|
hobbesmaster posted:edit: Re guns, F-22 apparently still uses the ancient M61 with 400 rounds and vietnam was about 200 rounds per kill from what I can find. The F-22 and Super Hornets use the M61A2, which is the same drat thing, just lighter and with thinner barrels. That being said, the Soviets go so ga-ga over large-bore cannon simply because they've historically had more cause to strafe people. And just remember - the only F-35 version getting the new 25mm gun mounted internally is the -35B, while the Carrier and STOVL have to carry it externally. 
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 01:09 |
|
|
the B is the STOVL A is the conventional variant, B is STOVL, C is carrier
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
I got yelled at by a cop for doing that. She didn't care enough to make me delete the pictures or actually step completely out of here little ECP booth, though. simplefish posted:What they don't have is 4 credible air-to-air threats. The US found those planes so valuable we left them behind. I'm pretty sure the USAF legit owns a few copies of both of those airframes. I know there are MiG-21s on display on USAF bases. Godholio fucked around with this message at 01:57 on Oct 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
Kilonum posted:the B is the STOVL Yeah, you're right. Still, the only F-35 with an internal gun is the CTOL variant for the Air Force. Godholio posted:The US found those planes so valuable we left them behind. I'm pretty sure the USAF legit owns a few copies of both of those airframes. I know there are MiG-21s on display on USAF bases. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4477th_Test_and_Evaluation_Squadron One of their MiG-23s killed a General. And while the 4477th doesn't exist anymore, it's known that the USAF procured a few MiG-29Ks (complete with mounting and arming circuitry for nuclear ordnance), and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they don't have a Flanker or two by now. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 02:29 on Oct 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
Have F22's/15's/Drones/whatever is flying around Syria/The Middle East/Et Al. had their guncams upgraded to sweet sweet 4k HD yet? I want to see some migs popped in high def. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:One of their MiG-23s killed a General. And while the 4477th doesn't exist anymore, it's known that the USAF procured a few MiG-29Ks (complete with mounting and arming circuitry for nuclear ordnance), and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they don't have a Flanker or two by now. We bought a whole bunch of them from Moldova. http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=41172 One is now a static display in front of the National Air and Space Intel Center at Wright-Patterson AFB. There's a Fishbed in the Air Force Museum: http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=16889 When I was in the USAF, I went to Romania in the mid-2000's for an exercise and they had a few broken down Flankers and operational Fishbeds on their ramp (and they had no flightline security, we got to walk up to and around all of them which was a bit surreal).
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:Have F22's/15's/Drones/whatever is flying around Syria/The Middle East/Et Al. had their guncams upgraded to sweet sweet 4k HD yet? I want to see some migs popped in high def. You'd need the 4k video to see it from AMRAAM engagement range.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:You'd need the 4k video to see it from AMRAAM engagement range. CENTCOM Press Conference: "See that small, 1 pixel flash in the upper right quarter of the screen? That was the Duke Chin fucked around with this message at 03:15 on Oct 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
Bandits are bad guys, bogeys are unknowns. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Don't forget your 10 knot difference between its never exceed speed and its stall speed. By the way, I put that picture up there to replace the previous one which was complete nonsense 
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Yeah, you're right. Still, the only F-35 with an internal gun is the CTOL variant for the Air Force. Yup, especially considering a few years ago there were two in civilian hands, so I'm sure they didn't beat the military to the punch. There's also at least 2 flying Mig-29s.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
This is the time were this book should be plugged by default: http://www.amazon.com/Red-Eagles-Americas-General-Aviation-ebook/dp/B004X7533K/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1413603962&sr=8-1&keywords=red+eagles It's well worth it for $7 if you've got a kindle. Basically goes over the whole history of the Red Eagles squad and how they acquired the MiGs...etc. Really interesting read.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Yeah, you're right. Still, the only F-35 with an internal gun is the CTOL variant for the Air Force. About 4 years ago two Flankers made their way to private ownership to an aviation firm in Illinois. Several months later, they both fell off the face of the earth. Most likely the DoD snatched them up. I know this because I'm one of the few Americans to have ever sat in a demilitarized Flanker, which was one of them. It loving owned. Flankers are unusually beautiful in person. http://www.prideaircraft.com/flanker.htm bloops fucked around with this message at 05:07 on Oct 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:One of their MiG-23s killed a General. And while the 4477th doesn't exist anymore, it's known that the USAF procured a few MiG-29Ks (complete with mounting and arming circuitry for nuclear ordnance), and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they don't have a Flanker or two by now. There are some (somewhat credible) rumors floating around about Flankers that have been seen up range.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 05:09
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:There are some (somewhat credible) rumors floating around about Flankers that have been seen up range. See the post right above yours.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
You require additional pylons
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 06:37
|
|
|
I was going through some of my grandfather's war photographs the other day and besides having pictures of a V-1 and a V-2 (minus nosecone) there was also a picture of what appeared to be a FW 190 on top of a Ju-88 or Bf-110 - something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistel There's also a picture of what I'm pretty certain is a Me 262 sitting in a field. I'm trying to convince my family to get some of the other photos (Holocaust related) scanned into museum archives - would an aviation museum perhaps be interested in what I assume are relatively rare photos of crazy WW2 poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 07:34
|
|
|
X-37B lands after two years (!) in orbit. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/oct/17/secret-space-plane-us-air-force-x37b-lands-california
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 10:25
|
|
|
Godholio posted:The US found those planes so valuable we left them behind. I'm pretty sure the USAF legit owns a few copies of both of those airframes. I know there are MiG-21s on display on USAF bases. I think the only plane we actually had any interest in digging out and taking home with us in Iraq was a more recent MiG-25RB variant we'd never seen or gotten our hands on before - evidently it had the export version of the ELINT suite intact. Wouldn't shock me if they brought some extra MiG-23 parts home, too. Here's the kind of stuff we did with the rest: 
BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 13:24 on Oct 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 12:55
|
|
|
Ola posted:X-37B lands after two years (!) in orbit. This thing seems stupid to me, at least half of the theories about it, anyway. I mean, I remember them announcing this launch, they announce when it's gonna land, and anyone with a space program worthy enough for us to spy on is going to be able to track the poo poo out of it. e- ugh there's comments arguing that the USSR won the space race in there, why did I read that there's a huge ballooning private space program centered in the US and the USSR doesn't exist, I think it's safe to say the US won e2- here's the landing Seizure Meat fucked around with this message at 13:30 on Oct 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 13:01
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Bandits are bad guys, bogeys are unknowns. Goddammit, don't shoot at bandits, shoot at hostiles 
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 14:17
|
|
|
AlmightyPants posted:I was going through some of my grandfather's war photographs the other day and besides having pictures of a V-1 and a V-2 (minus nosecone) there was also a picture of what appeared to be a FW 190 on top of a Ju-88 or Bf-110 - something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistel I'm sure the right museum would be very interested. And I know the internet loves the hell out of WW2 photos, especially new images. What I'm saying is post those aviation-related photos please
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 14:44
|
|
|
Godholio posted:The US found those planes so valuable we left them behind. I'm pretty sure the USAF legit owns a few copies of both of those airframes. I know there are MiG-21s on display on USAF bases. No no, not for the planes, but for the propaganda.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
hannibal posted:
Somewhere I have a picture of a buddy dryhumping a Peruvian MiG-29. mlmp08 posted:Goddammit, don't shoot at bandits, shoot at hostiles Well, to be fair, half the time the hostile dec is worded something like "Eagle 11 north group hostilefoxthree!" Godholio fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Oct 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
Can we post insane (but seriously proposed) concepts here?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
The Anteater
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
Inacio posted:Can we post insane (but seriously proposed) concepts here? That looks cool as hell but can you imagine how long it would take for 2000 people to embark and disembark?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
freelop posted:That looks cool as hell but can you imagine how long it would take for 2000 people to embark and disembark? You'd just use tiered gates, so you board by floor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
I just wonder if a gigantic as gently caress plane like that is doable. I mean, it'd probably take some scifi tier engines to make that thing move. Considering the A380 is 276 tons empty, and the full Caspian Sea Monster had a 546t takeoff weight, that thing would probably be way over 1000 tons.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:You'd just use tiered gates, so you board by floor. I'm imagining some sort of pneumatic tube that would deposit you into the room full of cushions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
Inacio posted:Can we post insane (but seriously proposed) concepts here? How much legroom is available in the tail seats? Those aisles must be murder.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
Inacio posted:Can we post insane (but seriously proposed) concepts here? I dunno if I'd call that "seriously proposed". It's just the pretentious wanking of a self-promoting "designer", not anything anybody capable of real aeronautical engineering ever took even slightly seriously. Google the dude's name (Luigi Colani) and you'll find all kinds of ridiculous poo poo. It's vaguely plane-shaped sculpture, not serious engineering.  This is a man who does not understand how jet engines work. (Or why large airplanes which aren't also flying wings need large horizontal tail surfaces, for that matter. Apparently pitch stability isn't necessary. But that would interfere with making his cool "heh heh this plane looks like a shark guys" design. Or, in the case of the 2000 passenger "design", a goose.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
BobHoward posted:I dunno if I'd call that "seriously proposed". It's just the pretentious wanking of a self-promoting "designer", not anything anybody capable of real aeronautical engineering ever took even slightly seriously. It's a taildragger  e: at least he took yaw stability under more serious consideration. (Or, far likelier, coincidence) vessbot fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Oct 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
BobHoward posted:I dunno if I'd call that "seriously proposed". It's just the pretentious wanking of a self-promoting "designer", not anything anybody capable of real aeronautical engineering ever took even slightly seriously. The problem with Colani is that it's not just pretentious wanking or self-promotion. All of his designs are poo poo he thinks can be done somehow (even if modified as most things he proposes are. basically all of them. dude loves his curves). Not saying that his stuff isnt ridiculously absurd and completely impracticable, that other gigantic passenger plane just got me wondering if a plane on that scale is possible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
Inacio posted:Can we post insane (but seriously proposed) concepts here? So how tall is that nose wheel.  BobHoward posted:I dunno if I'd call that "seriously proposed". It's just the pretentious wanking of a self-promoting "designer", not anything anybody capable of real aeronautical engineering ever took even slightly seriously. Sure this isn't a rejected design for one of the star wars prequels?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
Inacio posted:Not saying that his stuff isnt ridiculously absurd and completely impracticable, that other gigantic passenger plane just got me wondering if a plane on that scale is possible. It's an interesting question...I think if you ignore airport facilities the answer is yes (just don't get an Italian Architect to design them.) If you take airport facilities into account, then I imagine for airplanes there is a definite upper limit. Bear in mind that the record for passengers in an airline flight was a emergency evacuation performed by an El Al 747. By removing seats and completely ignoring safety regs, they got over 1,100 Ethiopian Jews from Ethiopia to Jerusalem. And that's just a 747. Imagine how many people you could take in a standing room only An-124 flight... Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 22:06 on Oct 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:So how tall is that nose wheel. It appears to be B-36 Sized 
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
Entone posted:It appears to be B-36 Sized I think its actually at least twice that size which makes it all the more ridiculous (those B-36 wheels could only be used at what 3 airports in the world?)
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
Inacio posted:Can we post insane (but seriously proposed) concepts here? Just out of curiosity, has anyone here been on the baggage claim end of a full, 800-passenger single class trip on an A380 (if such a thing exists)? A 2,000-passenger plane is pretty much going to have to have its own inflight plumber, doctor, garbage collector, etc... I'm also curious as to which routes would justify such a beast.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 01:09 |
|
|
benito posted:I'm also curious as to which routes would justify such a beast. Asian domestic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 23:29
|
|