David Hingtgen Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 We were off-topic 24 hours ago, but I let it slide. Political discussion ends NOW. (personally I'm ticked at SFO not letting the Iowa come after all the money that was poured into the project--including moving it there--but that'll be the last comment here on the matter) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFT Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 Yay! Vulcan XH558 made it's first flight in 14 years today! get booking those airshow tickets now, UK MW'ers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalvasflam Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 Following up yesterday's SIA Beyond First discussion. I wonder why they didn't seal the entire cabin and left a space open on the top. It seems odd to me because in this instance, it isn't really that private if someone is tall enough. I almost think of this setup like what they have on a train, a private cabin would be what they're trying to mimic, but it doesn't take that through all the way. Looking at the video, I wasn't sure, but was there an overhead storage bin in that class? By the way, David, this is how you know people are airplane enthusiasts, they start calling the city by the airport code. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nied Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 Following up yesterday's SIA Beyond First discussion. I wonder why they didn't seal the entire cabin and left a space open on the top. It seems odd to me because in this instance, it isn't really that private if someone is tall enough. I almost think of this setup like what they have on a train, a private cabin would be what they're trying to mimic, but it doesn't take that through all the way. Looking at the video, I wasn't sure, but was there an overhead storage bin in that class? By the way, David, this is how you know people are airplane enthusiasts, they start calling the city by the airport code. I didn't realize that from the pictures. Well that kind of shuts down the thoughts of joining the mile high club, unless your an exhibitionist. They might have made it semi private for security reasons. Mixing a liquid bomb together in an airliner bathroom like in the scare last year is just about nigh impossible, but I could see how having a private stateroom on a much longer trans-pacific flight might just push things just over the edge to possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Leader Posted October 18, 2007 Author Share Posted October 18, 2007 Yay! Vulcan XH558 made it's first flight in 14 years today! get booking those airshow tickets now, UK MW'ers... That's great news! I had been wondering how the efforts for getting that Vulcan flyable again. Too bad there isn't a flyable B-36 or B-47 out there (there was a serious effort around 1970 to get one of the surviving B-36's up to flyable condition). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 I always use airport codes, as the forums I go to most are airline-dedicated---we even have "local airport" under our avatars. (CID) And "Houston" for example isn't specific enough---but IAH and HOU are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-ZeroOne Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 That's great news! I had been wondering how the efforts for getting that Vulcan flyable again. Too bad there isn't a flyable B-36 or B-47 out there (there was a serious effort around 1970 to get one of the surviving B-36's up to flyable condition). Blast, you beat me to it! As anyone who has had the privilege of seeing a Vulcan take-off will already know - gravity? OWN3D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awacs Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 Blast, you beat me to it! As anyone who has had the privilege of seeing a Vulcan take-off will already know - gravity? OWN3D. Vulcan's indeed do not care about gravity in the slightest. But then, with the way they sound on take off it always feels like they don't care much about any of the other popular and important laws of physics either. I've always had a soft spot for Vulcans since seeing them at several airshows when I was a youngster. There's something about the way the sound of those engines makes every internal organ, bone and muscle shake on a low pass that really makes an impact. Karl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nied Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 We were off-topic 24 hours ago, but I let it slide. Political discussion ends NOW. (personally I'm ticked at SFO not letting the Iowa come after all the money that was poured into the project--including moving it there--but that'll be the last comment here on the matter) I gotta make this obligatory every time we get off topic like this: David, you hang out on ARC a lot. Can you tell me is the Academy 1/32 scale F-16 kit better than the Tamiya 1/32 scale F-16 kit? Also Super Hornet Flaps: Up? Or Down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 Hey, the Academy Legacy bug has a flaps half-way option. (Which seriously, is how I'm going to build it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nied Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 I didn't realize that from the pictures. Well that kind of shuts down the thoughts of joining the mile high club, unless your an exhibitionist. They might have made it semi private for security reasons. Mixing a liquid bomb together in an airliner bathroom like in the scare last year is just about nigh impossible, but I could see how having a private stateroom on a much longer trans-pacific flight might just push things just over the edge to possible. As a follow up this article sheds more light on the subject. There are privacy blinds, but they are still see through for reasons more mundane than terrorism. Though still, they showed the whole thing off with champaign, strawberries and rose petals, if that doesn't scream "have sex on our airplane!" I don't know what does, yet they tell us not too. It's madness I tell you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalvasflam Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 (edited) As a follow up this article sheds more light on the subject. There are privacy blinds, but they are still see through for reasons more mundane than terrorism. Though still, they showed the whole thing off with champaign, strawberries and rose petals, if that doesn't scream "have sex on our airplane!" I don't know what does, yet they tell us not too. It's madness I tell you! look, but don't touch.... touch, but don't taste.... taste, but don't swallow.... Actually, remember what happened on Qantas with that stewardess and that actor? Take it to a logical conclusion with these types of seatings, and you could see potentially a new revenue stream for the airlines. If it happened regularly enough, might make first class less desirable for the Singapore girls. I wonder how the other A380 users would alter their first class, and what other items are in the offering. Edited October 19, 2007 by kalvasflam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight26 Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Here you go, the plane I work with pretty much every flight test: http://www.flyingmule.com/products/GJ-GMUSA025 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Just take a good look at the nose from the side before you order though. That mold is very snub/blunt-nosed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nied Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 An Airbus Air Force One? It's a news grabber but I doubt it's very likely. If anything this is a contract that Boeing, with it's focus on eficiency in the 787 and the 747-8, is well positioned to pick up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 It's just to scare Boeing into lowering their prices. Seriously: 1. C-5's carry tanks etc and can air-drop. A380's could never do that without redesigning half the plane from scratch. And we don't even need to discuss rough/short field capabilities. They'd sacrifice just about every capability the C-5 and C-141 have. Of course, they just decided the "too old, too big, too loud, too slow" Chinook is to be replaced with more less-old Chinooks, which are just as big, loud, and slow and almost as old---but cost just as much as new, quieter, faster, more agile choppers. 2. Air Force One, while technically a 747-200, has many features/systems of the -400, notably the engines. There are few planes more reliable or efficient. They are also among the last -200's built, and were the last -200's delivered, and have fewer hours and cycles than planes 1/3 their age. They'll last forever, and are as economic as a 747-400 built last year. Saying Air Force One is old is kinda like saying an F-15K isn't a modern fighter. Sheer aerodynamics-wise, it's not. But I'd rather have one of those than an original-config F-18A since everything else is top of the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nied Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 It's just to scare Boeing into lowering their prices. Seriously: 1. C-5's carry tanks etc and can air-drop. A380's could never do that without redesigning half the plane from scratch. And we don't even need to discuss rough/short field capabilities. They'd sacrifice just about every capability the C-5 and C-141 have. Of course, they just decided the "too old, too big, too loud, too slow" Chinook is to be replaced with more less-old Chinooks, which are just as big, loud, and slow and almost as old---but cost just as much as new, quieter, faster, more agile choppers. Yes but that was to make Boeing happy, I think they got too happy and now the AF feels the need to scare them again. 2. Air Force One, while technically a 747-200, has many features/systems of the -400, notably the engines. There are few planes more reliable or efficient. They are also among the last -200's built, and were the last -200's delivered, and have fewer hours and cycles than planes 1/3 their age. They'll last forever, and are as economic as a 747-400 built last year. Saying Air Force One is old is kinda like saying an F-15K isn't a modern fighter. Sheer aerodynamics-wise, it's not. But I'd rather have one of those than an original-config F-18A since everything else is top of the line. I'm actually willing to put a lot stock into their fuel efficiency reasoning. The Air Force more than any other US based organization is putting a lot of forethought into the ramifications of Peak Oil (as well they should since they use more petroleum than any of the other military branches). I imagine that despite having the same engines as a 747-400 the VC-25 probably still has worse fuel efficiency (no winglets, old wing design, probably more weight than normal). An A380 while probably pretty efficient still likely burns about as much gas per hour as as a 747-400 and is bigger than any head of state will ever need. If the Air Force is really looking at buying a more fuel efficient VC-25/E-4 replacement then my guess of what they would pick in order of thier likely hood would be 747-8 -> 787 -> A350 -> A380. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beltane70 Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 I'd love to see a Vulcan in flight. I never even knew this plane existed until this summer when I visited the RAF Museum. Even on the ground the Vulcan looked quite intimidating! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-ZeroOne Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 I'd love to see a Vulcan in flight. I never even knew this plane existed until this summer when I visited the RAF Museum. Even on the ground the Vulcan looked quite intimidating! The bomb bay is impressive, isn't it? Its just one of those designs that seems completely outside of time, like Concorde - it will always appear slightly futuristic no matter where or when it is...! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalvasflam Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 Yes but that was to make Boeing happy, I think they got too happy and now the AF feels the need to scare them again. I'm actually willing to put a lot stock into their fuel efficiency reasoning. The Air Force more than any other US based organization is putting a lot of forethought into the ramifications of Peak Oil (as well they should since they use more petroleum than any of the other military branches). I imagine that despite having the same engines as a 747-400 the VC-25 probably still has worse fuel efficiency (no winglets, old wing design, probably more weight than normal). An A380 while probably pretty efficient still likely burns about as much gas per hour as as a 747-400 and is bigger than any head of state will ever need. If the Air Force is really looking at buying a more fuel efficient VC-25/E-4 replacement then my guess of what they would pick in order of thier likely hood would be 747-8 -> 787 -> A350 -> A380. I new AFO to me is a waste of money. I would think that if anything, the USAF need to replace fighters rather than AFO. If they have to, smaller AFO might be worthwhile, possibly 787 variant if they ever do a -10 version. There is a whole slew of replacements that would take priority, I think AFO needs to be on the bottom of the list. Boeing has enough trouble right now with the 787, so, AFO while it might be a symbolic win, I think would be totally pointless for Boeing. And even if AFO gets to be an Airbus product, well, it's not a precedent right? Right now, I think the next Marine One is a eurocopter of some type. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 Air Force One may have a heavier structural weight than basic 747's, but the payload is far less. It never hauls 300 people, their 50 lbs of luggage each, and several container's worth of cargo in the belly. Also---it flies so rarely it's really pointless to try to get a marginally more efficient plane. It's not like there's 500 of them flying every day with afterburners (unlike all our ANG F-15's for example, which can drain a drop tank in a minute if they try) Also---not many airports can take an A380. Air Force One can get into a lot more airports than most people think. Heck, it comes to CID all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalvasflam Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 It is just a swept wing I know, but this is reminding me a little of the YF-21.... just a little http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/...-in-flight.html But, these kinds of tech has to start somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 THAT is neat. (sorry I don't have anything more profound to say, but I'm damned impressed) In other news, Thailand ordered a dozen Gripens. Rafale still has no export sales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nied Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 It is just a swept wing I know, but this is reminding me a little of the YF-21.... just a little http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/...-in-flight.html But, these kinds of tech has to start somewhere. The amount of sweep change they get is pretty impressive, especially for an otherwise rigid structure. It's interesting they paid more attention to lowering the RCS of thier first prototype than the second. You'd think it would be the other way around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smiley424 Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 THAT is neat. (sorry I don't have anything more profound to say, but I'm damned impressed) In other news, Thailand ordered a dozen Gripens. Rafale still has no export sales. The swept wing stuff was pretty interesting. So much for France's hopes that the Rafale will be this generations Mirage III. I'm very surprised at the export success of the Gripen, those the Swedes do know how to make a beautiful fighter (been a fan since the Draken and Viggen). I just wish SAAB cars were as beautiful as their jets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratchet Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 (edited) Let see some pictures of you inside or next to a military warplane. This is me inside a Longbow *sniff* *cry* A-10 patrolling our base.... Edited October 23, 2007 by Ratchet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VF-19 Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 The amount of sweep change they get is pretty impressive, especially for an otherwise rigid structure. It's interesting they paid more attention to lowering the RCS of thier first prototype than the second. You'd think it would be the other way around. I'd much rather get this sweep technology right first, then work on reducing the RCS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Leader Posted October 23, 2007 Author Share Posted October 23, 2007 Sometime in the upcoming days I'm planning on posting on to Facebook about 300 of the 1,100 pictures I took at the Guardians of Freedom airshow down at the Lincoln, NE Municipal Airport a year ago September. First time I got to see the single seat F/A-18E up close and on the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-ZeroOne Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Let see some pictures of you inside or next to a military warplane. Now theres something to get my teeth into! Biggin Hill, 2003, next to one of the twenty-two thousand odd "bloody silly name for an aeroplane"... [1]: Winnipeg, Canada, 2007: how about a little black magic - or Voodoo, at any rate! Thats my father on the right; as you can tell by his expression he totally shares my passion for fighter aircraft... <NOT!> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratchet Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Now theres something to get my teeth into! Biggin Hill, 2003, next to one of the twenty-two thousand odd "bloody silly name for an aeroplane"... [1]: Winnipeg, Canada, 2007: how about a little black magic - or Voodoo, at any rate! Thats my father on the right; as you can tell by his expression he totally shares my passion for fighter aircraft... <NOT!> Spitfire? Nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 This is why we still have B-52's: (sorry to 56K'ers, blame the USAF for their gigantic pics) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nied Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 This is why we still have B-52's: (sorry to 56K'ers, blame the USAF for their gigantic pics) >>snip ginormous pic<< I love those kinds of pictures where every type of weapon an aircraft can carry is laid out in front of it. As far as I'm concerned there really haven't been nearly enough lately. Can you imagine a pic like that of a Super Hornet or F-15E? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 The impressive thing about that pic, is that's practically a legal load. Unlike equivalent F-16 pics etc that show 50 weapons, of which it can carry 4 at a time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nied Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 I have numerous pictures of me standing in front of a wide variety of military aircraft. The problem is it's difficult to see me because I'm the one taking the picture. This one of my dad in front of one of the types of planes he flew in the Navy (in this case a T-2 Buckeye) will have to serve as a stand in. Just imagine this guy 30 years younger and with more hair and you've got me anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Leader Posted October 24, 2007 Author Share Posted October 24, 2007 I downloaded about 2/5 of the pictures I plan on posting of the Guardians of Freedom airshow I was at last year. I will post the links when I get the remainder on there. Even in low rez, a lot of these are some pretty good shots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts