Coota0 Posted January 20, 2008 Posted January 20, 2008 Poopy suits? Poopy suits are anti-exposure suits aircrews wear when they are flying over cold water areas (such as the North Atlantic), so in case your jet goes bad and you have to eject, you'll be able to survive in the cold water an extra half hour or so while waiting for somone to grab you. They are somewhat similar to a diver's wetsuit, made out of rubber, and you put them on over long johns. You then put your flight suit, survival vest and harness. When you're all suited up, it looks like the pilot has gained 100 pounds, but most end up losing at least 5 per flight by sweating in those things. It's made of Tyvek plastic-fiber, the suit is designed to be worn over the clothing to minimize the exposure to water. It seals at ankle and wrist. There are accessory hood, booties and gloves, also of Tyvek, which may be taped to the Poopy Suit to complete the watertight nature of the garb. The smell that a pilot aquires by wearing one leads to the name "poopy suit"
kalvasflam Posted January 20, 2008 Posted January 20, 2008 AHHH more about the grounding of my favorite birdee.. Looks like the AF was working on Macross style ejector pod/cockpit. I am glad pilot survived to tell tale... F-15 break up Bah, it's all the same with the news media, let's talk about a problem and then find ways to spread the blame. Nothing on potential solutions like putting in additional -22s on order.
David Hingtgen Posted January 20, 2008 Posted January 20, 2008 And the F-111's control stick doubles as a water pump, in case the capsule lands in a lake/ocean and starts sinking. Seriously. Interesting video---never seen footage of a drone being launched off a Blackbird. Nor hitting said Blackbird and destroying it. (Video says SR-71, but it's actually an M-21, 60-6941, no SR-71 could ever carry a drone, despite numerous models, paintings, etc) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYsMli570K8 The only other M-21 ever made, 60-6490, is at the Museum of Flight in Seattle. (the coolest of all Blackbirds you can go see, as it's the only one still in bare titanium)
F-ZeroOne Posted January 20, 2008 Posted January 20, 2008 Reminds me of the cockpit modules for the fighters in Space: Above And Beyond I didn't think actual aircraft had such things. Learned something new. There were a couple, though its rare and I can't recall any others off the top of my head (I'm not sure if W.W.II German "Natter" rocket interceptor counts... )
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 There were a couple, though its rare and I can't recall any others off the top of my head (I'm not sure if W.W.II German "Natter" rocket interceptor counts... ) XB-70 I think.
David Hingtgen Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 XB-70 had "gigantic ejection seats" with a sort of shell that formed a pill-shaped capsule when closed up, but they were individual seats still, no part of the airframe went with then.
Coota0 Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 XB-70 had "gigantic ejection seats" with a sort of shell that formed a pill-shaped capsule when closed up, but they were individual seats still, no part of the airframe went with then. I remember seeing a similar idea in either Popular Mechanics or Popular Science for the Space Shuttle, but I can't find a picture now.
Phyrox Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 B-1A had a crew capsule rather than individual ejection seats as well.
David Hingtgen Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 From another forum I visit, the best theory I've heard so far on the BA 777 crash: <<<<<<< He is checked out on the 777 and currently works training pilots on the type. This is just his 2 cents, and he would be the 1st to admit it might not be the reason at all. Please keep in mind it is only an opinion and not fact.; "Just thought I'd give you my 2cents on the British Airways 777 short landing in Heathrow last Thursday -- - running out of fuel - highly unlikely, unless that Captain & F/O are the world's worst pilots - more likely the engines spooled way down below normal idle because they made a prolonged thrust-idle descent from high altitude and kept an un-interrupted descent going all the way down to final approach. Only at the last minute (600 feet) did they try to get power from the beasts and by then they were so asleep that it is quite feasible it would take more like 2-3 minutes to get them up to power producing RPM -- just not enough time with 1 minute to landing. I also think some form of icing in the engine intake was responsible for the engines going way below idle rpm. Anyway, that's just my theory at the moment -- like everyone else in the business, I'm anxiously waiting to hear the official reasons BOTH engines did not respond to throttle movement.">>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Noyhauser Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 Looks like the U.S. tanker competition is reopening. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5d4a8fb8-c792-11...?nclick_check=1
Apollo Leader Posted January 23, 2008 Author Posted January 23, 2008 XB-70 had "gigantic ejection seats" with a sort of shell that formed a pill-shaped capsule when closed up, but they were individual seats still, no part of the airframe went with then. The B-58 Hustler used a similar enclosed capsule ejection seat as well.
David Hingtgen Posted January 26, 2008 Posted January 26, 2008 Lots of neat Raptor pics: http://www.airshowbuzz.com/photos/browse.php?category=4
buddhafabio Posted January 27, 2008 Posted January 27, 2008 (edited) Lots of neat Raptor pics: http://www.airshowbuzz.com/photos/browse.php?category=4 more then just neat raptor pics there . that place is what my wife would call airplane porn Edited January 27, 2008 by buddhafabio
David Hingtgen Posted February 9, 2008 Posted February 9, 2008 Viagra helps Israeli pilot's performance
F-ZeroOne Posted February 9, 2008 Posted February 9, 2008 (edited) Legend has it that the F-35 Lightning II is going to be better known in RAF service as... er... "Dave". Don't expect Lockheed Martin to be using that on the advertising anytime soon. (mandatory cultural explanation: er, beats me. It does seem to be a name that we British find oddly amusing for some reason. Er. Sorry, David. You were probably wanting the YF-23 to be named in your honour... A UK satellite channel recently renamed itself "Dave" for perhaps the same oddly humourous reason. If I had to guess, it might be related to the famous British sitcom "Only Fools and Horses", which features a character who continually refers to another character - called Rodney - as "Dave"). Edited February 9, 2008 by F-ZeroOne
Awacs Posted February 9, 2008 Posted February 9, 2008 Legend has it that the F-35 Lightning II is going to be better known in RAF service as... er... "Dave". Don't expect Lockheed Martin to be using that on the advertising anytime soon. Really? That amuses me to be honest. Given that so far its only designation has been the rather clunky official acronym of JCA I have to say that even 'Dave' has to qualify as an improvement. I'm amazed that we aren't going to be calling it 'Lightning' though - after all it is as much an auspicious name for us as it is for the USAF. Although I am probably showing my age by admitting that I remember that we had a jet-age Lightning at all...... Karl
F-ZeroOne Posted February 9, 2008 Posted February 9, 2008 (edited) Really? That amuses me to be honest. Given that so far its only designation has been the rather clunky official acronym of JCA I have to say that even 'Dave' has to qualify as an improvement. I'm amazed that we aren't going to be calling it 'Lightning' though - after all it is as much an auspicious name for us as it is for the USAF. Although I am probably showing my age by admitting that I remember that we had a jet-age Lightning at all...... Karl Sorry, I should have perhaps stressed more that is the unofficial name that is likely to be adopted by ground crew, pilots etc. Not the official name, which is still "Lightning II". Its similar to the way the F-16 is officially the "Fighting Falcon" and universally the "Viper". Edited February 9, 2008 by F-ZeroOne
Warmaker Posted February 9, 2008 Posted February 9, 2008 Bah! I still call the F-16 the "Fighting Falcon" since it has more flair than the generic sounding "Viper!" For me, "Viper" is as lame as "Raptor"
David Hingtgen Posted February 9, 2008 Posted February 9, 2008 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Blade failure will delay STOVL F-35B JSF first flight By Graham Warwick Pratt & Whitney's F135 powerplant for the Lockheed Martin F-35 suffered a second turbine blade failure on 4 February, the same day the US Department of Defense tried for a third time to cancel the General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136 alternative engine. The third-stage low-pressure turbine blade failed during proof testing of flight test engine (FTE) 6, the F135 scheduled to power the first short take-off and vertical landing F-35B, aircraft BF-1. First flight is expected to be delayed. The first failure, on a STOVL F135 during ground testing in August 2007, was traced to high-cycle fatigue resulting from vibration excited by interaction of the blade with the wakes from vanes upstream of the third LP turbine stage. P&W devised a proof test to deliberately excite the vibration and determine whether any turbine blades were susceptible to failure. Two conventional take-off and landing F135s, FTE 1 and 3, have been proof-tested and cleared for flight. "FTE 6 was next in line. A single LP turbine blade responded to the vibration and broke," says Bill Gostic, F135 programme vice-president. "That was the intent [of the proof test]. We fully expected to find blades that cracked, but believed we could identify them before they broke. That was the surprise." To replace the damaged STOVL engine, P&W planned to begin proof testing FTE 2 on 8 February, but the incident will delay the start of propulsion system testing on BF-1 at Lockheed. "The extent of any delay is still to be decided," says Gostic. P&W is delivering one engine a month. "So the initial thought [on the delay] is nominally 30 days - less if we can expedite FTE 2," he says. BF-1 was planned to fly in late May at the earliest, following hover pit tests of the STOVL propulsion system. The blade failure is not expected to delay flight qualification of the STOVL F135, Gostic says. Ground-test engine FX635 is finishing up a 1,000-cycle accelerated mission test, while FTE 5 is completing altitude testing. "We have completed all powered-lift performance testing," he says. P&W thinks the problem is restricted to STOVL F135s, because the LP turbine works harder when powering the shaft-driven lift fan. Although the F135 is derived from the F119 engine powering the Lockheed F-22, the third LP turbine stage was added to power the lift fan. P&W is redesigning the third-stage LP turbine vane, but plans to proof test all ground- and flight-test F135s. Gostic expects the improved design to be implemented beginning with the second low-rate initial production batch of STOVL engines. The Pentagon, meanwhile, has eliminated development funding for the GE/R-R F136 from its budget request for the third year running. Previously, Congress has restored funding for the alternative Joint Strike Fighter engine. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< I'm thinking the production F-35's never going to be able to hover at this rate.
Apollo Leader Posted February 11, 2008 Author Posted February 11, 2008 F-117's being stored at Tonopah. I can't remember if anyone had posted it here or not, but it's kind of ironic that the base that was custom built for the F-117 fleet will now serve as it's "retirement" home. If they decide to put any of the aircraft back into service I wonder if they would be operated from Tonopah? I wonder what else has been going on at Tonopah since the mid 1990's?
Cruel Angel's Thesis Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 Dreamland Resort reports there is a UAV project going on at the TTR. Mainly just testing the new ones and working strategies for use. Cruel Angel's Thesis
Apollo Leader Posted February 18, 2008 Author Posted February 18, 2008 Dreamland Resort reports there is a UAV project going on at the TTR. Mainly just testing the new ones and working strategies for use. Cruel Angel's Thesis Is that info on the main site or on their message board? I'm really intrigued by the big hangar that's being built at Groom Lake... they've constructed a big mound of dirt in order to obscure its view from those who look down on the base from the east!
Lynx7725 Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 Is that info on the main site or on their message board? I'm really intrigued by the big hangar that's being built at Groom Lake... they've constructed a big mound of dirt in order to obscure its view from those who look down on the base from the east! Ah dirt -- the ultimate Stealth material.
Cruel Angel's Thesis Posted February 21, 2008 Posted February 21, 2008 (edited) The info on the TTR is one the main site in the FAQ section. Its included in the answer about what is TTR. The hanger and its purpose are still a mystery. We do know it is the largest hanger now and just thats about all thats been comfirmed. Cruel Angel's Thesis edit. added info on hanger. Edited February 21, 2008 by Cruel Angel's Thesis
Apollo Leader Posted February 21, 2008 Author Posted February 21, 2008 MegaFortress? Ha! You never know... One of the most interesting pictures on the Dreamland site is a picture taken by some German guy back around 1994. Sitting in front of the base's largest hangar (at that time), "Hangar 18", was a long white aircraft; it's too long and slender to be the white 737's that are used to shuttle people back and forth between groom. The guy and someone else had a better view of it with the telecope they had with them. The aircraft was visible only briefly. This might have been the only time ever has a classified aircraft been pictured at Groom Lake by someone of the general public. Most of the time, the secret aircraft being tested out of Groom Lake are flown at night or during the early morning or late evening.
kalvasflam Posted February 23, 2008 Posted February 23, 2008 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,332038,00.html Well, it's a good thing there are 20 more of these things.... and thank God the production line got shut down so no more can be built.
David Hingtgen Posted February 23, 2008 Posted February 23, 2008 In other news, the rumor is that SecDef Gates (with Bush's approval) will be offering the USS Kitty Hawk to India, if they agree to buy 65 Super Hornets to equip it. (since Russia is still years and billions away from finishing the Gorshkov for them).
buddhafabio Posted February 23, 2008 Posted February 23, 2008 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,332038,00.html Well, it's a good thing there are 20 more of these things.... and thank God the production line got shut down so no more can be built. over a billion up in smoke.
Vifam7 Posted February 23, 2008 Posted February 23, 2008 In other news, the rumor is that SecDef Gates (with Bush's approval) will be offering the USS Kitty Hawk to India, if they agree to buy 65 Super Hornets to equip it. (since Russia is still years and billions away from finishing the Gorshkov for them). That'll be one crazy expensive buy for India if it happens.
David Hingtgen Posted February 23, 2008 Posted February 23, 2008 Yeah, but the Gorshkov still needs billions more to fix it up and there's no guarantee of it EVER actually being done and working right. Assuming you've already spent a TON of money and time trying to get a Russian carrier working, what would you do: Spend billions more to finish the project, and end up with a not-that-great, small Russian carrier. Maybe, if Russia ever actually gets it done. Or: Get an American supercarrier delivered in perfect working order for free, you just have to buy the planes.
Lindem Herz Posted February 23, 2008 Posted February 23, 2008 Well, I don't know about the Gorshkov, but I think it would be amazing to see India's Mig-29Ks flying off the Kitty Hawk (since they've got them already). Any word if it's possible to modify the 29s to work with catapults?
Vifam7 Posted February 23, 2008 Posted February 23, 2008 Yeah, but the Gorshkov still needs billions more to fix it up and there's no guarantee of it EVER actually being done and working right. Assuming you've already spent a TON of money and time trying to get a Russian carrier working, what would you do: Spend billions more to finish the project, and end up with a not-that-great, small Russian carrier. Maybe, if Russia ever actually gets it done. Or: Get an American supercarrier delivered in perfect working order for free, you just have to buy the planes. I just think that the USS Kitty Hawk is too much carrier for what they need. Not to mention the operating costs of the ship. The Gorshkov was technically free too. It's the reconfiguration that's taking time and money. I'm sure the Kitty Hawk too will have to be re-configured for Indian Navy service. Whether omitting or adding stuff, I'm sure it'll cost just as much money.
kalvasflam Posted February 23, 2008 Posted February 23, 2008 Yeah, but the Gorshkov still needs billions more to fix it up and there's no guarantee of it EVER actually being done and working right. Assuming you've already spent a TON of money and time trying to get a Russian carrier working, what would you do: Spend billions more to finish the project, and end up with a not-that-great, small Russian carrier. Maybe, if Russia ever actually gets it done. Or: Get an American supercarrier delivered in perfect working order for free, you just have to buy the planes. Offering means "free"? Geez, someone is being very magnanimous, what a cheap way to help Boeing. May be this is a round about way of paying for a new ATB since we're down to 20 B-2s now.
David Hingtgen Posted February 23, 2008 Posted February 23, 2008 Taking out all the fancy ECM etc in the Kitty Hawk surely won't cost billions. Remember, the Gorshkov still needs 2 important things before it can be used at all with the MiG-29K: 1. Catapults. That's not cheap/easy to install in a ship that doesn't have them. 2. Arresting gear/wires. Also not cheap/easy to install in a ship that doesn't have them. Those 2 things are the main reason the Gorshkov still needs billions of dollars and lots of time before it's ready. Also, (BTW) it needs a completely new powerplant. They're apparently converting it from steam to diesel. Even if the MiG-29K could be made to work without a catapult, there's no way to make it land without arresting wires.
Recommended Posts