bush_cheney2004 Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 That's truely cool. My wife grew up in St Peter, btw. Then moved to Nome. Somebody had to keep their eyes on the Russians. Besides, there was nasty tornado damage at St. Peter in 1998....shredded bank checks from St. Peter rained in my yard over 100 miles away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted April 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 The De Havilland Beaver...yer typical Canuck bush plane. Did this often with the ol' man (take off from lakes). These were pretty common, too. Republic's Seabee. The Grumman Duck...older...never been in one but I've seen one or two @ fly-ins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted May 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 Il-76 needs allllllllllll the runway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted June 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Still a very Kick-Ass war machine. B-1B Lancer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDF4AJqkVqA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted July 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Good F-105 Thunderchief footage from Viet-Nam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 The Antonov An-225, world's biggest airplane. Only thing comparable was the Hercules H-4, which only ever flew once. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-225 Check out how tiny the Russian Space Shuttle looks sitting on it compared to the American one on the Boeing 747. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Buran_On_Antonov225.jpg http://pixdaus.com/single.php?id=107963&f=rs The thing's 6 engines and enormous landing gear just make it look like a total monster. And then there's experimental planes like the x-43. They are just cool from the point of view of an aerospace engineer, pushing the envelope further and further. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_X-43 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted July 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 The Antonov An-225, world's biggest airplane. Only thing comparable was the Hercules H-4, which only ever flew once. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-225 Check out how tiny the Russian Space Shuttle looks sitting on it compared to the American one on the Boeing 747. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Buran_On_Antonov225.jpg http://pixdaus.com/single.php?id=107963&f=rs The thing's 6 engines and enormous landing gear just make it look like a total monster. And then there's experimental planes like the x-43. They are just cool from the point of view of an aerospace engineer, pushing the envelope further and further. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_X-43 Saw the An-225 here once. It was bringing in dam turbines or something like that. Huge. Looked like it was sitting ON the airport. Re: The X-43. SCRAM jet stuff. One of the machines in 'Orbiter' has SCRAM jets and I'm pretty sure some fellow has already made a version of the X-43 on its own. I recall seeing a picture he posted or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted July 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Re: Buran.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Re: Buran.... It's really quite sad what happened with the Buran/Energia program. The Russian shuttle was a very capable and well designed machine, outperforming the Amercan one (in design capability) in just about every measurable aspect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted July 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 It's really quite sad what happened with the Buran/Energia program. The Russian shuttle was a very capable and well designed machine, outperforming the Amercan one (in design capability) in just about every measurable aspect. Bah. Their hearts weren't in it and it wasn't going to be very useful for them. The Soyuz soldiers on. Their one rocket, the R-7, is the most reliable booster on the planet. Why mess with a good thing? It's pretty much the same critter that blasted ol' Yuri into orbit. Before the An-225 carried the Buran, it was the task of the Mya-4 Bison. Now that was funny looking...and dangerous looking as well...and underpowered. http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/misc/ram/vm-t.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Bah. Their hearts weren't in it and it wasn't going to be very useful for them. The Soyuz soldiers on. Their one rocket, the R-7, is the most reliable booster on the planet. Why mess with a good thing? It's pretty much the same critter that blasted ol' Yuri into orbit. The Soyuz is indeed a great rocket, very reliable. But the Buran/Energia would have had vastly more lift capability, some of the proposed configurations right on par with the Ares 5 system the US is now starting to develop. If we had had that kind of lift capacity during ISS construction, the whole thing could have been up there in 2-4 launches, cutting costs drastically. Plus the thing was supposed to be able to fly to the moon and back as designed. Would have had plenty of applications, and they could have also raised tons of money by leasing it out to NASA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted July 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 The Soyuz is indeed a great rocket, very reliable. But the Buran/Energia would have had vastly more lift capability, some of the proposed configurations right on par with the Ares 5 system the US is now starting to develop. If we had had that kind of lift capacity during ISS construction, the whole thing could have been up there in 2-4 launches, cutting costs drastically. Plus the thing was supposed to be able to fly to the moon and back as designed. Would have had plenty of applications, and they could have also raised tons of money by leasing it out to NASA. The Energia is a fantastic heavy lift machine. Just that the Russians aren't doing too much heavy lifting. The Proton is much more practical a machine for most of the Russian's (and clients') heavyish payloads. Maybe if they get interested in the Moon or Mars... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 The Energia is a fantastic heavy lift machine. Just that the Russians aren't doing too much heavy lifting. The Proton is much more practical a machine for most of the Russian's (and clients') heavyish payloads.Maybe if they get interested in the Moon or Mars... Yah, that's what I'm saying, the waning of interest in actual space exploration is the sad part. Russia had big ambitions for space colonization once upon a time. Of course, given what they currently do and have been doing, the Energia would have been total overkill. But they could have been doing so much more Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted July 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 The US is a little shy on heavy-lift rockets at the moment. The Titan is gone now leaving what? The Atlas and the Delta? Here's the last Titan IV heavy going up...probably w/ a spy sat. Three views... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLO-IdGHf70 Love dat sound! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 I think the Delta IV Heavy is the heaviest lift launch vehicle presently available. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted July 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 I think you're right. It's still a pretty big rocket in the triple config...about the same ummmph as the Proton. Here's the first Delta IV heavy going up. Note how there was one or two hydrogen leaks near the RS-68's exhaust! (LOX/LH2 burners). I gather by the tight shot with the launch cam...they noticed, too! Here's a Proton going up for those who'd like a comparison... Note the exhaust flame on the Proton is almost invisible in daylight. This is the nature of its hypergolic fuels used in its six RD-253 engines...both pretty nasty chemicals (nitrogen tetroxide + unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine). When mixed, they burn with explosive force...no spark needed. Generally due to the unsafe nature of this type of fuel, it isn't used for manned launches. Only the old Gemini program and the Chinese Long March program use(d) them in the main booster. The STS and Soyuz use watered down versions of this type of fuel in their manuever thrusters, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted July 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 (edited) Here's a vid that claims to be an A-1 Skyraider. Looks more like a T-28 Trojan to me (at the start on the bomb run). Can anyone tell? Ignore the bleeding heart stuff @ the start. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-28_Trojan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-1_Skyraider Edited July 7, 2009 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 I want one of THESE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 (edited) Here's a vid that claims to be an A-1 Skyraider. Looks more like a T-28 Trojan to me (at the start on the bomb run). Can anyone tell? Ignore the bleeding heart stuff @ the start. Hard to say.....it has what appear to be the very distinctive hard points. "Spads" could take one helluva beating and still make it home. Edited July 9, 2009 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted July 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 (edited) Hard to say.....it has what appear to be the very distinctive hard points. "Spads" could take one helluva beating and still make it home.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcOvMQ17-i4 I noticed it has the hardpoints...but I thought not enough. The Trojan could haul quite a load as well (trainer or not) and South Viet-Nam used them quite a bit during the early part of the war (with US advisors helping, natch.). http://www.vnafmamn.com/photos/T28_color5.jpg http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0302/lb16.html Agreed...hard to say. Edited July 9, 2009 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 (edited) I noticed it has the hardpoints...but I thought not enough..... Looks like your original hunch may be correct depending on which scene from the movie "Rescue Dawn" is depicted: In real life, Dengler piloted an A-1J Skyraider. In the movie, it’s an A-1H. In real life, Dengler was spotted in the jungle by Air Force Lt. Col. (now retired Col.) Eugene Deatrick, an A-1E Skyraider pilot. In the movie, it’s a light plane. In real life, an HH-3E Jolly Green Giant helicopter rescued Dengler; in the movie, it’s a UH-1N Twin Huey painted with inaccurate U.S. markings. Air Force pararescue jumpers, who were at the scene of the real rescue, don’t figure in the movie. http://www.armytimes.com/community/opinion...on_dorr_070813/ But then we learn that the exact same US Dept of Defense BDA training film was used in "LITTLE DIETER NEEDS TO FLY", an earlier film than "Rescue Dawn". Edited July 9, 2009 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted July 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Better off with Bat 21 by the looks re: the movie Resue Dawn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Better off with Bat 21 by the looks re: the movie Resue Dawn. Yes....some productions take the time and spend the money to hire a technical consultant / advisor for continuity and silly anachronisms never making it to the final cut. For Hollywood it is just entertainment for the masses and quite passable at the box office. I just can't stomach F-5's being passed off as "MiGs !" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted July 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Yes....some productions take the time and spend the money to hire a technical consultant / advisor for continuity and silly anachronisms never making it to the final cut. For Hollywood it is just entertainment for the masses and quite passable at the box office. I just can't stomach F-5's being passed off as "MiGs !" Maverick: Tower, this is Ghost rider requesting a flyby. Air Boss Johnson: That's a negative Ghost rider, the pattern is full. You mean THAT movie?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 You mean THAT movie?? Especially that one ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.