Aeronautical Insanity: switching to secondary tolerances

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Automotive Insanity > Aeronautical Insanity: switching to secondary tolerances

That Works: Jul 22, 2006; Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy

Small, efficient, maneuverable, multi-functional, reliable. One great plane.

Edited for 757 beauty:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVUDMkBfds4&feature=related

That Works fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Mar 12, 2010

# ¿ Mar 12, 2010 19:06

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 03:55

That Works: Jul 22, 2006; Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy

WT Wally posted:

It looks like it started out as a Short Sunderland.

It is. It was a Short Sunderland MkIII converted to a MkV before being refit for passenger service.

# ¿ Mar 16, 2010 16:46

That Works: Jul 22, 2006; Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy

Brits sure know how to make em pretty.

The Hawker Hunter

Unfortunately it doesn't have a great service record.

That Works fucked around with this message at 05:12 on Mar 17, 2010

# ¿ Mar 17, 2010 05:09

That Works: Jul 22, 2006; Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy

ursa_minor posted:

I'm not sure if I've been in this particular airplane or not. To be honest, I'm just that slackjawed but quiet kid that you see being pulled around by a pilot dad - cargo shorts, camera, and a signed 'RARE BEAR' shirt or something. As a result, some piloty Mom or Dad will see me and offer me a ride. I've been stuffed into Stearmans, Meyer OTWs, Stardusters - once even a de Havilland Tigermoth. Every highwing Cessna you can imagine - from 120s to 208Bs, and a few warbirds too, B-17, B-24, and a B-25s.

My dad used to be part of the pit crew for a racing Mong (single seat racing biplane) out at the Reno Air Races - so my and my sister were rung through the ringer of complimentary flights, almost like how a mom-type would give some nice kids some sweets, we'd get rides.

Now I'm this big hairy man and my little sister is still cute, so she got a ride in this Lockheed.

Luckily we are really tight with the owners, so if I even so much as asked, I'm sure I could get a ride.
Here's some pictures she took:

I think she was 12 at the time.

What a beautiful plane. I am so very jealous. The only interesting thing I've gotten to fly in was a 1942 Taylorcraft.

Much like this little gem here. It's fun flying in a completely analog plane with no radio and a fuel gage that consists of a wire in front of the front windscreen floating on a cork in the gas tank. Pretty interesting way to estimate how much fuel you have left.

# ¿ Mar 20, 2010 08:40

That Works: Jul 22, 2006; Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy

Fucknag posted:

Man, what are the odds of timing that shot so perfectly?

Pretty good if the pilot didn't care about what happens to the plane after :v:

# ¿ Mar 25, 2010 20:55

That Works: Jul 22, 2006; Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy

joat mon posted:

[timg]https://wi.somethingawful.com/a0/a059bf8eaad415b72b0ec5978f3ad5efa9e61c7a.jpg[/url][/timg]

Less than 900 were built, and only 25 of them had the 75mm.

But allow me to introduce you to the Mitchell B-25H:

One 75mm cannon in the nose
Four .50 cal. machine guns in the nose
Four .50s in the 'cheeks' (two per side).
two .50s in the dorsal turret
two .50s in the waist (one per side)
two .50s in the tail turret
plus bombs.

I still like the Hs-129, which is less than 1/2 the size of the B-25, more.

Wasn't there a B-25 that they fitted with a 5" gun? Seems like I remember seeing that on Wings growing up, they were trying to use it for anti-shipping or somesuch.

# ¿ Mar 27, 2010 14:28

That Works: Jul 22, 2006; Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy

Ah, the B-25H had a 75mm cannon in the nose at some point.

http://www.historyflight.com/aircraft_b25mitchell.htm

# ¿ Mar 27, 2010 17:30

That Works: Jul 22, 2006; Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy

Godholio posted:

It's a KC-135, and the receiver is some flavor of 707. It's not an E-6, it has the wrong engines. I'm wondering if it might be a JSTARS? The resolution might not be good enough to show the radome. But the paint scheme is weird...honestly I don't know of anything that has the forward portion of the engine cowlings painted different from the rest; that bright white portion is really making me wonder. I don't THINK it's a JSTARS, but the US just doesn't have many 707 airframes anymore. E-3, E-6, E-8, RC-135, KC-135...that's all that comes to mind right now.

Edit: It's an OC-135 Open Skies! I've actually seen these before, too. Duh.

Sure as hell is an OC-135... what was it doing over Scotland then? :tinfoil:

# ¿ Apr 3, 2010 15:00

That Works: Jul 22, 2006; Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy

Nebakenezzer posted:

Jesus!

It utterly blows my mind how much some people are willing to spend on a hobby.

There's almost $100k in that camera! :rice:

# ¿ Apr 3, 2010 20:29

That Works: Jul 22, 2006; Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy

Yeah, you kinda figure the tanker would be the last plane to be running low on fuel...

# ¿ Apr 4, 2010 20:01

That Works: Jul 22, 2006; Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy

Godholio posted:

Ah...they do that.

The reason a tanker would refuel another tanker isn't because he doesn't have enough gas to get to his destination (unless there's some kind of maintenance problem, in which case he's going to divert wherever he needs to), it's more for fuel and asset management.

Scenario: A KC-135 has been on station for 9 hours. Most of his planned receivers cancelled due to terrible weather at their base. That tanker needs to RTB soon, because the airplane and crew both need to be ready to fly tomorrow. But the plane is still drat near full of fuel. You can't just bring that much gas home...for one thing landing an airplane that heavy will destroy the landing gears. The runway may not be designed to take that kind of impact. Even without those concerns, it's just plain dangerous. So the preferred action is dump the excess fuel. Basically the plane flies over an approved area and opens release valves to dump fuel...this happens high enough that the fuel vaporizes long before it would reach the ground. But that's a LOT of fuel, and that poo poo is expensive. Also, what happens if one of the tankers that's supposed to take off tonight breaks and can't fly? Now you don't have enough gas in theater to fight the war. So the solution is to consolidate what you've got in the air already, and pour that gas from the outgoing tanker into a newer tanker than can accommodate it.

This happens on a daily basis. It made my day when we had KC-10s in the air, just because of cases like this.

Ah cool that's a good explanation, thanks a lot.

# ¿ Apr 4, 2010 21:11

That Works: Jul 22, 2006; Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy

Mobius1B7R posted:

Wow a double post, I am an idiot. Well lets make something fun out of this, what is the best engine noise to your ears? I personally love the howl of the RBs on the 757.

Seen enough F-4 flybys as a kid that it still sticks with me.

# ¿ Apr 9, 2010 14:35

That Works: Jul 22, 2006; Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy

ab0z posted:

"Your honor, I present exhibit A. as proof that I am indeed, the bomb."

Should be his new avatar / title combo...

# ¿ Apr 12, 2010 13:01

That Works: Jul 22, 2006; Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy

Previa_fun posted:

I'd like to give a shout-out to the best fighter that almost was: The Northrop F-20 Tigershark.

Based on the F-5 airframe, the Tigershark was updated with cutting edge avionics, a slightly different design for better aerodynamics, and a MUCH more powerful engine. If the F-5 is the Miata of jet aircraft, the F-20 is the Miata with a LSx swap.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kw9nlgnPq3E

I'd have loved to see these flown by a military demonstration team. Would have been perfect for, say, the Thunderbirds, but instead they fly the incredibly overrated F-16.

Holy poo poo it had a 70% thrust increase over the F-5... didn't know that.

# ¿ Apr 14, 2010 05:22

That Works: Jul 22, 2006; Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy

KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:

The wing on the 787 is beautiful. I think it may be the best looking pod-under-wing aircraft.

I just noticed that too, seems like it has a huge amount of dihedral compared to the other airliners though.

# ¿ May 19, 2010 15:54

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 03:55

That Works: Jul 22, 2006; Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy

slidebite posted:

Anyone know what that is next to the engine? It looks like a packed chute in front of it for whatever it is.

It's a RATO pack like others have said. Also it is a packed chute on the front. After RATO they jettisoned the pod and it floated down on the chute for re-use.

# ¿ Jun 19, 2010 18:44

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Automotive Insanity > Aeronautical Insanity: switching to secondary tolerances