CommieGIR posted:

Flight Sim X: Wirebundle Troubleshooting and Aircraft Documentation Edition.

CommieGIR posted:

Flight Sim X: Wirebundle Troubleshooting and Aircraft Documentation Edition.

mlmp08 posted:

Saw it happen 2 days in a row from the E-2 crew. A bunch of red air being reported as blue until VID, red air deep in canyons getting eaten alive by intercept geometry that should have been impossible given line of sight, track downtell/cueing to give SAMs max kinematic range, EA and range RCS range limitations be damned.

On day 2 the exercise director at least made the reasonable call to tell the E-2 to turn off link-16 and do manual picture calls instead of creating this completely unrealistic scenario.

CommieGIR posted:

Flight Sim X: Wirebundle Troubleshooting and Aircraft Documentation Edition.

CarForumPoster posted:

Could you clue me in to what's being described here?

CarForumPoster posted:

Could you clue me in to what's being described here?

ApathyGifted posted:

My Summer F-35

Wingnut Ninja posted:

If you really want to cheat without getting caught, the real trick is to just tune a spare radio to the red control frequency and generate your own COMINT.

Godholio posted:

That would never happen.

Edit: It gets even easier if you're controlling both sides of the fight from the same place/aircraft.

Inacio posted:

As someone who's been playing it,

Wingnut Ninja posted:

A lot of Link 16 networks have a "blue" and "red" (opposing force) partitions, or they just load different crypto to create two completely separate nets. It sounds like the E-2 loaded the other team's net and was basically able to see where all of their opponents were using the datalink, which creates a very unfair/unrealistic fight if you're not using it judiciously. If it's done accidentally it can cause a lot of confusion as good guys are reported as bad guys and vice versa.

If you really want to cheat without getting caught, the real trick is to just tune a spare radio to the red control frequency and generate your own COMINT.

Ola posted:

Cheating at training seems counterproductive to what training is supposed to achieve.

Ola posted:

Cheating at training seems counterproductive to what training is supposed to achieve.

BIG HEADLINE posted:

This is gonna sound terribly GiP, but...

The people who would do this (without copping to it) are too busy trying to increase their personal stock so when they're up for their next promotion, they look like rock stars. And in psuedo-peacetime like the perpetual state of war-yet-not-war we'll find ourselves in for the next 20+ years, the only thing that matters is getting that pay/rank increase and showcasing ~ambition~ and (at least in the Navy) tolerable cockiness.

Being "the person who colored in the lines his (or her) entire career" earns you less points than having good stories about how you "think outside the box" when it comes time to trade in the uniform for a suit or go from birds, leaves, and stripes to *stars* on your shoulders when a group of your superiors at your promotion board convene to decide if you're cool enough to advance in rank. At O-5+ level, the "Omerta" definitely favors the cheaters and/or rule-benders over the rule-followers and Dudley-Do-Rights, so long as you don't gently caress up.

Also, war games and exercises invariably dictate where and how much funding goes where, so there's always going to be a dichotomy of focus between the need for authentic and practical real-world experience and the money that can be made (and lucrative connections formed with contractors) from correcting flaws and mistakes.

/rant

Cocoa Crispies posted:

at the fragment that could've easily blasted through a passenger terminal

CommieGIR posted:

Flight Sim X: Wirebundle Troubleshooting and Aircraft Documentation Edition.

Cat Mattress posted:

Depends on what you want out of training: is it to become better at your job, or to have your colleagues and superiors think you became better at your job? If you just want a positive evaluation, it's simpler to get it by cheating than by actually improving your skill -- that's the entire point of cheating after all.

The downside of cheating is that you can get caught, this happened to an Israeli pilot.

Nebakenezzer posted:

So I found this: http://www.thetelegram.com/News/Local/2014-07-04/article-3788009/Divers-to-search-for-plane-wrecks-in-Gander-Lake/1

TL;DR - there is a crashed B-24 in Gander Lake that has been found, and a local historical society would like to recover it. There's also (apparently) a B-17 crashed somewhere in Gander Lake. The lake in question is fairly narrow (about 2 km across) and long (56 km) and perhaps more relevantly, deep, with a average depth of 105 m (344 ft.) It's max depth is something like 300 m (984 ft.) That's good news in one sense for recovering warbirds - I'd imagine that's a low oxygen environment, good for preserving things. In another sense, it complicates any sort of salvage operation.

Anyway, I got a few questions in case anybody knows: how do you salvage an airplane out of the water, anyway? What sort of equipment do you need? Another relevant question here is "has this been done elsewhere?" I'm particularly interested in what kind of abilities an ROV would need to assist in salvage.

Inacio posted:

A plane nerd friend of mine introduced me to this guy. Y'all probably know him already, but here goes just in case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Mjbd_6aH8Y

Inacio posted:

A plane nerd friend of mine introduced me to this guy. Y'all probably know him already, but here goes just in case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Mjbd_6aH8Y

Humphreys posted:

MrYenko posted:

That would depend almost entirely on how intact it is. If the aircraft is mostly in one peice, and in a really anoxic environment, you just put straps around it and lift it out. (At that depth, probably with airbags, instead of line.) WWII and earlier naval aircraft are a smidge easier, because they were built with designated lift points, since spare airframes were stored in the overheads of the hangar deck on carriers. You just hook to those points and hoist it out.

Something the size of a B-24 or B-17 would probably be a bit more delicate, but still doable with lift bags. If the structure is sound, it'll come up in one piece. The issue is going to be getting a good structural evaluation done with the airframe well under SCUBA limits. (You could get saturation divers from the oil industry but lol$$$$$$$.)

david_a posted:

I've been meaning to ask - what's the tradeoff between having one tail fin versus two? It seems like for the most part bigger jets have two (F-15, F-14, Su-27) but the smaller ones stick with one (F-16, Gripen). I thought having a single one is more efficient? Would the stresses on a single huge stabilizer be too great? Then again the Viggen had a monster stabilizer...

Spaced God posted:

Geez I wonder who that plane need can be

But yeah Kennedy Steve and Boston John are awesome

Nebakenezzer posted:

So I found this: http://www.thetelegram.com/News/Local/2014-07-04/article-3788009/Divers-to-search-for-plane-wrecks-in-Gander-Lake/1

TL;DR - there is a crashed B-24 in Gander Lake that has been found, and a local historical society would like to recover it. There's also (apparently) a B-17 crashed somewhere in Gander Lake. The lake in question is fairly narrow (about 2 km across) and long (56 km) and perhaps more relevantly, deep, with a average depth of 105 m (344 ft.) It's max depth is something like 300 m (984 ft.) That's good news in one sense for recovering warbirds - I'd imagine that's a low oxygen environment, good for preserving things. In another sense, it complicates any sort of salvage operation.

Anyway, I got a few questions in case anybody knows: how do you salvage an airplane out of the water, anyway? What sort of equipment do you need? Another relevant question here is "has this been done elsewhere?" I'm particularly interested in what kind of abilities an ROV would need to assist in salvage.

e: found a academic paper which states oxygen is uniformly quite good regardless of depth, so nope.

david_a posted:

I've been meaning to ask - what's the tradeoff between having one tail fin versus two? It seems like for the most part bigger jets have two (F-15, F-14, Su-27) but the smaller ones stick with one (F-16, Gripen). I thought having a single one is more efficient? Would the stresses on a single huge stabilizer be too great? Then again the Viggen had a monster stabilizer...

Nebakenezzer posted:

Also lol the structural evaluation, I forgot about that. How would you do that, anyway? Drill a bunch of little holes for core samples to see how far corrosion has gone?

Nebakenezzer posted:

Also while thrashing about on this topic, I found this. Good news, aircraft maintainers! That weird smell in the cabin? Gone.

MrYenko posted:

Visual inspection is fine to see if it's strong enough to handle getting off the bottom, but again, from what you described, it's below SCUBA depths, so you're going to need specialized divers and equipment (or ROVs,) and can't just get aircraft mechanics SCUBA certified to go look at it.


That weird smell is gone, and replaced with a new and even more interesting smell!

david_a posted:

I've been meaning to ask - what's the tradeoff between having one tail fin versus two? It seems like for the most part bigger jets have two (F-15, F-14, Su-27) but the smaller ones stick with one (F-16, Gripen). I thought having a single one is more efficient? Would the stresses on a single huge stabilizer be too great? Then again the Viggen had a monster stabilizer...

Ola posted:

Cheating at training seems counterproductive to what training is supposed to achieve.

Wingnut Ninja posted:

For carrier aircraft, multiple tail fins give you more control surface with a lower height, which makes it easier to fit into a hangar bay. One of the reasons why the E-2/C-2 have four vertical stabilizers (fun fact - only three of the four have rudders).

Wingnut Ninja posted:

For carrier aircraft, multiple tail fins give you more control surface with a lower height, which makes it easier to fit into a hangar bay. One of the reasons why the E-2/C-2 have four vertical stabilizers (fun fact - only three of the four have rudders).