|
Bob A Feet posted:Yeah V-22 downwash is from disk loading alone. It was a big deal during developmental testing because a lot of helicopter bigwigs/supporters thought that the downwash would cause brown out that would prevent landing in unprepared or dusty zones, like the one in that video. We also try not to hover land near anything that is fragile ie an unsuspecting person or aircraft holding short to an active cause even if they aren't blown around gravel and poo poo being thrown up is a huge concern. They're there as a dickwaving/intimidation exercise for G20 in Brisbane, so they were already pretty unpopular. Whoever picked that dusty landing site next to a freeway is a moron, but it's not the pilots' faults
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 16, 2024 21:37 |
|
|
McDeth posted:The fact that this picture represents almost $500 million of air-frames makes me a little queasy... Wow, it is incredible how similar they look
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2014 07:16
|
|
|
simplefish posted:I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not... Deadly serious. The only large difference is the geometry of the tail fins. Everything else is a minor detail. Several posters itt assumed it was four of the same plane, as did I until someone pointed out it was two different kinds and I had a closer look.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2014 07:39
|
|
|
simplefish posted:
 The details don't matter, the shape is pretty similar when you compare them to say, F-18 vs F-16 or whatever. Didn't realise goons were so invested in intake geometry.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
simplefish posted:To me it looks like the whole plane slants the other way. Sure can! Hurricane looks about as similar to the spitfire as the F-22 and the F-35 though, I wouldn't expect your average joe to immediately recognise they're different planes. It's not like I can't tell the F-22 apart from the F-35, I just think it is interesting how similar they are considering the difference in how successful they are.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
This is a cool topic! I can tell the hurricane apart from the spitfire mainly by the corrugated pattern on the side of the fuselage, and the fact that it is stubbier and frumpier than the spitfire. It's like the agricultural version, it even looks like it was made out of a shed.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:The Bartini Beriev VVA‒14 is the ugliest plane. This is not negotiable. THUNDERBIRDS ARE GO
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2014 11:54
|
|
|
How much damage would that do to the aircraft?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2015 13:58
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Here's the slightly less amazing result from last test: No need to gif those still images, the video was released: https://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2015 13:40
|
|
|
Australian drone law is even funnier. Our equivalent authority points to legislation they came up with in 2002 and go 'yeah, use this' until they fix it in 2016. The current regs were clearly written for those big rc helicopters and planes, as they make no sense for these quads. Most notably 'keep 30m away from people, vehicles, and buildings'. There's a few drones designed to be used inside, and many of the drones have less than 30m of range. Needless to say, just like America, everyone is ignoring them.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
Yeah, if this is a test run it makes sense they'd be testing past the boundaries the warnings are set at. The warnings aren't very good if they tell you to pull up when it's already too late.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 06:02
|
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:Every time I see some goon post about drones, I notice they don't actually fly airplanes. Literally get the gently caress out of my airspace with your drones, bro. I don't understand how someone can be so stupid they'd fly a drone anywhere near an airport or aircraft  It's lovely, I got a drone for christmas, I just want to fly around under 20 m at the park (like you'd fly a kite) but idiots are flying them in traffic, or videoing other people's buildings, or flying them around real aircraft, and ruining the fun for everyone by being dangerously stupid.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 07:37
|
|
|
There definitely need to be better regulations and laws regarding drones, but pilots going 'it is my airspace get out plebs' isn't helping the case. Particularly because becoming a pilot costs a fortune so we know the biggest whiners are entitled rich white kids. Weight regulations for drones would be ideal, and seems to be popular with legislators, as it's the easiest way to differentiate between a kids toy and something legitimately dangerous. Australia seems to be moving towards that. As for piloting drones, the skill level depends on the model. I've heard the phantom takes a bit of practice to fly, but the parrot drone is easy as poo poo. It even has automatic take off and land buttons. For small drones ONLY, consider that there are no regulations for remote control cars, which you can still drive into traffic and potentially cause an accident. Drones under 1kg are almost as harmless, and regular civil liability laws are good enough. Most of those drones really can't fly at an altitude that affects aircraft anyway, unless they're buzzing around an airport, in which case that should definitely be illegal, but probably already is: surely there are laws to prevent you flying a kite next to an airport?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
Tide posted:Yeah, this is a dumb comparison to make, which is to say there is no comparing the two (drones vs RC cars). One is going to possibly cause a car to swerve and hit another car or whatever (more likely, the RC car just gets run over). The other is has a high chance of causing something to drop out of the sky like a brick with 1 to 300plus occupants in it then exploding into whatever it hits (ground (best case) or building (worst)). Toy drones can't reach the altitude to hit a plane unless it's flying dangerously low already. I said that in my big post. Also my drone, which is a decent hobbyist drone, weighs about half a kilo, and it's what I'd consider the limit for "toy drones", after that things are much bigger and too expensive for hobbyists.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Can I interrupt the drone chat for a infodump that is at least 50% about dumb things that are wrong? Please god yes
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:Hi - you're not a pilot and your opinion is null and void for me. This is why pilots won't get the regulations they want, what a tool.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
Did anyone make it out of that? It's hard to tell in the video. The crash looked pretty survivable until it was engulfed in flames.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2015 12:04
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:Okay, so that's been shot down as being A Thing since pretty much the beginning. But on a similar note, does anyone actually call the Super Hornet "Super Bug"? I've literally never heard that IRL, especially from the guys that actually fly them; it's either just "hornet" if you don't care about distinguishing, or "rhino" or "super" if you do. Or "echo"/"foxtrot" if you want to specify one- or two-seater. I swear there's a little part of my brain that twitches every time I read "super bug". In Australia I hear them referred to as "superbugs" all the time. It's probably the most common name I hear for them now that I think about it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2015 06:14
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Hmm yes when a fighter jet crashes into a suburb the most immediate danger to the people in the impact zone is the gallon or so of hydrazine for the EPU. Unless the fighter jet literally landed on top of them, this is pretty much true.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2015 07:19
|
|
|
Good ad for gopro at least...
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2015 11:13
|
|
DRONECHAT
|
priznat posted:Whatever they pick they better keep the SAR colour scheme the same. The thunderbirds theme suddenly started playing in my head
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2015 07:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 16, 2024 21:37 |
|
|
Is there some sort of advantage with meshing rotors or did the engineering team just want to see if they could pull it off?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2015 14:03
|
|