ADVrider

Go Back   ADVrider > Fluff > Shiny things
User Name
Password
Register Inmates Photos Site Rules Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 324 votes, 4.97 average. Display Modes
Old 10-10-2011, 07:33 AM   #2176
scottcolbath
Beastly Adventurer
 
scottcolbath's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2004
Location: The north edge of 85050
Oddometer: 6,716
We had our annual fly-in our at the Wickenburg airport. Since I'm on the airport commision, I got to park planes as all arrived in the morning. It was cool being a traffic cop for planes.

The coolest thing there was this 1930s Spartan Executive.





S.C.
scottcolbath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2011, 08:12 AM   #2177
I_FLY_LOW
Beastly Adventurer
 
I_FLY_LOW's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Oddometer: 2,593
That is a gorgeous plane!
I_FLY_LOW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2011, 08:36 AM   #2178
chazbird
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Oddometer: 3,301
I wonder how the Spartan compares performance wise with the Beech Staggerwing. Both are about the prettiest planes of the era, although the Spartan seems considerably more modern.
chazbird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2011, 08:41 AM   #2179
I_FLY_LOW
Beastly Adventurer
 
I_FLY_LOW's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Oddometer: 2,593
The pilot's prayer...


Oh controller, who sits in tower
Hallowed be thy sector.
Thy traffic come, thy instructions be done
On the ground as they are in the air.
Give us this day our radar vectors,
And forgive us our TCA incursions
As we forgive those who cut us off on final.
And lead us not into adverse weather,
But deliver us our clearances.
Roger
I_FLY_LOW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2011, 09:24 AM   #2180
scottcolbath
Beastly Adventurer
 
scottcolbath's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2004
Location: The north edge of 85050
Oddometer: 6,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by chazbird View Post
I wonder how the Spartan compares performance wise with the Beech Staggerwing. Both are about the prettiest planes of the era, although the Spartan seems considerably more modern.
The Spartan was one of nine planes in a 150 mile air race and it averaged 184 MPH, if that helps compare.

The first (beginning) race marker was just outside the airport. All planes took off once they saw the one in front of them lift off and get 50 feet between them and the ground. That put the start interval at about 45 seconds. Once away from the airport, they made a turn about 2 miles from the airport to come back over the first timing/race marker where they offically began the timed race.

I watched as the Spartan blow past the plane that took off in front of it (Cessna 182 P) right over the start marker. That thing could move along.

S.C.
scottcolbath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2011, 10:27 AM   #2181
wannaklr
Beastly Adventurer
 
wannaklr's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2006
Location: Back In Iowa. Quad Cities to be exactish..
Oddometer: 7,278
Interesting article on extending the B-52's lifespan. I was a little shocked to see we only had 76 left.


http://www.gizmag.com/b52-upgrade/20098/?utm_source=Gizmag+Subscribers&utm_campaign=693148fa0f-UA-2235360-4&utm_medium=email
__________________
Back in Iowa!
I like my music like I like my women. Loud, angry and with bagpipes!

From Scottie Boy "If you calculated the money spent versus time actually used, vaginas cost more per hour than the space shuttle."
wannaklr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2011, 10:45 AM   #2182
I_FLY_LOW
Beastly Adventurer
 
I_FLY_LOW's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Oddometer: 2,593
That's pretty interesting.
It is interesting, also, that you don't see much of anything coming out to replace it, in it's size, or capacity.
You see several stealth fighter concepts coming, plus the B-2, and a few newer transport planes, but no long range, high capacity bombers.
Long live the B-52.
I_FLY_LOW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2011, 09:33 PM   #2183
Gimpinator
This is my Mom's cat
 
Gimpinator's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2004
Location: Chillin' in da LB
Oddometer: 1,083
Quote:
Originally Posted by wannaklr View Post
Interesting article on extending the B-52's lifespan. I was a little shocked to see we only had 76 left.


http://www.gizmag.com/b52-upgrade/20098/?utm_source=Gizmag+Subscribers&utm_campaign=693148fa0f-UA-2235360-4&utm_medium=email

The article mentions that the B-52's nickname BUFF stands for Big Ugly Fat Fellow. Not quite
__________________
"Son, I thought by now you would have run out of stupid."
Gimpinator is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2011, 10:28 AM   #2184
EvilGenius OP
1.5 Finger Discount
 
EvilGenius's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Location: DFW, Texas
Oddometer: 20,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by I_FLY_LOW View Post
That's pretty interesting.
It is interesting, also, that you don't see much of anything coming out to replace it, in it's size, or capacity.
You see several stealth fighter concepts coming, plus the B-2, and a few newer transport planes, but no long range, high capacity bombers.
Long live the B-52.
I think they're a relic left over from the cold war and an era of older tactics.

They've been updated well and are very capable at what they're designed for, but the leap in weapons (bomb) technology we've made over the last 10-20 years means it's just not necessary to continue building giant hi-cap bombers when one or two small fighters or ground support aircraft could get the same job done.
__________________
"Try turning that burn into torque. Then we're getting somewhere. Riding the potato to work seems quite impractical." - anotherguy

"Never bring a Nerf gun to a shovel fight." - My Brother
EvilGenius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2011, 01:12 PM   #2185
Flying-D
Just Passing Through
 
Flying-D's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2010
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO
Oddometer: 2,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilGenius View Post
I think they're a relic left over from the cold war and an era of older tactics.

They've been updated well and are very capable at what they're designed for, but the leap in weapons (bomb) technology we've made over the last 10-20 years means it's just not necessary to continue building giant hi-cap bombers when one or two small fighters or ground support aircraft could get the same job done.
...not to mention missile technology...
__________________
It's really all just stuff...and in the end, none of it means shit.
Flying-D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2011, 02:03 PM   #2186
chazbird
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Oddometer: 3,301
Maybe there is a twisted psychological advantage of using a giant aircraft, however outdated, that will "carpet bomb" or "bomb people back to the stone age" - terms and actions, that have actually been said and employed. A goodly portion of war and hostilities are oriented towards various presenting levels of fear before an attack, whether stealth (drones) or a bigger hammer (B-52) I in no way condone mass war making, but for what it is worth the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong feared nothing more than a B52 strike.
chazbird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2011, 02:04 PM   #2187
Gernick
Beastly Adventurer
 
Gernick's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Location: Far Western New York
Oddometer: 3,615
And drones. Course the B-52 and B-1 can carry a hell of a lot of JDAM's and loiter over a target area for a long time providing CAS.
Gernick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2011, 05:43 PM   #2188
BillsR100
Happy Paleoflatus
 
BillsR100's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Location: Edmond, Oklahoma
Oddometer: 2,848
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilGenius View Post
I think they're a relic left over from the cold war and an era of older tactics.

They've been updated well and are very capable at what they're designed for, but the leap in weapons (bomb) technology we've made over the last 10-20 years means it's just not necessary to continue building giant hi-cap bombers when one or two small fighters or ground support aircraft could get the same job done.
Also, we may have made a lot of progress over the years, that's very true, but air launched cruise missiles dont have unlimited range so the B52H makes for a great mobile launch platform. The B52 pretty much makes up one third of the SIOP "triad".
BillsR100 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2011, 08:05 PM   #2189
Heyload
Remastered Classic
 
Heyload's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Location: San Antonio
Oddometer: 7,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillsR100 View Post
Also, we may have made a lot of progress over the years, that's very true, but air launched cruise missiles dont have unlimited range so the B52H makes for a great mobile launch platform. The B52 pretty much makes up one third of the SIOP "triad".
Pfffft, cruise missle, schmooz missle...can it launch an ICBM?

ICBM launch from C-5 Galaxy
__________________
"Would you care for some left-over bacon?"...said no man, ever.

When life gives you melons, you might be dyslexic.
Heyload is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2011, 11:09 AM   #2190
wannaklr
Beastly Adventurer
 
wannaklr's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2006
Location: Back In Iowa. Quad Cities to be exactish..
Oddometer: 7,278
That is pretty cool!

Love to be the pilot. "Yep, launched an ICBM today out the back of my plane."
__________________
Back in Iowa!
I like my music like I like my women. Loud, angry and with bagpipes!

From Scottie Boy "If you calculated the money spent versus time actually used, vaginas cost more per hour than the space shuttle."
wannaklr is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Share

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


Times are GMT -7.   It's 11:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ADVrider 2011-2014