Warmaker Posted August 13, 2006 Posted August 13, 2006 on side a neato f-15 pic showed up on fark.com via airliners . nethttp://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0804...ev_id=&next_id= 424733[/snapback] Big Powerful Engines = Teh Good Stuff
David Hingtgen Posted August 14, 2006 Author Posted August 14, 2006 It's had its airbrake replaced recently. I want to see a stripped late F-15E or F-15K do that--they've got 25% more power.
buddhafabio Posted August 14, 2006 Posted August 14, 2006 Well, remember the 1980's Van Halen video for "Dreams" on MTV? You know, back when they actually showed music videos? I got 2 videos I easily dug up on the 'net. The 1st is the "Dreams" video as was regularly shown on MTV, showcasing the Blue Angels flying the A-4 Skyhawk (one of my favorite aircraft). The 2nd is one that's much more recent and fanmade. This time, it's the Blue Angels flying the F/A-18 Hornet. No stages, no half-nekkid chicks prancing around (kind of bad not to have them, I guess), etc. Just aircraft and flying. Blue Angels with A-4 Skyhawks Blue Angels with F/A-18 Hornets 424838[/snapback] any where i can get the f-18 version full download.
Knight26 Posted August 14, 2006 Posted August 14, 2006 What does everyone think of the new Cessna LSA concept, it's been quite a while since Cessna introduced a whole new bird and maybe its just me but I really don't care for it. The fuselage and wing just seem very off to me, maybe I'm just used to the old cessna lines or something, but the new curves seem odd, though more aerodynamic I agree, and the new wing just seems really off.
buddhafabio Posted August 14, 2006 Posted August 14, 2006 it looks like something put thoether for the new faa sport licence. might be a good lil plane for under 100,000
Nied Posted August 14, 2006 Posted August 14, 2006 The LSA looks like it will be a pretty neat next gen version of the 150. I'm more excited by the NGP. Cessna already tried to replace the 172 once (I always had a soft spot for the 177) we'll see if they're successful this time. Cirrus is starting to encroach on the "exceedingly simple to learn and fly" market that the 172 has ruled for decades, Cessna's got to do something or they will lose.
Knight26 Posted August 15, 2006 Posted August 15, 2006 (edited) Ah yes the NGP, nicer design, since it is a bit bigger, but what is with the wing, that just wierds me out at this point, need to see some aero numbers to figure out that one. Also I wonder since it has the aft passneger door if it is a 4 or 6 seater, the cargo door is throwing me off on that point. Edited August 15, 2006 by Knight26
Nied Posted August 15, 2006 Posted August 15, 2006 I bet it's a 4 seater and the 4th (or maybe 3rd?) door is there for convenience. That wing got me as well, it's so small that I can't imagine it has very good stall characteristics, the slight forward sweep might help with that though.
Knight26 Posted August 15, 2006 Posted August 15, 2006 The sweep and size of the wing do not bother me so much, it's a cessna so you know it'll have good stall handling, but what wierds me out is that notch in the leading edge at the root. WTF is that all about, just extend the fuselage a few inches aft, it just looks strange and week in my opinion.
Nied Posted August 15, 2006 Posted August 15, 2006 That notch is on the LSA too. I'm not sure why it's there, drag reduction maybe? It seems like they are trying for a pretty slick design. Speaking of which that wing looks mighty smooth to be aluminium, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if it was some kind of carbon fiber (which would be strong enough that having a weird mate to the fuselage might not matter).
hellohikaru Posted August 17, 2006 Posted August 17, 2006 Found something similar to what shindensetsu describe years ago. If this has been posted before then let me know.
Coota0 Posted August 17, 2006 Posted August 17, 2006 (edited) Whatever the Army picks to replace the Chinook would be a good choice, since they basically want a modern version of the C-123. 424659[/snapback] I don't think the Army is planning on replacing the CH-47, but is looking to supplement it by bringing back a fixed wing cargo component. What the U.S. Army needs is more C-17s [or similar sized aircraft like the C-5] and even more sealift capacity as most of it gear and supplies is still going to be put on boats. Latest report on the FCS link. 424778[/snapback] Then the Army needs to talk to the USAF, becuase the Army doesn't fly C-17s or C-5s, and if the Army tried to buy something that big the Air Force would throw a fit. The USAF already had a fit when the Army was considering the C-130J. Edited August 17, 2006 by Coota0
Mislovrit Posted August 17, 2006 Posted August 17, 2006 Then the Army needs to talk to the USAF, becuase the Army doesn't fly C-17s or C-5s, and if the Army tried to buy something that big the Air Force would throw a fit.Again this argument brings up the USAF negating it's part of the National Security Act of 1947, as they're required to processed and maintained sufficient lifting capacity for the U.S. Army. USN is guilty of doing the same crap to the U.S. Army as well. The USAF already had a fit when the Army was considering the C-130J. 425871[/snapback] Business as usual as the USAF Brass throws a fit any and every time Army personnal operates any fixed wing aircraft. Unrelated to above, here's a site with pics of a sort of bad lanfing by a Eurofighter. bad landing link.
Knight26 Posted August 17, 2006 Posted August 17, 2006 I wouldbn't technically call that a bad landing, just a failed nosegear deployment. A bad landing generally means that it was caused by a pilot foul up. That does not appear to be the case here. Look at the first picture, the pilot obviously knows that something is wrong so comes in way nose high to allow for the fuselage to aerobrake and slow them down, thus limiting the landing run. I can imagine that he might have wanted to make a dirt landing as it would have possibly limited the damage, though it surely would have fodded the engines. However the only way not to FOD the engines on that landing would be to shut them down, but then he would have had to come in with the nose lower to maintain airspeed. So, it was probably someone on the ground who made the call to land on the runway. I'll bet they shut down the engines as soon as they were wheels down and went to the APU to try and not kill them. All in all it looks like a good no nosewheel landing, and the pilot must have had some skill a the plane is not a complete flaming wreck. Infact it looks like after a few months as a hanger queen that she might fly again, though I am judging that strictly on what we can see in the pictures, I am sure taht there is more damage internally that we can't see.
Mislovrit Posted August 18, 2006 Posted August 18, 2006 Had got the link from this thread and wanted to see any one heard anything about it.
Zentrandude Posted August 18, 2006 Posted August 18, 2006 Doesn't look too bad. I had an old pic of a car t-bone a helocopter.
Nied Posted August 18, 2006 Posted August 18, 2006 Found something similar to what shindensetsu describe years ago. If this has been posted before then let me know. 425845[/snapback] I remember that. I remember seeing that picture in Combat Aircraft or Air Forces Monthly back in early '02 in an article that advocated cancelling further Super Hornet orders then pulling all the F-14 hulls out of AMARC and doing that to them. The authors thought that somehow welding an entirely new front end (and wings from the look of it) onto a 20 year old hull that had been sitting in the Arizona desert for the past 6 years or so would not only be easy, but cheap and fast as well.
Knight26 Posted August 18, 2006 Posted August 18, 2006 Found something similar to what shindensetsu describe years ago. If this has been posted before then let me know. 425845[/snapback] I remember that. I remember seeing that picture in Combat Aircraft or Air Forces Monthly back in early '02 in an article that advocated cancelling further Super Hornet orders then pulling all the F-14 hulls out of AMARC and doing that to them. The authors thought that somehow welding an entirely new front end (and wings from the look of it) onto a 20 year old hull that had been sitting in the Arizona desert for the past 6 years or so would not only be easy, but cheap and fast as well. 426211[/snapback] Ah have to love it when morons think that modifying an aircraft is that easy. Or what was the discussion we had here a few months ago when that little dippy said that Japan should building the planes from its anime not knowing anything aircraft design. Overall though the stealthy tomcat was not a terrible idea, it just wasn't a practical one as a swing wing aircraft would have serious design issues if your tried to make it stealthy.
Nied Posted August 18, 2006 Posted August 18, 2006 Ah have to love it when morons think that modifying an aircraft is that easy. Or what was the discussion we had here a few months ago when that little dippy said that Japan should building the planes from its anime not knowing anything aircraft design. Overall though the stealthy tomcat was not a terrible idea, it just wasn't a practical one as a swing wing aircraft would have serious design issues if your tried to make it stealthy. 426217[/snapback] I don't blame Phalanx for that, after all when major industry mags run articles about giving F-14s stealth noses in all seriousness it's not hard to get some misconceptions about aircraft design in your head. I don't doubt you could design a stealthy aircraft that would look very much like the F-14 (look at the NATF version of the F-22) but to try and build one out of existing airframes sitting in AMARC is so ridiculous it's downright laughable.
David Hingtgen Posted August 19, 2006 Author Posted August 19, 2006 Intakes are new too, as well as I think both v and h stabs. And possibly nacelles and beavertail (depending on how accurately they're trying to draw--hard to tell "slight change" from "not that accurate drawing of the original"). What's left of the original plane? The tailhook?
reddsun1 Posted August 19, 2006 Posted August 19, 2006 (edited) Holy Crap! http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3656815532557531640 That's a carrier deck! Dayum! Well, guess they had to get it on there somehow.... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4015390308129405896 Edited August 19, 2006 by reddsun1
Nied Posted August 19, 2006 Posted August 19, 2006 Holy Crap! http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3656815532557531640 That's a carrier deck! Dayum! Well, guess they had to get it on there somehow.... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4015390308129405896 426290[/snapback] That's the JFK IIRC. As the blurb for the video says it would have made for a killer COD option if it weren't for the difficulty. Around the same time they also made plans to launch and recover the U-2 from carriers (I think it's the U-2R that's equipped with a carrier capable tail hook and folding wings).
Warmaker Posted August 19, 2006 Posted August 19, 2006 As a former KC-130 Electrician, I look quite fondly at those videos! Last time I was in the Marine KC-130 community was 1999. I've worked on a Marine KC-130 with a modex of 798. I'm wondering if that's the bird from these videos. I've worked on a few of the Vietname era birds, one of which was shown in a documentary about the siege of Khe Sahn. The documentary showed the bird doing drops when the base was relying on airpower for supplies and protection.
Zentrandude Posted August 19, 2006 Posted August 19, 2006 Holy Crap! http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3656815532557531640 That's a carrier deck! Dayum! Well, guess they had to get it on there somehow.... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4015390308129405896 426290[/snapback] That's the JFK IIRC. As the blurb for the video says it would have made for a killer COD option if it weren't for the difficulty. Around the same time they also made plans to launch and recover the U-2 from carriers (I think it's the U-2R that's equipped with a carrier capable tail hook and folding wings). 426314[/snapback] Good thing they didn't go with it. I remember video interviews with workers building those u2s accidently denting in the panels since its skin is so thin. U2 would never last long on a carrier.
buddhafabio Posted August 19, 2006 Posted August 19, 2006 (edited) Holy Crap! http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3656815532557531640 That's a carrier deck! Dayum! Well, guess they had to get it on there somehow.... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4015390308129405896 426290[/snapback] even more amazing is it is a forristal not a larger nimitz class or a kittyhawk class. they had to remove all of the arrester cables also. making it impractical for regular carrier landings. they even had it on jag where harm landed one on a carrier that swing wing jet was on popular mechanics a long while ago. Edited August 19, 2006 by buddhafabio
Coota0 Posted August 19, 2006 Posted August 19, 2006 Around the same time they also made plans to launch and recover the U-2 from carriers (I think it's the U-2R that's equipped with a carrier capable tail hook and folding wings). 426314[/snapback] They were talking about this on Airwarriors a while back, said that the U2 dug its nose in bad when it trapped. they even had it on jag where harm landed one on a carrier 426353[/snapback] Nope, he put a navalized F-117 on the deck. JAG Episode Guide
buddhafabio Posted August 19, 2006 Posted August 19, 2006  Around the same time they also made plans to launch and recover the U-2 from carriers (I think it's the U-2R that's equipped with a carrier capable tail hook and folding wings). 426314[/snapback] They were talking about this on Airwarriors a while back, said that the U2 dug its nose in bad when it trapped. they even had it on jag where harm landed one on a carrier 426353[/snapback] Nope, he put a navalized F-117 on the deck. JAG Episode Guide 426447[/snapback] as you were saying they dont say what type of plane it was but it was a c-130 http://www.tv.com/jag/touchdown/episode/27...ep_list;title;4
F-ZeroOne Posted August 19, 2006 Posted August 19, 2006 More Eurofighter news - Saudi Arabia has commited to purchasing 72 Typhoons. While this deal has been on the cards for a while now, the UK press has been speculating that a confirmed deal of this size may boost chances of Typhoons being ordered in other countries - including Japan.
Coota0 Posted August 19, 2006 Posted August 19, 2006   Around the same time they also made plans to launch and recover the U-2 from carriers (I think it's the U-2R that's equipped with a carrier capable tail hook and folding wings). 426314[/snapback] They were talking about this on Airwarriors a while back, said that the U2 dug its nose in bad when it trapped. they even had it on jag where harm landed one on a carrier 426353[/snapback] Nope, he put a navalized F-117 on the deck. JAG Episode Guide 426447[/snapback] as you were saying they dont say what type of plane it was but it was a c-130 http://www.tv.com/jag/touchdown/episode/27...ep_list;title;4 426457[/snapback] We're talking two different episodes, mine is Black Jet yours is Touchdown, but either way I think we can both agree that Harm never trapped a U-2 aboard a carrier.
Knight26 Posted August 21, 2006 Posted August 21, 2006 Why don't we just agree that JAG was terrible show?
Nied Posted August 21, 2006 Posted August 21, 2006 Why don't we just agree that JAG was terrible show? 426989[/snapback] No kidding. That episode guide was a good reminder, a pilot says "no martin baker" to indicate that he didn't eject without the Iranians finding out? What the heck do the writers think the IRIAF has in their F-14s? Lawn chairs?
David Hingtgen Posted August 22, 2006 Author Posted August 22, 2006 And it's even worse if you know anything about ships, too...
Knight26 Posted August 22, 2006 Posted August 22, 2006 that was my biggest gripe with NCIS when it first came out too, not getting the ships right. I mean one of the first episodes I watched had them onboard the DD-964 the Paul F Foster. And guess what they filmed aboard it up at Port Hueneme, but all the establishing shots they used to show the ship out at see were of a DDG-51 class, several actually. That really bugged the heck out of me, I only continued watching the show because I liked the stories, characters and actors, and of course at the time Sasha Alexander, dag but she was hot.
Lynx7725 Posted August 24, 2006 Posted August 24, 2006 Astronomy Picture of the Day came up with a nice aircraft related pic. If the pic doesn't load, you can go here for a BIG version: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/060...el_usaf_big.jpg
Recommended Posts