Post amazingly cool pictures of aircraft (Volume 2)
Discussion
Ayahuasca said:
A B52 cannot sustain that attitude for very long (see Bud Holland's 90 degree low level bank...)
Bud Holland was pushing it too far and had been for too long - At Fairchild, it looks as if the engines didn't spool up in time otherwise he might have got away with it.And been killed doing something else....
Red Arrows over Heathrow for the start of their run to mark the manga carta celebration.. I'm always glad I don't work the tower, but particularly not that day!
Photo credit belongs to the Senior Engineering Officer for the Red Arrows. All copyright are MOD Crown Copyright 2015.
(edited 9 July 2015 to add proper credit and copyright)
Edited by Collectingbrass on Thursday 9th July 11:18
Collectingbrass said:
Red Arrows over Heathrow for the start of their run to mark the manga carta celebration.. I'm always glad I don't work the tower, but particularly not that day!
Photo credit belongs to Red 1 / RAF, however much I might wish it was mine...
iiyama said:
What would be the reason for getting to that angle in the first place?
Careful perusal of that photo would indicate that there is nowhere near 90 degrees AoB (Angle of Bank). It's more like 60 degrees.At 60 degrees AoB, in a level turn, you would be pulling 2G which (I would guess) is about the limit for a KC135.
Any more than 60 degrees and the formation must be descending (which would IMO not be a very safe place to be).
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
iiyama said:
What would be the reason for getting to that angle in the first place?
Careful perusal of that photo would indicate that there is nowhere near 90 degrees AoB (Angle of Bank). It's more like 60 degrees.At 60 degrees AoB, in a level turn, you would be pulling 2G which (I would guess) is about the limit for a KC135.
Any more than 60 degrees and the formation must be descending (which would IMO not be a very safe place to be).
iiyama said:
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
iiyama said:
What would be the reason for getting to that angle in the first place?
Careful perusal of that photo would indicate that there is nowhere near 90 degrees AoB (Angle of Bank). It's more like 60 degrees.At 60 degrees AoB, in a level turn, you would be pulling 2G which (I would guess) is about the limit for a KC135.
Any more than 60 degrees and the formation must be descending (which would IMO not be a very safe place to be).
"Confidence in your equipment" training - you occasionally test your gear to the extremes of it's design brief. Rarer still, you'll be required (under strict safety regimes) to exceed stated sfaety limits. It demonstrates to the user that the design limitations are safe and allow full utilisation of all the features at the stated extremes.
I've pulled a bar-mine with a rope attached to my armoured vehicle to demonstrate the efficacy (or possibly not
) of the anti-disturbance add-on fuse. I've driven an armoured vehicle transversely across a slope minus just a few degrees off the stated 'tipping point' to prove that it won't roll over unless the stated angle of the slope is exceeded. I've watched pre-tour firepower, and weapons effects demonstrations where our issued helmets and body armour have been subjected to small arms and IED effects. It's all in the name of increasing crew confidence in the equipment upon which their lives will often depend. All the testing will have been carried out in computer simulations, laboratory testing, and in destructive testing during the development of said equipment, but there's no substitute for letting personnel see for themselves that the kit does indeed work as intended (and sometimes beyond).
I would imagine that the BUFF / KC135 photo' was Trials work, or posibly for PR.
Having done many instances of AAR (Air to Air Refueling) albeit 'Probe and Drogue', I can not conceive of any operational reason why you would want to do it with extreme levels of bank.
Notwithstanding that, and echoing YellowJack's post, certainly the RAF carried out GH (General Handling) sorties where pilots explored the handling qualities (and operational limits) of the a/c.
Having done many instances of AAR (Air to Air Refueling) albeit 'Probe and Drogue', I can not conceive of any operational reason why you would want to do it with extreme levels of bank.
Notwithstanding that, and echoing YellowJack's post, certainly the RAF carried out GH (General Handling) sorties where pilots explored the handling qualities (and operational limits) of the a/c.
yellowjack said:
Common to various branches of the military.
"Confidence in your equipment" training - you occasionally test your gear to the extremes of it's design brief. Rarer still, you'll be required (under strict safety regimes) to exceed stated sfaety limits. It demonstrates to the user that the design limitations are safe and allow full utilisation of all the features at the stated extremes.
I've pulled a bar-mine with a rope attached to my armoured vehicle to demonstrate the efficacy (or possibly not ) of the anti-disturbance add-on fuse. I've driven an armoured vehicle transversely across a slope minus just a few degrees off the stated 'tipping point' to prove that it won't roll over unless the stated angle of the slope is exceeded. I've watched pre-tour firepower, and weapons effects demonstrations where our issued helmets and body armour have been subjected to small arms and IED effects.
It's all in the name of increasing crew confidence in the equipment upon which their lives will often depend. All the testing will have been carried out in computer simulations, laboratory testing, and in destructive testing during the development of said equipment, but there's no substitute for letting personnel see for themselves that the kit does indeed work as intended (and sometimes beyond).
On CR such tasks included periodically firing a limited number of rounds of APFSDS to satisfy all concerned that this could be done without leaving a breech-shaped dent in the back of the turret."Confidence in your equipment" training - you occasionally test your gear to the extremes of it's design brief. Rarer still, you'll be required (under strict safety regimes) to exceed stated sfaety limits. It demonstrates to the user that the design limitations are safe and allow full utilisation of all the features at the stated extremes.
I've pulled a bar-mine with a rope attached to my armoured vehicle to demonstrate the efficacy (or possibly not
) of the anti-disturbance add-on fuse. I've driven an armoured vehicle transversely across a slope minus just a few degrees off the stated 'tipping point' to prove that it won't roll over unless the stated angle of the slope is exceeded. I've watched pre-tour firepower, and weapons effects demonstrations where our issued helmets and body armour have been subjected to small arms and IED effects. It's all in the name of increasing crew confidence in the equipment upon which their lives will often depend. All the testing will have been carried out in computer simulations, laboratory testing, and in destructive testing during the development of said equipment, but there's no substitute for letting personnel see for themselves that the kit does indeed work as intended (and sometimes beyond).
Every now and again the exercise was not wholly successful.
Something slightly different, two abandoned aircraft. 2 ex-Aerosur Airlines Douglas DC-6 left abanoned at Alfonso Bonilla Aragón International Airport, Cali, Colombia after the airline ceased to exist.
https://www.google.com/maps/@3.547149,-76.387499,3...
https://www.google.com/maps/@3.547149,-76.387499,3...
iiyama said:
And the H packed a little more punch.....
It's for sale - http://www.courtesyaircraft.com/index.php/inventor...
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff