hotlink from wikimedia?) marumaru fucked around with this message at 14:58 on Oct 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 14:56
|
|
|
Just run it through LPix, avoids all hotlinking issues. Or imgur, but that won't let me upload without an account from my country and I can't be arsed making one
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 15:02
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:But, see, the Air Force issues these: Only $1800, thats actually not bad at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 15:15
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q48Swb2ATww At the 6 minute mark and onward, we see a bunch of footage of the left wing with the aileron clearly up, but the plane is not banking. Can anyone guess/know what gives? I'll post the answer tonight.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Only $1800, thats actually not bad at all. They are also pushing the iPad with all the charts pre-loaded, don't think they are using it for GPS solutions as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 15:22
|
|
|
vessbot posted:At the 6 minute mark and onward, we see a bunch of footage of the left wing with the aileron clearly up, but the plane is not banking. Can anyone guess/know what gives? Thin air and jet stream I'm going to assume?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
relative air flow over the control surface given the density at altitude is too low
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
vessbot posted:At the 6 minute mark and onward, we see a bunch of footage of the left wing with the aileron clearly up, but the plane is not banking. Can anyone guess/know what gives? Going to guess that the aileron on the right wing is also up, acting as spoilers to control the airspeed. High altitude operation makes for strange requirements on turbine engines, probably can't throttle down any further but was going too fast. Edit: I'm aware of the tight speed requirements at high altitude, which is why I'm guessing along the lines of speed control outside of just throttle. EightBit fucked around with this message at 15:52 on Oct 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
EightBit posted:Going to guess that the aileron on the right wing is also up, acting as spoilers to control the airspeed. High altitude operation makes for strange requirements on turbine engines, probably can't throttle down any further but was going too fast. Don't forget your 10 knot difference between its never exceed speed and its stall speed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffin_corner_(aerodynamics)
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 15:41
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Don't forget your 10 knot difference between its never exceed speed and its stall speed. Was just looking at that chart, note that the chart ends at 50kft and at 6min he's at 40kft at a nice comfy mach .54. Now at 8minutes in you get a quick glance at 105 knots and mach 0.715, which actually appears to be right on the max power cruise climb curve for 70kft in that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
EightBit posted:Going to guess that the aileron on the right wing is also up, acting as spoilers to control the airspeed. High altitude operation makes for strange requirements on turbine engines, probably can't throttle down any further but was going too fast. This one's the closest so far, but still a ways to go. They had other, more conventional ways to make drag.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
http://allthingsaero.com/military-aviation/aircraft/gallery-world-s-fastest-formation?page=1 Just saw this pop up on another forum (Anyone else here on PPW?) They weren't allowed to set up a flight to easily take this photo, so the story involves a complicated plan involving good old moxie and derring-do, a wrung-out race Merlin struggling to keep up with a SR-71 on a standard mission climb profile, multiple NORDO formation changes, terrain-masking approach into military airspace to avoid radar, and relying on the closeness of the formation to blend with other aircraft once on radar.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
vessbot posted:This one's the closest so far, but still a ways to go. They had other, more conventional ways to make drag. Correcting for winds.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 03:16 |
|
|
vessbot posted:http://allthingsaero.com/military-aviation/aircraft/gallery-world-s-fastest-formation?page=1 http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3276654&pagenumber=600&perpage=40#post435320692
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 17:09
|
|