Nied
-
Posts
1346 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by Nied
-
-
Blackbird CAN fly at operating altitude below mach 3. It certainly can't go subsonic at altitude, though.
The U2, of course, can ONLY go subsonic. And an absurdly low subsonic at that.
Actually once you get up to it's operating altitudes it can't go much slower than Mach 3. Pilots call it the "coffin corner" your speed is maxed out the air's too thin to go any higher and if you let your speed bleed off you stall, the U-2 actually deals with the same thing (even though it's going slow). It's part of the reason they only let the best pilots fly either plane.
All of that is manageable when you're cruising in a relatively straight line 90,000 ft above earth, but it would be a nightmare trying to dogfight above Mars at the altitudes they showed in "Bye Bye Mars." What they should have done was shown everyone flying around in GERWALK mode, the downward pointed thrust would have more than compensated for the loss of lift, and the thin atmosphere would have negated most of the drag issues.Or sketched a lot of vernier thruster fire, though GERWALK is definitely the preferred mode for slow-speed combat in that environment, especially given the limited flight capacity of the regults and glaugs.
Like I said, DYRL claims they can hover on verniers, so full-spread wings plus some vernier fire should've kept them aloft at much slower speeds than just wings. Verniers are also going to be a major part of maneuverability in a thin atmosphere(and IMO, verniers will be the main part of GERWALK maneuverability in ANY atmosphere).
...
But the show was on a tight budget and schedule. So they were pretty limited in what they could do, and you rarely see verniers firing, even in space.
I always got the impression that the verniers Hikaru used to get into GERWALK, were just momentary puffers, and really couldn't provide the type of thrust needed to keep a plane hovering (if they could there'd be no need for a GERWALK mode). I always just chalk it up to artistic license in "Bye bye Mars" and leave it at that.
-
Valks could fly on mars but not very well. JB0's comparison to the blackbird is actually pretty apt. While the blackbird can fly in an extremely thin atmosphere, it has to fly at mach 3 just to stay up in the air, any slower and the thin atmosphere isn't enough to keep it aloft. The fun starts when you try a turn, just like the blackbird a valk would have to make very slow and wide turns, both because it's control surfaces wont have much authority in the rarefied atmosphere (which in the VF-1's case could be mitigated by thrust vectoring and RCS systems), but also because anything but the gentlest of turns would result in a really nasty stall. All of that is manageable when you're cruising in a relatively straight line 90,000 ft above earth, but it would be a nightmare trying to dogfight above Mars at the altitudes they showed in "Bye Bye Mars." What they should have done was shown everyone flying around in GERWALK mode, the downward pointed thrust would have more than compensated for the loss of lift, and the thin atmosphere would have negated most of the drag issues.
-
Latest F-14 news
Museum's fighter called back to duty
Published: July 18, 2006
By LAURENT L.N. BONCZIJK
Of The News Register
The Evergreen Aviation Museum was poised today to take the first step toward addition of a choice piece to its collection - an F-14D Super Tomcat, the fighter plane Tom Cruise flew in the hit film "Top Gun."
But the flareup of violence between the Israeli army and Hezbollah and Hamas militias in Lebanon and Gaza led to a change in plans. The Navy, which had been planning to replace the U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt's F-14 Tomcats with newer, more multi-dimensional F-18 Hornets, has decided to instead dispatch the carrier to the Middle East with its current squadron of F-14s - including the one promised to the museum.
According to Colin Powers, Evergreen's director of air restoration, the museum is still in line for the plane, which will be flown into Portland, dismantled there and trucked down to McMinnville for reassembly. But not until its new unscheduled tour ends, and no one yet knows when that will be.
The Navy had originally planned to fly the plane directly into town. It would have been the largest and most powerful jet fighter ever to touch down at the McMinnville Airport.
However, officers eventually concluded that the airport lacked sufficient runway length, and that setting up the cable-hooking mechanism used for F-14 carrier landings wasn't feasible. They decided they would have to fly it into Portland instead.
The plane had been scheduled to make the cross-country flight from Virginia's Naval Air Station Oceana to Oregon's Portland International Airport today, then undergo dismantling in preparation for shipment on to McMinnville by truck - a process expected to take about two weeks.
A four-member crew from the Titan Corporation had already been dispatched from Norfolk, Va., with all of the necessary equipment. But that mission will have to be rescheduled, in light of the developments.
When the plane joins the collection, it will be on permanent loan from the National Museum of Naval Aviation. It will join the HK-1 Flying Boat seaplane, SR-71 Blackbird spy plane and Titan II missile among top museum showpieces.
Last used in the bombing of targets in Iraq in October, the plane destined for the museum runs 62 feet in length, 16 feet in height and 38 to 64 feet in width, depending on whether it has its wings fully extended or in swept-back position.
Crews will have to remove its wings, horizontal stabilizer and vertical fins for manageable truck transport and its engines, armaments and ejection seat mechanism for safe museum display. The disassembly in Portland is expected to take about two weeks and the partially reassembly for display is expected to take a like period once it reaches McMinnville.
The plane is part of fighter squadron VF-31, whose insignia features the cartoon character Felix the Cat. The squadron has long been assigned to the Roosevelt, which had been supporting U.S. military operations in Iraq prior to being called home for re-outfitting with F-18 hornets.
The F-14 was designed to provide air superiority over Soviet fighters in dogfights staged in defense of U.S. aircraft carriers. Thus, it did not transition well to other roles, such as the precision bombing called for in Iraq.
VF-31 is one of only two squadrons in the U.S. Navy still flying Tomcats. The Navy, which began taking delivery on them in the early 1970s, has been steadily swapping them out of its carrier-based squadrons in favor of the more versatile Hornets.
-
Sigh, the one day I don't check MW until 9PM, "my" thread goes to hell and another mod has to step in. Yeesh people.
Anyways:
The Senate has *passed* amendment 4211 to Senate bill 2766 "The 2007 Defense Appropriation Act" to name the CVN78 the Gerald Ford. It's very likely it will be. A few weeks ago it was merely "introduced" but now it's one step away from being so. I wasn't using Ford's name as a random example...
USS America.org still trying to stop it. http://www.ussamerica.org/
You know what's been bugging me: I don't know the position of the Super Hornet's Control surfaces when it's shut down. Does anyone know what they are?
-
U.S. Navy would disagree with you as Ike is a very important U.S. hero, patriot and leader long before becoming president making him more then eligible for a ship to be name after him. Whether a carrier and not something else would have been after named him had he not been president is a logical question.
I imagine that he probably would have gotten a DDG named after him if he weren't president (or more likely had a tank named after him).
-
-
House votes to lift export restrictions on the F-22.
This is great news. Selling the Raptor reduces the price for us, and for most of the potential buyers bolsters our regional interests. Hopefully the Senate will follow suite. On a related note Knight I've been meaning to ask you: do you know if the new COTS processors that the Raptor is supposed to get soon solve some of the heat issues it's been having? Is that info OPSEC?
-
The stuff Clinton did in office to the military is far more then enough to ensure his name will never be use on any military kit let alone an aircraft carrier.If you want to criticise the Clinton administration about decisions made about some kind of aircraft (or even defense related) programme go right ahead,I would respectfully disagree. But this seems like a far more productive line of debate. It still seems like it might be crossing the line. I'd like to add one more thing about the Cheney discussions that have gone on here before: for the most part they been restricted to "Dick Cheney chose the Super Hornet over the F-14 and I think that was wrong." Now the first part of that statement is a matter of public record, and the second part only gets into politics because Cheney is now VP (I've never seen any complaints about people disagreeing with McNamara's decisions). His decision making skills on that one matter were questioned and for the most part the discussion didn't go much further than that (I think I may have gone a little far when a I made a face shooting joke during the last incarnation of the thread but that was in a post defending said decision). I fail to see how that is in any way comparable to making a blanket statement about Bill Clinton being a treasonous coward.
Which getting back to the topic at hand is exactly my problem. The Navy (or the military at large) should not be used to venerate a certain political ideology, and trying to name ships after men who are still heavily tied to a certain political school of thought does just that. The US Military is there to defend American interests not those of the Democratic or Republican party.
-
I didn't mention anything about his time as a politican, the stances or actions he has had as a politician,etc. Granted this was him showing off his political leaning on this subject matter, but I thought it was appropriate. I simply stated the facts of what actions he did as a private citizen. If you noticed, I purposely avoided mentioning issues of defense and national security under Clinton.
So I gotta ask that in a few months when the F-14 Tomcat is removed from service completely, how many of you guys are going to hold back your political commentary about Dick Cheney? I remember someone on this board seriously wishing they could go back in time and kill him over this subject matter... yet no one complained and no one demand a moderator to step in! I see every now and then jabs and slams at George W., but again no call for moderation and no sign of a moderator stepping in. Obviously a double standard here. To whatever extent he (Cheney) was or wasn't actually involved in preventing the Tomcat program from moving forward (production of the Tomcat 21, preventing replacement parts for existing aircraft from being made) etc., mentioning his direct or indirect involvement with the F-14 is a political discussion because its the political decision of a politican on a national defense issue. I have no problem with you guys talking about this subject matter (Dick Cheney and the F-14), but I should surely hope we can be consistant here...
Uh when did anyone fantasize about killing Dick Cheney? You've seen criticisms of his decisions regarding a particular aircraft program sure (gosh how surprising in the AIRCRAFT vs Super thread), but nothing beyond that. If I were to say Dick Cheney is a draft dodging war profiteer would that be OK? I didn't address his political career just stated the facts of what he did as a private citizen. If you want to criticise the Clinton administration about decisions made about some kind of aircraft (or even defense related) programme go right ahead, but if you just want to baselessly accuse a former president of treason take it to some wingnut site like Freerepublic.com or LGF.
-
In regards to the Super Bug, my biggest issue with its design is the F-414 engine, they really should have gone with a larger engine like the F-110. But I know that they did not because there was a chance that the F-414 might not materialize so the F-404 would have been used, and the navy does not appear to like the F-110 too much. Really it is sad because the large engine would have made the aircraft that much more powerful and weight gain would not have been that significant, but hey that is just my two cents.
Well as you pointed out, the F-414 wasn't a sure bet. the Super Hornet is seen as a generally successful example of modern procurement. I believe it was implemented using Cost as an Independant Variable managment, and was basically on cost and delivery without major flaws... which is a bit surprising when you look at other programs today. Imagine all the gripes you guys would give it IF it was overbudget and delayed? I'm almost assured that there will be a F-414 spiral to it, if it already isn't happenening today. In a 2003 article penned by the F/A-18E/F's project manager, he hints that there might be one.
Whats a spiral? Is that an engine turbine or upgrade? Sorry I'm not too knowledgeable concerning engines.
Spiral is a development term. Basically it's a way to mark various phases of development, you introduce the base system (say the F/A-18F with basic APG-73 radar and basic backseat) then plan and add various upgrades over time as needed (like an APG-79 AESA radar or, ACS for the back seat). From what I have heard GE is working on a higher thrust/lower emission version of the F414 that might be installed in a later spiral.
::edit:: Another good example of spiral development is what is now going on with the F-22, it IOCed with baseline capabilities, and new ones are added over time (such as integrating new weapons or the EW capabilities they're working on).
-
Without even going into his presidency, Bill Clinton has some very serious issues. Besides not having served a day in the military, here is a man who has in writing that he "loathed" the military. He dodged the draft, he was involved in flag burnings and protests against the US and its armed forces on foreign soil. He gave aid and comfort to the enemy all the while helping lower the morale of the US and its armed forces. Just on this alone, he should never have a ship named after him.
Tada! Politics! I'd edit this if I were you.
-
Nied, I think the biggest problem that the Navy had with the F-110 was that is was developed for the Air Force, yes there is still that interservice rivalry. Whereas the F-404/414 on the other hand has always been a navy project.
As for the naming system, I agree that the preson a ship is named after should already be dead, it is after all an honorarium. But personnally I have no problem with the Reagan or the Kennedy being named so soon after the president was dead. As for naming them after old naval battles, or legacy carriers a lot of those names are now going to the LHAs and LHDs (the helo/harrier carriers) though some are also named after islands, go figure.
The Reagan was so named before the man died. Frankly the whole idea of starting to name things after a president so soon after his (or her) death (or in Reagan's case well before) always smacked of desperation to me. FDR, and JFK were great men in their own right and history has judged them as such, they didn't need to be put on coins or have aircraft carriers named after them to get that judgement (I'd give it another decade or so for Reagan), trying to push history's judgement in a certain direction by doing those things just seems desperate to me. Stuff should get named after people because history judged them to be great not the other way around.
-
Yeah I always thought it would be a better idea to have designed the F/A-18F around a larger engine as well. They were already re-designing the fuselage and a small upscale of the rear fuselage doesn't strike me as too big of a challenge. That would have given it enough room to plug in some of the better next-gen engines down the road as well (as awesome as a Super Bug with F110s sounds, imagine it with F119s or F136s
) Knight this is the first I've heard of the Navy being displeased with the F110, what kind of problems did they have with it specifically (or rather have since there're still a few F-14Ds banging around for another month or two)? -
In regards to the Super Bug, my biggest issue with its design is the F-414 engine, they really should have gone with a larger engine like the F-110. But I know that they did not because there was a chance that the F-414 might not materialize so the F-404 would have been used, and the navy does not appear to like the F-110 too much. Really it is sad because the large engine would have made the aircraft that much more powerful and weight gain would not have been that significant, but hey that is just my two cents.
As for the naming of ships. Carriers are named after Presidents, Naval Heroes, and Legacy Ships. Reagan was president, and like his politics or not he did a great deal for the military and most military leadership still loves him. Bush senior, as stated was a Naval pilot in WW2 and in some circles is considered a naval hero because of his actions after he got shot down. Vinson, while a politician, is considered a naval hero because of the work he did as head of the house armed services commitee, and in the process created the structure of the armed forces as we now know it. Stennis, while also a politician is considered the father of the modern navy, and again he was the head of the house armed services commitee. So should carriers be named after such politicians, maybe, maybe not, but they did a lot to help the navy, but the Navy picked the names and they think that they are appropriate. As for naming a sub after Carter, love him or hate him, he is the best ex-president we've ever had, and he was a submariner, so naming a sub after him is appropriate, and IIRC he was asked and agreed that a sub was more appropriate for his name.
Will we ever see a USS Ford, a USS Nixon, or USS Clinton, or USS Bush Jr, probably not though Nixon does probably deserve to have a ship named after him.
As for naming ships after famous battles, what do you think most of the destroyers are named after? There is a comprehensive rule book on how ships are named and the Navy, with its long traditions, sticks to that strongly.
Also, there are whispers in the fleet, ok more then whispers, that the CVN(X)-78 will be the *insert drumroll* The ENTERPRISE. Yes the Big E will get yet another carrier. The reason being is that the current Big-E is scheduled for Decomm in 2013-2014 and the new BiG-E is scheduled for commissioning in 2014, and in the whole history of the navy there has never not been an Enterprise.
I think the problem with the current naming system is that it has become way to politicised. Recent presidents are getting stuff named after them more as a F*ck you to the other political party than as a way to honor revered statesmen. I find that more than a little repulsive, the military is there to defend all of the country not just whoever's party happens to be in power at the moment and I think the naming of ships should reflect that (a the idea of a USS Nixon is horrifying to me, and as much as I liked him as president, the idea of a USS Clinton doesn't sit much better with me). I would like to see a return to the old tradition of naming carriers after famous battles, or if we must name them after presidents, only ones that have been dead for at least 50 years. (USS Franklin Delano Roosevelt anyone?)
-
Oh don't get the wrong idea man, I wasn't trying to resurrect the years old tomcat vs hornet thread.
I knew it had more range and better avionics. Is it really vastly more manueverable though? The legacy was pretty manueverable as well. I imagine the nose pointing ability on the super bug is superior. It is pretty impressive.
I guess my underlying question was whether or not the l;egacy hornet needed to be replaced by the super hornet>? In other words, has it bridged the gap that far? Or just by a little bit?
I would think that on range and sensors alone the Rhino is worth the money, the rest is gravy.
-
And for the sake of old times, Does the Super Hornet outdo the legacy hornet to the point of even worth being bought?
The growth potential sounds very promising but other than that, it seems like the superhornet program could not outshine the legacy hornet's during its inception.(Then again to be fair, the legacy was the first dedicated multiroler for the navy made to do multirole, whereas the superhornet is the successor to it).
In other words, seems like the legacy hornet broke more ground, where as the super hornet seems like it is just improving on it.
Are there any plans to upgrade it with TVC or higher thrust engines?
Not this again! The Rhino is stealthier, carries more, has way better sensors, is vastly more maneuverable and has way more legs. Not only is it worth it as a Baby hornet replacement it's a damn good Tomcat replacement to boot.
GE is working on a higher thrust version of the F414, but AFAIK no TVC version. I don't know if TVC is really needed anyway, the Rhino is plenty maneuverable as it is.
-
Yeah trimming the "waddle" makes a huge improvement to the look of the toy. Looking at the original wire-frames again it looks like they could upsize the wings and control surfaces and still keep the look right in batroid (I watched M+ again last night and I had forgotten how much the wings stood out in batroid mode). Overall I think what we've see so far is a good start, but a little more work will make this the ultimate YF-19 toy.
-
The pilot was meh, but in the same way the Venture Bros. pilot was. I could see it becoming a good series. On the other hand Tom Goes to the Mayor had a kinda meh pilot (the part at the end with the kids getting caught in bear traps made me laugh) and that show has become some kind of black hole of funny.
-
Ok this one is somewhat political:
"reaction" weapon is a thinly veiled codeword for Nuclear weapon in SDF Macross, right?
This was part of what the Zentradi were intrested in iirc.
Why didn't we see the Macross firing nukes at the Zent's during SW1?
Did the UN ban nukes on the new flagship? Even as late as M7 we still see "lead-firing" guns, so I don't think it was part of a shift to energy weapons. why no nukes?
Nukes don't make exciting battles that's why.
That and Macross Plus explicitly mentions Nukes being politically dicey.
-
Well it's official the F-35 is the Lightning II the name they should have given to the F-22. Check Out Lockheed's little graphic incorporating both the P-38 and BAC's legless fighter.
-
Not now, later. Next week? I don't remember. It's before the end of the month though.
-
I always forget about Harvey Birdman because, while the show is great, it goes on a year long hiatus after new episodes are shown. I honestly thought AS had cancelled it (and have before only to be surprised when new episodes are announced). Space Ghost was like this, I only realized the show was cancelled because the current hiatus has gone on for years now.
-
In response to your rhetorical question I have but to mention "Peewee's Playhouse"...WTF???
Other than Venture Brothers and Robot Chicken their original line-up sucks major monkey balls.
"Peewee's Playhouse" actually makes some sense for CN and AS (it's like a cartoon with live actors, and the whole porno theatre incident still makes it hard to show it to kids). "Saved by the Bell" on the other hand is major WTF?!?! territory.
-
It's gotten crappy.
Back in the day when Brack and Space Ghost were still on and before they drove Aqua Teen deep into the ground it was one hell of a funny line up. Now I can't even sit through stuff like Tom Goes to the Mayor or Minoriteam. Like everyone else here I stay for the Venture Brothers and Robot Chicken (Moral Oral gets some laughs out of me too), and shows like 12oz Mouse and Squidbillies can be funny if you're drunk enough.
Valks On Mars
in Movies and TV Series
Posted
And that's in docile General Aviation plane. Stalls in military fighters are often unrecoverable and kill pilots on a regular basis.
And jet engines can actually stall as well, it's called a compressor stall. The blades in a jet turbine are just wings turned sideways and spinning in a circle, and just like normal wings under the right conditions they can stop producing lift cutting off air flow through the engine and shutting it down. I don't see any reason why the same thing couldn't happen to a Valkyrie's thermonuclear turbines.