http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5001414.stm

hahaha

1/14/2015 5:37:53 PM

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/stupid-move-navy-will-buy-v-22-ospreys-to-replace-its-1679559201

Opinions?

1/14/2015 7:25:55 PM

Quote :

"Eventually, all the "opportunity cost debits" of procuring less than optimum platforms for many missions will add up into a diminishing return on investment when it comes to America's extremely costly Carrier Strike Groups. It is not a matter of questioning if they the most capable carrier groups in the world, but one of questioning if could they be even more capable and thus a better investment for the tax payer if the Navy purchased, or at least stopped retiring aircraft that were built to be the best at their individual mission sets? In other words, is it worth it to spend a little more, when you are already spending a ton, to get a lot more potency even if your force is already the most potent in the world? This debate will certainly rage on, and the Navy's next COD will be a central part of it, as the C-2's replacement will have a much larger impact on the Carrier Strike Group's overall capability than just ensuring that sailors get their mail in a timely manner. "

He really hits the nail on the head here. What the author fails to realize is the reality of DoD acuquisitions. It's a rediculiously complex process, with multiple players who don't always have purely military goals. (IE: Congressman who want parts built in their district) Also, I'm under the impression that the MV-22 isn't doing quite what the Marine Corps wanted, so they're ordering less of them. The problem is that the DoN probably bought so many, so they're trying to find a use for them. So although the V-22 is not necessarily the most efficient choice from an operational/logistics prospective, it solves (or at least adresses) the problem of the aging C-2A Fleet.
The negative aspects he talks about with the V-22 vice the C-2 have all been identified by the C-2 guys I know, so I feel like he's done his research. My understanding (although I haven't measured myself) is that the MV-22, even when folded, won't fit in the hangar bay of a Nimitz (CVN-68 through 77) OR Ford (CVN 78) class Carrier, which significantly changes the maintence requirements should one break on the flight deck.
The S-3/C-3 transition sounds like a great idea and it sounds like it'd work really well, but [Defense Acuquisitions].
To me the real solution is taking the E-2Cs that are being sun-downed for the E-2D, and ripping everything out of them and calling them the C-2E. But there are so many problems with the idea of the CVSG model that one airplane hardly does anything. Just my $.02.

1/14/2015 9:54:30 PM

As a culture, I have always felt the same way. We Americans like to re-design things that don't really need to be re-designed. I've always wondered why car companies didn't rebuild the same models from year-to-year.
For example the classic VW bug was revamped into this bubble thing. Why didn't they just take the 1974 model and build it from scratch again with new production parts?
I understand supply-chain models and improving safety standards, but this is an extreme example.
Military equipment could most certainly fit in this standard.
The image I project is the deadly sharpshooter cowboy with the same model pistol from the old westerns that he's had all his life. He doesn't need a new weapon, and he shoots fine. So why does the USA?
We should be taking old tried and tested designs with high success rates and rolling them off the assembly line again, except now they're just new.
What's wrong with a 1989 prototype relaunched in 2014?

1/15/2015 1:28:52 AM

^^ While the power plant system is the same and airframe are about 70% compatible converting E-2C to a transport plane isn't feasible. It's not as wide and it would take a huge airframe change to put a ramp on it. Plus a number of other things. But I agree they had a prime opportunity to create a completely compatible airframe when they designed the E-2D.

As someone who supports the E-2/C-2 programs I would hate to see the Navy not come up with some kind of plan to save the Greyhound

[Edited on January 15, 2015 at 9:01 PM. Reason : .]

1/15/2015 8:58:06 PM

Got my PPL! Took a longish trip through the desert to AZ to celebrate. Got a couple of hours in a Citabria now working towards Tailwheel.

Anyone flown a Mooney? Particuarly Duke? I've flown in (as a pilot not including dodgy jump planes): C172, Citabria, Remos GX, Allegro, Piper Aztec, RV7A. The Mooney seems like the best value to me in terms of how far you can go for the dollar.

1/29/2015 1:29:30 AM

Taildraggers for life!

1/29/2015 9:41:46 AM

Anyone seen the video of the prop plane that went down today in Taiwan...crazy stall into the bridge and river...amazed anyone survived at all

2/4/2015 8:28:15 AM

http://flightclub.jalopnik.com/turbulence-from-a-blackhawk-helicopter-flips-a-small-pl-1683311528/
Wild video. Crazy how long the down wash an issue.

2/4/2015 9:31:40 AM

Quote :

"Anyone seen the video of the prop plane that went down today in Taiwan...crazy stall into the bridge and river...amazed anyone survived at all "

it looks like his left engine didn't feather which leads me (and 12 "analysists" on CNN) to believe he either stalled or he got into VMCair and rolled it over. Or both.

2/4/2015 7:38:47 PM

^^ Yep, helicopters are BAD BAD BAD for turbulence, especially if they've been hovering or taking off/landing. There was a bad crash near maybe about a year ago, where a CH-53's (huge heavy lift helo) rotor wash caused the crash of a light civil airplane that got too close (I think it was even a few hundred yards away, but I might be wrong). I hear that Ospreys are REALLY bad, too.

I am not going anywhere even remotely close to where a helicopter has been for quite a while in a light civil airplane.

2/4/2015 8:19:12 PM

This is a very good article at an unclassified and relatively approachable for the layman level about Pierre Sprey's viral hit piece on the F-35 that I commented on a page or two ago:

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/pierre-spreys-anti-f-35-diatribe-is-half-brilliant-and-1592445665

There is very, very little in that article that I disagree with. Actually, I'm not sure there's anything I disagree with-there is a thing or two that I'm as of now unconvinced of.

2/11/2015 8:35:46 PM

Mr. Joshua,

Regarding the COD, I'm not versed enough in that one to really take a side. I will comment on this one line from your article, though:

Although the Greyhound is faster, flies much higher, is pressurized, has a much larger cargo hold capable of carrying the latest fighter jet engines and has a much longer range

They probably mean Super Hornet engines. A baffling little piece of information for you is that neither the COD nor the Osprey can internally carry an F-35 engine. As of now, I think the only option is to sling it externally on an Osprey or Shitter (CH-53), which apparently only is viable in good weather, and I'm certain would only be doable for fairly short ranges. Good fucking luck if the boat is way out in blue water ops. I don't know if this was some Machiavellian move to force DoD's hand into an acquisitions/upgrade program, like pulling the S-3 out of the boneyard and building new fuselages for it that can make it a kickass COD/recovery tanker, or if it was just another case of not figuring out the most simple, day-1 shit until a decade into a program.

(another example would be the overly outwardly canted pylons on the Super Hornets that impose a huge drag penalty, making it more or less a subsonic 4.5 gen fighter in the real world... ...or fighting for years to outfit the USMC EA-6Bs with a LITENING pod that, once we got, we almost never used because in Iraq and Afghanistan, we basically couldn't jam and use the pod at the same time very effectively, and generally, we'd rather have the extra jamming pod, a HARM, or more gas, anyway.)

oh, and speaking of the S-3s in the boneyard...The last S-3 combat deployment happened during my first deployment in the EA-6B. They were at Al Asad Air Base with us in 2008, and the last of the fleet was retired when they returned home. Even at the time, I couldn't for the life of me figure out why in the fuck they would retire that airplane then. It had good sensor capabilities, could carry a huge variety of weapons, sipped fuel miserly--always important, as they could stay on station for a long time without leaving, and didn't tax the zero-sum air refueling capabilities so much, freeing up gas for other players. It seemed to me that they were way better at 95% of those missions than all the fighters doing it, and they sundowned them right in the middle of TWO wars where they seemed to be a near-perfect solution.


So much shit, at least in a low-intensity conflict, seems to be driven by long-term procurement and funding desires...we need to make this airplane look good, we need to downplay the effectiveness of this one, we need to wear this one the fuck out so it can be replaced, etc. That, and high ranking brass prioritizing things that are easily quantified and understood even when it might not be the best idea, especially when faced with zero-sum limitations like troop # caps or number of tankers airborne. An example would be having ever-increasing shitloads of fighters and B-1s in country to drive TIC response times down from 5.2 minutes to 4.9 minutes or whatever (which looks good on evals), rather than bringing in more surveillance and electronic warfare assets, for example, that were stretched thin and could hopefully make a significant, but hard to quantify, impact.

[Edited on February 11, 2015 at 9:34 PM. Reason : ]

2/11/2015 9:09:04 PM

Holy shit, this blows my mind:

http://aviationintel.com/disgrace-navys-f-35b-carrier/



(also, I never knew that the F-22 wasn't equipped with JHMCS. What. In. The. Fuck?)

2/11/2015 9:40:15 PM

Quote :

"nor the Osprey can internally carry an F-35 engine"

http://aviationweek.com/defense/bell-tests-v-22-jsf-engine-carrying-capability

Quote :

"Also, I'm under the impression that the MV-22 isn't doing quite what the Marine Corps wanted, so they're ordering less of them."

I support the V-22 from the engineering side of the house and last week the PMA-275 boss spoke to some of the senior engineers about the state of the platform. Your comment is 180 degrees out of phase. The Marines and AF love the platform and are using it at a tempo that the engineering community basically can't keep up with now that nuances are being revealed on an airframe that has 250k+ hours on it. The readiness still isn't quite where it needs to be but it is being improved all the time.

2/11/2015 10:14:25 PM

Another issue I see with the V-22 is the disruption of carrier operations. C-2 lands and taxis out of the way. Where on the carrier are they planning on landing the V-22? I'm not too knowledeable about the V-22 carrier operations, but I'm going to guess that they are going to have to get a tractor out and tow it out of the way? Same thing for vertical lift, where is that fucker taking off from? I'm going to guess the deck is going to have to be cleared, or mostly cleared for that beast to take off.

2/11/2015 11:05:19 PM

My brother is working on his pilot license and has done his first solo flight. I was wondering if any one had any affordable gift ideas $50-$100?

2/12/2015 1:06:26 PM

there's tons of stuff, depending on what equipment he may already have.

flight computer, kneeboard, headsets, mobile device apps (if he uses such tech with flying), etc.

I always to shop here: http://www.sportys.com/PilotShop

there's also the boring shit that a pilot always needs updates on: charts, AFDs, etc. Though he's likely current on most/all of those. Gift card...

[Edited on February 12, 2015 at 1:27 PM. Reason : .]

2/12/2015 1:26:01 PM

iPad Mini with LTE (for the GPS, not the actual LTE) or iPad with auxiliary GPS puck plus ForeFlight app is a game changer. Obviously the iPad is outside of your price range, but the ForeFlight software or the external GPS receiver (if he has a WiFI only iPad already, but no GPS receiver) are in the $75-100 range.

They make iPad kneeboards. I'm not sure how much they cost.

On the lower end, a set of gel ear cushions and cloth covers for his headset are worthwhile if he has a basic, lower-end headset.



I never used that stuff in the military...it wasn't rated (at that time) for use in ejection-seat aircraft or for navigation. When I was teaching students in the T-39, I didn't use it because I wanted to be doing everything the same way as the student was. Flying around now just for fun, it's usually in a Cub, and rarely do I carry any gear or charts or anything but a headset...

...but if I was going to actually GO somewhere in a light civil airplane, I would want an iPad + ForeFlight. I would buy one just for the trip. They are legit. I've been to Oshkosh a couple of times, and you would be amazed at how many really nice homebuilt airplanes have an instrument panel that consists of altimeter and airspeed gauges, engine instruments, and a recessed spot to mount an iPad right in the middle.



* if he doesn't have an iPad, the consensus is that iPad Mini is the best size for most people, and it's worth it to get the LTE version and a data plan, so you can get [near] real-time weather and so you don't have to buy the external GPS receiver.

[Edited on February 12, 2015 at 4:16 PM. Reason : ]

2/12/2015 4:10:37 PM

Quote :

"Another issue I see with the V-22 is the disruption of carrier operations. C-2 lands and taxis out of the way. Where on the carrier are they planning on landing the V-22? I'm not too knowledeable about the V-22 carrier operations, but I'm going to guess that they are going to have to get a tractor out and tow it out of the way? Same thing for vertical lift, where is that fucker taking off from? I'm going to guess the deck is going to have to be cleared, or mostly cleared for that beast to take off. "

The V-22 doesn't disrupt the carrier any more than the C-2 although I would have thought the same thing if I weren't working on the flight deck all the time now. We always land the C-2 last becuase a jet that has just taxied out of the LA or one spotted on CAT 2, fouls the LA for a Prop. (It's an exaust issue) Also, if the C-2 has DV's on it we park it in the LA. The MV-22 lands (and takes off) on LA centerline and so it will still land last. Also we can keep it there while we launch provided we have a place to taxi it to free up the LA if there's an inflight emergency. The C-2 is easier to taxi off and park because of how the wings fold, but I don't think that's a particularly big impact, if the Deck Caller plans appropriately.

2/27/2015 2:41:19 PM

Clint Eastwood got a lot of praise for his well-executed crash landing

3/11/2015 12:31:41 PM

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/broken-booms-why-is-it-so-hard-to-develop-procure-a-1698725648/+travis

4/26/2015 6:17:32 PM

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/heres-your-go-to-graphic-to-understand-the-usmcs-aircra-1707011460

For more: http://cigeography.blogspot.fr/

5/27/2015 8:57:28 AM

I can't remember if I posted this somewhere else on here or not:

6/1/2015 11:18:59 PM

^Nice. Hopefully one day I can fix up my grandfathers Supercruiser and make some videos with my GoPro.

6/4/2015 7:30:55 PM

^^ Where do you operate out of?

6/7/2015 10:42:36 AM

Mostly Ferguson (82J).

BTW, be careful with YouTube while on active duty. I saw an FFPB happen partly due to YouTube, over some totally legal, harmless shit.

6/7/2015 1:45:36 PM

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-f-35-cant-beat-the-plane-its-replacing-in-a-dogfigh-1714712248

6/29/2015 8:27:37 PM

I think the F-35 has problems. The broader program certainly has major problems. That this is even a discussion is a problem; a 5th-gen fighter ought to beat a 4th-gen fighter handily, period.

That said, WVR isn't really what this jet is most keenly focused on, and the Vipers would probably not make it to the merge against an F-35 to begin with most of the time, and even if they did, modern off-boresight dogfight missiles (AIM-9X, Archer, Python, etc) will likely end things very quickly most of the time.

On top of that, it's not necessarily a death sentence to not match your opponent in energy state. 1 vs 1 in the visual arena, a Hornet is an absolute bastard to fight against, because it will keep trying to drive the fight "1-circle" (a slow-speed turning fight in which nose authority and the ability to fly slower and turn tighter win), and it will never come close to a Viper in terms of energy--the Viper will out-accelerate it, out climb it, and turn harder, but it doesn't necessarily matter 1 vs 1.

Where being an "energy fighter" is advantageous is in a fight with numerous good guys and numerous bad guys all in the visual arena. I don't think this would ever happen against our F-35s other than against China or maybe Russia, but hey...4th gen stuff would crush anyone else, anyway. In those "many vs many" WVR scenarios, the slow & tight fighter that's so tough to beat 1 vs 1 might kill the shit out of one bandit, only to immediately get smoked by his wingman due to being slow and with few options coming out of round 1.



Of course, my guess is that F-35 pilots would just not fight anyone that could hang with him WVR. My guess is that's a fight they'd avoid; they'd run away and turn back in for a BVR shot where they hold all the cards. The only problem would be a threat aircraft that is either stealthy enough or has good enough EW to deny a BVR shot, not having weapons loaded/remaining to take a BVR shot, or maybe an unsuccesfull bug-out against something like a Flanker that is fast as shit and carries a ton of fuel.



Short version: I think the F-35, fully developed, would be a monstrously tough aircraft to fight against air-to-air, even if it's only shooting par or so in the WVR arena by 4th-gen standards. The problem is more that it still seems to be a far cry from what it should be--a 5th-gen leap forward in pretty much all aspects.

I'm not exactly disputing that article...I'm just saying that there is more to that discussion than the layperson would understand, and the article ignores that completely.

[Edited on June 29, 2015 at 11:20 PM. Reason : ]

6/29/2015 11:19:42 PM

I was wondering how often dogfights really happen anymore, too.

6/30/2015 12:42:41 AM

In video games i used to crush people in dog fights with my a-10... mostly because they'd be going so fast they'd have lock and lose it in split second as they flew by and once they got slow enough to play in my world they didn't have enough air going over their control surfaces to do anything. (truthfully had they have know it they would have flown as far from me as possible and just started firing missiles)

(#the games are real)

I think this is an apples to oranges comparison though because compared to everyone else the f-35 will gain lock long before the enemy is visible.

6/30/2015 8:26:49 AM

I mean, if you go 1-circle (or into the flat scissors) with the 'Hog, you're going to die. I expect the average gamer doesn't think to use lots of vertical, or push for 2-circle flow, or disengage and turn back in for the Fox-3, or know/understand/utilize E-M diagrams and corner speed (and that's all assuming that the game's physics models are accurate).

Most modern fighters have a strong suit; you have to know your airplane and know each individual threat aircraft, and where you each hold the advantage. These advantages are often small, maybe a degree or two per second in turn rate, for example, and then only at certain speeds.

Of course, with helmet-mounted sights and high-off boresite dogfight missiles, nowadays they can just look at each other over their shoulders and shoot each other most anywhere.

[Edited on July 2, 2015 at 8:02 PM. Reason : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_fighter_maneuvers]

7/2/2015 8:01:16 PM

Holy shit: http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/this-is-the-lowest-fastest-flyby-yet-by-a-crazy-libyan-1715828711

7/5/2015 2:35:48 PM

Haha as they say, you can only tie the record.

7/5/2015 4:23:06 PM

I don't wanna own my own plane or anything, but I've decided I wanna fly.

Are there a lot of restrictions on who can qualify for a private pilot's license?

Or are there people I can pay to take me up in one of those two-seater thingies when I feel like being in the sky?

7/5/2015 5:53:04 PM

Few of those people seemed awful close

7/5/2015 5:53:59 PM

^^ i don't know the numbers, but my gut feeling is that a solid majority of private pilots don't own an airplane. renting is totally normal.

of those who do own, a significant number own via a partnership with another pilot (or several pilots).

if you just want to go ride around every once in a while, the FBO at any local airport can probably do that...many flight schools also offer "orientation flights" or whatever, where you can go up for a little bit and see what you think.

Getting your private pilot's license will probably cost, I don't know, probably $5000 (most of that is aircraft rental, but also ground school, instructor pay, etc). Renting an airplane will be on the order of $100-120/hour after that when you want to go fly.


The only real requirements are medical and maybe citizenship/legal residence or something? They checked some identification stuff (it's some law passed post 9/11, I think). The FAA medical is pretty simple if you don't have any serious health issues. If you do, you'll have to check to see if it's disqualifying. It's no ridiculous physical like an initial military flight physical or anything...if you don't have any serious health issue, you should be fine.

7/5/2015 10:30:11 PM

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/f-16-collides-with-small-aircraft-over-south-carolina-1716248593

7/7/2015 1:54:37 PM

^^I'ma PM you for a couple deets.

7/8/2015 12:34:31 AM

FF to 3:08 for the money shot. That thing is freaking gorgeous.



^ I'm giving that a 2/10 on the subtle scale

8/1/2015 7:03:46 PM

The medical for class three, what a Private Pilot needs, is basically just $160 and the doctor asking if you can see or if are you on drugs.

8/1/2015 11:00:48 PM

^^? I wasn't trying to say anything weird, I don't think.

^Sweet.

8/2/2015 7:51:12 PM

9th plane crash by Russian Air Force at an airshow this weekend. This time is was a Mi-28N and it was all caught on great video.

https://youtu.be/6s8Ahcxg84g

8/2/2015 9:15:49 PM

nice pics here - http://flightclub.jalopnik.com/today-is-national-aviation-day-so-show-us-your-favorit-1725038412

8/20/2015 2:34:16 PM

incredible landing...

12/5/2015 6:07:10 AM

Drove my Lotus clone for about 45 minutes to the airport today...took off and took a few trips around the pattern in a Legend Cub (wheel landing to grass, wheel landing to pavement, 3-pointer in the grass) to keep my tailwheel proficiency up. Logged a 0.2, haha.

...then hopped into a Warrior with a CFI to start familiarizing myself with that airplane so I can get checked out in it. Flew around for a while, and then started working on landings (I kept not flaring enough or early enough...the controls are so truck-ish, and the sight picture is just so different from the Cub I've been flying for the last year).

...then drove the Lotus clone home.

...and I didn't even have to use my AK.

12/5/2015 9:33:21 PM

New little r/c plane I built: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2560013

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKW0Y-QenGw

woo!

[Edited on December 23, 2015 at 12:59 AM. Reason : not sure if you guys pay attention to the r/c thread]

12/23/2015 12:41:13 AM

http://gawker.com/was-the-bagram-airfield-plane-crash-of-2013-an-act-of-t-1708480052

I'm not sure if i saw this in the thread or not but interesting read.

1/14/2016 9:08:55 AM

So I've been kicking around the idea of buying an RV-4, or maybe a partnership in an RV-4, maybe next year. The appeal is that it does everything decently: not too expensive, fairly fast, decent range and decent XC platform, aerobatic enough for my purposes, has a passenger seat.

If you could rent any cool shit, I'd be much less inclined to buy an airplane...there's a nice, new Super Decathlon for rent at my FBO, but it's fucking expensive and more importantly, they don't rent it solo due to insurance.

Well, apparently there's a dude with a Pitts S2B (IO-540, fuel-injected 260 hp, 2-seat, 4-aileron Pitts) hangared there who is thinking about making a small flying club arrangement for the Pitts (either that or just renting it or selling shares of it). That might be a game changer, depending on the price and details of the arrangement! I could just fly the Pitts or rent the Cub if I wanted to go play around for fun, or a Warrior, 172, or Arrow to actually go somewhere.

Part of me thinks having the keys to a hot Pitts would be awesome. Part of me thinks that they have a white-knuckle reputation on landing for a reason.

10/25/2016 10:43:21 PM

A friend has an RV4, it's pretty cramped for the passenger. If a normal sized passenger is a requirement I'd go for a 6, 7, or 8. All of them do aerobatics and fullfill the fast requirement. I've flown a 6 and a 7 personally. The 7 has an SB about the wings developing cracks, so I'd lean more towards the 6--they are half as expensive anyway.

I have a spreadsheet in Google Sheets with the costs for about 100 different planes. I've been looking to buy for like 2 years and haven't pulled the trigger yet. Cost for ownership on RVs is definitely the best.

[Edited on October 26, 2016 at 9:37 PM. Reason : a]

10/26/2016 9:26:23 PM