|
hobbesmaster posted:So the navigator is kind of a liaison between the mission crew and the flight crew? Seems like an odd position on a modern plane, E-3/JSTARS must be the last planes with a dedicated navigator. (Not navigator/bombardier or whatever) No one really occupies that role. If anyone, it's the FE who serves as a buffer between mission and flight.
|
# ? Nov 27, 2014 04:51 |
|
|
# ? Mar 29, 2024 14:02 |
|
holocaust bloopers posted:No one really occupies that role. If anyone, it's the FE who serves as a buffer between mission and flight. On JSTARS its the Navigator. Our FE is too busy watching our very old engines chew through fuel.
|
# ? Nov 27, 2014 04:53 |
|
CommieGIR posted:On JSTARS its the Navigator. Our FE is too busy watching our very old engines chew through fuel. Same thing I did on the awacs.
|
# ? Nov 27, 2014 05:03 |
|
CommieGIR posted:C-130H2 and C-130H3 still use them, as well as the EC-130s, HC-130s, KC-130s, etc. The standard argument is that during any real war we'd all be hosed ten ways if all we do is plug in waypoints and depend on the GPS for the rest. Still, nobody seems to care and cutting nav positions saves money, so I guess it's all good. Anyway modern INSes are pretty great and if you've got two of them then even if you lose the GPS what could go wrong? The US air force, in its infinite wisdom, has reclassified navigators as "combat systems officers" and that's the majority of what we do on the C-130H (and yes, we still have plenty of '74 C-130H1s in service). Over time the C-130 picked up a ton of weird missions and hardware (defensive systems, JPADS, sight angle airdrops, approximately ten laptops, etc.) for which it helps to have someone who isn't directly handling the controls. The idea is that on the C-130J most of these missions have been baked directly into the software.
|
# ? Nov 27, 2014 05:09 |
|
bitcoin bastard posted:Drone operator: Okay Doddie, fly over to that wedding and... If GA builds it the weddings will be safe, it'll crash the plane well before it gets within range of any sort of
|
# ? Nov 27, 2014 05:35 |
|
holocaust bloopers posted:No one really occupies that role. If anyone, it's the FE who serves as a buffer between mission and flight. The nav is too busy reading or jerking off to answer the net. Or keep us inside the goddamned orbit and out of Iran.
|
# ? Nov 27, 2014 05:45 |
|
MrYenko posted:(I still hear JT8D compressor stalls in my sleep.) Googling this led to this pretty neat video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQWYhsYfMxE
|
# ? Nov 27, 2014 08:50 |
|
Have some pilots flying insanely low. More here: http://www.vintagewings.ca/VintageNews/Stories/tabid/116/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/325/Lower-than-a-Snakes-Belly-in-a-Wagon-R.aspx
|
# ? Nov 28, 2014 20:07 |
|
|
# ? Nov 28, 2014 21:15 |
|
Bacarruda posted:Have some pilots flying insanely low. My favorite has always been this pass: External view https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UntN_cZUQg8 Cockpit view https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1G-RrZbTL4
|
# ? Nov 28, 2014 21:41 |
|
xergm posted:My favorite has always been this pass: That's a disaster waiting to happen.
|
# ? Nov 28, 2014 22:13 |
|
xergm posted:My favorite has always been this pass: Jesus Christ
|
# ? Nov 28, 2014 22:18 |
|
Just a reminder that you can only ever tie the record for lowest flight.
|
# ? Nov 28, 2014 22:37 |
|
MrChips posted:Just a reminder that you can only ever tie the record for lowest flight. How many planes have crashed into the Dead Sea?
|
# ? Nov 28, 2014 22:39 |
|
priznat posted:How many planes have crashed into the Dead Sea? Hmmm. I suddenly see a clever way of getting into the history books of aviation. Or at least the news.
|
# ? Nov 28, 2014 22:41 |
|
Barnsy posted:That's a disaster waiting to happen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esIihVb-Jus
|
# ? Nov 28, 2014 22:50 |
|
This is the best low pass: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iOoiEbtf2w
|
# ? Nov 28, 2014 23:04 |
|
Fucknag posted:This is the best low pass: Is it me or was he a few cm away from scraping his prop on the turf?
|
# ? Nov 28, 2014 23:30 |
|
Barnsy posted:That's a disaster waiting to happen. Can anyone find the incident report of the Viggen (I think) that did a low pass over a hilltop and actually burned a number of people who were watching with its exhaust? I read it before but lost it.
|
# ? Nov 28, 2014 23:36 |
|
Phanatic posted:Can anyone find the incident report of the Viggen (I think) that did a low pass over a hilltop and actually burned a number of people who were watching with its exhaust? I read it before but lost it. If that's true, it owns
|
# ? Nov 28, 2014 23:42 |
|
Found a news article but somewhere at some point someone posted the actual report on what happened, and I can't find that. http://articles.latimes.com/2002/jun/21/world/fg-briefs21.5
|
# ? Nov 28, 2014 23:51 |
|
Phanatic posted:Can anyone find the incident report of the Viggen (I think) that did a low pass over a hilltop and actually burned a number of people who were watching with its exhaust? I read it before but lost it. quote:The pilot of P 11 (the leader) carried out a take off with a lit AB (zone 3).After rotation and retraction of the landing gear, the pilot turned to the left, after passing the intersection of the runways, and flew over the grass infield at a very low altitude towards the hill on which the visitors stood. The pilot passed over the hill under a weak climb with such an aircraft attitude that three persons in the group were seriously injured due primarily to the AB flame and pressure wave. Several persons threw themselves out of the way or attempted to take cover. A woman was thrown 15 meters from her original position.
|
# ? Nov 28, 2014 23:53 |
|
Here's one of the many other ties for the low altitude record. Love the matter of fact narration. Impact at 3:59. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0i7rVD8kRFU
|
# ? Nov 29, 2014 00:08 |
|
Fucknag posted:This is the best low pass: This is my fave low pass. I was trying to remember what it was called earlier when the discussion started, thanks!
|
# ? Nov 29, 2014 01:03 |
|
Fucknag posted:This is the best low pass: I've had that happen to me, and I almost poo poo myself. Riding a bike along a road outside a field as a younger hexyflexy, and suddenly, random hurricane out of nowhere (well that'd be the airfield I just rode past the end of). 50 foot above my head. Those things are loud, seriously loud.
|
# ? Nov 29, 2014 02:35 |
|
True fact: the bottom of the hull is on a single roller skate.
|
# ? Nov 29, 2014 02:43 |
|
There's always the harvards water skiing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGHQ1pYXsHo
|
# ? Nov 29, 2014 03:16 |
|
FCLP's are always fun. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKccxJmEodU
|
# ? Nov 29, 2014 04:39 |
|
Fucknag posted:This is the best low pass: Alain de Cadenet is the best
|
# ? Nov 29, 2014 14:28 |
|
|
# ? Nov 29, 2014 15:34 |
|
Browsing through the F-1* wikipedia pages either I'm noticing a strong bias or an incomplete story about the F-14 It sounds like the F-14 has a higher max takeoff weight + greater fuel + munitions takeoff weight than the F-18 super-variant, and was getting major avionics upgrades as recent as 2005 before Cheney killed it Did it have to die to create a need for the F-35 or what
|
# ? Nov 29, 2014 21:22 |
|
Hadlock posted:Browsing through the F-1* wikipedia pages either I'm noticing a strong bias or an incomplete story about the F-14 Its understandable to want only one type of fighter-bomber if you can at all manage it. Of course as everything armed services related, the USMC screwed that up.
|
# ? Nov 29, 2014 21:26 |
|
Weren't the Tomcats also incredibly labor-intensive to maintain?
|
# ? Nov 29, 2014 21:38 |
|
F-14 had absolutely hilarious maintenance requirements and costs, plus two crew instead of one, but yes, the F-14 probably was a superior fighter, by quite a few metrics. In a perfect world, the Navy wouldn't have bungled the A-12, which would have probably meant no Super Hornet, and budget room for a fifth generation carrier fighter, instead of a multirole jack of all, master of none. That's like third-level alt-history, though.
|
# ? Nov 29, 2014 21:38 |
|
If we're going alt history then the F-14 would have been replaced by the F-22.
|
# ? Nov 29, 2014 21:41 |
|
hobbesmaster posted:If we're going alt history then the F-14 would have been replaced by the F-22. It could have happened, if the NATF program didn't stink to high hell from the get-go. It was originally supposed to be a straight F-22 derivative, then as the program progressed it evolved into an entirely new aircraft with VG wings and everything, then someone smart pointed out that "hey, if we're basically building an entirely new aircraft, doesn't this mean there won't be any cost savings whatsoever?". Then the A-12 debacle happened and finally killed off NATF once and for all, probably for the best.
|
# ? Nov 29, 2014 21:54 |
|
I'm suddenly struck by the term "Tactical Fighter". Like, aren't all fighters inherently tactical? Is there a such thing as a Strategic Fighter?
|
# ? Nov 30, 2014 00:16 |
|
Fucknag posted:I'm suddenly struck by the term "Tactical Fighter". Like, aren't all fighters inherently tactical? Is there a such thing as a Strategic Fighter? Ace Combat
|
# ? Nov 30, 2014 00:28 |
|
Fucknag posted:I'm suddenly struck by the term "Tactical Fighter". Like, aren't all fighters inherently tactical? Is there a such thing as a Strategic Fighter? SAC used to have fighters. I assume the term is a holdover from when a fighter didn't do everything. You had pursuit, intercept, escort, etc.
|
# ? Nov 30, 2014 00:31 |
|
|
# ? Mar 29, 2024 14:02 |
|
Fucknag posted:I'm suddenly struck by the term "Tactical Fighter". Like, aren't all fighters inherently tactical? Is there a such thing as a Strategic Fighter? Following "strategic bomber" I'm going to guess a strategic fighter would be an interceptor. Possibly carrying a nuke. (I love how the solution to "our guidance systems are terrible" in the 50s was "oh ok just put a nuke in it")
|
# ? Nov 30, 2014 00:32 |