|
The F-14 wasn't really any good until they replaced the garbage disposal TF30s with F110 engines but by that time they also needed a lot of avionics upgrades and the airframes were old enough that there were significant G limits imposed on them. IIRC.
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 02:32 |
|
|
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? Mr. Chips did a post on the Rapier, which was going to be a escort fighter for B-70s - I'd say that's a strategic fighter It was also about the size of a strategic bomber and like the entire XB-70 thing very 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
The Tu-28 was one big mufugga too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted: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") That was the 50s solution to everything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
Godholio posted:That was the 50s solution to everything. Including space ships, excavation, nuclear weapons, surplus military equipment, gas exploration, other nuclear weapons, Pacific islands, plant seeds, and schoolchildren.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
The 1950's was a magical period of time where not a single defense contractor or aeronautics bureau was told "No."
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
Hawaii fun http://vimeo.com/103777875
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:FCLP's are always fun. Can you guys trap on those? Ours near camp lejeune are aligned to the north. Prevailing winds being from the south west. Always makes FCLP day fun.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
PCjr sidecar posted:Including space ships, excavation, nuclear weapons, surplus military equipment, gas exploration, other nuclear weapons, Pacific islands, plant seeds, and schoolchildren. Unlike most of those nuclear air to air missiles were deployed on interceptors throughout the US. (you also missed bazookas)
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 03:27
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Unlike most of those nuclear air to air missiles were deployed on interceptors throughout the US. Man, Project Pluto... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto Its like Fallout almost became real. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic_Low_Altitude_Missile
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
Bob A Feet posted:Can you guys trap on those? There's arresting gear on the runway for emergencies, but it's not set up to simulate a carrier and you don't put your hook down for FCLPs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 04:18
|
|
|
Colonel K posted:Hawaii fun http://vimeo.com/103777875 That music is not Sail. I was not aware that it was possible to make a video like this with music other than Sail.  Nice scenery.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
PCjr sidecar posted:Including space ships, excavation, nuclear weapons, surplus military equipment, gas exploration, other nuclear weapons, Pacific islands, plant seeds, and schoolchildren. The 50s were right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 07:22
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:The 1950's was a magical period of time where not a single defense contractor or aeronautics bureau was told "No." Sometimes the loving contractors were the ones to say "No." The Lockheed Suntan being one example. The link doesn't tell the whole story. The Skunk Works was given close to $100 million to build a supersonic recon aircraft fueled by liquid hydrogen. Kelly Johnson et al produced a sketch design, realized the thing wasn't going to work, and sent back the money. Curtis LeMay's declaration that he wasn't going to put his crews into what amounted to a "loving bomb" probably helped.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 14:34
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Sometimes the loving contractors were the ones to say "No." The Lockheed Suntan being one example. Imagine if they'd said yes and it actually worked though. We'd be living in a world full of hydrogen powered cars, clean air, and people would complain about hydrogen cartels price gouging and colluding. Now that's some all-history!
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
Linedance posted:Imagine if they'd said yes and it actually worked though. We'd be living in a world full of hydrogen powered cars, clean air, and people would complain about hydrogen cartels price gouging and colluding. Now that's some all-history! Yeah, no. We don't have a natural source of free hydrogen (hydrogen in the atmosphere is lost to space), so it would have to come from petroleum in some way, and that process wastes lots of the potential energy in petroleum.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
EightBit posted:Yeah, no. We don't have a natural source of free hydrogen (hydrogen in the atmosphere is lost to space), so it would have to come from petroleum in some way, and that process wastes lots of the potential energy in petroleum. We also have this stuff called water (admittedly hydrocarbons are the economically efficent way to do it.) Preview fact for the next infodump which I have to share because I don't know what the christ: So the Nazis in 1940 had build the best long distance reconnaissance aircraft in the world. They had a prototype flying and everything. 5000 km range, fully pressurized, 41,000 ft ceiling. They didn't put it into production because it had been commissioned to carry the 1940 Olympic torch from Berlin to Tokyo in a single bound, and now that the Olympics was cancelled they didn't see the point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Sometimes the loving contractors were the ones to say "No." The Lockheed Suntan being one example. If Curtis LeMay thinks you're crazy, you've really gone off the deep end...
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:We also have this stuff called water (admittedly hydrocarbons are the economically efficent way to do it.) According to Wikipedia they sort of continued work on it until 1944. Never put it into production because who knows.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
Yeah, two additional prototypes were built for aeronautical research.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
How interesting: the U-2 was also used for dropping bombs in its later years!
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Curtis LeMay's declaration that he wasn't going to put his crews into what amounted to a "loving bomb" probably helped. “Bombs Away” LeMay thought it was dangerous? Lockheed Suntan: less palatable than a nuclear first‐strike on the Soviet Union.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
Inacio posted:How interesting: the U-2 was also used for dropping bombs in its later years! You silly man.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
Is that a canoe? I would love to see the photo one minute later panned a little to the left....
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
Inacio posted:How interesting: the U-2 was also used for dropping bombs in its later years! Huh, it's the Swordfish's bastard cousin.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
Ardeem posted:Huh, it's the Swordfish's bastard cousin. A Swordfishski?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
There was a little incident between a firetruck and helicopter down in Santiago in Chile.  "Loss of tail-rotor efficiency"
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
Aero737 posted:There was a little incident between a firetruck and helicopter down in Santiago in Chile. Helicopters are awesome.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
Inacio posted:How interesting: the U-2 was also used for dropping bombs in its later years! I do wonder what kind of range you could get out of a SDB dropped from ~80k, or if any range advantage would be lost due to the thinner air robbing it of glide potential.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 06:33
|
|
|
 they're not talking about the spy plane...
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 06:42
|
|
|
In other news, I flew a ULCC over the holiday weekend and made all my connections with time to spare, got to my destination on time, and didn't have to put up with any poo poo. Based on what I read on the internet, this is impossible.  I don't quite get why every low cost carrier hasn't basically photocopied Southwest's playbook, though. The ULCC model - at least as I've read about or experienced on Spirit, Frontier, et al, is even more gently caress-you bare bones than Southwest, but they don't beat Southwest pricing consistently enough (or by enough) for me to really see how it's going to be viable in the long run. ULCCs seem logical for regional carriers - if nothing else, two hours on a terrible beater A319 or 737 is far more reasonable than five - but economy of scale means Southwest or a hypothetical similar airline can just be everyone's regional carrier.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 07:01
|
|
|
Geoj posted:
Yes, I'm well aware of that. I'm just thinking of the hypothetical range of an SDB dropped from 2-4x higher than it normally is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 09:10
|
|
|
Someone post the bombing charts for the Blackbird
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 09:30
|
|
|
Psion posted:In other news, I flew a ULCC over the holiday weekend and made all my connections with time to spare, got to my destination on time, and didn't have to put up with any poo poo. Based on what I read on the internet, this is impossible. Southwest has been the subject of a lot of management courses' case studies, and basically their model is so dependent on efficiencies and short turn around that as soon as you try to interface with a traditional airline, poo poo falls apart. I think it was Delta that tried to go ulcc on some of their routes / regionals and it was a total and unmitigated disaster.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 12:50
|
|
|
Song and Ted were loving horrible and stupid (DL and UAL respectively). Southwest's relative advantages were probably overstated in the late 00s case studies since a significant part of their pricing power came from a structural source (newish carrier with rapid growth, therefore relatively low labor costs by default) and a fuel hedge bet that paid off spectacularly. If you look at their pricing and profitability now, they are much more in line with a traditional full service carrier. It's sort of disingenuous to call them "low cost"
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 13:54
|
|
|
Aero737 posted:There was a little incident between a firetruck and helicopter down in Santiago in Chile. Here's the reverse angle of that - kick it up to the 2 min mark to see the emergency vehicle go cruising on through like there isn't a rapidly spinning rotordisk hanging out there or anything: http://www.liveleak.com/ll_embed?f=9dc9a363ff7d I hope somebody punched/fired that idiot. Best part? He doesn't even stop.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:Here's the reverse angle of that - kick it up to the 2 min mark to see the emergency vehicle go cruising on through like there isn't a rapidly spinning rotordisk hanging out there or anything: Why didn't the pilot shut down the engine after the hit? Pull a fire handle?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:Here's the reverse angle of that - kick it up to the 2 min mark to see the emergency vehicle go cruising on through like there isn't a rapidly spinning rotordisk hanging out there or anything: Holy poo poo, what a freaking dumbass! babyeatingpsychopath posted:Why didn't the pilot shut down the engine after the hit? Pull a fire handle? I imagine he was trying to, but like most things, turbine engines and rotor blades don't just stop spinning when you ask them to.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
babyeatingpsychopath posted:Why didn't the pilot shut down the engine after the hit? Pull a fire handle? Something tells me a device spinning a tens of thousands of RPMs doesn't spin down instantly. Think of how long it takes for the rotor to spin up from a dead stop, to move all that mass up to its operational speed. Now imagine the reverse where all that mass is moving at a decent clip.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 02:32 |
|
|
Maybe it's best we don't try to justify/explain that sequence of events because there is nothing about any of it that makes any sense. I mean it's a running helicopter in the middle of a overly dark city street getting hit by a fire truck. That's about as  as it gets.
Mazz fucked around with this message at 16:41 on Dec 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 16:38
|
|
