Post amazingly cool pictures of aircraft (Volume 2)

[etchacan]

MartG said:

A couple of Wildcats - RN Black Cats display team at Sunderland

Very nice - I saw them at Yeovilton couple of weeks ago...

[anonymous-user]

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/have...

[irocfan]

this is quite funky...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCWjByenDsM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-VNSJMiNt0

Edited by irocfan on Thursday 30th July 12:00

[eccles]

irocfan said:

this is quite funky...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCWjByenDsM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-VNSJMiNt0

Edited by irocfan on Thursday 30th July 12:00

I thought this was the pictures thread....

[MartG]

Not real aircraft but I thought it worth sharing - someone managed to capture this mid-air between R/C models last week in Texas...



The Spitfire survived relatively unscathed, unlike the Mustang...

[OMG_TURBOZ]

knight said:

Can't remember if I've posted this before, a sad day in 2003!

Very sad day.....

[smack]

Is it wrong to extend a work trip at extra cost to the company so you can watch the Blue Angles?

Whilst they were great to watch, the Red Arrows are better with a more interesting display, and IMHO a more technical display. But there isn't such thing as a bad fast jet flying display (apart from getting burnt)!

Edited by smack on Sunday 2nd August 09:20

[DJFish]

Only when you don't post pictures....

[mko9]

yellowjack said:

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).

Understand all of that GG but I don't understand why, (when hooked up), that they would want to position the aircraft like that?

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).

I was assigned at the 2nd Bomb Wing a while back. I don't know if they still do this, but it was apparently fairly common and part of instructor certification for nuclear operations. As it was explained to me, when executing the SIOP you might have to do almost anything to get through, so they tested to the limits of both aircraft. They would actually swing back and forth, and called the maneuver "wifferdales".

[EskimoArapaho]

A different sort of 'amazingly cool picture of aircraft':



Chap's got some other graphics, too: http://cigeography.blogspot.fr/search/label/Fact%2...

[Caruso]

EskimoArapaho said:

A different sort of 'amazingly cool picture of aircraft':

Chap's got some other graphics, too: http://cigeography.blogspot.fr/search/label/Fact%2...

I've estimated that to be somewhere in the region of 1,000 - 1,500 aircraft.

Amazing to think during WWII there were >1000 aircraft on a single raid.
http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/bombercommandthethou...

[hammo19]

Caruso said:

EskimoArapaho said:

A different sort of 'amazingly cool picture of aircraft':

Chap's got some other graphics, too: http://cigeography.blogspot.fr/search/label/Fact%2...

I've estimated that to be somewhere in the region of 1,000 - 1,500 aircraft.

Amazing to think during WWII there were >1000 aircraft on a single raid.
http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/bombercommandthethou...

Would the RAF tally leave room on an A4 sheet of paper?

[Mutley]

hammo19 said:

Caruso said:

EskimoArapaho said:

A different sort of 'amazingly cool picture of aircraft':

Chap's got some other graphics, too: http://cigeography.blogspot.fr/search/label/Fact%2...

I've estimated that to be somewhere in the region of 1,000 - 1,500 aircraft.

Amazing to think during WWII there were >1000 aircraft on a single raid.
http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/bombercommandthethou...

Would the RAF tally leave room on an A4 sheet of paper?

Think I read that the current number of RAF aircraft is less than pre ww2 numbers. Can't recall the source, think it was a redtop paper. The reasoning is that warfare has changed, requiring a different Air Force

[Eric Mc]

There was a report on Radio 4 a few weeks ago saying that the retirement of the Tornado GR4 will result in the RAF being at its smallest since it came into being.

[Elroy Blue]

Tranche 1 Typhoons will also go. A ridiculous waste of billions of pounds.

[Herkybird]

Great pics Chaz, gave me some good old flashbacks. Been out a few years now but the best time i had was at Lyneham (Aki Vass is very close second).

[Zahc]

Herkybird said:

Great pics Chaz, gave me some good old flashbacks. Been out a few years now but the best time i had was at Lyneham (Aki Vass is very close second).

Glad you like them. I have quite a few pics but don't want to bore everyone to tears with the Mighty Herc. :-)

[Dr Jekyll]

Mutley said:

Think I read that the current number of RAF aircraft is less than pre ww2 numbers. Can't recall the source, think it was a redtop paper. The reasoning is that warfare has changed, requiring a different Air Force

Vastly less I would think. Excluding training aircraft maybe 300 or 350 including perhaps 100 helicopters.

In WW1 RAF strength was 20,000 aircraft.

[Eric Mc]

In the 1920s, the RAF decreased massively in size - to such an extent that the governments of the day were minded to disband it as an organisation. In the event, the policy of air policing in Afgahnistan, Palestine and the North West Frontier of India convinced the Treasury that maintaining a small RAF for such duties was worthwhile and cost effective.

Even then, the RAF had to make do for over a decade with obsolete World War 1 designs to carry out this task.

[Ginetta G15 Girl]

Mutley said:

Think I read that the current number of RAF aircraft is less than pre ww2 numbers. Can't recall the source, think it was a redtop paper. The reasoning is that warfare has changed, requiring a different Air Force

It's nothing to do with Capability and everything to do with the fact that it is always easier for the Politicos to slash Defence while steadfastly refusing to address the real spending problems.

Dr Jekyll said:

Vastly less I would think. Excluding training aircraft maybe 300 or 350 including perhaps 100 helicopters.

Currently we have 192 Front Line fast jets. By 2019 with the binning of Tornado and Tranche 1 Typhoon we will have 52 plus whatever Tranche 2 Typhoons have been delivered. Current estimate is that the Front Line fast jet fleet will number 127. That doesn't take into account F35 but firstly no-one really knows how many we will buy and secondly AIUI the entry into service has been delayed till 2020.