4


Gonna get some more passenger time in the RV-4 soon

11/24/2007 3:12:50 PM

RVs are a lot of fun, and pretty versatile, too.

11/25/2007 5:21:49 AM

I was browsing through the SIPRnet (secret internet) this afternoon at work, reading up about capabilities of some different aircraft, weapons, etc (and checking a news story or two), and figured I'd see if I could find out anything about the F-22.

I ended up not being able to find much out that isn't already public knowledge. I guess most of the stuff about it is top secret.

one unclassified thing that I thought was really cool, though, was that it can fly at up to 60 DEGREES ANGLE OF ATTACK.

12/4/2007 5:28:07 PM

F-22 is pretty and powerful, but way to expensive

12/4/2007 5:57:43 PM

I disagree. That thing will rewrite the book on air warfare, and it's pretty damned awesome for certain air-to-ground things. It's expensive, but what is it, $120 million per copy?

I think the EA-6b I fly is listed at something like $50-60 million--and it's a Vietnam-era airframe with some 1980s era electronics.

According to Wikipedia, an F-14 was $38 million in 1998 dollars, with an F-15 (which the F-22 is designed to succeed) at about $30 million (again, 1998 dollars).

While we can't afford to have the Raptor as our only fighter (hence the upcoming F-35 --which is an absolute bargain-- to supplement it, as the F-16 and F-18 did for the -15 and -14), I view it as absolutely worth the money for however many we're getting, relative to the capability it brings to the table. Also, the Tomcats are already gone, and the Eagles are getting old (30-35 year old design). They've also had a lot of hard flight hours inflicted (in fact, an Eagle recently experienced a catastrophic structural failure in mid-air recently, grounding the whole fleet).

Being a superpower is expensive (although in terms of our GDP, we spend only a fraction of what what some other lesser countries do), and if we're going to continue to do it, the F-22 really isn't bad bang for the buck at all.

[Edited on December 4, 2007 at 6:48 PM. Reason : also, note that its closest competitor, the Eurofighter Typhoon, costs roughly the same.]

12/4/2007 6:44:40 PM

I understand that we can't have the F-22 are our only fighter. I like the F-35, its a damn good plane.

12/4/2007 7:37:28 PM

What I like about the F22 is that its designed to be in service for upwards of 4 decades. Everything that could be outdated in the foreseeable future is completely modular so that it can be swapped out without having to do a complete overhaul of the aircraft. Until now most aircraft were designed with the assumption that they would be out of date and replaceable within a relatively short timespan. Recent experience with an aging fleet of necessary aircraft like B52s and EA6Bs as well as the increasingly prohibitive cost of state of the art planes has changed a lot of thinking.

Also worth taking a look at:
http://www.jetpackinternational.com/

It's a new company that is trying to market civilian jet packs. While jet packs have been around since the 1950s they were of little use because none could carry the fuel to stay airborne for more than 30 seconds. JPI currently has one that can fly for 45 seconds and claims that they will release one in one week that will be able to fly for 9 minutes and have a range of 27 miles, all for $200,000.

While typing this I realized that their speed, fuel, and distance numbers don't add up at all.

12/4/2007 9:19:44 PM

In 4 decades, I doubt we'll have manned fighters.

12/5/2007 2:37:40 AM

^ Every time I hear Air Force brass talk about it they like to refer to it as the last manned American fighter.

12/5/2007 3:46:16 PM

Cargo Planes, Heavy Gunships, and Bombers will be manned for quite some time.

12/5/2007 3:48:33 PM

Of yeah, that's why I said fighters. As I understand it, the limiting factor in the performance of new planes is the limitations of the human body. The F22 isn't achieving max performance because the flight systems limit the number of Gs that it can pull because pilots can't deal with it wide open. As such, any new plane that outperforms the F22 is going to be unmanned.

Of course, stuff like that isn't an issue on cargo planes, heavy gunships, and heavy bombers so there's no reason to blow the extra money on it. Plus I'm sure that the Air Force would never let themselves be limited to unmanned aircraft.

12/5/2007 4:21:46 PM

This site has some awesome furniture made out of recycled aircraft parts. The radial engine table is definitely going to be mine one day.

http://www.motoart.com/

2/11/2008 11:03:15 PM

Quote :

"As I understand it, the limiting factor in the performance of new planes is the limitations of the human body. The F22 isn't achieving max performance because the flight systems limit the number of Gs that it can pull because pilots can't deal with it wide open."

oh yeah, even an F-15 or F-16 are at LEAST pushing the limitations of the human body (I don't know if they're limited to 9g for structural reasons or simply because it would be GLOC-city if they turned any harder.) I'm sure the F-22 can structurally withstand beyond that (and probably has the power to sustain an absurdly hard turn for quite a while).

Hell, unlimited-type aerobatic planes hit like +12g (and prob -4 or 5, maybe more). I don't think there's any way they have the power to sustain it for more than a very short time, though (which is fine, because the pilot would be out cold if he did).

The most I've ever pulled is about 6g...I'm terrible at dealing with g (because my blood px is REALLY low). I can sustain that for, like, forever. I'm sure 9g would SUCK big time. I'd never be able to do it in the centrifuge to get qualified to do it in the airplane to begin with (the 'fuge, to me, is way harder than the jet for some odd reason).

[Edited on March 28, 2008 at 2:48 AM. Reason : ^ that shit is awesome. you know the deal when they don't list prices, though.]

3/28/2008 2:44:23 AM

Me-262 reproduction for sale (for $2.5 million) about 40 minutes from my house. Roommates and I are thinking about calling to see if we can go look at it just out of curiousity.

[Edited on March 31, 2008 at 1:55 AM. Reason : asdf]

3/31/2008 1:54:45 AM

^ I've read about those and they look awesome. Apparently they're completely accurate aside from the fact that they use new GE engines.

When I was Florida I was next to a place that built brand new Me-190s.

3/31/2008 11:19:40 PM

Me-109s or FW-190s?

3/31/2008 11:43:35 PM

Fuck. FW190s.

It was Kissimmee Gateway. We had a hangar at the other end with 3 P51s, one of which had tandem controls. I remember preflighting a 172 and seeing a pair of mustangs taking off in formation.

They also had a number of T6s on the same strip.

Basically I felt like a queer with a Cessna.

4/1/2008 2:51:45 AM

I get quite a bit of passenger time on this POS...

[Edited on April 1, 2008 at 4:31 PM. Reason : new tww on crack...]

4/1/2008 4:30:50 PM

took an arrested landing in El Centro, CA the other day in a Prowler. Nosegear wouldn't come down--tried varying g-loads, yawing aircraft, blowing the gear down with the emergency system...none of it worked. We had another aircraft join on us, and from the things he described, we were pretty sure that it was partially extended, but was not down and locked (which is still bad, as it will likely fold up on landing if this is the case).

by this time we were down to about 15 minutes worth of fuel and basically out of options, and decided to take what we had and land it (planned to take a trap, as we'd already had them rig the short field arresting gear). Finally, on short final, the nosegear indicated down and locked (I think a small pitch correction finally bumped it into position with the extra pressure from the emergency blowdown we'd done). We took the trap, anyway...fire trucks and ambulances were there, and the crash crew gave us a ride to the hanger.

Found a bigass hole on the underside of the airplane later...don't know where it came from or when it happened, of it the incidents were related or not (i don't see how they could be, but it's a weird coincidence).

4/5/2008 9:47:05 PM

Damn dude.

4/5/2008 9:48:26 PM

Nice save

4/5/2008 10:08:54 PM

ehh, it was more a case of it being our lucky day. we did all the normal stuff you'd do for a hung landing gear--we were about to bring it in and tear up the front of the airplane, and it just came down for us.

funny thing is, another Prowler in our squadron had a main landing gear that was giving trouble (one of their mains didn't even move or open the gear doors when they lowered the gear, but came down fine with an emergency blowdown. they also took a trap as a precaution.)

4/5/2008 10:13:08 PM

It seems like landing a trap would do more damage than just treating it like a soft field landing and keeping your nose up. What's the logic there?

Here's a cool video of some old war birds doing a flyover of DC. The camera going through the B-17 is pretty sweet.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/11/usaf.flyover/index.html

4/12/2008 8:48:33 PM

well, it's not nearly as violent of a trap as a carrier trap (and you don't have to fly it into the runway and slam it down hard like you do at the boat)...and it would minimize the distance that it's just grinding away down the runway (which at 130 kts and 40k lbs could be quite some distance).

most importantly, though, if you take the trap, you more or less know where you're going to stop. it prevents you from going out of control and hitting anything.

[Edited on April 12, 2008 at 9:13 PM. Reason : afds]

4/12/2008 9:12:14 PM

just steal a f-22

4/15/2008 8:48:18 PM

speaking of f-22's, anyone know if they will have one at any airshows in or around NC this year?

4/20/2008 11:22:22 PM

FYI, I just had a buddy at the airport text me that there's an Osprey at the civil aviation terminal for the next 2 days.

5/12/2008 3:16:16 PM

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/05/15/vo.plane.lands.on.plane.wfaa

I'll assume that was at an untowered airport.

5/16/2008 2:52:54 PM

Not exactly about aircraft, but a good read for pilots.

Naked pilot, flight attendant arrested in woods
http://www.wral.com/news/strange/story/2915772/

Also, Gulfstream recently announced the G650, which they claim will blow the doors off of a Citation X, which has held the title as the third fastest civilian jet behind the Concorde and Concordski for several years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulfstream_G650

[Edited on May 20, 2008 at 6:05 PM. Reason : .]

5/20/2008 6:03:35 PM

anyone ever flown an ultralight?

There is a small part of me that would like to get one, but I'm not sure I trust them in terms of safety/reliability, and I'd also kinda just rather spend the time and money in something that I can log the hours in.

6/27/2008 3:07:01 AM

Dunno man. I've read enough NTSB reports about idiots in ultralights crashing in to power lines.

6/27/2008 4:52:10 AM

i think that's more just a case of idiots finding new and creative ways to off themselves...if it wasn't that, it would've been something else.

6/27/2008 4:53:34 AM

dos gringos is awful

6/27/2008 8:10:50 AM

Quote :

"Here's a cool video of some old war birds doing a flyover of DC. The camera going through the B-17 is pretty sweet."

I saw when they flew over Crystal City on the way to the Air Force memorial; they were pretty damn close to the ground then. The noise was unmistakable. It was pretty neat though, seeing almost all pedestrian traffic come to a screeching halt as those birds flew over, especially all the Air Force officers who wander about here.

As for ultralights, the only image I can summon when I think about them is that movie about the girl who led a flock of geese in one.

6/27/2008 2:54:10 PM

^^ clearly you have lost your mind.

6/27/2008 3:04:59 PM

How does the new light sport category work?

6/27/2008 3:56:35 PM

it's worthless in my mind in terms of requiring less instruction to go fly. you might as well spend just a little more time and money and get a real PPL.

to meet LSA requirements, the airplane has to be damn near useless for anything besides just cruising around for a quick local flight just for fun. Like, smaller, lighter, and generally slower than a Cessna 152. Think Skyboy, Kitfox, J3 Cub.

It may be a little cheaper in some circumstances, but again, against the 152 yardstick, I doubt it.


There are also tons of restrictions on the Sport Pilot certificate. Really, about the only utility I can think of for the Sport Pilot/LSA thing is that you don't have to have your FAA medical...just a driver's license. It's fine for old dudes with a heart problem or something who can't pass the medical but still want to go buzz around for an hour out in the country at 1000' and 80 kts just for fun. I can't think of any other scenario where it wouldn't be smarter to just get your PPL.

[Edited on June 27, 2008 at 4:25 PM. Reason : asfasd]

6/27/2008 4:25:04 PM

Ok. I had assumed that it was pretty much worthless in that you couldn't really build on it.

6/27/2008 4:28:06 PM

can't build on it (instrument rating, etc)

can't go into class A, B, C, or even D airspace (although I THINK you can get additional training and an endorsement of some sort to remove some of these restrictions)

can't fly anything other than weedhopper-type aircraft. don't get me wrong, I love running a river at 500' in a J3 Cub with the doors open, but I'd want to at least be able to fly a C172 and go SOMEWHERE, carrying a useful load (to include more than 1 passenger)

can't fly at night


I just don't see why anyone would start flight training to get a sport pilot cert. The only thing I can think of that it would be useful for is for an experienced pilot who can't get signed off on a medical, who then could still fly, just subject to these addition restrictions on where he can go, when he can fly, and what he can fly.


maybe i don't get it or something. LSA are getting really popular, and while LSA and sport pilot cert aren't one and the same, they're certainly connected.

[Edited on June 27, 2008 at 4:37 PM. Reason : asdfasd]

6/27/2008 4:35:54 PM

I agree on all counts. I just assumed that there was something that made a light sport license worthwhile that I wasn't seeing.

On a related note Cessna has a new LSA coming out. Looks like crap.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_162

Actually the avionics package is rather sweet.

[Edited on June 27, 2008 at 4:44 PM. Reason : .]

6/27/2008 4:43:12 PM

yeah, but for how that airplane will be flown, what do you need a slick avionics package for?

I'd rather have a clean 152 Aerobat and $90,000 in the bank.

6/27/2008 4:50:33 PM

Haha. Signed.

6/27/2008 8:30:18 PM

yep, and the Aerobat is to the point where it should appreciate in value, unlike a brand new bird that will depreciate. I can't figure out who buys airplanes like that for those prices new off the production line. it's not like a car--buying a 10, 20, or 50 year old airplane isn't really a big deal.

[Edited on June 27, 2008 at 9:13 PM. Reason : asdfads]

6/27/2008 9:12:43 PM

The company I worked for actually bought some sweet new aircraft just because they would make more money by owning them due to the government perks following 9/11 to keep the aircraft industry going. I work for the CFO and he actually told me that the government basically financed their planes for them. On top of that, corporate aircraft contracts can be extremely lucrative. If you have a delivery contract for a $50 million plane you'll generally have to wait 2 or 3 years before it's actually built and delivered to you. At that point you can turn around and sell it for upwards $60 or $65 million to some yokel who doesn't want to wait a few years for a plane to be built. A number of hedge funds are making a killing just by passing around contracts. We've had a good deal of unsolicited offers on ours that seemed absolutely absurd to me.

I assume that a lot of the smaller ones like new 172s are going straight to flight schools who are using the same perks. Hell, I did a cross country in a 172SP that only had 35 hours on it and the one that my buddy John puked in only had 80. They'll operate them for a few years and then when the warranty runs out they turn around and sell them to second parties.

Once I'm loaded I'd love to buy an old 40s era warbird. I'll never afford a mustang, but I've seen some decent prices on less famous ones.

6/27/2008 10:09:24 PM

yep. i would LOVE to own a warbird. I'd love to have a Corsair.

none of the fighters will ever be within my grasp, though. even if I amass enough wealth to reasonably afford to buy million dollar airplane, I can't imagine how I'll ever get rich enough to afford to operate it. I'm sure the operating costs are a couple thousand dollars per hour, and the fixed costs would be brutal, too.

something like a T-6 or SNJ is probably about the closest you could come without having wealth in the tens of millions.

i've even thought about trying to land a job someday (decades down the road, after I'm retired from the military and financially very secure from a 2nd career...if not to retirement age, at least to the point where I can work for not much money and not really care anymore) giving rides in warbirds, like those places down in FL where you can pay a few grand to take a hop in a Mustang or whatever.

[Edited on June 27, 2008 at 10:26 PM. Reason : asfads]

6/27/2008 10:23:22 PM

Hell yeah. I've said it many times, but I used to fly out of an airfield that did that. There were 2 hangars at the other end of the runway, one had 3 mustangs and the other had 3 T6s. It was a hell of a sight to see a pair of mustangs taking off together. There was also a MiG-21 down there undergoing restoration.

I'd been there a few years earlier while vacationing in Orlando to let my gf ride in a T6 and they'd actually had a hanger full of amazing old planes. Off the top of my head I can remember an almost complete B-17G, a B-25, a TBM Avenger, and a P38. I had no idea that it was a museum as well, so it was a hell of a feeling walking around the hangar door and being 10 feet in front of a flying fortress.

Sadly a hurricane came through, blew over the hangar and did a lot of damage to them. Fortunately they'd finished the B-17 and flown it out beforehand.

You should definitely check this out:
http://www.courtesyaircraft.com/
I beat to it often. The Sea Fury is actually the fastest single engine piston aircraft ever produced and you can find them for half the price of a mustang.

Also decent:
http://www.globalplanesearch.com/view/all/AllMI.htm

A lot of people have picked up used Czech L-39 jet trainers for fairly cheap, I've seen some under $150k. One day I got bored and read some NTSB reports on L-39 crashes and a good number involved some bizarre mechanical failure.

[Edited on June 27, 2008 at 11:32 PM. Reason : .]

6/27/2008 11:25:35 PM

yeah, L39s are relatively inexpensive, and L29s are cheap. The operating costs would still be prohibitive unless you were RICH, though.

where was this restoration facility? I toured a place like that in FL; I think it was somewhere near Orlando.

6/28/2008 12:31:17 AM

Kissimee Gateway, south of Orlando. Awesome airport, shitty town to inhabit.

Hopefully I'll be able to wrap up my real estate headache and be able to take 3 months to finish my CPL. Honestly, getting back in the air is one of my biggest concerns right now.

6/28/2008 3:04:15 AM

yep, i've been there. that place is awesome.

6/28/2008 1:12:36 PM

I think Id rather listen to my chemical romance than dos gringos

7/1/2008 12:13:38 AM