Cold War Aviation Porn
- Thread starter JuanTwoThree
- Start date
DownwardDog
Riding a Brompton with a power meter.
Definitely Akrotiri. XS921 somehow survived whatever the fuck was going on there to be crashed by Craig Penrice into the North Sea which left him with injuries requiring 20-odd metal bits inserting into his body. He went on to become a Typhoon test pilot then broke his back ejecting (again!) from a Hunter.
StoneRoad
heckling from the back!
OK, I'll bite
Wot's that !
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
I usually recoil at the term ‘awesome’, but it seems very appropriate here
pogofish
Testicle Hairstyle
Its a Tupolev Tu-160 bomber. One of the very few instances where the USSR copying an American plane (the B1-Lancer) resulted in something faster and more capable than the original.
IIRC, over the last few years, Putin had all the remaining/serviceable TU-160s upgraded to very modern standards and more recently, restarted production - the first of the new planes entered service last year.
DownwardDog
Riding a Brompton with a power meter.
We used to get the much prized 'Blackjack' patch if we intercepted one in the F3. They always had one or more Il-78 in tow as they drank more than the Queen Mother.
spitfire
Walty McWaltface
That's not Concorde.
DownwardDog
Riding a Brompton with a power meter.
RNZAF buddy tanking A-4s. I presume nobody told 75 SQDN specifically not to do this and in the fighter pilot's credo that which is not forbidden is permitted.
DownwardDog
Riding a Brompton with a power meter.
Tu-16 air-to-air refuelling technique - the receiver is in front. When plugging in the pilot of the receiver couldn't see the probe on the port wingtip and relied on obvservations and instructions from other crew members. This worked about as well you'd expect and the Soviets crashed a lot of Badgers doing this.
StoneRoad
heckling from the back!
That looks somewhat dangerous / difficult to accomplish, wonder why they chose it over the simpler astern method ?Tu-16 air-to-air refuelling technique - the receiver is in front. When plugging in the pilot of the receiver couldn't see the probe on the port wingtip and relied on obvservations and instructions from other crew members. This worked about as well you'd expect and the Soviets crashed a lot of Badgers doing this.
A380
How do I change this 'custom title' thing then?
NATO's fault.
DownwardDog
Riding a Brompton with a power meter.
Less modification needed to the airframe possibly. The Soviets did it on multiple aircraft from the Tu-4 onward and for a long time...
A380
How do I change this 'custom title' thing then?
Does the hose have a u shaped end so the opening flys forwards?
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
Is it me or did the Phantom have insanely large air intakes, far more so than any other fighter about?
DownwardDog
Riding a Brompton with a power meter.
Each intake has to feed one engine on the F-4 so they are naturally going to be larger than single engine type. The inlets are of variable size being governed by the splitter plate in front of it. This was done to reduce inlet flow distortions at high speeds that could cause compressor stalls. Engines of that area did not have variable stator vanes or FADEC and so were vulnerable to stalls in certain (usually supersonic, high alpha) flight regimes.
Some British Phantoms (F-4K/FG1/FGR2 but NOT F-4J(UK)) had even larger inlets as they were modified at vast expense to make them slower and heavier by using the RR Spey engine in a job creation scheme by the British government.
