kalvasflam Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 (edited) Look.... UAV funnies http://aviationweek.typepad.com/ares/2007/...cartoon_co.html I think I like the GA cartoon a bit better. It accurately depicts the Globalhawk as is. And hell, who doesn't like those priceless commercials. Edited April 8, 2007 by kalvasflam
F-ZeroOne Posted April 9, 2007 Posted April 9, 2007 Does the Global Hawk swallowing the Predator remind anyone of a Mass Production Eva?
Nied Posted April 9, 2007 Posted April 9, 2007 Does the Global Hawk swallowing the Predator remind anyone of a Mass Production Eva? Actually the first thing I thought of was the xenomorph from Alien.
kalvasflam Posted April 10, 2007 Posted April 10, 2007 Actually the first thing I thought of was the xenomorph from Alien. The GA depiction of Globalhawk is actually pretty accurate, all it does now is loiter, and take pictures, kind of like an airline. Of course, that's what the predator used to be like to until somebody in the CIA thought about the brilliant idea of taping on a pair of Hellfires.
David Hingtgen Posted April 12, 2007 Author Posted April 12, 2007 F-35 helmet: Of course, I'm much more fond of the redhead in the F-35 suit.
HoveringCheesecake Posted April 12, 2007 Posted April 12, 2007 WTF good god that thing is ugly. Did gentex make that?
Warmaker Posted April 12, 2007 Posted April 12, 2007 The helmet looks funky, a bit bug-like. Anyways, just as long as the thing works as advertised, the pilots like it, and it's reliable.
Lightning Posted April 12, 2007 Posted April 12, 2007 The helmet looks funky, a bit bug-like. Anyways, just as long as the thing works as advertised, the pilots like it, and it's reliable. true... what's so different about the F-35's suit than the others though?
Graham Posted April 12, 2007 Posted April 12, 2007 I think the helmet looks great. It's got a nice sci-fi anime look to it. Graham
David Hingtgen Posted April 12, 2007 Author Posted April 12, 2007 F-35 suit is basically just the "next-gen" G-suit---might have a few special connections for the helmet, etc.
David Hingtgen Posted April 12, 2007 Author Posted April 12, 2007 Seeing a chopper in the water is itself a rare and cool event, but to pick up a zodiac too? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXtaGPUFPr8
F-ZeroOne Posted April 12, 2007 Posted April 12, 2007 (edited) Seeing a chopper in the water is itself a rare and cool event, but to pick up a zodiac too? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXtaGPUFPr8 I keep trying to say say this: British pilots are the only ones in the World who think that having sky underneath them is somehow unnatural. Edited April 12, 2007 by F-ZeroOne
Phyrox Posted April 13, 2007 Posted April 13, 2007 Guys, this is an aircraft thread. At least post something that's got wings and flies, and rockets/ ICBM doesn't count! And with that I will attempt again to take the thread back to the years beofre turbojets and FBW, even if just for one post. Here we have one of the more attractive of the Schneider Trophy entrants, the unsuccessful Gloster VI. AND one of my favorites, the Ursinus U.1 (or I least I think I remember that as its tentative designation). Seaplane fighter with retracable floats. Very little information on it, only in two or three of my books, but easily one of my favorite concepts. So there you have it; stunning beauty and remarkable ingenuity. Discuss at your leisure.
David Hingtgen Posted April 13, 2007 Author Posted April 13, 2007 It diverts into "war" pretty often though. So long as it remains apolitical and civil, we usually let it go for a little while.
Mislovrit Posted April 13, 2007 Posted April 13, 2007 More UAV news Rift over UAV control reaches new altitude A blurb from the link A spat between the Air Force and Army about remote-controlled aircraft is taking off. One-stars from each service have traded harsh words over who will control unmanned aerial vehicles at medium and high altitudes and how to manage their separate aircraft programs. At an Army aviation roundtable March 23 at the Pentagon, Army Brig. Gen. Stephen D. Mundt, chief of Army air operations, blasted the Air Force for proposing that it be responsible for the development and operations of unmanned aerial vehicles that operate above 3,500 feet.
flyboy Posted April 13, 2007 Posted April 13, 2007 F-35 helmet: Of course, I'm much more fond of the redhead in the F-35 suit. Wow, that's some crazy-looking helmet/mask/g-suit/survival vest getup. Is that a concept, or is the Air Force actually going to implement that ensemble? Its ironic how out of touch I am with the technology that's coming down the line. Not that I'll ever have put on a g-suit and helmet again - thankfully. I'll take a comfy (non-ejection) chair, ANR headset, and the dude(ette) next to me helping with tuning the radios, any day thanks. Cool stuff, though.
Lynx7725 Posted April 13, 2007 Posted April 13, 2007 AND one of my favorites, the Ursinus U.1 (or I least I think I remember that as its tentative designation). Seaplane fighter with retracable floats. Very little information on it, only in two or three of my books, but easily one of my favorite concepts. Err, that looked like a big club with wings strapped on for good measure. Ingenuous, yes, but quite ugly.
David Hingtgen Posted April 13, 2007 Author Posted April 13, 2007 That is the actual, final F-35 helmet and suit AFAIK. No HUD--it's projected onto the visor.
Lightning Posted April 13, 2007 Posted April 13, 2007 It diverts into "war" pretty often though. So long as it remains apolitical and civil, we usually let it go for a little while. I was gonna just make a "ground war" thread so it wouldn't have so much of the ground war stuff here....would that be ok?
David Hingtgen Posted April 13, 2007 Author Posted April 13, 2007 Hmmmmn. A thread just about war----that might draw too many "political" people to "come out of the woodwork". You can try, but it'll be closely monitored.
Nied Posted April 13, 2007 Posted April 13, 2007 Hmmmmn. A thread just about war----that might draw too many "political" people to "come out of the woodwork". You can try, but it'll be closely monitored. I'm for it as long as the thread title is "War: Good God Y'all!" (a no-prize for the person who gets the reference).
Phyrox Posted April 14, 2007 Posted April 14, 2007 I'm for it as long as the thread title is "War: Good God Y'all!" (a no-prize for the person who gets the reference). Edwin Star.
HoveringCheesecake Posted April 14, 2007 Posted April 14, 2007 My question is: who wouldn't get that reference? I'm young compared to most of you guys, but hell even I got it. Awesome song, btw.
David Hingtgen Posted April 14, 2007 Author Posted April 14, 2007 Now that all the ground-pounding is out of this thread, here's my new wallpaper: http://airliners.net/open.file/1195977/L/ And a view from directly behind: http://airliners.net/open.file/1197864/L/ I don't know why, but a lot of the best pics of US planes come from Australia--maybe they just try harder to impress when they're down there or something.
Lightning Posted April 14, 2007 Posted April 14, 2007 I think the flight show regs are different down there...
David Hingtgen Posted April 15, 2007 Author Posted April 15, 2007 Seems the rumors are true, the An-225 is likely irrepably damaged in the UAE. World's largest plane for those who don't know. Nose gear collapsed while attempting to kneel while loading, and the forward fuselage basically bent down and crashed to the ground. There's a 2nd An-225 half-built, and I'm hoping they can salvage a lot of the 1st's parts to finish it. But the wings would be the main issue---they cost a lot, and the 2nd one doesn't have any---but it'd be almost impossible to get the off of the 1st, and then transport them. It's unlikely overall, there's just not enough money/point to do it. And using the 2nd one to repair the first is just as unlikely---the airport the accident happened at is considered too ill-equipped to be able to perform major repairs.
Warmaker Posted April 15, 2007 Posted April 15, 2007 I remember seeing one of those big Russian transports back in 1993. I was in Marine Boot Camp in MCRD San Diego. We were in a class just before Pugil Sticks and I was staring at the transport which was in transient through San Diego Airport / Lindbergh Field. Of course, I got in trouble for being distracted... Anyways, that plane is HUGE, and I thought that the USAF's C-5 Galaxy was big.
F-ZeroOne Posted April 15, 2007 Posted April 15, 2007 (edited) Seems the rumors are true, the An-225 is likely irrepably damaged in the UAE. World's largest plane for those who don't know. Nose gear collapsed while attempting to kneel while loading, and the forward fuselage basically bent down and crashed to the ground. Wow. Er, oops: http://www.flightsim.no/ubbthreads/ubbthre...ge=1#Post328564 Though according to some posts about this incident, it seems that a fix was made and the aircraft has been salvaged... Edited April 16, 2007 by F-ZeroOne
David Hingtgen Posted April 16, 2007 Author Posted April 16, 2007 For how "up to the minute" civil aviation usually is, this has been a surprisingly "rumor-filled" event. It actually seems it might have been fixed, before the first threads indicating it had been damaged showed up.
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted April 16, 2007 Posted April 16, 2007 I (got this from wiki some time ago) thought that the second An-225 was slated for completion anyway since there was a demand for its services. Or was that bullcrap?
David Hingtgen Posted April 16, 2007 Author Posted April 16, 2007 Nothing's been done for many years, and there can't be THAT much demand for its services. There's not much the An-225 can do, that the An-124 can't. Anyways, I recently heard An-225 #2 is just a static test frame, and can't be made flyable. Pic of the day: Never let someone tell you turbulence is just an annoyance. It has ripped apart large jets in mid-air, and severely damaged even more.
F-ZeroOne Posted April 16, 2007 Posted April 16, 2007 So what did they use in place of the rudder? Engine thrust? The crew running from one side of the aircraft to the the other?! Or did they just all bail out?
David Hingtgen Posted April 16, 2007 Author Posted April 16, 2007 Big Boeing bombers have traditionally done well with having only a stub of the fin remaining---you can find very similar B-17 pics. Strange that the JAL 747 did so much worse, but I think it had its controls frozen as well, which doomed it.
Lynx7725 Posted April 16, 2007 Posted April 16, 2007 Big Boeing bombers have traditionally done well with having only a stub of the fin remaining---you can find very similar B-17 pics. Strange that the JAL 747 did so much worse, but I think it had its controls frozen as well, which doomed it. Yeah, you do see B-17s with big pieces missing. Rudder, wings, etc. Only the Grumman Iron Works seems to have a more hefty reputation in getting planes home. Not that I advocate leaving bits and pieces of your plane in enemy territory, mind you...
Recommended Posts