No formation landings in UPT
07-03-2020, 10:29 AM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2015
Posts: 297
Maybe CQ was a poor example. What I was trying to say is there is value in the maneuver itself, that doesn’t necessarily equate to fleet usage. Hell, we did aero in cruise in training command, if I did that in the fleet I would have been fenab’ed!
07-03-2020, 11:06 AM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,837
Originally Posted by RckyMtHigh
Maybe CQ was a poor example. What I was trying to say is there is value in the maneuver itself, that doesn’t necessarily equate to fleet usage. Hell, we did aero in cruise in training command, if I did that in the fleet I would have been fenab’ed!
07-03-2020, 06:46 PM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2020
Posts: 399
Originally Posted by RckyMtHigh
Maybe CQ was a poor example. What I was trying to say is there is value in the maneuver itself, that doesn’t necessarily equate to fleet usage. Hell, we did aero in cruise in training command, if I did that in the fleet I would have been fenab’ed!
Times must be a changin’...
07-03-2020, 07:53 PM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2015
Posts: 297
Originally Posted by firefighterplt
Seriously? We would often throw up the GoPro for a section barrel roll in cruise—coming over the top made for some great cruise video filler footage.
Times must be a changin’...
Times must be a changin’...
07-04-2020, 05:39 AM
#35
Moderate Moderator
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
WOW.
I’ve heard of stuff like this in England during WWII...prop to prop, say, P-47 to Mustang.
But never prop to jet, and first ride is to the boat!!
I’ve heard of stuff like this in England during WWII...prop to prop, say, P-47 to Mustang.
But never prop to jet, and first ride is to the boat!!
Originally Posted by rickair7777
My uncle-in-law said props were easier than jets. He flew F4U's in the big one, and then went into the reserves. His squadron got activated for Korea, and were about to fly out to the boat. The night before, they got told to stand by, they were getting new airplanes.
The next day a squadrons worth of F-9's showed up, flown by factory pilots. All the squadron guys got a manual to read that evening, and then the next morning each one got tutored while sitting in the cockpit with a factory pilot looking over their shoulder. That afternoon they headed off to the boat. He said it was a miracle they got all the planes and pilots onboard in one piece. Good 'ol days.
The next day a squadrons worth of F-9's showed up, flown by factory pilots. All the squadron guys got a manual to read that evening, and then the next morning each one got tutored while sitting in the cockpit with a factory pilot looking over their shoulder. That afternoon they headed off to the boat. He said it was a miracle they got all the planes and pilots onboard in one piece. Good 'ol days.
07-04-2020, 06:03 AM
#36
Perennial Reserve
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,492
Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer
WOW.
I’ve heard of stuff like this in England during WWII...prop to prop, say, P-47 to Mustang.
But never prop to jet, and first ride is to the boat!!
I’ve heard of stuff like this in England during WWII...prop to prop, say, P-47 to Mustang.
But never prop to jet, and first ride is to the boat!!
Things were different in ‘the old days.’ Of course training losses about equalled combat losses too - at least for The Army Air Corps.
https://www.realclearhistory.com/art...ww_ii_412.html
07-04-2020, 06:52 AM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 767 Captain
Posts: 3,988
Originally Posted by firefighterplt
Seriously? We would often throw up the GoPro for a section barrel roll in cruise—coming over the top made for some great cruise video filler footage.
Times must be a changin’...
Times must be a changin’...
07-04-2020, 07:46 AM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Position: NYC 7ERA
Posts: 1,966
Originally Posted by Excargodog
Things were once handled very differently. The first prototype nuclear bomb was exploded at Trinity Site in New Mexico on 16 July 1945. Up until that time, everything was theoretical. They THOUGHT it would work, but weren’t sure. But after the successful test no nuclear weapon was used in combat for .... wait for it ... three whole weeks. A second nuclear weapon - totally different type and NEVER tested - destroyed Nagasaki three days later.
Things were different in ‘the old days.’ Of course training losses about equalled combat losses too - at least for The Army Air Corps.
https://www.realclearhistory.com/art...ww_ii_412.html
Things were different in ‘the old days.’ Of course training losses about equalled combat losses too - at least for The Army Air Corps.
https://www.realclearhistory.com/art...ww_ii_412.html
Little Man, a U-235 Gun type, they knew would work, and U-235 enriched to the level needed was hard to get, not enough for a test. Hiroshima was the test.
It worked.
All since then have been Plutonium implosion type weapons. U-235 has pretty much just been used for reactor fuel in lower enrichment since.
Fission/Fusion/Fission and some larger Fission only bombs use U-238 as the tamper in the physics package.
07-04-2020, 08:00 AM
#39
Perennial Reserve
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,492
Originally Posted by CX500T
Trinity "Gadget" and Fat Man (Nagasaki, Pu-239 implosion type) were of the same type. They weren't 100% sure it would work, that's why they tested Trinity.
Little Man, a U-235 Gun type, they knew would work, and U-235 enriched to the level needed was hard to get, not enough for a test. Hiroshima was the test.
It worked.
All since then have been Plutonium implosion type weapons. U-235 has pretty much just been used for reactor fuel in lower enrichment since.
Fission/Fusion/Fission and some larger Fission only bombs use U-238 as the tamper in the physics package.
Little Man, a U-235 Gun type, they knew would work, and U-235 enriched to the level needed was hard to get, not enough for a test. Hiroshima was the test.
It worked.
All since then have been Plutonium implosion type weapons. U-235 has pretty much just been used for reactor fuel in lower enrichment since.
Fission/Fusion/Fission and some larger Fission only bombs use U-238 as the tamper in the physics package.
https://youtu.be/nN5q8i-kQj0
The point still stands. Prototype to first use was less than four weeks. That don’t happen anymore...
07-05-2020, 06:21 AM
#40
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,253
Originally Posted by CX500T
Trinity "Gadget" and Fat Man (Nagasaki, Pu-239 implosion type) were of the same type. They weren't 100% sure it would work, that's why they tested Trinity.
Little Man, a U-235 Gun type, they knew would work, and U-235 enriched to the level needed was hard to get, not enough for a test. Hiroshima was the test.
It worked.
All since then have been Plutonium implosion type weapons. U-235 has pretty much just been used for reactor fuel in lower enrichment since.
Fission/Fusion/Fission and some larger Fission only bombs use U-238 as the tamper in the physics package.
Little Man, a U-235 Gun type, they knew would work, and U-235 enriched to the level needed was hard to get, not enough for a test. Hiroshima was the test.
It worked.
All since then have been Plutonium implosion type weapons. U-235 has pretty much just been used for reactor fuel in lower enrichment since.
Fission/Fusion/Fission and some larger Fission only bombs use U-238 as the tamper in the physics package.
Correct. Getting the implosion right is very tricky. But if they got the physical implosion right AND achieved prompt super-critical, then they knew the basic physics worked.
Given validation of the physics, the gun type is foolproof. But it also doesn't work with Pu, which is relatively easy to produce in specially-designed reactor. U-235 requires a lot of difficult and expensive enrichment to get to weapons-grade.
It's also harder to "safe" a gun-type device. An implosion device inherently requires very precise timing to function, so it's need some complex systems to positively function. The most basic gun-type device could go off if it got dropped.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
