The Airplane Thread

[vreihen16]

Originally Posted by ezaircon4jc

Throw a crowbar out the window and beat it to the ground.

Is there a secret code or handshake between check ride instructors and ATC to request the most difficult route possible as part of the test?????

[Lady Jane]

Originally Posted by ezaircon4jc

Throw a crowbar out the window and beat it to the ground.

For some reason, I was expecting something more technical.

[Lady Jane]

Fast and low.

[Llarry]

Tomcat Thursday!

(VF-124 "Gunfighters" was the Pacific Fleet training unit for F-14s.)

[Llarry]

Here's a USAF MC-130J coming in for a landing. Lots of extra antennas on this one -- notably terrain-following/terrain avoidance radar just above the nose radar.

[Llarry]

A USN adversary A-4E "Red 15" in an attractive scheme, 1987.

[ezaircon4jc]

Originally Posted by Llarry

Here's a USAF MC-130J coming in for a landing. Lots of extra antennas on this one -- notably terrain-following/terrain avoidance radar just above the nose radar.

I used to get a kick out of the terrain avoidance alerting with aircraft downwind over Malibu at 6K for 6L @ LAX. The MVA over Malibu id 4K, so there's no reason the alert should have happened. On a weirder, FAA/gummint only thing, the MVA offshore Malibu is 3K for 3 miles, then 2K! I'm pretty sure no wave (unless it's the one in Poseidon Adventure) is 1500' high!



(MVA, minimum vector altitude. The minimum altitude I can vector aircraft to clear obstacles by 500')

[Llarry]

Here's a rare airplane, now mostly forgotten: The Curtiss XP-40Q. The Q model was Curtiss' effort to update the P-40 when P-38s, P-47s and P-51s dominated the Army Air Forces fighter units. But the P-40's time had passed.

[Llarry]

Soviet Tu-16 (NATO Badger) bombers used a wingtip aerial refueling method, as shown here.

[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by Llarry

Soviet Tu-16 (NATO Badger) bombers used a wingtip aerial refueling method, as shown here.

How does that even work?

R.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by flybigjet

How does that even work?

I haven't a clue. I think more recent Russians use probe and drogue like the Navy.

[vreihen16]

Originally Posted by flybigjet

How does that even work?

Not well, apparently:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial...g#Wing-to-wing

[V1_ROT8]

Originally Posted by flybigjet

Shack.

Fully qualified back into the left seat.

Qual leg was LAX-LAS. 45 min takeoff to touchdown. Running late due to being late CUN-LAX. Weight and balance issue on taxi-out, takeoff data issues. ATC kept us high and fast to a slam dunk. Black hole runway. Gusty winds.

It's *always* the check ride leg innit?

R.

Congrats!

The POI at my previous airline loved to do initial captain rides on a turn with 25-30 min legs and a scheduled 30 minute ground turn. So 30 minutes to semi-debrief first captain, check paperwork and brief with next captain, along with all the other work that goes in to turning a revenue flight. As an LCA it was VERY busy. I get that the POI wanted to get the check rides done as fast as possible, but damn. Luckily he couldn’t care less if we blocked out on time for the return leg. I’m sure the airline and the station hated it, though, as we were rarely on time. 🤪

[Lady Jane]

Historical trivia:

[Llarry]

Nice shot of a B-1B with shock wave

[Llarry]

As posted previously here, Korean Aerospace Industries is having some success in selling their T-50 trainer and FA-50/TA-50 light fighter/attack aircraft.

The big sale went to the Polish Air Force, which was alarmed by the Russian invasion of Ukraine and wanted to increase combat power quickly. KAI appeared to be the fastest route to aircraft procurement and Poland is buying 48 to augment their F-16 and F-35 fighters.

The Philippines is also in a precarious geopolitical situation; they bought one squadron worth (12) FA-50PHs years ago and are now planning to buy a second batch of 12.

The T/TA-50 appears to be an excellent trainer or light attack aircraft, but how it would fare in combat against an opponent with Flankers is another matter.

[Llarry]

As most Navy veterans know, during the Cold War days, U.S. Navy ships -- particularly carriers with their nuclear strike capability -- were overflown by Soviet Navy long-range aircraft; usually Tupolev Tu-95 Bear D or Tu-142 Bear antisubmarine aircraft. The Bears would come out in pairs and usually one would stand off a bit while one came in close to visually identify the USN ships.

The standing Navy policy was that if Soviet aircraft approached the U.S. ships, they would be intercepted well before arriving and escorted by Navy fighters. After all, if the encounter was the opening to World War III, we were not going to let them sink one of our aircraft carriers without a fight.

Here's an F-14A of VF-114 "Aardvarks", then operating from the USS Enterprise (CVN 65), escorting a Tu-95 Bear D in the vicinity of the battle group.

[3.0L]

Almost beat the Wright Brothers.

[M-technik-3]

Phantom F4-X what could have been. Cheaper than F15 initially, better performance but not exportable.



https://www.historynet.com/fastest-phantom-f-4x/


Granted what happened is Israel came up with the F4-S

[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by M-technik-3

Phantom F4-X what could have been. Cheaper than F15 initially, better performance but not exportable.



https://www.historynet.com/fastest-phantom-f-4x/


Granted what happened is Israel came up with the F4-S

Quick read with a bit more detail.....

https://www.historynet.com/fastest-phantom-f-4x/

R.

[ezaircon4jc]

Originally Posted by 3.0L

Almost beat the Wright Brothers.

To death!

[Lady Jane]

Originally Posted by ezaircon4jc

Approach...

Crow bar, hawk bar or pigeon bar approach? Your thoughts...?