Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted May 19, 2007 Share Posted May 19, 2007 Flyboy, what do you fly? Good view man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyboy Posted May 19, 2007 Share Posted May 19, 2007 Flyboy, what do you fly? Good view man! See that shadow next to the closest F-22 in the first pic? That's what I'm currently flying. Just kidding. It's this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted May 19, 2007 Share Posted May 19, 2007 Cool!!! Must be fun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coota0 Posted May 19, 2007 Share Posted May 19, 2007 Yep.... Shutter speed / frame rate. So I was doing touch-and-go's at an Army air field today. Strangely, there were no helos on the tarmac (and it being an Army base, of all places), but I did see some shiny new AF birds from Langley.... Which Army base? The KA-52 looks like the bastard of an A-6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyboy Posted May 20, 2007 Share Posted May 20, 2007 Which Army base? I'm afraid that I can't give out that information - in the interest of national security, and all. Just kidding. Robert Gray (KGRK), Killeen, TX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coota0 Posted May 20, 2007 Share Posted May 20, 2007 I'm afraid that I can't give out that information - in the interest of national security, and all. Just kidding. Robert Gray (KGRK), Killeen, TX I don't think it's that uncommon to see USAF fighters down at Hood, when I was there for my physical there were F-16s on the ramp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatalist Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 So I saw this article on MSNBC here, and thought "wow, a 787. I wonder what that looks like" . So me, not being to much into airliners, decided to check out what was up with the 787. My god what a sexy beast. I saw some interior shots on this page, and was completely stunned and in love. Airliners to me, have needed upgrades like this for a long time. Too plain and cramped are todays airliners. They need to make all of them like this from now on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akilae Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 yeah, the 747 was also promoted with a piano lounge and all that... Don't get your hopes up, airlines will still cram as many as they can into the 787, we'll still be stuck with no legroom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted May 21, 2007 Author Share Posted May 21, 2007 Yup. Big difference between what's possible, and what actually exists. Want a good example? DC-10. Originally designed for 2-4-2 8-abreast seating. Nice and comfy. That lasted for about a year. For 99% of its operational life it was 2-5-2 9-abreast. And know what the charter carriers have? 3-4-3, 10-abreast. FYI, the 747 was originally 9-abreast, though you mainly see 3-4-3 10-abreast. The A320 is notably more comfy than a 727/37/57 because the A320 was designed for 3-3 and is actually operated at 3-3, as there's no way to get 3-4 inside. The Boeing narrowbodies, having inherited the 707 fuselage width (which was originally designed for 2-2 first class in the entire plane) can only grudgingly accomodate 3-3 in coach. 2-3 was the designed "coach alternative" for those airlines which basically weren't Pan Am or TWA and couldn't fill the entire plane with 1st class seats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmaker Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 It's the same thing with infantry equipment The Army and Marine Corps always says that they try to find ways to make the infantryman's load lighter from anywhere between 60-100lbs (at least). They try to make items lighter to make the infantryman's life easier, right? Wrong. When they make gear lighter and / or more compact, it just means they try to cram more s**t onto your gear. Your pack, your load-bearing equipment, etc. End result? Your entire load still weighs the same. "Well, we got a new piece of gear that replaces these 3 old ones. Great, right?" "That's really nice. Say, there's more space in the pack now. Why don't we have them take this Field Use Mouse Trap that weighs 20 lbs also?" "BRILLIANT!" There's a saying that ever since a certain development of the Roman Legions, Gaius Marian's reforms, that most infantrymen's load has consistently stayed at 80 or so pounds. In the past, soldiers had attendants, servants, personal mules, etc. This meant a huge logistical trail and burden for each army. The Romans said, "Enough of this BS" and did away with it. Each Legionary carried all his gear for campaign himself. And it's been that way for most parts, especially with Western militaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynx7725 Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 There's a saying that ever since a certain development of the Roman Legions, Gaius Marian's reforms, that most infantrymen's load has consistently stayed at 80 or so pounds. In the past, soldiers had attendants, servants, personal mules, etc. This meant a huge logistical trail and burden for each army. The Romans said, "Enough of this BS" and did away with it. Each Legionary carried all his gear for campaign himself. And it's been that way for most parts, especially with Western militaries. Actually, IMO that's not so true. While it's true that each soldier is largely self-sufficient for a few days now, the logistical trail for an army has grown larger if anything else. Compare the logistics required for a Civil War army vs. a modern army, and the logistics now is mind-boggling. We've managed to get a lot of efficiencies in through mechanization and computerization, so it seems to still be the same old BS, but we are now so reliant on certain technological capabilities, it is to the extent that if we lose those capabilities, I don't think an army can function more than a day or two -- at best. Sure, the individual squad can maybe hold out slightly longer, but as a coherent whole, it simply doesn't work. Too many weapons, equipment, etc. require specialist care and parts. The grunt infantry might be able to keep things running, but the overall projection of power drops significantly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmaker Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 My chief complaint is that gear I'm expected to carry around isn't any less bulky or as heavy than our predecessors in past decades or wars. If you take a look at pictures of servicemen "humping around" a full pack from the 80's, 70's, etc. and see modern ones, there's not that much difference. I was in 10th grade when Desert Shield / Storm took place. I recall seeing CNN videos of Soldiers and Marines marching through the desert with full loads and gear stacked upon gear on their packs. And that wasn't counting water and ammunition J.H.Christ, I can cram all kinds of cr*p in today's packs and even in the Vietnam-Era ALICE Packs we used to have as standard. So much s**t that my friends would say I looked like a walking pack. All they would see behind me is one massive pack, a rifle "hanging" from the side, and 2 little legs sticking out from below Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynx7725 Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 My chief complaint is that gear I'm expected to carry around isn't any less bulky or as heavy than our predecessors in past decades or wars. We're infantry; our lot is to suffer! I agree with you, but it's true things had gotten a lot better than a century ago (or even 50 years ago). Our gear has gotten smaller and lighter, and we are packing more stuff in the same volume, stuff that are more useful to us in the field. That's a luxury our forefathers didn't have.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatalist Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 We're infantry; our lot is to suffer! I agree with you, but it's true things had gotten a lot better than a century ago (or even 50 years ago). Our gear has gotten smaller and lighter, and we are packing more stuff in the same volume, stuff that are more useful to us in the field. That's a luxury our forefathers didn't have.. And whats all this have to do with aircraft? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynx7725 Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 And whats all this have to do with aircraft? Absolutely nothing; we go off-topic for a few posts every now and then. Back to aircraft then. How's Airbus doing on their massive backorders? It's been fairly unhealthy last year for them, but this year's been quiet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nied Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 It was this guy: I didn't even see him until he stepped into the frame as he was standing behind someone else. Also note that I am far from the closest spectator to the plane. (Since I'm taking the pic) And I only have like a 2x zoom on that camera, I'm sure there was a guy 50 feet behind me getting better pics with his 20x zoom. Boo-Yah! [attachmentid=42639][attachmentid=42640] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts