|
xergm posted:Also, we like to keep all the cool things for ourselves unless we don't have a reason to withhold it. You can bet the software load on the exported Super Hornets won't be 1:1 with USN Super Hornet in terms of features. Yea this is a great point. I've speculated this is why the US has trouble exporting some of it's more capable planes too. The capabilities are kept secret. I've seen contracts going to SAAB or Israel that may have come here if we'd actually let them buy what we use.
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 21:14 |
|
|
Tetraptous posted:I once did a flight test at Eglin off the range containing what's left of the small runway the Doolittle raid was developed on. It was cool to be there, but there's not much to see other than an X'd out runway in the middle of what Floridians call "the woods." That's the nicest part of the panhandle by a significant margin. Don't venture too far.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
A question in case anybody knows: was the B-24 partially based off of a Consolidated flying boat? If so, which one?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:A question in case anybody knows: was the B-24 partially based off of a Consolidated flying boat? If so, which one? I believe the wing cross-section was used on a flying boat prototype, the model 31/XP4Y, that didn't go into production before it was used on the B-24. Possibly the tail as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:A question in case anybody knows: was the B-24 partially based off of a Consolidated flying boat? If so, which one? The B-24 (Consolidated Model 32) was designed at the same time as the Consolidated Model 31, a flying boat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
revmoo posted:I am over by Eglin this week. Anything I should see? Already doing the museum here, and the one in Pensacola. The Battleship Park in Mobile is a little shop worn, and may be an hour too far in the wrong direction for you, but they have some interesting stuff there, including the Northrop YF-17 Cobra, that lost the Lightweight Fighter Competition to the General Dynamics F-16. Then the Navy decided to embiggen it, and have McDonnell Douglas build it as the F-18 Hornet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
Ola posted:Given the same price? What about 2x the price? 4x? Assuming par with full freight business class, 100% of time. Assuming 2x, maybe 30-50% of the time, depending on need.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
Random Hercules flying boat post, to remind everyone that we're in the most boring version of the multiverse.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Random Hercules flying boat post, to remind everyone that we're in the most boring version of the multiverse. Damnit, that should have been built and then used heavily by the marines just so I could have (more) rad stories of my step dad bitching about having to have worked on them in Vietnam. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
joat mon posted:The B-24 (Consolidated Model 32) was designed at the same time as the Consolidated Model 31, a flying boat. StandardVC10 posted:I believe the wing cross-section was used on a flying boat prototype, the model 31/XP4Y, that didn't go into production before it was used on the B-24. Possibly the tail as well. Thanks for the replies, guys. It was something I saw mentioned in passing once or twice, but it was all really vague. I find it amazing that one of World War 2's most successful bombers was a sorta parts bin project put together in a relatively short amount of time, and it was envisioned from the start as something multi-role. Now here's a really nerdy question: is the B-24 D and he B-24 Mk. V the same model? And is the VLR (very long range) version a separate mark/letter, or was VLR kinda like a kit applied to a B-24?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
"Jetman" formation flights https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSgrzMQv2Mc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNaZCDhvh88
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Thanks for the replies, guys. It was something I saw mentioned in passing once or twice, but it was all really vague. The Mk. V was essentially a B-24D with more fuel capacity and less armor, with the same armament as a Mk. III. As for the VLR, I'm having a hard time finding anything definitive, but I think they were just modifications to existing airframes (probably stripping armor and adding extra fuel tanks) that may have been done at a local level.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 07:22
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:"Jetman" formation flights I kept egging him on to fly over and sit on one of the planes to go for a ride.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 09:45
|
|
|
Humphreys posted:I kept egging him on to fly over and sit on one of the planes to go for a ride. Or at least grab one of the winglets on that A380 video and pull a very literal Marty McFly. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 09:59 on Nov 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 09:55
|
|
|
You know when surfers wipe out in a tube wave? I wonder what it looks like when Jetman hits an A380 wingtip vortex.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 10:21
|
|
|
Ola posted:You know when surfers wipe out in a tube wave? I wonder what it looks like when Jetman hits an A380 wingtip vortex. Well, those jetpacks top out at practically the A380's stall speed - in the Emirates video the A380 was cruising at ~140 knots. I have to admit, though - there's a video with them just jetting over Dubai where they do some pretty impressive inverted rolls and Cuban 8s - I'd only seen them gently banking and flying level before today.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 10:27
|
|
|
Ola posted:You know when surfers wipe out in a tube wave? I wonder what it looks like when Jetman hits an A380 wingtip vortex. That was also something I kinda wanted to see in a morbid way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 11:17
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:"Jetman" formation flights
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 11:25
|
|
|
coldpudding posted:I want to see this guy take off, fly up the arse of a C-17, refuel then takeoff again knight rider style. Holy poo poo. That's perfect.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 11:52
|
|
|
 Amerika Bombers I: Black Gay Hitler 'Black Gay Hitler' is a term used on the somethingawful.com forums; it means any history counterfactual so far removed from the actual history as to cease to be a meaningful what-if. For instance, given how World War 2 went down, the Nazis winning the battle of the Atlantic (IE imposing an effective blockade against Britain) is something that could have happened, given not very many changes on the Allied and Axis sides. It is not Black Gay Hitler. The Germans never declaring war on the Soviet Union on the first place, and, say, using at least some of those resources to secure Mideast oil instead is very black gay Hitler, since you are changing not only history, but in a large part the reasons and mentality of the Nazis in the first place The German transocean aircraft projects, collectively lumped under the label "Amerika bombers" is definitely Black Gay Hitler. While a few prototype Amerika bombers did actually exist, none of them could have accomplished a trans-continental air raid. Furthermore, even if a viable design existed, the Nazis utterly lacked the resources, fuel, and industrial capacity to build a fleet, or even a bombing wing of such aircraft. If you've read some of the Luftwaffe posts on this blog, you can guess the reasons why. Even if you can't do that, you can look at the only design that ever entered service that was "transocean" as the Nazis envisioned: the B-36. That airplane took the USA until the end of the Second World War to engineer. This long build time was despite that the USA had 1) vastly greater experience in strategic bombers, 2) aero engines that could actually power a sky-leviathan, and 3) overwhelming material and industrial might compared to - well - anyone. A quick perusal through the B-36's development will give you a handy list of things the German aircraft industry just couldn't do. I recently read a book on the Third Reich's Amerika bomber projects, The Luftwaffe Over America, by Manfred Griel. Griel in his introduction too marks the whole thing as Black Gay Hitler (he may have used a different term) by setting the base condition for Amerika bombers being: control of the caucuses oil fields by Germany and the Soviet Union knocked out of the war. This is a little series of posts sharing what I've learned. Linky
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 03:18
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Amerika Bombers I: Black Gay Hitler Thanks, I can't wait for part II! I love your epic posts, they're written well and they're about things I hardly know anything about so I don't know where they're going, so long as I don't ruin it by reading up on Wikipedia about R101
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
I'm watching some old eps of Great Planes/Wings on youtube. Are there any modern, HD equivalents? Looking around on youtube most of the stuff I find in HD is lovely top ten lists, or pretty, but not very informative plane porn videos.Nebakenezzer posted:
Excellent as always.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 12:29
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:
Awesome! Love your effort posts, they're always so good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 13:11
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:
That was, as always, a great read. One thing, though: The HE-177 was called "Greif", not "Grief", as you spell it. That means it's pronounced more like "grife" (with an ʀ instead of the usual English ɹ though).I usually don't care about these things, but since you made a quip about the phonetic German, I felt like I should point it out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:
So basically, the Germans wanted an aircraft that could do a lot of contradictory things, and thought that it would be possible through technology breakthroughs, but the technological breakthroughs didn't work and the compromise design ended up being bad at everything it was supposed to do, but they nonetheless stuck with it because of sunk cost fallacy. I'm glad that the lessons of the past have been learned and that these mistakes are no longer committed nowadays.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
Babies Getting Rabies posted:One thing, though: The HE-177 was called "Greif", not "Grief", as you spell it. That means it's pronounced more like "grife" (with an ʀ instead of the usual English ɹ though).I usually don't care about these things, but since you made a quip about the phonetic German, I felt like I should point it out. Thanks for the note; let me share another mistake I made: sullat posted:Derbies are a type of hat, debris is the residue of a riot. Cat Mattress posted:So basically, the Germans wanted an aircraft that could do a lot of contradictory things, and thought that it would be possible through technology breakthroughs, but the technological breakthroughs didn't work and the compromise design ended up being bad at everything it was supposed to do, but they nonetheless stuck with it because of sunk cost fallacy. If you want to see the sunken cost fallacy squared, check out the Me 210. It was designed to replace the Bf 110, the Ju 87, and Hs 129. It was supposed to do all this very cheap and cheerfully too; as it was going to share parts with the Bf 110 - basically it was going to be the plane the Bf 110 intended to be, but wasn't. Unfortunately the rush to get the thing into production kept its grievous flaws from being addressed (at one point test pilots were refusing to fly the prototypes) and uh, yeah. A multipurpose disaster. e: Nazis. Making the mistakes of tomorrow, today! Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 18:45 on Nov 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-mikoyan-obituary-idUSKBN13K1P7quote:Vano Mikoyan, one of the developers of the MiG fighter jets for the Soviet and then Russian air force, has died at the age of 89, aircraft maker MiG said on Friday. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
Some jackass was flying from LAX to Moscow and found himself getting dropped off in Iqualuit. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/aeroflot-flight-la-moscow-diverted-iqaluit-unruly-passenger-1.3868254
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
I was on a flight the other day and after we landed the crew at the back was talking to the crew up front, but they left it on the cabin PA system so I got to overhear a nice conversation about potables while waiting to deplane. The question was what their potable status was and the answer was "half a tank." this made me wonder what half a tank was in a unit that meant something to me, and in between about seventy-five thousand posts of complaining about how posters on airliners.net would never drink from the potable system because [pile of anecdotes and opinions worthy of a chain email forward], I did find this. anyone know if they're right? quote:MD88/90 47USG (177.9L) the post is 12 years old, but it's the best one I could find. I'd go with the 737-800 total of 60 USG, except I've also seen other posts saying 30, others saying 40 and not specifying which 737 they mean so who knows 
Psion fucked around with this message at 21:00 on Nov 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
A: No, seriously, never drink from an airplane's "potable" water supply. B: Tank size is probably customer-specified, which means it's also probably variable between individual airframes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
Mmm, let me clarify that - I know there are reasons not to, but I also know that thread is full of anecdotes which are nothing but white noise for my specific question I was trying to research. I could've phrased that better. as far as customer-specified tank size, I guess that makes some sense. I saw a post which claimed a plane with four tanks for a passenger layout will probably be reduced to one tank for a freighter layout; I can buy the same for passenger layouts depending on how the airline intends to use the plane, too. As to how true that all is, again, dunno. clearly the best option is to ask one of the FAs next time I'm at the rear lav. that'll be totally normal and won't raise red flags at all, right?  Psion fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Nov 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Psion posted:clearly the best option is to ask one of the FAs next time I'm at the rear lav. that'll be totally normal and won't raise red flags at all, right? It depends. Describe your skin tone on a scale of #FFFFFF to #000000.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
Psion posted:Mmm, let me clarify that - I know there are reasons not to, but I also know that thread is full of anecdotes which are nothing but white noise for my specific question I was trying to research. I could've phrased that better. And to complicate things even further, actual capacity and indicated capacity is often independent. Full indication = "enough". Also, the FAs aren't going to have the foggiest clue as to how much the tanks actually hold, or where the water even comes from other than "out of the tap". The pilots might be able to tell you if they look it up in their manual.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:It depends. #00FFFF
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Some jackass was flying from LAX to Moscow and found himself getting dropped off in Iqualuit. Ouch. Does he have to pay to make his way back home?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
He might not make it back!
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
I genuinely don't know how that works, but he is literally in the middle of nowhere. https://flightaware.com/live/flight/AFL107/history/20161124/2300Z/KLAX/CYFB Going to be a hell of a hangover.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
Better CYFB than Thule Air Base!
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
Hangover? Layover? All the same above the circle.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 21:14 |
|
|
Prop Wash posted:Better CYFB than Thule Air Base! What is that, some kind of southern airbase for pussies? Alert, motherfuckers! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alert_Airport (Yeah, I know it doesn't have a long enough [or paved] runway for an A330)
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 22:50
|
|
