Kip Powick Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 This is why the pilots like the "Wart-Hog" and are glad the surrounding cockpit materiel is Titanium !!! Glad they did not retire these birds this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted October 10, 2018 Share Posted October 10, 2018 Izzat a "for real" combat-damaged aircraft, or an aircraft given to maintenance for battle damage repair training? If it's "for real," then, Yikes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JL Posted October 10, 2018 Share Posted October 10, 2018 I do believe that is a screen shot from a flightsim. Sorry Kip, you've been duped again by those darn computer generated graphics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted October 10, 2018 Author Share Posted October 10, 2018 Well you know, I had my doubts about the validity of the photo based on one thing. The driver in the red circle looks like a "model" but the source of the photo is a retired USAF pilot I know and I thought he would NEVER Bull Sh.. me ............but...........he did.. Thanks for the 'update' and I shall now sulk in a corner and plot my revenge.......( PS..I do have a photo of an AC 747 with the rear end falling off during a touch and go...but no 747's anymore. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innuendo Posted October 10, 2018 Share Posted October 10, 2018 PS..I do have a photo of an AC 747 with the rear end falling off during a touch and go...but no 747's anymore. ) I seem to remember that AC got quite threatening some time ago when that image was doing the rounds. (I am assuming that it was the one cobbled together showing the side blowing out) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted October 10, 2018 Author Share Posted October 10, 2018 5 minutes ago, Innuendo said: PS..I do have a photo of an AC 747 with the rear end falling off during a touch and go...but no 747's anymore. ) I seem to remember that AC got quite threatening some time ago when that image was doing the rounds. (I am assuming that it was the one cobbled together showing the side blowing out) Indeed....I posted it with a humorous reference to " CDN pilots teaching AC pilots how to handle the 747" and was personally threatened by the individual who became the spokesman for those that wanted to join the "fly till you die" group. I also got banned from ACPA forum for a humorous comment about the Mitchnick Seniority Award list ....so much fun back then. Now I just yell at clouds..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted October 11, 2018 Share Posted October 11, 2018 Hard to tell it’s a CG photo. Although it’s pretty torn up the shadows on the wing and underneath look perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JL Posted October 11, 2018 Share Posted October 11, 2018 It is getting harder everyday to tell fact from fiction and now the latest graphic cards can do real time ray tracing for the ultimate in photorealistic effects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted October 11, 2018 Share Posted October 11, 2018 14 hours ago, Kip Powick said: Well you know, I had my doubts about the validity of the photo based on one thing. The driver in the red circle looks like a "model" but the source of the photo is a retired USAF pilot I know and I thought he would NEVER Bull Sh.. me ............but...........he did.. Thanks for the 'update' and I shall now sulk in a corner and plot my revenge.......( PS..I do have a photo of an AC 747 with the rear end falling off during a touch and go...but no 747's anymore. ) One thing I've found that's helpful in sorting fake/CG images from real is to look at places in the picture/photo that look too real with too much detail. In this picture for example the inside of the right main wheel assembly, also the area of the left engine outboard cowlings - there's too much detail visible deep into the innards. Computer animators simply cannot resist using their amazing computer power to clearly show details that really shouldn't be visible. The two areas I mentioned would be opposite the sun and should be less distinct with less detail visible. Obviously doesn't work in all cases but sometimes it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vsplat Posted October 11, 2018 Share Posted October 11, 2018 Of course, there are some real shots that still make me go 'huh'. A million years ago we used to operate into an airport where A-10s were stationed and it was routine to have training sorties arriving while we were there. Quite the airshow. I somehow think they did not apply the same 'stable approach' criteria we use today. I was sure I was going to watch a guy hit the ground, he was still inverted at 400', but greased it on right beside us. Amazing machine. Would have loved to have flown one. Vs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted October 11, 2018 Share Posted October 11, 2018 This is an image of an A10 piloted by Captain Kim Campbell which suffered extensive damage during Operation Iraqi Freedom including damage to the hydraulic system, but she flew it safely back to base on manual reversion mode. I'm told that serious thought was given to modifying surplus A-10's as firefighting air tankers. Unfortunately, removal of the Gatling gun and cockpit armour to save weight would have compromised the structural integrity of the aircraft, so the project was scrapped. Too bad, that would have been an amazing platform for the role. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boestar Posted October 11, 2018 Share Posted October 11, 2018 8 minutes ago, J.O. said: I'm told that serious thought was given to modifying surplus A-10's as firefighting air tankers. Unfortunately, removal of the Gatling gun and cockpit armour to save weight would have compromised the structural integrity of the aircraft, so the project was scrapped. Too bad, that would have been an amazing platform for the role. payload would be small compared to other platforms with a long turn time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted October 11, 2018 Share Posted October 11, 2018 If they could have removed that weight, the useable payload would have been 28,000 lbs. With an 8,000 lb fuel load, that would have allowed a 2,000 gallon retardant load, same as we carry in the CV580. Turnaround times would have been no different than any other retardant tanker with a similar payload. They hot load all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted October 11, 2018 Author Share Posted October 11, 2018 13 minutes ago, J.O. said: Captain Kim Campbell Didn't realize that as a short term Prime Minister of Canada she sought fame elsewhere... See...you do learn something new everyday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted October 11, 2018 Share Posted October 11, 2018 I wonder if she lasted longer in the Air Force gig than she did as PM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vsplat Posted October 11, 2018 Share Posted October 11, 2018 She probably preferred taking ground fire in the A-10. At least there she could live to fight another day. Vs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.