siznaudin

This was the best I could come up with ... but a bit too slow.[ATTACH=full]1874[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]18458[/ATTACH]

So it's to be hoped that this topic can now be put to bed.

Hi SP ...

It's obvious that we're talking about two separate items here - (1)the video, for which I'm not going to make a case, and (2)the actual incident - the video may well be BS, but not the incident.

And to close - where, exactly, did I suggest that "everything you read on the net is true" ? Chill out: this supposed to be a friendly forum, if you weren't aware of the fact.

Agreed, and so many RC model aircraft have just that excess of power than the real thing.

The flying brick comment I heard made by a now deceased ex WW2 veteran pal who saw them in Oz when we were leasing them prior to the F-111's becoming available.

Mind you, his experience was on C class flying boats and Martin Mariners, so the Phantoms were in another realm altogether.

Yes, well I guess you're right, and Wikipedia isn't, then. However ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F15_eagle#Notable_accidents

Or if you can't be bothered hitting the link, read on...

• On 1 May 1983, during an Israeli Air Force training dogfight, an F-15D collided with a Douglas A-4 Skyhawk. Unknown to pilot Zivi Nedivi and his copilot, the right wing of the Eagle was sheared off roughly two feet (60 cm) from the fuselage. The A-4 disintegrated and its pilot ejected and parachuted to safety, while the F-15 nosed down and entered a violent roll. Zivi decided to attempt recovery and engaged afterburner to increase speed, allowing him to regain control of the aircraft. The pilot was able to prevent stalling and maintain control because of the lift generated by the large horizontal surface area of the fuselage, the stabilators, and remaining wing areas. The F-15 landed at twice the normal speed to maintain the necessary descent and its tailhook was torn off during the landing. Zivi managed to bring his F-15 to a complete stop approximately 20 ft (6 m) from the end of the runway. He was later quoted as saying "It's highly likely that if I would have seen it clearly, I would have ejected..."; the fuel leak and vapors along the wing had prevented him from seeing what had happened to the wing itself. The aircraft was repaired and saw further combat service.[78][79][80]
   
   
  

And on the topic...(?) wasn't there a genuine case where an Israeli Phantom was brought back safely to ground after losing a very substantial amount of wing?

EDIT - so much for my memory... it was an F15.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afaYlJ8a1AU

Just about to head out but on return I'll put something into the Games Room/Competions & Quizzes section, which might be more apposite for what we're doing.

I guess it pays to be retired and have the spare time to scroll through images, doesn't it! [ATTACH=full]1865[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]18454[/ATTACH]

The Abrams P-1 Explorer was a United States purpose-designed aerial photography and survey aircraft that first flew in November 1937.

[ATTACH=full]1864[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]18453[/ATTACH]

By the way ...

[ATTACH=full]1862[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]18451[/ATTACH]

Ummm..... dunno :(

[ATTACH=full]1861[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]18450[/ATTACH]

The Scaled Composites Predator 480 was built as an agricultural aircraft and first flew in 1984. Where would the world be without Bert Rutan;)

Here's some more info in it. http://stargazer2006.online.fr/aircraft/predator2.htm

And now - Le suivante mystery aircraft ...

[ATTACH]1858[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]18447[/ATTACH]

Don't see how it might relate to your last quiz so let's just call it an offering on my behalf ... qu'est que c'est que?

Supermarine type 322

[ATTACH=full]1855[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]18445[/ATTACH]

Martin Baker something or other?

BTW, I assume you all realise we have a local Grob working out of Parafield...?

http://www.flinders.edu.au/science_engineering/environment/our-school/research/ara-flnduni.cfm

Some of the imagery they produce is simply mind boggling.

Dunno what it is, but after grobbeling around a bit I find that that it's rego is N520DM - is that for deutschmarks?;)

Half a B+V 282 ...?

Hey, as a Citroen 2CV owner, I resemble that remark...:D

...and is it by any chance a Mystery 2 ?

Would it by any chance be a Cessna 620 (on the ground...)?

Crikey...makes the use of the ejection seat just that much more exciting - as if it were necessary!:eek:

Many thanks Peter & Willie - much appreciated. [ATTACH=full]1847[/ATTACH]

Here's a REALLY dumb question (but I'm not frightened to admit to my ignorance...)

What are the squiggly line thingos in the canopy. If heating elements, then why the need for squiggly rather than straight?

Amswers in a plain brown envelope please...:confused:

Gawd knows if this link will work, but as well, here's a somewhat fuzzy clip from it (Shooting Star pilot's manual). Further comments are invited from anyone who has an understanding of just exactly what "critical mach number" is.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=zxsAFkQD7YcC&pg=PA37-IA2&lpg=PA37-IA2&dq="shooting star" "critical mach number"&source=bl&ots=XKdHhT4d1e&sig=E06uJlgtbg30IHBWA6wF6MpohpI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VL3TUd2GL4fNkwWQs4DgDg&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q="shooting star" "critical mach number"&f=false

[ATTACH=full]1841[/ATTACH]

Does this then mean it could not reach/exceed Mach1 ?

Stop Press: from Wiki ... "Although unknown at the time, compressibility was the cause of the phenomenon known as the sound barrier. Subsonic aircraft such as the Supermarine Spitfire, BF 109, P-51 Mustang, Gloster Meteor, He 162, P-80 have relatively thick, unswept wings and are incapable of reaching Mach 1.0."

So what do we make of that, in relation to the Youtube clip, I ask.

[ATTACH]18427[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]18437[/ATTACH]

Hey - I actually got a glimpse of some blue sky and nice white clouds! Good stuff.

And how about smoking a cigarette in the cockpit ... ah yes, bring back the 50's!

Flying on #4 alone must have required some rudder correction too!

As an aside, I was surprised to see the Starfire shown exceeding Mach 1 - yes I understand it was in a dive, but I'm surprised nonetheless.

Any comments?

Omigawd, I think I've seen it all now.......[ATTACH=full]1831[/ATTACH]

Well done, Dex ... and a nice video too [ATTACH=full]1825[/ATTACH]