CommieGIR posted:

When going into its dive, it could submit the pilot to 6-8.5g's which the pilot could only sustain for 3 seconds

Godholio posted:

That's because their jet sucks.

Edit: That's more a GIP post than AI, but oh well. Old Hornets do suck, relatively speaking.

Slo-Tek posted:

And an F-100 picture I took some while back but may not have posted 10 times already

f-100 by RReiheld, on Flickr

slidebite posted:

For some reason I think military versions of civilian aircraft are cool. I was pretty much when I first found out that the Canadian Forces' A310 derived CC-150 Polaris could actually do air-air tanker duty.

revmoo posted:

Not a pilot, but isn't what what backcourse hold is for?

Epic Fail Guy posted:

That wasn't a comedy post. The aircraft we have now are still the best in the world. We do not need a better best to fend off enemies that do not exist.

Take China for example. Their pride and joy, the newest passenger jet they have in production, is cribbed from the MD-90. The MD-90 is a DC-9 derivative, and first flew in 1965.

Previa_fun posted:

It really shows how much longer fighter development takes in the post cold war era. The Blues flew the A-4 for 13 years and at the time that was the longest they had ever operated one aircraft. Now they're at 25 years in the Hornets and with no suitable replacement for the next 10-15 years. They've only in the past few years starting getting a few C model Hornets.

Cygni posted:

Pretty sure Brazil still flies their A-4s off their carrier(s). Pretty old frames to still be doing catapult ops, but pretty rad.

fknlo posted:

From the military/former military people I know, this has to be the last thing that would ever come up as a justification for something like this. There's probably a Navy or AF aircraft dumping fuel over your house right now!

iyaayas01 posted:

Info from the AIB report on the F-22 mishap up here last year has been released.


That last bit is certainly interesting given the AIB's conclusion that the mishap is solely due to pilot error. I really didn't like hearing this last bit when I first heard it unofficially a few months back...

iyaayas01 posted:

Godholio posted:

You tell me I'm full of poo poo then you post this? The early Hornets were everything you're claiming here, and the Super Hornet has almost no commonality because it's a fundamentally different aircraft. The engines aren't comically underpowered, it's got fantastic maneuverability instantaneous and sustained. It bleeds airspeed in BFM but it's manageable. F-15Cs wiped the floor with Tomcats often enough that the Navy guys are the ones that came up with the term "4-ship wall of death" and I've seen enough examples of Super Hornets giving the Eagles a challenge to throw the flag at your blanket statement. As much as I love the Tomcat, it no longer brought enough unique capability to justify the outrageous maintenance costs and airframe downtime compared to what the new Super Hornets brought.

movax posted:

Yep, additionally FADECs have matured quite a bit as well, making depending on a single engine flying over the ocean blue a little bit safer.

Advent Horizon posted:

I was referring to single engine fighters. If it goes out, I'd be attempting a restart.

Sagebrush posted:

Nailed it. I have no idea how they got propane on a fighter jet, but hey. How does the OBOGS work? Is it sucking air from the outside and boosting the oxygen percentage? I should read up on that I guess.

The report also says oil fumes and antifreeze. Propane, petrochemicals and organic aromatics, and that one that went down was from Alaska...I think it's pretty clear that the pilots are all sniffing glue.

[e] yep, it's a nitrogen-adsorbing zeolite. Well, any time you're using outside air, especially from a source like an airfield, you're going to have to deal with contamination. What was wrong with an oxygen bottle in the first place?
[e2] hm. Honeywell says they have "replaced the traditional clay binder with an advanced organic polymer" to better performance and other marketing reasons. Clearly the system designers would know best, but I would definitely look at the experimental polymer if I was having problems with strange organic compounds appearing in my air stream

Oct posted:

Pretty sure that's VFA-137 with a new paint job.

movax posted:

e: Update on the story, eyewitnesses say jet was dumping fuel as it crashed. The comments are pretty hilarious though. On the Hornet, if one crew member initiates ejection, does it auto-trigger the other seat as well?

Hoopy Frood posted:

I've just read this and now I'm a bit confused. Isn't the F-35C meant to be the Super Hornet replacement?

http://defensetech.org/2012/04/16/the-navy-kicks-off-the-search-for-its-next-fighter

"Speaking of F/A-XX, the Navy’s planned 6th generation fighter that will replace the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, below you’ll find the Navy’s brand new Request for Information on the aircraft. By Brand new, I mean it just dropped on Friday.

Whatever jet is selected will hopefully replace the Super Hornets around 2030, said Rear Adm. Donald Gaddis this afternoon at the Navy League’s annual Sea, Air, Space conference in National Harbor, Md. Before the Navy can settle on the final capabilities such a plane will have, it needs to know what types of technology the defense industry can bring to the table for a brand new fighter that will be fielded in less than two decades, said Gaddis. The new jet must be able to survive in anti-access environment, have next-gen sensors and maybe even the ability to ‘buddy’ refuel other fighters and perform airborne early warning (AEW) duties, according to Gaddis."

CroatianAlzheimers posted:

Is anyone heading to Thunder Over Michigan this year? I'm taking my daughter for some airplane bonding time. Fifi will be there, and a whole bunch of Mustangs, and a Sea Harrier!