VF-19 Posted January 21, 2010 Posted January 21, 2010 Exactly, I built my first sim pit for less then $50 and it wasn't that complex, I will build another in a few years after we expand the house as we just don't have room for it right now. Also, I have no idea where people come off thinking that the flight gear is SO EXPENSIVE. Not counting the flight gear I have been issued I have put together a full fighter flight gear kit, suit, g-suit, harness, helmet, mask (working comms), boots, survival vests (AF and Navy) etc... for less then $150 by shopping around, hitting the right mil surpluss stores, ebay, and craigslist. Yes if you go for the brand new kit it can get into the thousands, but if you can use a needle and thread then pick up some slightly distressed or used pieces at yard sales, thrift shops, etc... and make it nice yourself. And I'm sorry even the helmet deco he has is easy, it's all tape people, unless he painted it himself. Well, here in Ottawa, there aren't really any good cheap Mil-surplus stores. There's one in the Byward Market, but the prices are rather expensive. Good for patches, as they're cheap, but not for much else. Ebay, for me, can be hit or miss... But I did get the flightsuit for about $30, which wasn't bad (long on the sleeves and legs, however).
the white drew carey Posted January 21, 2010 Posted January 21, 2010 I think it is kind of funny* how Loner links a humorous video of someone in a flight suit playing a game (ace combat?) and you guys are ragging on the player for not having a good enough sim pit. *and by 'funny' I mean somewhat sad. I can understand and appreciate fanboyism but for some reason this just makes me depressed by the internet.
Knight26 Posted January 21, 2010 Posted January 21, 2010 I think it is kind of funny* how Loner links a humorous video of someone in a flight suit playing a game (ace combat?) and you guys are ragging on the player for not having a good enough sim pit. *and by 'funny' I mean somewhat sad. I can understand and appreciate fanboyism but for some reason this just makes me depressed by the internet. I just commented at first that I did not see what the big deal was, and wondered why loner was so enamored with it, pointing out that it would really only have seemed "cool" to me if the guy had an actual simpit setup.
David Hingtgen Posted January 21, 2010 Posted January 21, 2010 Finland's franken-Hornet crashed. Hope it wasn't related to the "surgery". Both crew members are safe luckily.
HoveringCheesecake Posted January 22, 2010 Posted January 22, 2010 I just found out that a company is releasing a 1/72 scale diecast 5th FIS "Spitten Kittens" F-15 based on the new paintjob at Duxford. Instant pre-order for several reasons. http://www.aikensairplanes.com/gemini%20aces/ga_7001.htm Sexy.
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted January 22, 2010 Posted January 22, 2010 Probably not for line service on carriers. The US Navy nor the public would never accept a Russian fighter no matter how good it is. It's just not realistic. More likely for aggessor role. Afterall the US Navy reportedly purchased two Su-27s from Ukraine for such a purpose. Last time I read it sounded like the US has at least 10-12, some possibly operating under the unit that either took the place of, or is unofficially, the Red Eagles from the USAF.
VF-19 Posted January 22, 2010 Posted January 22, 2010 Finland's franken-Hornet crashed. Hope it wasn't related to the "surgery". Both crew members are safe luckily. Franken-Hornet? Just what did they DO to it?
David Hingtgen Posted January 22, 2010 Posted January 22, 2010 Took the back of a crashed F-18C, the front of a crashed F-18B, and ended up with what they say is an F-18D. Canada invented the franken-Hornet (they have a sorta-C model I think made from a CF-18A and someone's F-18D), but the US beat them all with the Franken-Prowler, which is made from THREE different planes! Franken-Hornets and Franken-Prowlers exist because they're desperately needed but out of production. (you really can't buy an F-18F to replace a B-model)
the white drew carey Posted January 22, 2010 Posted January 22, 2010 I just commented at first that I did not see what the big deal was, and wondered why loner was so enamored with it, pointing out that it would really only have seemed "cool" to me if the guy had an actual simpit setup. Ture, but imagine the audience the person who created that video was probably actually going for: regular joes who may, or may not, enjoy video games and who also liked Top Gun. I am assuming THAT was the inspiration for the tongue-in-cheek moment of seeing a dude in a Maverick flight suit playing a flying video game. Oh well, I wash my hands of the affair.
Shadow Posted January 22, 2010 Posted January 22, 2010 (edited) Interesting, I've never heard the term Franken but I get why. The Intruder and Prowler are still some of my favorite Naval aircraft but I'm curious though. The Navy operates the EA-6 but does it also operate the EA-18G Growler or is that strictly a USMC aircraft? Edited January 22, 2010 by Shadow
VF-19 Posted January 22, 2010 Posted January 22, 2010 Took the back of a crashed F-18C, the front of a crashed F-18B, and ended up with what they say is an F-18D. Canada invented the franken-Hornet (they have a sorta-C model I think made from a CF-18A and someone's F-18D), but the US beat them all with the Franken-Prowler, which is made from THREE different planes! Franken-Hornets and Franken-Prowlers exist because they're desperately needed but out of production. (you really can't buy an F-18F to replace a B-model) Ahh... Kitbashing in 1:1 scale then. Gotcha.
Phyrox Posted January 22, 2010 Posted January 22, 2010 Interesting, I've never heard the term Franken but I get why. The Intruder and Prowler are still some of my favorite Naval aircraft but I'm curious though. The Navy operates the EA-6 but does it also operate the EA-18G Growler or is that strictly a USMC aircraft? According to my memory of the recent IAPR article on USNavy aviation, the EA-18G is replacing the EA-6B across the board. It isn't an instant process, but that's the intent. I do not recall reading that the Marines will have their Prowlers replaced by Growlers at this time... I do not think any Growlers (Grizzlys) are currently planned on being delivered to the USMC
Warmaker Posted January 23, 2010 Posted January 23, 2010 The Marine Corps isn't going for ANY Super Hornet variants at all. Not a single whisper of interest came from our community (I work as a Hornet maintainer in the Corps) that I heard about when they were being rolled out. But I'm curious to see what the service intends to replace the aged EA-6B's with since they're not going for SHornets.
David Hingtgen Posted January 23, 2010 Posted January 23, 2010 Need a used A320? Hit birds twice, Hudson once: http://www.aigaviation.com/aviationsalvage...px?faano=N106US
Evil Porkchop Posted January 23, 2010 Posted January 23, 2010 (edited) The Marine Corps isn't going for ANY Super Hornet variants at all. Not a single whisper of interest came from our community (I work as a Hornet maintainer in the Corps) that I heard about when they were being rolled out. But I'm curious to see what the service intends to replace the aged EA-6B's with since they're not going for SHornets. Bring some 'Cats out of the boneyard if a SHornet can be an ECM platform why not an F-14. But in all seriousness. I'm still amazed that the Navy is putting all their eggs in one basket with the SHornet. Let's see it is the primary attack, fighter, ecm, and re-fueling craft for the Navy... or at least soon will be. The aircraft isn't that good, and trying to make one plane do all those missions makes it average at everything and great at nothing. I hope I'm wrong but if the F-35 (when it enters service) doesn't turn out to be just a simply amazing aircraft then I think Naval Aviation is setting itself back a good 10 years. Edited January 23, 2010 by Evil Porkchop
Vifam7 Posted January 23, 2010 Posted January 23, 2010 (edited) Bring some 'Cats out of the boneyard if a SHornet can be an ECM platform why not an F-14. But in all seriousness. I'm still amazed that the Navy is putting all their eggs in one basket with the SHornet. Let's see it is the primary attack, fighter, ecm, and re-fueling craft for the Navy... or at least soon will be. The aircraft isn't that good, and trying to make one plane do all those missions makes it average at everything and great at nothing. The Navy pretty much has to work with the Super Hornet because the funding isn't/wasn't there for new specialized aircraft. If it wasn't for the Super Hornet the Navy would've been in deep trouble with aging airframes and obsolete aircraft (a problem that the USAF is facing right now) . In an age where aircraft programs regularly result in delays and skyrocketing costs, the Super Hornet was delivered on time and on budget. The Super Hornet could be considered as one of the Navy's best bang-for-the-buck buys. Besides, the Super Hornet so far has been able to do the missions that the Navy wants it to do. I hope I'm wrong but if the F-35 (when it enters service) doesn't turn out to be just a simply amazing aircraft then I think Naval Aviation is setting itself back a good 10 years. I think that will depend on how valuable the stealth attributes are on F-35. Edited January 23, 2010 by Vifam7
zeroyon Posted January 23, 2010 Posted January 23, 2010 (edited) Probably not for line service on carriers. The US Navy nor the public would never accept a Russian fighter no matter how good it is. It's just not realistic. More likely for aggessor role. Afterall the US Navy reportedly purchased two Su-27s from Ukraine for such a purpose. I'm not sure if this is news to anyone here, but the US Government has been operating several Su-27's for over a decade. It wasn't the USA government that bought two Su-27's from the Ukraine a year or so ago, it was the Tactical Air Support company which provides aggressor training to the US Navy. Although the unit has been "officially" deactivated, the 6513th Test Squadron "Red Hats" flies MiG-29's and Su-27's out of groom lake for both air combat testing/training and ground/missile/air radar/sensor testing. The USA also purchased 21 nuclear-capable MiG-29's from Moldova in 1997. If you search around the net you can find many pics and vids of the MiGs and Sukhois at groom lake (stay away from those UFO-believing crazies, though). Also, pics of one of TacAir's Flankers: Edited January 23, 2010 by zeroyon
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted January 23, 2010 Posted January 23, 2010 So how much does a J-85 cost anyway? Its been in the news over here in Singapore for some time. Our neighbours the Maylaysian Air Force had a pair of J-85s for their F-5Es stolen by some base personnel and the figure being repeated everytime by the press about the cost of EACH engine was S$21m or about USD 14-15mil. That makes about 30mil just for a pair of engines?!?!? WTF?!? You can buy 2 F-5s for that kind of price right? http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne+News/...220-187008.html
Shadow Posted January 23, 2010 Posted January 23, 2010 The Super Hornet could be considered as one of the Navy's best bang-for-the-buck buys. Besides, the Super Hornet so far has been able to do the missions that the Navy wants it to do. I think that will depend on how valuable the stealth attributes are on F-35. Versatility and price is the big thing now it seems, especially the multi-role capability. Even some F-22s have been reconfigured to carry JDAM bombs basically replacing the F-117 Nighthawk. Only difference being, it can still carry air to air ordinance. I'm not sure if this is news to anyone here, but the US Government has been operating several Su-27's for over a decade. It wasn't the USA government that bought two Su-27's from the Ukraine a year or so ago, it was the Tactical Air Support company which provides aggressor training to the US Navy. Although the unit has been "officially" deactivated, the 6513th Test Squadron "Red Hats" flies MiG-29's and Su-27's out of groom lake for both air combat testing/training and ground/missile/air radar/sensor testing. The USA also purchased 21 nuclear-capable MiG-29's from Moldova in 1997. If you search around the net you can find many pics and vids of the MiGs and Sukhois at groom lake (stay away from those UFO-believing crazies, though). I take it then most of the MiG-17, 21s and 23s the Red Eagles operated have long been scrapped or put in a museum?
Evil Porkchop Posted January 24, 2010 Posted January 24, 2010 (edited) The Navy pretty much has to work with the Super Hornet because the funding isn't/wasn't there for new specialized aircraft. If it wasn't for the Super Hornet the Navy would've been in deep trouble with aging airframes and obsolete aircraft (a problem that the USAF is facing right now) . In an age where aircraft programs regularly result in delays and skyrocketing costs, the Super Hornet was delivered on time and on budget. The Super Hornet could be considered as one of the Navy's best bang-for-the-buck buys. Besides, the Super Hornet so far has been able to do the missions that the Navy wants it to do. I think that will depend on how valuable the stealth attributes are on F-35. I'm the first to admit I am not a big fan of the Shornet. But my bias is slowly subsiding and from what I have read it seems to be a more than capable fighter and attack aircraft. I just don't buy off on it being able to be a good ECM or refueling platform for the Navy. Correct me if I'm wrong but don't you want your refuelers and ECM aircraft to have long loiter times. From everything I've read that seems to be one of the Shornet's weak points. And yeah the Air Force is in big trouble with aging airframes, the 135's being the worst off right now. My unit sent some E Models to be 'boned that had less time on the airframes than the R Models we transitioned to. Edited January 24, 2010 by Evil Porkchop
Evil Porkchop Posted January 24, 2010 Posted January 24, 2010 (edited) werent the Rs re-engined Es any how Yes, but many of the E's that were forced to retire had less hours on them than the R's that are continuing to fly. Reason the R's are the one's still flying are because of the engines that allow us to go into more airfields, and fly further with more un-loadable fuel. And also contrary to what wikipedia says about the last E-model being delivered to the Boneyard by the 101st ARW at Maine, as far as I know it was a crew from my unit the 126th ARW at Scott that actually flew the aircraft as we were the last unit with qualified E-model pilots. Edited January 24, 2010 by Evil Porkchop
Vifam7 Posted January 24, 2010 Posted January 24, 2010 I'm the first to admit I am not a big fan of the Shornet. But my bias is slowly subsiding and from what I have read it seems to be a more than capable fighter and attack aircraft. I just don't buy off on it being able to be a good ECM or refueling platform for the Navy. Correct me if I'm wrong but don't you want your refuelers and ECM aircraft to have long loiter times. From everything I've read that seems to be one of the Shornet's weak points. From what I can understand, Navy tankers are not like the KC-135 and KC-10 of the air force that require long loitering times. Navy tankers perform what's called "mission tanking" - basically go along with a strike package and refuel them on the way. So rather than loitering time, Navy tankers need the ability to keep up with the strike force. From what I've read this was a capability that the old KA-6D had but the modded S-3 Viking tanker was not optimal for.
Apollo Leader Posted January 27, 2010 Author Posted January 27, 2010 Supposedly Sukhoi's T-50 is suppose to fly today or tomorrow. If the flight goes well pictures and video will be out soon.
Apollo Leader Posted January 28, 2010 Author Posted January 28, 2010 I'm not sure if this is news to anyone here, but the US Government has been operating several Su-27's for over a decade. It wasn't the USA government that bought two Su-27's from the Ukraine a year or so ago, it was the Tactical Air Support company which provides aggressor training to the US Navy. Although the unit has been "officially" deactivated, the 6513th Test Squadron "Red Hats" flies MiG-29's and Su-27's out of groom lake for both air combat testing/training and ground/missile/air radar/sensor testing. The USA also purchased 21 nuclear-capable MiG-29's from Moldova in 1997. If you search around the net you can find many pics and vids of the MiGs and Sukhois at groom lake (stay away from those UFO-believing crazies, though).
D.D. Ivanov Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 So, yeah, within a couple hours, the PAK-FA should fly, but there won't be any pictures or video for a while; the only cameras allowed are those owned by Sukhoi.
F-ZeroOne Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 So, yeah, within a couple hours, the PAK-FA should fly, but there won't be any pictures or video for a while; the only cameras allowed are those owned by Sukhoi. "You must... think... in Russian... "...?
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 Versatility and price is the big thing now it seems, especially the multi-role capability. Even some F-22s have been reconfigured to carry JDAM bombs basically replacing the F-117 Nighthawk. Only difference being, it can still carry air to air ordinance. I take it then most of the MiG-17, 21s and 23s the Red Eagles operated have long been scrapped or put in a museum? From what I've read, NO ONE from the Red Eagles liked flying the MIG-23.
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 "You must... think... in Russian... "...? In Soviet Russia, plane fly you!
Apollo Leader Posted January 29, 2010 Author Posted January 29, 2010 So, yeah, within a couple hours, the PAK-FA should fly, but there won't be any pictures or video for a while; the only cameras allowed are those owned by Sukhoi. It's late Thursday evening that I write this (Central time in the US). Supposedly the T-50/PAK-FA flew for a 40 minute flight within the last few hours. Can't wait to see what the thing really looks like.
David Hingtgen Posted January 29, 2010 Posted January 29, 2010 It's got little fins. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mp0yd6no7B4...player_embedded
anime52k8 Posted January 29, 2010 Posted January 29, 2010 It's got little fins. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mp0yd6no7B4...player_embedded it's like they kit-bashed an Su-27 and a YF-23, then stepped on it.
Apollo Leader Posted January 29, 2010 Author Posted January 29, 2010 http://sukhoi.org/news/company/?id=3142 Looks like some of the CG models that have been floating around on the Internet for a while appear to be correct. Looks like the love child of the Flanker family and the YF-23. I wonder if they're going to use exhaust nozzles (serrated) like on the F-35 for the production version?
Apollo Leader Posted January 29, 2010 Author Posted January 29, 2010 This got posted on Youtube just a little bit ago. This is from the actual first flight.
electric indigo Posted January 29, 2010 Posted January 29, 2010 What's going in different parts of the internet: sukhoi.ru, paralay.com: Aww look at that cute nose! Those sleek lines! That adorable weapons bay! acig.org, f-16.net: OMG that's it? Not stealthy! Not agile! It doesnt fly I can see strings! Photoshop! Carlo Kopp is ejaculating furiously. Pakistani and Indian forums begining to stir: Pakis are preparing to flame PAK-FA, Indians are preparing to defend their future FGFA... Chinese are already manufacturing a rip-off based on measurements taken with the "measure" tool in photoshop.
Recommended Posts