(http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/jalopnik/2009/03/f22_Raptor_Crash-topshot.jpg)
So after hearing about the F22 that crashed the other day I did some searching online and was very suprised to learn that the worlds most advanced strike/stealth fighter is really a product of the cold war and was originally designed in the mid 80's and being flight tested by 1986!!!
So seriously, what is the current standard for a real time example of modern technology being current technology, not something from 20 something years ago.
Ironically, think about where computers were in the 80's
(http://old-wizard.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/arc_pac_man_1.jpg)
And I just saw an F22 demonstration, which mind you was amazing, but still I am left wondering what's our real capability???
Boggles the mind....even the F23 was put out to pasture already.....
(http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/yf23roll.jpg)
i think i remember hearing that the issue with the f22 was that its capabilities surpassed those of the pilots, it could pull so many g's that the pilot would pass out.....and they have been trying to perfect the computer system all this time to compensate for that.
maybe thinking of something else though??
I'd be curious to see the sources saying the F22 was flying in 1986. Stealth technology was still in it's infancy in 1986...the F117 was still state of the art (and very very secret) with all of its angular features.
edit: Looks like the F22/23 competition ended in 1990, so it well could have been flying in 1986. Wow...time flies...I remember when the competition was on-going.
Also, the F23 wasn't "put out to pasture"...it was the competitor to the F22, and was never produced.
Quote from: herm on March 26, 2009, 12:20:36 PM
i think i remember hearing that the issue with the f22 was that its capabilities surpassed those of the pilots, it could pull so many g's that the pilot would pass out
Most modern fighters are capable of this...and have been for some time.
Quote from: Triple J on March 26, 2009, 12:23:26 PM
Most modern fighters are capable of this...and have been for some time.
since the mid 80's maybe?
;D
It seems as though in order to try and save money, Boeing has gone back to the drawing board and attempted to reinvigorate some old tech by redesigning the F-15 to share some of the features of the F-22. That being said, the F-15 is certainly no stealth fighter jet, but the changes they made are supposed to make significant improvements.
Meet the F-15SE (Silent Eagle):
(http://jalopnik.com/assets/images/gallery/12/2009/03/thumb800x800_3369677214_f451eef070_o.jpg)
(http://jalopnik.com/assets/images/gallery/12/2009/03/thumb800x800_3368851981_4b6f504904_o.jpg)
Here's what was posted about it:
Boeing has significantly re-worked the aeronautic design of the jet, though the overall profile remains familiar. Most noticeable are the new canted vertical V-tails that not only improve aerodynamic efficiency, but provide additional lift and critically reduce airframe weight. Also attributing to the improved aerodynamic profile is the Digital Flight Control System, which allows for much greater pilot control and feedback.
Quote from: Triple J on March 26, 2009, 12:22:25 PM
I'd be curious to see the sources saying the F22 was flying in 1986. Stealth technology was still in it's infancy in 1986...the F117 was still state of the art (and very very secret) with all of its angular features.
edit: Looks like the F22/23 competition ended in 1990, so it well could have been flying in 1986. Wow...time flies...I remember when the competition was on-going.
Also, the F23 wasn't "put out to pasture"...it was the competitor to the F22, and was never produced.
From what I found, by 1975 scientists at Skunk Works had learned how to effectivly reduce the radar cross section of an aircraft and began developing Have Blue.
Quote from: Monster Dave on March 26, 2009, 02:11:45 PM
From what I found, by 1975 scientists at Skunk Works had learned how to effectivly reduce the radar cross section of an aircraft and began developing Have Blue.
Correct. Have Blue was the F-117 model and eventually prototype, which as of 1986 was an operational aircraft, but still very secret. The F-117 was introduced to the public around 1991 (IIRC) at the Nellis AFB airshow. Ironically, the mathematics behind stealth was discovered by a Skunk Works engineer...in a
Russian paper. [laugh]
I can see how F-22 & F-23 prototypes were probably in the early stages of flying in 1986, like I said above with my edit. I was originally thinking the F-22/23 competition was later than 1990.
Operational stealth technology was in it's infancy in 1986, not the research...I was a bit off in my earlier post. My mistake.
I too am curious what we have now. I'm especially curious if there's a replacement for the SR-71 that's operational. I would think so, but it may just be a fancy (and boring) satellite. :-\
If you like this sort of stuff read the book Skunk Works, by Ben Rich. He was an engineer there during the U-2 and SR-71 development, and ran the place during the F-117 development. It is a
really interesting read!
http://www.amazon.com/Skunk-Works-Personal-Memoir-Lockheed/dp/0316743003/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1238103190&sr=8-1 (http://www.amazon.com/Skunk-Works-Personal-Memoir-Lockheed/dp/0316743003/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1238103190&sr=8-1)
gawd, that f23 is a wicked looking machine. too bad it didn't perform better (or whatever reason it was axed)
I may have to look into that.
What a gorgeous aircraft the SR71 is/was. Both ugly and beautiful at the same time.
(http://retrothing.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/12/21/sr71blackbird.jpg)
At top speed it actually turns blue.
Lets be honest. The sr71 was flying in the 60s and was pretty much retired in the 80s. Info was not released to the public until 90 or 91 if the government could pay to build something like that in the 60s what they have now is ridiculous in comparison. Of course we wont know until 20 years from now what they are currently flying and then we will all be wondering what they have then.
Not a big "alien" believer my personal opinion is that all the unusual sightings are very advanced aircraft that we have no knowledge of and wont for a very long time.
Would have been cool to know if the aerodynamics of this plane from the movie Stealth would have been enough to achieve flight:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v304/KJOYCE1026/MVC-026S.jpg?t=1238104999)
Quote from: needtorque on March 26, 2009, 03:00:01 PM
Not a big "alien" believer my personal opinion is that all the unusual sightings are very advanced aircraft that we have no knowledge of and wont for a very long time.
I recall hearing somewhere that there was a technology being developed that used bursting thrust versus full time thrust.
Quote from: aaronb on March 26, 2009, 02:57:32 PM
gawd, that f23 is a wicked looking machine. too bad it didn't perform better (or whatever reason it was axed)
+1 The F-23 is really bad ass looking.
There was a Discovery or History Channel on the competition years ago. IIRC, the F-23 was better at stealth but the F-22 was still very good, and both could cruise at supersonic speeds without afterburners (the only planes capable of this, and a competition requirement). The decider was the F-22 also had thrust vectoring...making it more maneuverable. I'd imagine politics played a role as well. :-\
Quote from: needtorque on March 26, 2009, 03:00:01 PM
Not a big "alien" believer my personal opinion is that all the unusual sightings are very advanced aircraft that we have no knowledge of and wont for a very long time.
+1
Quote from: Monster Dave on March 26, 2009, 03:05:13 PM
Would have been cool to know if the aerodynamics of this plane from the movie Stealth would have been enough to achieve flight:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v304/KJOYCE1026/MVC-026S.jpg?t=1238104999)
Probably modeled after this
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread60763/pg1 (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread60763/pg1)
was watching a show about this the other day. Probably real but who knows. Even if it is real it would have been in the works since the 80s making it still old technology.
Another cool SR-71 pic. Looks like a pulse type of engine...also maybe a prototype given the NASA paint and co-pilot bubble. ???
(http://www.rbracing-rsr.com/turbo/exhaust_sr71.jpg)
Dad is a F-22 mechanic. His hand is one of, if not the last one, on the plane before it get's "delivered" to the Air Force.
Just because it was first flown in `86 doesn't mean it is `86 tech. The ones that come off the line today are 10x more advance than the first production ones 5 years ago. Software and other upgrades do it.
Its cool watching them around here though -- all the test flights before they are painted, and the F-16 that follows it looks tiny compared to the 22.
Quote from: needtorque on March 26, 2009, 03:11:58 PM
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread60763/pg1 (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread60763/pg1)
The Aurora rumors have been around for years and years. It would be interesting to see if it exists as a surveillance aircraft, or if it's just a test platform for scramjet engines...which NASA is very interested in for the next generation of spacecraft.
You know....
...as much as it wasn't a viable true to life attack vehicle, I still wish that Airwolf or Blue Thunder would have been as advanced as they were purported to be on TV in the 80's.
(http://www.tvshowcentral.net/tvshows/airwolf/airwolf_show_7.jpg)
Quote from: wbeck257 on March 26, 2009, 03:17:47 PM
Dad is a F-22 mechanic. His hand is one of, if not the last one, on the plane before it get's "delivered" to the Air Force.
Just because it was first flown in `86 doesn't mean it is `86 tech. The ones that come off the line today are 10x more advance than the first production ones 5 years ago. Software and other upgrades do it.
Its cool watching them around here though -- all the test flights before they are painted, and the F-16 that follows it looks tiny compared to the 22.
Where abouts is "here"?
Or is that Top Secret? [cheeky]
They are built at the Lockheed plant in Marietta, GA.
blue thunder was just an apache mock up correct?
and dont forget about "Firefox"
QuoteI too am curious what we have now. I'm especially curious if there's a replacement for the SR-71 that's operational. I would think so, but it may just be a fancy (and boring) satellite. Undecided
I've never seen anything myself here in Nevada but I've heard lots of first hand stories from very reputable people who were actually sober when they saw what they saw. And those "Deadly Force" no trespassing signs at Area 51 are probably there for a good reason.
Not stealth related but a good book for those interested in fighter planes is "John Boyd, the Fighter Pilot who Changed the Art of War" Also, I have a Canadian uncle who was an RCAF Spitfire pilot in WWII who sent me a good DVD starring John Akroyd about the Canadian AVRO Arrow, a very advanced Canadian supersonic delta wing interceptor from the 1950's. The title is "The AVRO Arrow" and the only place I've found it is on Canadian Ebay. Worth the price IMHO.
Quote from: herm on March 26, 2009, 04:36:40 PM
blue thunder was just an apache mock up correct?
the movie came out in '83 and the apache started production in '84... bt was similar to the apache in the sense that it a nose-mounted gun turret, however the ah1 cobra had one, too.
the movie helicopters were gazelles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aérospatiale_Gazelle).
the F22 ~specifications~ were written in 1986, but the plane wasn't developed.
the first prototypes flew in 1990, which were VERY loose designs.
F22 did not complete development until 2003 and it was heavily revised over the years.
suffice to say, the specifications did not require what computer to be running on board, rather they left the design specifics to the contractors. the RFP made more general statements of performance capabilities and service
Blue Thunder was built from a Royal Marines Gazelle helicopter with a modified canopy:
(http://www.guncopter.com/images/gallery/chf-gazelle.jpg)
(http://www.tonyblews.co.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/bluethun2.jpg)
Sadly, here's a few pics from Wiki of what's left of the chopper in Florida:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9c/Blue_Thunder_1999_Right_View.jpg/800px-Blue_Thunder_1999_Right_View.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/59/Blue_Thunder_1999_Right_34_View.jpg/800px-Blue_Thunder_1999_Right_34_View.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/db/Blue_Thunder_1999_Left_View.jpg/800px-Blue_Thunder_1999_Left_View.jpg)
Quote from: Monster Dave on March 26, 2009, 03:05:13 PM
Would have been cool to know if the aerodynamics of this plane from the movie Stealth would have been enough to achieve flight:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v304/KJOYCE1026/MVC-026S.jpg?t=1238104999)
It might depend if it was on a conveyor.
No really. ;D
Quote from: ducpainter on March 26, 2009, 08:29:10 PM
It might depend if it was on a conveyor.
No really. ;D
You didn't.
If you look at satellite images of the Groom Lake testing facility near the nevada test ranga (area 51) you will see that their main runway was extended to roughly 24,000 ft in the late 1980s-90s. This is a huge clue. Edwards afb and Vandenberg afb are around 15,000ft I believe. To me this would indicate they were testing something that traveled at very high speeds on approach and departure, most likely some sort of plane that could travel in both the atmosphere and space. Around the same time people reporting sighting what became known as the Auroura and spotting the 'donuts on a rope' blotchy contrail characteristic of a pulse detonation engine. Around the same time the sr71 was retired. You may also think the sr71 was proven obsolete by satellites but there are still positives of using spy aircraft as you can change optics/weapons packages from mission to mission.
I cant wait until something is released I'm a total aeronut!!!
Quote from: Monster Dave on March 26, 2009, 02:58:41 PM
I may have to look into that.
What a gorgeous aircraft the SR71 is/was. Both ugly and beautiful at the same time.
At top speed it actually turns blue.
My favorite bit of SR-71 trivia is the fact that it leaked JP-7 on the runway when it was cold to allow for the expansion that occurred at extreme speeds. It would have to be refueled in the air before a mission after a short sprint run which allowed the fuselage to warm up and expand enough to stop most of the leaking.
Quote from: herm on March 26, 2009, 04:36:40 PM
blue thunder was just an apache mock up correct?
and dont forget about "Firefox"
Firefox
(http://rob.com/pic/crazy_rc/firefox.jpg)
F-19a spectre
(http://tinypic.com/fc4j8x.jpg)
F-19 Stealth
(http://hyperscale.com/features/2002/images/f19da_15.jpg)
all real because i had the models...I don't need your reality
Don't forget about the F-35 (JSF). If it ever goes into production.
(http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_F-35A_AA-1_Test_Flight_lg.jpg)
here is an interesting viewpoint on the f22
F22 (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://farm4.static.flickr.com/3216/3146498851_1601c10dc0_o.jpg&imgrefurl=http://weapons.technology.youngester.com/2008/12/f-22-fighter-plane.html&usg=__56QIpj5E1-lPT1PdwDih6e8-hEg=&h=419&w=727&sz=142&hl=en&start=3&um=1&tbnid=E-XSsnnO8_dKbM:&tbnh=81&tbnw=141&prev=/images%3Fq%3Df%2B22%2Bfighter%2Bjsf%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DG%26um%3D1)
BTW, to my clueless eye, the f22 and the jsf just dont seem _that_ different
i retract that statement...the jsf is butt ugly
Quote from: HobokenHooligan on March 26, 2009, 10:49:42 PM
If you look at satellite images of the Groom Lake testing facility near the nevada test ranga (area 51) you will see that their main runway was extended to roughly 24,000 ft in the late 1980s-90s. This is a huge clue. Edwards afb and Vandenberg afb are around 15,000ft I believe. To me this would indicate they were testing something that traveled at very high speeds on approach and departure, most likely some sort of plane that could travel in both the atmosphere and space.
like the space shuttle? ;D
the 'pulsed' exhaust seen in the SR71 image is actually a result of the supersonic exhaust speed and is called
'shock diamonds'. what you're seeing are regions of high and low pressure as shock waves reflect off the
boundary between the exhaust gas and the ambient air. pulse detonation is something entirely different and hypothesized to have been
developed for supersonic combusting ramjets ... which is still hypothetical to the general public since the
only scramjet so far deployed (which flew for like 1 minute after being boosted to hypersonic speed) did
not employ pulsed combustion.
and the advantage of the SR71 (or any other maneuverable spy platform) over satellite observation is
that satellites are predictable. got some super-secret spy plane on your runway? no problem. simply move
it inside when the orbital platform is scheduled to fly over. and no ... changing orbits is not done. that
takes WAY more fuel than any orbital platform carries onboard. do the vector analysis ... a plane change of 60 deg.
requires a velocity change equal in magnitude to the orbital velocity.
Quote from: Triple J on March 26, 2009, 03:15:37 PM
also maybe a prototype given the NASA paint and co-pilot bubble. ???
http://www.sr-71.org/photogallery/blackbird/17956/ (http://www.sr-71.org/photogallery/blackbird/17956/)
Quote from: Triple J on March 26, 2009, 03:15:37 PM
also maybe a prototype given the NASA paint and co-pilot bubble. ???
that's just the family version.
Definitely check out AVRO Arrow. It's a sad chapter in Canadian history - world-beating engineering shelved by petty political bullshit. The prototypes were destroyed and sunk into a lake. All that remains are some blueprints and memories. The movie was pretty good, it's regularly aired on Canadian TV.
For those unfamiliar with the Arrow, it was the first aircraft to break Mach 2. Nobody though it was possible (apparently they forgot what had been said about Mach 1) until the Canadians set about building a bleeding-edge fighter to do it.
As for "1980s" tech, remember that current stuff like the M1A1 was developed in the late 70s. And it is still more than good enough for the battlefield with the upgrades that have been made (depleted uranium armour, computer gun control, various refinements). An M1A1 has NEVER been lost to enemy fire. They have accidently shot at each other without penetrating the armour. The worst that has happened is suspension or engine damage, and the only crew to die overseas drowned when the tank collapsed a bridge.
F35 is going in production as far as I know. Eglin AFB is gearing up for the arrival in 2010. Have family that work there.
Quote from: derby on March 27, 2009, 07:13:21 AM
http://www.sr-71.org/photogallery/blackbird/17956/ (http://www.sr-71.org/photogallery/blackbird/17956/)
Of course you'd post a link explaining the 2nd canopy! [laugh]
I was reading that the F22 can NOT be sold to other countries and that the F35 JSF will be available to our allies. It looks like there are orders already put in for it so I'd bet it's going into production.
Quote from: Mother on March 26, 2009, 11:17:29 PM
all real because i had the models...I don't need your reality
[cheeky]
Well if that's the case you can't forget:
The Phantom X-19:
(http://www.yojoe.com/vehicles/88/phantom/leftfrontiso.jpg)
or the Night Raven:
(http://www.yojoe.com/vehicles/86/nightraven/nightraven_iso.jpg)
[cheeky]
For anyone really interested, here's a neat series that's on YouTube about the competition between the F22 and the YF23
F/A-22 & YF-23 part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5DyUXCw0s4#lq-lq2-hq-vhq)
It's broken into several 10 minute parts but it's pretty interesting and explains why the Air Force chose the F22 over the YF23.
Quote from: herm on March 27, 2009, 06:47:49 AM
i retract that statement...the jsf is butt ugly
You think the one they chose is ugly...check out the Boeing entry. [puke]
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/Boeing_X-32B_Patuxent.jpg/800px-Boeing_X-32B_Patuxent.jpg)
There was another good Discovery Channel show on the JSF competition. Interestingly, the JSF requirements called for a twin engine fighter with vertical take-off capability, and supersonic speed capability (all navy fighters are twin engine for safety reasons). Lockheed convinced them that a single engine design was the correct route...so the JSF has a single engine.
This site has some cool videos of the JSF competition (X-32 & X-35), as well as some new JSF videos.
http://www.jsf.mil/gallery/gal_video.htm# (http://www.jsf.mil/gallery/gal_video.htm#)
Quote from: Monster Dave on March 27, 2009, 08:41:30 AM
... that the F35 JSF will be available to our allies. It looks like there are orders already put in for it so I'd bet it's going into production.
An
electronically stripped down version to be sure. The US never sells "full" versions of any of our planes to any of our allies.
Quote from: TAftonomos on March 27, 2009, 08:05:59 AM
F35 is going in production as far as I know. Eglin AFB is gearing up for the arrival in 2010. Have family that work there.
Currently in LRIP 2 I think.
Part of the issue with the F-22 is that it is being questioned why continue to produce it when the F-35 is coming down the pike.
Quote from: ducpainter on March 26, 2009, 08:29:10 PM
It might depend if it was on a conveyor.
No really. ;D
Wait. Did you just...? You just trolled your own forum, didn't you :) ?
Quote from: il d00d on March 27, 2009, 09:17:33 AM
Wait. Did you just...? You just trolled your own forum, didn't you :) ?
I don't care for serious discussion.
It hurts my head. ;D
Quote from: NeufUnSix on March 27, 2009, 07:56:44 AM
Definitely check out AVRO Arrow. It's a sad chapter in Canadian history - world-beating engineering shelved by petty political bullshit. The prototypes were destroyed and sunk into a lake. All that remains are some blueprints and memories. The movie was pretty good, it's regularly aired on Canadian TV.
For those unfamiliar with the Arrow, it was the first aircraft to break Mach 2. Nobody though it was possible (apparently they forgot what had been said about Mach 1) until the Canadians set about building a bleeding-edge fighter to do it.
As for "1980s" tech, remember that current stuff like the M1A1 was developed in the late 70s. And it is still more than good enough for the battlefield with the upgrades that have been made (depleted uranium armour, computer gun control, various refinements). An M1A1 has NEVER been lost to enemy fire. They have accidently shot at each other without penetrating the armour. The worst that has happened is suspension or engine damage, and the only crew to die overseas drowned when the tank collapsed a bridge.
that doesnt sound right.......did you mean depleted uranium rounds (sabot?)
Quote from: herm on March 27, 2009, 06:07:44 PM
that doesnt sound right.......did you mean depleted uranium rounds (sabot?)
nope, he had it right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Armor_plate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Armor_plate)
Quote from: derby on March 27, 2009, 07:30:56 PM
nope, he had it right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Armor_plate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Armor_plate)
learn something new every day... ;)
i spent some time @ los alamos lab back in early 2000... got to see some of the
results destructive potential of some early testing of the DU sabot rounds (or so i was told)
strange place, los alamos........a little scary actually.
There are a lot of rumours about the SR-71 replacement. As mentioned before, Area 51 has not only had its main runway extended, but in the last 10 years has had a HUGE amount of new construction going on. They also decommed a couple of the smaller runways.
It's known that satellite surveillance was great for stationary targets and organized gatherings of troops in a legitimate nation state, but the nature of terrorist encampments and small, loosely organized bands required a more flexible aircraft based solution.
So, my guess is that Groom Lake houses the base of operations for the Aurora project where it can fly out, reach it's operating theatre, perform it's mission, and return with a minimum of refueling, all at super to hyper sonic speeds. I'm also beginning to wonder if the plane is even manned, or controlled remotely.
Not quite on topic, but I have sat in an operational SR-71. While stationed at Loring AFB, Maine I was the only person in the 'chute shop trained to pack the SR-71 chutes. The stopped in every once in a while and a couple of times I had to help out with a problem. I also got a ride in a F-4 while in Germany. I have been in a B-52 loaded with nuclear weapons also.
The B-52 is as old school as it gets, and it still sees duty. Scars the poop out of folks when it comes in low.
Quote from: Little Monkey Toes on March 28, 2009, 06:49:58 PM
Not quite on topic, but I have sat in an operational SR-71. While stationed at Loring AFB, Maine I was the only person in the 'chute shop trained to pack the SR-71 chutes. The stopped in every once in a while and a couple of times I had to help out with a problem. I also got a ride in a F-4 while in Germany. I have been in a B-52 loaded with nuclear weapons also.
The B-52 is as old school as it gets, and it still sees duty. Scars the poop out of folks when it comes in low.
those dual nacelles can suck up a vw
Quote from: NeufUnSix on March 27, 2009, 07:56:44 AM
As for "1980s" tech, remember that current stuff like the M1A1 was developed in the late 70s. And it is still more than good enough for the battlefield with the upgrades that have been made (depleted uranium armour, computer gun control, various refinements). An M1A1 has NEVER been lost to enemy fire. They have accidently shot at each other without penetrating the armour. The worst that has happened is suspension or engine damage, and the only crew to die overseas drowned when the tank collapsed a bridge.
Actually there have been crew member deaths and vehicle losses due to AT mines & enhanced IEDs.
BUt still, the Abrams is one tough tank. [thumbsup]
The fire control on the M1A1 is 80's tech, but still fun to shoot. ;D
Gunner Sabot Tank!
sometimes tech doesn't need to be modernizes
because it works
2 such non plane examples would be the Colt 1911
and
the Browning M2
QuoteI also got a ride in a F-4 while in Germany.
[thumbsup] That must've been a great ride! The most glamorous and exciting military planes I ever rode in were C-130's ;D
Quote from: Mother on March 29, 2009, 01:29:36 AM
sometimes tech doesn't need to be modernizes
because it works
2 such non plane examples would be the Colt 1911
and
the Browning M2
i have to agree with the 1911 example, but the ma deuce's usability is highly strategy dependent . i think you'll see more "non projectile" stuff being used (i.e. sonic) and there are some very interesting caseless MG designs from MetalStorm -- no flying brass.
One of MetalStorm's designs uses electrical ignition which can permit multiple projectiles to exit the barrel simultaneously -- no muzzle flip!
Quote from: Little Monkey Toes on March 28, 2009, 06:49:58 PM
Not quite on topic, but I have sat in an operational SR-71. While stationed at Loring AFB, Maine I was the only person in the 'chute shop trained to pack the SR-71 chutes. The stopped in every once in a while and a couple of times I had to help out with a problem. I also got a ride in a F-4 while in Germany. I have been in a B-52 loaded with nuclear weapons also.
The B-52 is as old school as it gets, and it still sees duty. Scars the poop out of folks when it comes in low.
i don't know why it was there, but a b52 flew over my old apartment building a few years ago. it was insane, i lived on the top floor of my building, and it was normal for commercial flights to fly over at a few thousand feet. but this thing was low, and loud! very impressive. i assume it stopped at Mitchel Int airport when it still had an AF reserve refueling unit there.
We have C-130's buzz the house regularly. They like to play radar games in these mountains & valleys. When they come over, you find out if things that you hang on walls and such are securely mounted. I've always like C-130's and B-52's.
JM
Quote from: the_Journeyman on March 30, 2009, 05:28:10 AM
We have C-130's buzz the house regularly. They like to play radar games in these mountains & valleys. When they come over, you find out if things that you hang on walls and such are securely mounted. I've always like C-130's and B-52's.
JM
I've heard that people who live near our local AFB who commute on the highway often find that thier radar detectors are going off because pilots are practicing locking on moving targets from the air!!!!
Holy Crap!! That woud scare the crap out of me!!!! Especially in an oops moment by a pilot!!!!!
Quote from: Triple J on March 26, 2009, 03:15:37 PM
Another cool SR-71 pic. Looks like a pulse type of engine...also maybe a prototype given the NASA paint and co-pilot bubble. ???
(http://www.rbracing-rsr.com/turbo/exhaust_sr71.jpg)
I'm a little late to the convo - but I didn't see a response to this post. What you're seeing there is 'mach disks'. They form in super sonic jet/thruster exhaust when the thrust meets the lower pressure of the the ambient air
- That photos of an SR-71 trainer, hence the back seat
- Description on Mach Disks and shock diamonds, that happens to feature that same photo.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/propulsion/q0224.shtml (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/propulsion/q0224.shtml)
Speaking of plane rides....
I'm getting on one of these in August:
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/derby/content/images/2005/12/03/antonov_plane_ema_01_460x300.jpg)
Quote from: MrIncredible on March 30, 2009, 11:25:42 AM
Speaking of plane rides....
I'm getting on one of these in August:
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/derby/content/images/2005/12/03/antonov_plane_ema_01_460x300.jpg)
i thought all of those were grounded!
Quote from: ducatizzzz on March 30, 2009, 11:33:00 AM
i thought all of those were grounded!
I had one fly my satellite back on the 6th of March. You know something I don't?
Quote from: MrIncredible on March 30, 2009, 11:55:45 AM
I had one fly my satellite back on the 6th of March. You know something I don't?
apparently not!! i just remember reading they ahd been grounded, i thought ppl were tired of them landing nose-first into their apartments..
Quote from: ducatizzzz on March 30, 2009, 12:07:18 PM
apparently not!! i just remember reading they ahd been grounded, i thought ppl were tired of them landing nose-first into their apartments..
The Antonov 225 has never had an accident, as far as I can tell on google.
That would be a fun plane to take a ride in. If you can take a few pics when the plane is all opened up and loading.
Have fun! [thumbsup]
Quote from: Monster Dave on March 30, 2009, 12:59:07 PM
That would be a fun plane to take a ride in. If you can take a few pics when the plane is all opened up and loading.
Have fun! [thumbsup]
Pfft-I'm told it's so rough you can't actually tell when you land. That and I think it's about 20 some odd hours in it for me.
I'd love to take pics, it's not possible. I'll post a review in sept though :-)
The sheer size of those cargo planes is amazing:
(http://blog.kievukraine.info/uploaded_images/5571-743924.jpg)
Quote from: MrIncredible on March 30, 2009, 12:14:22 PM
The Antonov 225 has never had an accident, as far as I can tell on google.
ah, yes, i forgot there are dozens of "Antonov" craft... there have been several "Antonov" crashes, i don't know the designations.