|
OptimusMatrix posted:I've always been partial to this video. It's a couple Mirages over northern Africa flying low as hell. Personal anecdote with no video to back it up: A-10s doing canyon runs outside Why, AZ. I was on my way to Puerto Penasco, Mexico, and watched a flight of two A-10s taking turns through mountain passes, orbiting back, and doing them again. They fly out of Tucson and were over a wilderness national park about 130mi west of their base. They appeared and disappeared behind individual mountains as they flew through the canyon, tossing those long straight wings side to side and with canopies glinting like mad crazy diamonds. I stopped at one of the nearby picnic grounds to watch, and they continued for about 30 minutes, taking run after run down the canyons then popping up on the other side of the ridge, sometimes early, sometimes making it completely through. It seems the USAF flyers out here at Davis-Monthan get to have tons of fun, as I've also seen aerobatics and mock-dogfights taking place over the base in F-16s, F-15s and even some (German? British?) Tornados. We enjoy the combat landings the A-10s perform directly above one of the large retail furniture warehouses in town. From the parking lot, you can make out the color of the pilot's helmet as he banks over the store at about 75* with the gear out and flaps down, then rolls out and settles on the end of the runway 1/4mi away, brakes sharply, and whips off onto the very first taxi-way. Tucson is definitely an Air Force town. Edit - this is the mountain range I saw the A-10's flying through: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...=h&z=13&iwloc=A
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2010 04:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 21:17 |
|
|
14 engines. Wingspan larger than a C-5 or 747. 100,000ft service ceiling. Weighs less than an Elise and takes off at jogging speed. And most unique of all, it has no fuel tanks whatsoever. What could this marvelous aircraft be? Why, it's the Helios, of course:    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NCOPLEJOl0
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2010 20:54
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:http://aviationtrivia.info/documents/xf84_h.wav "Thunder, Thunder, Thunderscreech HOOO!" Zee Contents:   Mo'fucken German ALBATROSS up in yo' grill. Sterndotstern fucked around with this message at 21:04 on Mar 16, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2010 21:02
|
|
|
I find it interesting that, for certain roles like CAS, strategic bombing, and STOL cargo, bushplanes; the aircraft haven't progressed since the 50's. It seems that with the advent of the A-10, the B-52, and the C-130 we reached the Aristotelian form of each of these aircraft. Are there any other aircraft roles that have reached their ultimate form? No one else in the world can field an F-22, so America has air superiority sewn up for the next decade or two. Now that I think about it, I can't see any military aircraft designs that really need revision in the next 25 years. Are there any great problems in aeronautics that still need solving? Or are we done with airplanes?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2010 05:11
|
|
|
FullMetalJacket posted:this is a rather arrogant statment. this newer, better, faster mentality is what gives us such headaches as the f22. Air superiority is about arrogance, mate, or rather air supremacy, which is what is effectively guaranteed by the tactical and strategic advantages of 5th gen fighters. The F-22 enables pilots to spend a long time at very high rates of speed while being very hard to spot or engage. Pilots that are the most experienced, well trained and deadly in the world. Once engaged, the avionics and weaponry suite is far and away the most advanced in the world. If that isn't air superiority sewn up, I don't know what is. I'm not even a fanboy, but poo poo man, don't underestimate the power of being a full generation beyond anything else in the sky. Fun fact to those who think WW2 aircraft were cheap: the USA spent more on the development of the B-29 than it did on developing the atomic bomb. WW2-era design was also a hugely expensive, difficult process due to the tools of the time (or lack thereof), and when developing for a new role (intercontinental bomber) the process is rendered doubly difficult by lack of experience. Nebakenezzer posted:Though I honestly don't know what you mean by "are we done with airplanes." To take your example, the yardstick of personal defense weapons, the Colt .45 or M1911, hasn't been updated for nearly a century. Sure, some of the components have been upgraded, but the overall layout and design approach perfection (even when converted to M9s for NATO-compliance). There is no next generation pistol that confers any significant tactical or strategic advantage over 100-year-old technology. Only minor upgrades and improvements are possible. In that way, you could say we're done with pistols, we've finished them, they're complete and correct. The question is this: aside from some roles (like air superiority, which must continue to evolve), are we effectively finished with the design of manned military aircraft? Sterndotstern fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Mar 19, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2010 18:14
|
|
|
P-Funk posted:I think they were practicing for heritage flights at the Air Force base. There were also some brand new F-22s flying around which was awesome. Yeah, again, Davis-Monthan is pretty rad for this kind of stuff. I took a long lunch down at the driving range this past Friday and, in the course of a little more than an hour, I saw: - a CH-53 doing aerial refueling practice with a tanked-up C-130 at ~1000 ft - an A-1 Skyraider flying close formation with an A-10. Close like "A-1 pilot could've reached out and retracted the A-10's flaps" close. Also, A-1s are surprisingly huge. - Either an F-16 or F-18 doing a series of Immelmans (Immelmen?) and loops directly over the tower. I was concentrating on fixing my loving slice, but whatever aircraft it was, it was loud and loving proud.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2010 07:39
|
|
|
Boomerjinks posted:30% Loss Rate Wow, I wouldn't have wanted to be an SR-71 pilot in the late 60's. They only lost 4 of the birds after 1970, but lost 8 during the space race. Inlet unstarts are a bitch. Actually, scratch that. Who the gently caress WOULDN'T want to be an SR-71 driver, regardless of likelyhood of death, personal cost or the requirement for complete secrecy? "HI MOM, I'M FLYING MACH 3 WITH MY HAIR ON FIRE AND IT'S GREA--- [static]"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2010 20:01
|
|
|
Tetraptous posted:Flying boat? VTOL? In the same vein of "wild poo poo that got cancelled," may I present the Vought Flying Flapjack:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfpTDOAfj7Y This is easily one of my favorite unbuilt aircraft, despite its horrendously ugly shape. Born of an effort to build an optimal wing that is efficient at all airspeeds, this, uh, majestic aircraft pulled one of the neatest tricks of the prop age: its two outboard-mounted props counteract the wingtip vortices of the flat wing, allowing it very very VSTOL capabilities combined with high-speed cruising efficiency. This is wicked-awesome aerodynamic kung fu that has yet to be improved upon. It could also hover (as demonstrated with the model in the video) and land on a carrier deck without tail hooks. If I were building an ultralight from scratch, it would be a pancake wing with outboard engines. It's one of those "ugly to the eye but lovely to the engineer" kinds of designs.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2010 20:20
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:
Which leads me to the airplane so cold-blooded, so frightening, its pilots are obliged to carry the "Bad Motherfucker" wallet as The Big Gun In The Sky for the forseeable future. The AC-130:    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4639921789181083769 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2H1uvmdAPoM GET OFF MY NUTS, SON.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2010 08:02
|
|
|
nurrwick posted:I loved the SR-71 already, but that was one of the best stories I've ever read. Thank you. It's amazing to me that, 20 years after the first operational jet fighter, the jet had already reached its logical extreme, Mach 4 ramjets. Watching Buzz Aldrin get kicked off of Dancing With The Stars while waiting for Lost to start last night, I realized that for every single one of those decorated badasses doing the flying and getting the glory, there's probably a 10,000 people they relied on to do THEIR jobs with the same perfection and professionalism that the drivers ultimately display. The legion of engineers, materials scientists, machinists, mechanics, chemists and flight ops people who contributed to the existence of such a thing as the Apollo program or the SR-71, each with their own stories and heart swelling with pride at the staggering feats that would've been impossible without their particular contribution. There used to be so many loving heroes.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2010 20:15
|
|
|
Schindler's Fist posted:That yellow N9M might be in this shot, one of my favorite aviation photos. Two graceful little wings, with the huge YB-35 flying wing bomber behind them. Reading up on this made me realize how cut-throat multi-billion dollar defense contracts must be, and what incredible havoc can be wreaked with just one paid-off mechanic. What an amazing aircraft to have failed utterly. The wikipedia said that one of them crashed due to an overspeed in a stall recovery because they were too low drag(?)... Sucks that we didn't build more B-2 bombers to pay his family back. Dude got screwed.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2010 09:44
|
|
|
InterceptorV8 posted:They built that plane with loving SLIDE RULERS, how many of you fuckers have ever handled one? I saw a slide rule one once. They appear to be a weird relic from some ancient alien civilization, covered with cryptic writing and ratios. I quickly shielded my eyes with my TI-83 and continued playing Dope Wars. The trouble with the SR-71, of course, is that what it CAN do is greatly in excess of what it SHOULD do. It's the quintessential "big motor in a light body" hotrod -- fast as gently caress, right up until the moment that it self destructs. Also keep in mind that ground speed for a given Mach number decreases as altitude increases, so Mach 3.5 at altitude is slower than Mach 3.5 at sea level. I'd be hugely surprised if the Sled couldn't punk the poo poo out of Mach 4 with a little oxidizer tank to help it breathe at 100k+ ft.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2010 17:53
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:(God I'm the eternal question asking child of this thread but) High bypass means you can present a large fan dangling off the front of the turbine which performs most of the useful thrusting, while a smaller and more efficient turbine jet drives it. Since you don't have concerns over the speed of intake air being supersonic, you need no ducting on the front of the engine to slow it down, which is what allows you to have that giant loving fan to operate quite efficiently. Take the idea of a turbo-prop, throw it in a duct and trim out all the fat. You end up with a modern high-bypass turbofan. You're effectively taking the shaft of a turbine and hooking it up to a big loving propeller, which is more efficient at converting rotational force into thrust than a turbojet alone.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2010 19:22
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:Here are a few pictures from last year: Thanks for these, I love the vintage shots.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2010 01:00
|
|
|
Octoduck posted:Why only 3 seconds? No g-suits and vertical g. Ever felt 8g? Your eyes go all woggly at like 3g.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2010 18:13
|
|
|
Dwight Eisenhower posted:If you wanna get on a soapbox about defense budgets from any position, there are other subforums for that kind of discussion. In those subforums, the inevitable contention such discussions bring will not be derailing a thread focused on entirely different subject matter. Sounds like you're trying to cover for the Military Industrial Complex now, Dwight. gently caress it: time for a pretty-seaplane m-m-m-megapost. The seaplane, thanks to Mr. Glenn Curtiss who invented it, was a wonderful solution to the realities of a world with few runways but lots of water. Flying boats quickly grew to a scale impossible to achieve with a land-based aircraft. They were truly the flying fish of their era:   Click here for the full 1261x701 image. Curtiss H-1/H-16  Click here for the full 1600x980 image.  Click here for the full 1200x960 image. Boeing 314 Sometimes the "flying" part of flying boat was discarded, as the Italians built with little regard to airworthyness:  The era of flying boats came to an end with the advent of jet propulsion and mid-air refueling, but not before Howard Hughes took them to their logical (and lovely) extreme:   The H-4 Hercules, aka the Spruce Goose. Aside: speaking of Hughes, he certainly had an eye for aesthetics:  H-1 Racer, an almost unbelievably pretty airplane. This leads me to the Schneider Trophy Racers -- the intra-war battleground for air superiority:  Click here for the full 1792x954 image. Supermarine S5  Click here for the full 1600x1216 image.  Click here for the full 1024x768 image. Supermarine S6B  Click here for the full 640x416 image. Macchi MC72
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2010 18:24
|
|
|
grover posted:Sweet tittyfucking Jesus, our  destroyers are JET loving PROPELLED? Somehow I just assumed all modern ships were powered by giant diesels, this changes everything. What I wouldn't give for a schematic of that drive train...   It's bullshit, I know, but I'm trying to bridge the gap here.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2010 06:47
|
|
|
Nuclear Tourist posted:Where's this from? Or is it just some random piece of art? Yeah, some Fernando Feria guy I guess, but I liked the subject matter and aesthetic quite a bit. Tracked this down as the original: http://airaf.cgsociety.org/gallery/333906/
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2010 19:21
|
|
|
Eh, quote != edit.ApathyGifted posted:Well, many are nuclear powered. Which is why a giant aircraft carrier can outrun its support fleet and still go years between fuel stops. Well of course they're also nuclear powered, but I guess I just found the gas turbine jet/ship crossover too interesting to resist posting about. On a completely different topic, a while ago I posted that air-burning, air-flying technology reached its logical conclusion in approximately 1965 and stated (somewhat controversially) that we're "done" with aircraft. I never got to ask the obvious follow-up question: Where is the next great unsolved problem for aerospace engineering? My only guess is a low-maintenance, high-reliability (human rated) spaceplane/shuttle application. With the looming retirement of the Space Shuttle and the advent of multiple private-sector commercial launching companies, how long will it be before I can book a couple hundred pounds of human payload onto a shuttle? Is the multi-stage solution (i.e. White Knight) desirable and viable in the long term? Is there an even more extreme (but viable) first stage looming? Dirigible spaceports, anyone?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2010 19:36
|
|
|
jandrese posted:As long as you're burning chemical rockets, it's going to cost an arm and a leg to get there You can get quite a lot of energy density by electrolyzing water. Rocket-fuel kind of energy density. The space shuttle uses liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen rocket motors that weigh ~7,000lbs for a 400,000lbs thrust output. Rocket fuel is green as gently caress when it's water.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2010 20:43
|
|
|
ApathyGifted posted:There was even a DARPA project (Blackswift) that was working on a hybrid turbine/SC/Ramjet design that would have been able to go from 0 to Mach bitchin' fast. But that got canceled because assholes don't know the value of building kickass poo poo. But what's the operational advantage of burning air? \/\/ to rephrase, "why bother to burn air when it's really hard to do so and you want to go sub-orbital or orbital anyway?" Sterndotstern fucked around with this message at 09:20 on Jun 29, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2010 07:35
|
|
|
ApathyGifted posted:It doesn't need an oxidizer for at least the first 200,000 feet of altitude, during which it can theoretically achieve orbital velocity. Ah, so that's the reason for them: attaining orbital speeds while still in the atmosphere. LEO requires ~16,000 mi/hr or so, mach 25 and up. Does SCRamjet combustion get more efficient/stable/easier with increased mach numbers? So realistically the only application is a Single Stage to Orbit (SSTO) lifter. But once you leave the atmosphere, that air-burning engine and fuel just become parasitic mass, reducing payload. Seems to me there's just no getting away from a multi-stage approach to orbit, or at the very least, detachable external boosters (air burning or not).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2010 17:51
|
|
|
MrChips posted:The scramjet is pretty much the most likely ticket to affordable, reliable transportation to orbit, especially if researchers can iron out the kinks with regard to burning conventional hydrocarbon fuels. So if I'm understanding correctly, there are two options for building a SSTO lifter: 1) Use a rocket but lug your oxidizer around with you. This has the advantage of simplicity and atmosphere/speed independence, but taking oxidizer requires a heavier fuselage to carry more weight, which in turn requires more fuel, leading quickly to larger scale craft and increased fuel requirements for a given payload. 2) Use a turbine/ram/scramjet hybrid to burn air to attain orbital speed in the atmosphere. This has the advantage of being relatively efficient for a given payload mass, since a higher ratio of the lifter's loaded weight is used for payload (versus fuel). The drawbacks include the need for a separate thrust system in order to function without atmospheric oxygen and the obvious (significant) engineering hurdles involved in building a craft powered by four separate paradigms of propulsion which must survive mach 25+ speeds within the atmosphere. Sound about right? ^^^ Fine, how about some UGLY radial engines in charming but ugly helicopters:    Even though it's a funny place to stick a radial engine in a heli, I suppose Sikorsky had his reasons for using a 1931-vintage engine for his otherwise modern chopper... Sterndotstern fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Jun 30, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2010 23:46
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:Something that hasn't been mentioned yet. The oxidizer weighs something like four times as much as your fuel does. So ditching the oxidizer doesn't just save you "half the weight" it saves you 4/5 of the weight! That has massive effects on structure. Ah, perspective, thanks. I looked up the shuttle tank -- 4/5 of it is hydrogen tank, only the nose piece is oxygen, but the oxygen weighs 6 times as much.  So the real trick for scramjets is fueling? Currently they use hydrogen, which is hard to package, so what are the dense alternatives? I imagine trouble with scramjet fuel is the time required to extract energy from combustion. You basically have to use hydrogen fuel because you have less than 1msec of burn time unless you build a really long engine. Even F1 cars have almost 3ms of burn time.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2010 05:25
|
|
|
QuiteEasilyDone posted:Have some more Angels These are both fantastic shots and utterly staggering displays of human ability. Nothing impresses the mind like perfect control. Edit: recommend a polarizing filter for your next sunny day
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2010 05:20
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Late to th' party but I'd say making LTA craft reliable and durable. I think the technology is already there; it just needs to be applied. One thing I really like about the notion of lighter-than-air first stages launching liquid-fueled rockets is a synergy in their fueling needs. They both basically run on hydrogen and oxygen which can be easily obtained my electrolyzing water down at the surface. I think it's loving retarded to burn coal to electrolyze water when we've already proven that we can make even heavier-than-air craft fly using solar power. Imagine how easy it would be if you didn't have to lose altitude all loving night! Use the excess lifting capacity to lift and electrolyze water to provide fuel for rockets. Edit: poo poo, someone tell me a way to build the hydrogen cells out of salt and we can go get some venture capital from Elon Musk. Nebakenezzer posted:I'll see your B-36 and raise you a B-36 with a B-58 back. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pxrwpur_Op8&feature=related Sterndotstern fucked around with this message at 20:41 on Jul 2, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2010 07:57
|
|
|
tripsevens posted:Starcraftu. I'm sure the landing checklist includes an announcement to the passengers: "Ladies and gentlemen, we're in the pipe, five by five."
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2010 07:05
|
|
|
N183CS posted:We are tearing a prop down at work tomorrow, I will try to get some pics of it for Awesome! I've always wondered about the details of aircraft props, now I can finally find out! Content:  Goddamn the C5 was a huuuuge bitch.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2010 07:27
|
|
awesomeness for you guys.
|
Revolvyerom posted:Is it even possible to be busted so far down in rank as to never have enlisted? That's insane. In his defense, the pilot was severely dyslexic.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2010 10:44
|
|
|
BeastOfExmoor posted:Not that this thread really needs something to generate replies, but I've been thinking for a while about which military aircraft has proven to be the best investment over time. To me it's between the C-130 and the B-52, but I'm curious to hear other positions. Far, far, far and away it's the Buff. It's older than the Air Force. It was obsolete within 5 years of deployment, yet somehow continued to be useful and will still be in service ~90 years from its original design date. It ended the Cold War and golf-balled north Vietnam. It hosed your moms, and SHE LOVED IT.  That is all. Edit: on second thought...  This aircraft may be the most perfect machine ever made, approaching the level of divinity (as you can plainly see). DaVinci can suck its hilariously obsolete .50-cal tail turret. Sterndotstern fucked around with this message at 09:39 on Jul 26, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2010 07:45
|
|
|
Geoj posted:So is the B-52 capable of carrying everything on display in front of it at once or is it just a demonstration of the various payloads it can carry? Everything at once, plus a Space Shuttle on the top, a Bell X-1 underneath and the two cruise missiles under the wings. It can also be equipped with up to three adult male Sperm Whales. Ok, so it has a 90,000lb payload, so it really could carry three Sperm Whales ... or 84 500lb bombs... or an 8-round rotary missile launcher and some Hounddog cruise missiles underwing... or a few megatons of nuke... or any combination thereof.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2010 18:10
|
|
|
The Electronaut posted:Wingsuit jumper landing This brings up a random question: why aren't there longer, straighter wingsuit designs? Better lift-to-drag = better glide ratio = longer duration flights, right?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2010 18:31
|
|
|
Ola posted:BRS is the best thing that has happened to aviation since the piddle pack. Holy gently caress. Agreed like whoa. If I were a small/light aircraft pilot, there's no loving question that I'd have a BRS equipped aircraft. poo poo, I've been flirting with ultralights lately and this got me thinking about the utility of a home-built BRS system for ultralight flight.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2010 07:52
|
|
|
Ola posted:About $20,000, not including installation. Small price to pay for your life. Edit: content forthcoming... I'm getting my tiny flight suit on... ... to fly my tiny-winy cutsey-wootsy lil'fighter:    "Chuck, this is the most adorable little jet! Don't you just want to hug and cuddle it?"  Click here for the full 640x905 image. Behold the majesty of the XF-85. Weights Empty weight 3,740 lb (1,696 kg) Loaded weight 4,550 lb (2,063 kg) Powerplant 1 Westinghouse XJ34-WE-22 turbojet, 3,000 lbf (1,361 kg) Performance Maximum speed 664 mph (1,069 km/h) Service ceiling 48,000 ft (14,630 m) Rate of climb 12,500 ft/min (3,810 m/min) Wing loading 51 lb/ft (247 kg/m) Thrust/weight 0.66 Armament 4x 0.50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine gun Puttin' my parasite all up in your booty: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeYDfeYXetE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uTDd-lTj54 Sterndotstern fucked around with this message at 18:10 on Aug 18, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2010 17:47
|
|
|
Um radial wing? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArgrDsIe_7Y&feature=related Who knew it would work? Any advantages outside of the novelty?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2010 07:24
|
|
|
Used Sunlight sales posted:The trend now with a lot of the higher ups in the Air Force and defense community is smaller, slower and cheaper. That's why they're considering smaller, slower, and cheaper DRONES. The utility of an orbiting Hellfire platform that's a laser-designator away from destroying the poo poo out of anything you want is far, far higher than anything else in a CAS role, especially given that there is no pilot to put in harm's way and no worry about how hazardous the airspace is. F-22s + Predator-style drones = the future Air Force.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2010 18:20
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:US Special Forces do some parachute training there, and the field also houses a bunch of Apache helicopters for National Guard training, but it's still officially a public airport. Driving between Phoenix and Tucson you will occasionally see the Apaches out to play. One day I watched an Apache playing "hide the radome" on the other side of a little ridge a few miles from the airport. I have the feeling my car got totally felt up some millimeter wave radar that day, if you know what I'm sayin'. Also watched an Apache do some kind of lowlevel maneuvering behind some trees that kicked up a poo poo-ton of dust within 500 yards of the freeway one afternoon. A face only mother could love:  Hello lil' guy, don't be afraid:  Aww, so cute from this side: 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2010 00:36
|
|
|
Geoj posted:Any idea what these are? http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&t=h&ll=32.169389,-110.866619&spn=0.00063,0.00097&z=21 Obviously experimental aircraft of some kind, just kind of surprising to see them in a boneyard.  Probably D-21s.  Click here for the full 1856x1608 image. I drove by/through that boneyard twice a day for years. The only tails that stand out above the surrounding terrain are the C-5s -- those fuckers can be seen from 2-3 miles out.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2011 01:45
|
|
|
Heid the Ball posted:Always love learning about a new aircraft, especially one as aptly named as that. Shame about the inlet design and poor avionics, it looks like it followed almost the same design philosophy of the original MiG-21 design (with the swept MiG wings instead of the deltas), which makes sense considering they were built around the same time for nearly the same job. I just love the hotrod interceptors (aka manned missiles) of the mid-50's through early 60's -- F-104, the MiG-21, and now this. Edit to contribute:   
Sterndotstern fucked around with this message at 00:30 on Mar 25, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2011 00:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 21:17 |
|
|
OptimusMatrix posted:Good loving god. Pretty sure this is pure luck he didn't slam into the ground.  That's a screengrab from the video. That pilot is either going to kill his friends in a fiery burning death or impress the gently caress out of them.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2011 03:49
|
|