|
Minto Took posted:Yeah, noticed those too. That's a cool airplane owner. I like that the dice says 23.
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2012 01:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 10:27 |
|
|
okay, so I'm copying this straight out of a book called "I Learned About Flying From That"quote:I'll Never Do That Again http://www.amazon.com/Learned-About-Flying-From-That/dp/1933231246/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1340766682&sr=8-1&keywords=1933231246
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2012 04:16
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2us2kOQd6g some kid out there has the BEST loving DAD in the world
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2012 05:40
|
|
|
The last Airdrie airshow had an AN-2 on static display and the person "MC"ing the flight displays mentioned that it was the kind of airplane where you could get it airbourne, throttle back to nothing, and fly all night. Was this accurate? How would this kind of flying affect affordability? While I'm on the subject, who would I e-mail at Lockheed if I wanted to point out that Airdrie has the closest regular airshow to the PM's home riding, and while I'm not involved in any kind of organization, I would LOVE to see a flight demo. Especially since my taxes have, apparently, helped develop the drat thing.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2012 00:37
|
|
|
Plywood rots. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2012 16:30
|
|
|
Sikkens put a ton of research into the silver paint used by McLaren's F1 cars. It's designed to go onto Carbon Fibre, is low weight, and can handle extreme temperatures. It's the right colour too!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2012 02:31
|
|
|
I've decided I love old US propoganda films. Pre-Vietnam US is such a different society than today... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHee8RzSctQ
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2012 03:53
|
|
|
I don't know how to link to facebook statuses, but if you aren't following the Bugatti 100p project, they just showed prototypes for a 1/32 scale model they're going to start marketing. oh, and they're building a replica Bugatti 100p replica too. http://www.facebook.com/TheBugatti100pProject
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2012 18:29
|
|
|
 Harvards are great! I'm pretty sure they are relatively obtainable too.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2012 04:15
|
|
|
Me, I just think airplanes look best in yellow and red...       
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2012 06:07
|
|
|
http://www.newairplane.com/787/dreampass/ Why has no one posted this yet?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2012 06:53
|
|
|
I don't really like to backtrack threads, but... Where does the Tu-95 Bear fall in on the twin prop discussion? It's still in active operation, when it's jet contemporaries have all fallen by the wayside. Is this a particularly good implementation or just Soviet drat-the-cost maintainance procedures? Also, there is a facebook page for the Bugatti 100p project which has some nice photos of a gorgeous plane as well as neat pictures of gears and pins and stuff. good stuff. http://www.facebook.com/TheBugatti100pProject edit: This goes back to the Thunderscreech discussion too! Guess why. Loud faster than sound propellers by design Jonny Nox fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Jan 3, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2013 22:30
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:The Bear has subsonic props although it is still hilariously loud. I don't think the 100P had supersonic props. Uhh, whoops, I meant the Bear, not the 100p. I am bad at the internet (and yes I am going by Wikipedia, so am likely wrong about this.  )
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2013 00:30
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Supposedly, the Bear is actually a pretty reliable aircraft... Thread pulls through, again. StandardVC10 posted:I see. Your last remark reminds me of the Unducted Fan experiments from the eighties. They never made production but are pretty fun to look at.  Higher bypass? How much do you want? All of it!Edit:Actually turboprops are heading in that direction, only reversed. http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Navy/Grumman-E-2D-Hawkeye/2088182/&sid=41887b9b123d05b21d40dc0ddc2265d0 http://www.airliners.net/photo/Bombardier/De-Havilland-Canada/2207287/&sid=a2785fca6a6136ac0493da6372b245f6 Jonny Nox fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Jan 4, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2013 21:25
|
|
|
The B-2 mission length record is 50hrs apparently. Makes you think though: Could any power in the world actually go toe-to-toe with the US in a full scale war? Does anyone have the range and penetrability to get to Whiteman? Because I'm thinking that a B-2 could render PAK-FAs and Eurofighters obsolete by taking away their runways. Anything else would be lunch meat for F-22s and F-35s. Good luck running a ground war with OA-10s and Apaches running around at will. Also LOL at RCAF being the Sixth largest air force in the Americas after US, US, US, US, and Brazil.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2013 20:55
|
|
|
I don't want to interupt the graphic design chat (seriously), but this video keeps popping up in my youtube "related" video list, so I figure you all can enjoy it too. Vulcans over the Falklands. British as all gently caress https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40knj0qg_Us Cary on the typeface chat now.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2013 02:41
|
|
|
A RAF Hawk just took off from Calgary. While it was awesomely loud I need to know WHY there was a Hawk taking off from Calgary. I'm guessing it's Suffield related, but what could the be doing here that they can't do in Jolly England? Cold weather training? Because they picked a hell of a good week for it then. Anyways, Hawks are really cool looking.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2013 18:39
|
|
|
You could go the Bob Lutz route and buy a Soviet equivalent. Maybe a MiG-27? Just paint lines for an internal bomb bay and add a jet fueled flamethrower on the back. Tell people it shrunk in the wash. http://www.topgear.com/uk/photos/gm-chief-bob-lutz-flight-2011-12-16
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2013 19:58
|
|
|
Oh, I was talking about the F-111 A Hustler, or any other strategic bomber is basically unobtainable and beyond uneconomical. It's silly really. Unless you incorporate! Found MyfuckingHustler inc. Sell shares. Share holders can ride in your loving Hustler, but need to go dutch on fuel.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2013 20:22
|
|
|
block51 posted:I can't recall for certain but I am pretty sure I was making air plane swoosh noises to myself as I stood there looking at it. For all your plane swoosh needs: http://anigrand.com/AA4007_XB-70.htm http://anigrand.com/AA4059_XB-59.htm also http://www.miniwing.cz/models_1_144/mini007/Avro_CF-105_Arrow.htm Wish I had the skill to consider spending the $$$
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
slidebite posted:You can actually buy a decent 1/48 Hobbycraft CF105 model for a fair price. AMT did a 1/72 Valkyrie years back too. I actually have one. http://www.modelingmadness.com/review/mod/us/hamm70.htm I just like working in (injected) 1/144 scale. They're cheap, and you can build them fast and put a bunch of them on a bookshelf. Yeah, I'm not very mature about the whole toy plane building thing. In my head, 1/48 will always be associated with people who buy $100 photo etch and Resin kits, then end up with a model that's more filler than plastic because the body was 2mm too short and the wings were 1mm off on chord on the wingtips. Which is the opposite of the above. Umm, this is a real derail though, so have a youtube playlist called "Wingsof the Luftwaffe" http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL321EC5570CED9FBE
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2013 21:34
|
|
|
MrChips posted:I haven't built a model for ages - it's been something like 15 years or so. I was pretty good at the basics, but I never had the tools or the patience to do all the little details that actually make a model look like a real aircraft. I've given some thought to building models again; the problem is that based on what I want to build, the kits are either crap or super-expensive. I guess that's what happens when you've got an interest in lesser-known or prototype aircraft made after WWII. quote:On a related subject, an aircraft I'd love to see an example in airworthy condition is the Avro CF-100 Canuck. As much as the Arrow gets all the attention, the Clunk was the only military aircraft designed and built in Canada to be put into production. In fact, I was thinking of aircraft like this when I lamented the lack of airworthy historical aircraft. While they're bound to be hideously expensive to operate, we're getting to the point where, apart from a handful of F-104s, there are no airworthy "Century Series" fighters. Beyond that, what of contemporary naval types? How many F-8s are still flying today? quote:Sure it wasn't one of our own? There was one at the Avitat much earlier this morning. Could very well have been, but it had the bicolor rondel, and I though Canada's was always the maple leaf one? Jonny Nox fucked around with this message at 01:57 on Jan 31, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2013 01:31
|
|
|
If Westjet is looking at moving on from 737s, could Bombardier be looking at pitching their C-jet? They have an existing commercial relationship now. I will admit that I didn't look at the compared financials of the 2.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2013 04:55
|
|
|
Can the F-16 slow down enough to escort a Cessna, or how does that work?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2013 06:34
|
|
|
Linedance posted:realistically though now that the genie is out of the bottle with UAVs, the idea of carrier launched fighter/bombers is approaching obsolescence. A pure escort fighter is still useful, and stealth bombers to wipe out your target's airports etc. have their place, but what does a carrier launched fighter/bomber actually do? Close Air Support is still a role for manned aircraft, as is AWACs. I just hope it doesn't end up being the Missiles only policy that destroyed British air industries. And for whoever posted it earlier, calling the F-4 the original JSF is a bit disingenuous. The F-4 was designed to be a carrier based jet fighter. Period. Despite being a heavy, smokey aircraft it was enough better than anything else at the time it actually managed to overcome the Air Force's "Not Invented Here" mentality and they got a version modded up for them. Also, apparently it's no accident the X-47 looks a lot like the A-12. edit: SH-60 is another aircraft that ended up being an "All Service" type. Although with little commonality. edit: I was going to make a snarky comment about how MDD didn't donate 10s of Billions of dollars to US political parties, so add that to my paragraph about F-4s Jonny Nox fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Feb 24, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2013 17:20
|
|
|
Previa_fun posted:Them props. It's whatever 5.6m is. And the tips are supersonic.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2013 03:41
|
|
|
A-10: No, you can't loving step there! (click for big, it makes more sense)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2013 04:54
|
|
|
It seems like the real problem with the DC-10 was in the hydraulics not really taking well to anything going wrong ever. IE: Engine falls off, hosed up hydraulics put plane into death roll. Engine explodes, hosed up hydraulics make plane un-flyable. Cargo door blows out, Control cables cut, plane unflyable.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2013 22:44
|
|
|
ctishman posted:It was probably a question of design attitudes. Ah, the 747 approach.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2013 16:46
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Serious post, I really enjoy watching the Snowbirds. Yeah, their shows don't have supersonic fighters buzzing the crowd at Mach 0.99, but they perform with 9, not 6, which adds something imho, and using CT-114s allows a more intricate performance. They do OK   Also this thread is now "Post your Favorite Airshow Photos (that you took)"     
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2013 01:54
|
|
|
KodiakRS posted:What's with the cockpits? Do they really think that the next generation of fighters are going to be manned? Just look at all the issues the F-22 has had keeping the squishy meat sack conscious. Unmanned fighters are not exactly what you could call proven. They've never been used in a combat situation where the opposing force could combat the info link that is it's weak spot. Even Iran has shown it's possible to gently caress with drones in ways that aren't possible with manned aircraft. Really that's the same kind of thinking that got the American into trouble in Vietnam, since no one needed guns since missiles were much better.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2013 01:52
|
|
|
OV-10B? Probably not, twin boom and loud though. Just wanted to post a pic of my favorite Vietnam plane, is that so wrong?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2013 04:18
|
|
|
ctishman posted:I look at something like that and wonder what would happen if an aerodynamic surface failed in flight Watching that take off, I was thinking "drat. That does not look at ALL stable." In fact, it looks like it actively wants the pilot dead. And succeeding at least once.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2013 06:43
|
|
|
Madurai posted:The F-111B gets kind of an unfair treatment, generally. It was the correct decision to cancel it, but not because it was underpowered--the Tomcat had the exact same engines and effectively the same gross weight--but because it was designed for an obsolete mission. The Navy had since the end of WW2 had a day superiority fighter and a heavy all-weather fighter until the Phantom, which performed both roles. There was no way the F-111 could have matched the Tomcat in maneuverability, but this was because of the Tomcat's more advanced aerodynamics, not power-to-weight ratios. The F-14A had a reputation for being underpowered. Sometimes it exploded.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2013 17:14
|
|
|
Counterpoint: F-14 is loving cool, and there were some truly great and iconic CAG paint jobs too. (Tomcatters, Jolly Rogers, Sundowners) Actually I don't want that argument. Suffice to say the Navy's air arm has a history of some pretty good paint work  
Jonny Nox fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Mar 23, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2013 18:25
|
|
|
Wait, not done yet!   Stupid Hornet flying the wrong way! ok, now I'm done. And shipping to Canada makes buying models online basically a non-starter.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2013 19:09
|
|
|
Went yesterday. Won't make south store in time though. Bought Acadamy AH-64a, Revell me262a-2, Minicraft b-29 Jonny Nox fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Mar 23, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
If you ask a marine exec, he'll explain to you that Marine pilots go through all the basic ground training any other Marine goes through. So when a Marine calls in CAS, it's a brother Marine (they don't actually use that term do they?) is taking the call. This is also why Harrier pilots wear camo helmets. And STOVL allows the pilots to work from a lot closer than a Carrier deck, so they don't have to wait for a Navy boy to get out of his bunk, take a hot shower, eat some Eggs Benedict, and mosey on over to their location to shoot up a copse of trees. Now how much of this is actually necessary can be debated, but don't ask why the Navy's Army needs an airforce since that question does have an actual answer.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2013 16:00
|
|
|
Wasn't the F-35B needed to get the British involved too? I know that they dropped their plans for an American style carrier because they assume they can get the Bs to work on a ramp type. I don't really have a horse in this race. Canada will never own one (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Sea_King_replacement) edit: so I'm completely explicit: Canada entered WW2 with mk.1 Hurricanes that had 2 blade props and cloth wings. Our political masters didn't realize how out of date that was. After the war, Orenda powered Canadair built Sabres were considered the finest of the breed. This experience was used to create the CF-100 Canuck which was pretty good, and was going to create the Arrow which had the potential of cementing the Avro group's position in a global market when cost increases caused the Federal Government to shoot our aerospace industry in the head. The eventual replacement for the Arrow was the Voodoo. The primary weapon system on the Voodoo were nuclear rockets which Canada was not legally allowed to own! So they used a secondary system and kept their primary fighter's primary weapon in storage in the US in case they might need to use it. Fast forward to the '80s and aging Labrador helicoptors. The Mulroney government brokers a deal with Eurocoptor to purchase some Cormerants and have parts for it made in Canada. Cue a government change, a 500 milling dollar cancelation fee, the grounding of the Labrador after it killed a few people, and a scaled down more expensive purchase of the same drat Helicopter with no concessions to Canadian manufaturing. Our Sea Kings have all exeeded their airframe lifetimes and are grounded except for emergencies. The replacement was ordered in 1983 and is expected aaaannnyyy daaay noww... You might say that the Hornet has been a pretty good success, except that already by Kosovo their Avionics were obsolete and incompatible with NATO allies (see beginning of this rant)the money this allowed Canadian Forces to pry out of the Feds allowed them to do such minor modernization like fix corrosion problems in the landing gear Now Canada is on the verge of another government change and cancellation of the F-35 will be a campaigning point (it already is) Not to mention we've lost ground troops in Afghanistan because their systems were too out of date to work with our Allies', and we needed to borrow air lift Capacity just to keep them there. Our nation has neither the political or economic will to use our Millitary on an international stage and never has. We love to brag about our involvement in UN peacekeeping and International operations but don't want to spend the money to actually do the job. This has always been true and is never going to change. tl/dr: 
Jonny Nox fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Mar 24, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2013 16:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 10:27 |
|
|
Godholio posted:Has any foreign service even signed on for the F-35B? RAF as of June 2011. They want 48.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2013 17:38
|
|