The Airplane Thread

[vreihen16]

What do you get when you cross a Cessna Skymaster and a Ford Pinto? Nothing good, apparently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVE_Mizar





.

[ezaircon4jc]

Originally Posted by vreihen16

In case all y'all don't remember me posting this before, I had a close-up underside view of a Cessna Skymaster from the cockpit of a solar-powered race car that I was testing on a closed runway as the pilot tried to land on top of me! He apparently missed the NOTAMs for months about the runway being closed for construction, flew over the big flashing X, orange snow fences, and several pieces of excavation equipment parked on the runway before trying to touch down on my roll cage.....

He may not have had a choice!

So... How long is a pit-stop in a solar (battery) car?

[flybigjet]

Here's a good view of a Viet Nam-era Skymaster. I took the picture a few weeks ago at the National Museum of the USAF.

And if you *remotely* have a thing for military aircraft, you really, really, REALLY need to make a trip to Dayton.

The museum there might just be the best military aviation museum on the planet.

It's realistically a three-day museum for a novice to military aviation, two days if you have a good working knowledge.

I'll have to post some pics when I'm bored and have time.

R.

[vreihen16]

Originally Posted by ezaircon4jc

He may not have had a choice!

The only incorrect choice that he made was not giving up his pilot license due to age!

There was a nicer/longer runway at the airport, which they consider their primary and has all of the fun approach toys. He chose to land on the runway that was closed for months as part of a construction project, probably out of habit or because it was a shorter taxi to his hangar. (With all of the detours around the construction, he was looking at a 10-minute taxi from the far end of the main runway.)

Sadly, he perished in a post-takeoff crash a few months after this when the plane that he was flying did a lawn dart impression into a corn field at the end of the main runway. Even an armchair quarterback like me could see the long red "remove before flight" ribbon hanging from his pitot tube cover in the newspaper photos of the wreckage.

My late father (who died in a GA plane crash and used to spend lots of his free time at another airport) used to say that he would not fly with 50% of the people at his airport. I keep that gem of wisdom in mind whenever I see a GA plane flying, but I digress.

So... How long is a pit-stop in a solar (battery) car?

Formula-E (F1-type electric car racing series) does not do pit stops for charging, and the challenge for drivers is to coast across the finish line with zero battery charge left.

In the solar car race that I was consulting for, it was a multi-day endurance TSD rally-type race. Each car carried enough solar panels to charge the batteries while driving and while parked in the paddocks at the end of each day's stage. All battery boxes were sealed at tech inspection on day one, and there was no way to put external power into them without a SEVERE time penalty by the stewards.

Anyway, the car that I was testing on the closed runway and a taxiway loop was all covered with black solar cells on the top. It probably blended in pretty good with the new runway asphalt from the pilot's seat of a Cessna MixMaster, but he had no excuse for missing the big flashing X, cross-runway orange snow fences, and all of the construction excavators that he also had to fly over.....

[vreihen16]

Picture something more obnoxious than this one:




.

[snowbimmer]

Originally Posted by evil-G-nius

What is this weirdo!? Saw it at the airshow this weekend

Back on the day my dad used to rent Cessna 150s, 172s and 182s. We were out one night when the 150 crapped out and we were stuck at an airport about 30 miles from the home airport. They sent a civilian 337 Super Skymaster to get us. Got to fly over the city at night. Coolest thing ever, since I was 11, it was midnight and I had school tomorrow. And the Skymaster was much faster and sounded really cool.

Thanks for jogging the brain cells. I had completely forgot about that memory.

[Llarry]

NATO has selected the Boeing 737 Wedgetail (E-7) to replace its force of Boeing E-3 AWACS aircraft. Coming on the heels of the selection of the Wedgetail by both the UK's RAF and the USAF, this decision is somewhat predictable. The Wedgetail is becoming the free world standard for airborne early warning and control. The NATO markings are photoshopped in the attached photo.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Llarry

NATO has selected the Boeing 737 Wedgetail (E-7) to replace its force of Boeing E-3 AWACS aircraft.

A recap of 737 Wedgetail users:
-- Australia: Initial buyer; 6 E-7A delivered 2009-2012
-- S. Korea: 4 delivered 2011-2012; considering the purchase of more aircraft
-- Turkey: 4 delivered 2014-2015
-- UK: 3 on order with anticipated initial operating capability in 2024; may purchase 2 additional aircraft
-- USA: The USAF is buying a planned fleet of 26 aircraft, with deliveries starting in 2027
-- NATO: NATO has ordered 6 aircraft, with deliveries to start in 2031

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_AEW%26C

[3798j]

.

[freakystyly]

Local news posted a bit of a butt pucker landing filmed a couple days ago from YYZ.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=2808753&jwsource=cl

[vreihen16]

I believe that pilots call that an arrival.....

[ezaircon4jc]

Originally Posted by vreihen16

I believe that pilots call that an arrival.....

We controllers call that a touch-&-go and count it as an arrival, a departure and another arrival! Not too bad to get a 3-count out of one aircraft!!

[Llarry]

The commander of the U.S. Air Force's Air Mobility Command has decreed that all AMC aircraft will eliminate distinctive markings denoting unit or base. The new paint scheme even eliminates the "U.S. Air Force" markings on the fuselage. Here's a KC-135R tanker in the new plain scheme.

The stated purpose of the new rules is to make it more difficult to track AMC aircraft movements.

[Llarry]

The German air force (Luftwaffe) has taken delivery of its first A400M configured for three-point refueling. In addition to refueling pods on each outer wing, this A400M has a hose reel unit installed towards the rear of the fuselage in the area of the cargo ramp. The second photo shows a clearer view of the centerline refueling provisions as one A400M refuels another.

[Llarry]

When the McDonnell-Douglas F-15 Eagle started its career in the 1970s, it was planned to have an additional pylon on each wing that would carry an ALQ-119 ECM pod. Tests with the early F-15A and F-15B showed wing cracking and undesirable aerodynamics and the extra two pylons were deleted. F-15s frequently operate with three 600-gallon external fuel tanks, not leaving much capability for weapons. The F-15s partially solved that problem by having launch rails for Sidewinder missiles on either side of the wing pylons above the fuel tanks. Photo #1 is of an early F-15A with three tanks and four Sidewinders.

Now on the new F-15EX outer wing pylons appear to be back. Photo #2. It looks to me like they are set up to accommodate four additional Sidewinders -- that would be a total of 8 missiles -- either Sidewinders or perhaps AIM-120 radar-guided AMRAAMs.

The F-15EX is still in testing so I suppose it's possible that the outer wing pylons will not be seen on production aircraft for much the same reasons as they were deleted 50 years ago.

[M-technik-3]

Originally Posted by Llarry

The commander of the U.S. Air Force's Air Mobility Command has decreed that all AMC aircraft will eliminate distinctive markings denoting unit or base. The new paint scheme even eliminates the "U.S. Air Force" markings on the fuselage. Here's a KC-135R tanker in the new plain scheme.

The stated purpose of the new rules is to make it more difficult to track AMC aircraft movements.

It sure will but FlightTrackers are another way of doing it.

[Lady Jane]

Originally Posted by M-technik-3

It sure will but FlightTrackers are another way of doing it.

They can always turn-off the transponder as required, right? I'm pretty sure that long range B2 bombers and other stealth aircrafts didn't send an invitation card.

[ezaircon4jc]

Originally Posted by Lady Jane

They can always turn-off the transponder as required, right? I'm pretty sure that long range B2 bombers and other stealth aircrafts didn't send an invitation card.

Rule #1 in military mechanical or electronic devices is, if it's on and working... LEAVE IT ALONE!!!! It might not come back!!!

[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by Lady Jane

They can always turn-off the transponder as required, right? I'm pretty sure that long range B2 bombers and other stealth aircrafts didn't send an invitation card.

It's a *little* bit more complicated than that. Unlike civil transponders, military transponders have numerous modes-- you can "strangle the parrot" going into a combat environment, but you usually leave certain modes on that will identify you as a "friendly" (hence the term IFF- Identification, Friend or Foe).

You can also program these certain modes with classified ident information, which will tell the good guys who you are.

Fighters have a lot of this stuff set on the ground, transports/tankers, etc. can set all of the modes in the air.

R.

[JJ 911SC]

Originally Posted by ezaircon4jc

Rule #1 in military mechanical or electronic devices is, if it's on and working... LEAVE IT ALONE!!!! It might not come back!!!

Back in the 80's, did a 6 monts NATO, I flashed-up the E.W. gears before we sailed from Halifax, never did any maintenance or shut down and we never had a down time. Meanwhile the Radar dept follow the prescribe routine and spend all their R&R time in port fixing their gear

[Llarry]

The last U.S. Navy piston-engine fighters were the Grumman F8F Bearcat and the late models of the Vought F4U Corsair. The prototype F8F first flew in September of 1944 and the F4U-4 first flew a month earlier. As a modification of an existing design, the F4U-4 managed to make it to combat in the final months of World War II, while the production F8F-1 Bearcat just missed wartime service.

The two aircraft were originally designed years apart and for different missions, yet in some respects were competitors. The initial Corsair flight had been in 1940, using a prototype Pratt & Whitney R-2800 radial engine. The F4U featured excellent performance but suffered teething problems in its early form. By 1944, it had established itself as an excellent fighter, serving with distinction in Marine Corps land-based fighter squadrons in the Pacific and subsequently in Navy carrier-based fighter squadrons.

The F8F-1 used a similar R-2800 radial as the F4U-4 but was more compact, had less fuel capacity and was armed with four .50 cal machine guns rather than the six of the Corsair. It was also less useful as a fighter-bomber, with less ordnance capacity. The Navy intended to use the Bearcat for operations from the smaller carriers.

In 1945 form, the F8F-1 was the superior performer, but the F4U-4 was certainly no slouch.

Both aircraft were also built with cannon armament replacing the .50s as the F8F-1B Bearcat and F4U-4B Corsair.

Both aircraft were also further developed from their 1945 versions. In the case of the F8F, the improved F8F-2 version of 1947 got a slightly taller tail for improved stability, more engine power and 20mm cannon. The F4U-5 Corsair of 1947 got a greatly improved engine with turbosupercharger for improved high-altitude performance, four 20mm cannon and metal coverings for control surfaces replacing fabric as well as a number of other improvements.

But by 1947 the handwriting was on the wall as the Navy tested, then fielded, jet fighters. The early jets excelled in high-altitude performance (even better than the F4U-5) but suffered limited endurance and range (like the F8F-2).

The F8F Bearcat, despite its wonderful handling and good performance, was simply outdated. The early F8F-1 was built in numbers during the last year of World War II, but the improved -2 version's production numbers were limited. The F8F never saw combat in U.S. hands, though surplus Navy F8Fs were provided to the French and Thais for combat in Southeast Asia during the 1950s.

The F4U Corsair fared a bit better. The ultimate F4U-5 was built in limited numbers for the same reasons as the F8F, but the F4U-5 was adapted for night fighter duties as the F4U-5N -- the Navy was having trouble coming up with a viable carrier-capable jet night fighter. The number of night fighters purchased by the Navy ended up exceeding the number of basic F4U-5s. F4U-4s and -5s, along with F4U-5Ns, saw plenty of combat with both the Navy and the Marine Corps during the Korean war. The only Navy fighter ace of that war was a F4U-5N night fighter pilot. The last photo is of a preserved F4U-5NL night fighter with de-icing equipment for the cold Korean winters.

The Navy's F4U-5N night fighters served well into the 1950s, while the F8F was relegated to training duties.

With the retirement of the Corsair and Bearcat, the era of piston-engine Navy fighters came to an end.

[ezaircon4jc]

Originally Posted by JJ 911SC

Back in the 80's, did a 6 monts NATO, I flashed-up the E.W. gears before we sailed from Halifax, never did any maintenance or shut down and we never had a down time. Meanwhile the Radar dept follow the prescribe routine and spend all their R&R time in port fixing their gear

Back in the day we were involved in the "South China Sea Patrol" when we were going from Hong Kong to the PI. We started tracking a surface contact that was most likely a refugee boat. As I was sitting at the scope I saw a hand reach up to the control panel and change the band-width repeatedly between narrow/short to wide/long without putting the system in standby. That shorted-out the duplexer and we went the rest of the way to the PI without radar. I never found out who pulled that maneuver, but we got out of having to render assistance; which amounted to picking them up and taking them with us, which no body wanted!