patrick.net

Bad weather? C'mon. This thing can fly way, way above any bad weather.



Xir or Woman pilot, STOL issues, or Hack? Only options IMHO.

Pilots don't touch the F-35 until they've had 1000+ hours in simulations, trainer aircraft, then simulations specific for the F-35 for a hundred or two hundred hours, before they're allowed to fly it in perfect visibility doing routine staight and level flights for scores of hours.

There's no way the Defense Department or Lockheed Lobbyist Paid DoD Rules would force an F-35 pilot to continue training in bad weather (in a populated area no less), lest it makes the aircraft look bad. I doubt the Pilot felt compelled by Rules to remain in a dangerous situation on a training flight.

All She/They/Them had to do was pull up and gain a few thousand feet in altitude, which anybody who spent hundreds of hours in a T-34 Mentor could easily do.

And why Eject instead of pulling up?

AmericanKulak says

Bad weather? C'mon. This thing can fly way, way above any bad weather.

And through any bad weather. All military warplanes are seriously IFR equipped and max use is made of IFR on every flight regardless of weather conditions. The only rule in the Air Force was never to penetrate a thunderstorm in peacetime. Nobody bails out because the weather got bad. I will comment on "flying above any bad weather," though. Thunderstorms in the Midwest top often out above 50,000 ft, so no flying above those.

Maybe the tranny pilot stopped to ask for directions, and went into the alleged death spiral. It broke a nail ejecting.

Damn climate change did it.

HeadSet says

AmericanKulak says

Bad weather? C'mon. This thing can fly way, way above any bad weather.

And through any bad weather. All military warplanes are seriously IFR equipped and max use is made of IFR on every flight regardless of weather conditions. The only rule in the Air Force was never to penetrate a thunderstorm in peacetime. Nobody bails out because the weather got bad. I will comment on "flying above any bad weather," though. Thunderstorms in the Midwest top often out above 50,000 ft, so no flying above those.

Unless you’re a U2 pilot…

Trollhole says

Ceffer says

https://t.me/drue86/44761

I thought they were $80 million

worst part is they won’t tell us why this happened.

AmericanKulak says

All She/They/Them had to do was pull up and gain a few thousand feet in altitude, which anybody who spent hundreds of hours in a T-34 Mentor could easily do.

Modern computer controlled (fly by wire I think it's called) airplanes that may not work. So you pull up and the computer says: No

Then what?

My uncle was a top gun aggressor trainer pilot and told me a story about how he was doing some sort of maneuver when his plane started falling out of the sky in a stall sort of situation. With older planes he'd flown in the past he could get out of it but his F15 wouldn't do what he was telling it to.

He kept falling and falling the suddenly a big green arrow appeared on the screen pointing left so he pulled left and suddenly was flying again.

Also interestingly I have a cousin who is a United pilot who told me something to the effect that his routes are nearly completely automated these days. He takes over the controls for the last few seconds landing and similar for take off, the rest, computer controlled.

When he's at cruising altitude if he ever has to switch off auto pilot he can't, "fly the plane as smoothly as auto pilot does". Apparently the computer makes many micro adjustments to provide a smooth ride so quickly and constantly that a human can't do it.

just_passing_through says

Modern computer controlled (fly by wire I think it's called)

Fighter planes as long ago as the F4 Phantom require computer aided flying. The reason is that the center of gravity is placed right at the center of lift, which makes the aircraft very maneuverable but also too unstable to be mechanically flown. Airbus introduced the concept of center of lift at center of gravity to the A300 series because that configuration also increases efficiency and fuel milage. If the fly by wire goes out, the A300 series cannot be mechanically flown. It does have a triple redundant system, though. For planes that are mechanically flown, the center of lift is always aft of the center of gravity, for stability reasons. That includes military planes like the KC-135 and C-141, and even Cessnas. Even a private pilot can tell you about the weight and balance calculations he must do if he wants to load a lot of baggage in the aft cargo section.

My cousin and uncle at United fly Boeings. My dad flew F100s around the time of F4s but I don't think they were fly by wire. Others in the family C5s, C141s, and warthogs, WWII bombers I that don't recall in the Pacific. The military pilots I guess. Some other pilots in the family too. Whenever I'm around a bunch of them I don't know half of what they're talking about.

just_passing_through says

My dad flew F100s around the time of F4s but I don't think they were fly by wire.

The F4 was computer aided, not fly by wire. Same with the same era F-106. Moving the stick did not directly move flight control surfaces. The plane's electronic system took the pilot's input and then moved the flight control accordingly. The F-100 was sill old school direct linkage. "Fly by wire" is more advanced than the old computer systems and I think fly by wire debuted with the F-16.

just_passing_through says

Modern computer controlled (fly by wire I think it's called) airplanes that may not work. So you pull up and the computer says: No

Then what?

Yep. Hack or shit software. The latter has been a perpetual problem with the F-35

HeadSet says

Fighter planes as long ago as the F4 Phantom require computer aided flying. The reason is that the center of gravity is placed right at the center of lift, which makes the aircraft very maneuverable but also too unstable to be mechanically flown. Airbus introduced the concept of center of lift at center of gravity to the A300 series because that configuration also increases efficiency and fuel milage. If the fly by wire goes out, the A300 series cannot be mechanically flown. It does have a triple redundant system, though. For planes that are mechanically flown, the center of lift is always aft of the center of gravity, for stability reasons. That includes military planes like the KC-135 and C-141, and even Cessnas. Even a private pilot can tell you about the weight and balance calculations he must do if he wants to load a lot of baggage in the aft cargo section.

I fly higher power rockets as a hobby, and this applies to rockets as well. Any rocket that has its center of pressure (the centroid of aerodynamic forces acting on the rocket) too close or forward of the center of mass will be completely unstable and pinwheel, possibly impaling bystanders. For flight safety, all rockets must have their centers of mass at least one caliber (main tube thickness) forward from the center of pressure; preferably it's at least 2 calibers.

I see this all the time with high power certification flights - the "kids" built a rocket that is barely stable, so until the airspeed builds enough to generate stabilizing drag, the rocket wiggles or fishtails off the pad.

Another theory. At least it's not Global Warming. Trump's military countering the powdered, rouged, lipsticked, bewigged armchair Pentagon MIC/DARPA generals and their CFR Illuminati plots? https://en.as.com/en/2022/03/13/latest_news/1647181885_381700.html

https://t.me/drue86/44812

So boring hanging around a debris field when there is no debris to pick up.

This would be funny if true, but sounds like just another lame spin attempt to justify the violation of the Second Amendment to remove firearms from the public. Never let a good propaganda opportunity pass you by, especially when you otherwise look like incompetent dolts. Was this AI spin as well? AI wouldn't have the value judgment to know it was shooting itself in the microchips.
Ever seen a jet fly by at an air show? Think small arms fire has a gasp in hell of hitting it? It would have to be stock still on the ground to get plinked like an old country road stop sign.

Ceffer says

This would be funny if true, but sounds like just another lame spin attempt to justify the violation of the Second Amendment to remove firearms from the public. Never let a good propaganda opportunity pass you by, especially when you otherwise look like incompetent dolts. Was this AI spin as well? AI wouldn't have the value judgment to know it was shooting itself in the microchips.

Quite the marksman to hit a fast-moving target 2500 feet away. Lead the target and account for droppage. That would be hard to do even with tracer fire.

Ceffer says

but sounds like just another lame spin attempt to justify the violation of the Second Amendment to remove firearms from the public.

If my best plane gets shot down by small arms, I say I lost it. I don't say what really happened because I don't people knowing they can beat us. This would be a terrible propaganda idea.

HeadSet says

Quite the marksman to hit a fast-moving target 2500 feet away.

According to this guy it was hovering, and there was more than one shot.

HeadSet says

Ceffer says

This would be funny if true, but sounds like just another lame spin attempt to justify the violation of the Second Amendment to remove firearms from the public. Never let a good propaganda opportunity pass you by, especially when you otherwise look like incompetent dolts. Was this AI spin as well? AI wouldn't have the value judgment to know it was shooting itself in the microchips.

Quite the marksman to hit a fast-moving target 2500 feet away. Lead the target and account for droppage. That would be hard to do even with tracer fire.

The BS is so obvious you shouldn't have dignified it with a serious answer. Just laugh and point your finger as if somebody told you there are 47 genders. It's the same level of idiocy, really.