Secret Aircraft

[StarHalo]

About that building collapse in Harlem today: Rumors abounded that there was a quadcopter-type drone hovering around the aftermath, and after a while it was definitively photographed circling around the area. This set off rounds of phone calls of people trying to discern which organization it belonged to; the NYPD stated plainly that they have no such drones. It turns out it belonged to this guy:

And he is ..some guy. A bystander/civilian using his drone to capture images that could be sold to news outlets. The police officer in the photo is reminding him that drones are illegal in Manhattan and forcing him to ground it.

So we're actually at the point where average Joe can bring his own technologically superior air resources to an event and then turn a profit from it..

 

[orbital]

^

A drone bill was passed here in WI last month,, would make it tricky/illegal to do something like this.

... will we see drone police chases in the sky?oo:

 

[Steve K]

^

A drone bill was passed here in WI last month,, would make it tricky/illegal to do something like this.

... will we see drone police chases in the sky?oo:

and we wouldn't want people using drones to rustle dairy cattle...

I'm still not clear on why drones are treated any differently than remote controlled model aircraft. Most of them are already restricted to defined areas, aren't they? I know the local RC guys have a few local fields they fly at. Or is there a certain size or power limit pertaining to RC aircraft regulations?

 

[orbital]

^

The Wisconsin drone bill = cameras mounted on r/c stuff is VERY limited
(except for specific police emergency situations)

It's a privacy bill basically

 

[fridgemagnet]

From the post by Idleprocess:

"Insects are interesting due to their small size. They operate at a level below conventional aerodynamics where they are less flying through air and more swimming through an extremely low-viscosity fluid".

What about the prehistoric dragonfly 'Meganeura' - over 2 foot wingspan -hardly below conventional aerodynamics...that would scale up ok.

As regards obsolete, but still very useful aircraft, how about the Bronco?

 

[moldyoldy]

<snip>

As regards obsolete, but still very useful aircraft, how about the Bronco?

I worked with a Slow-FAC after the VN conflict. He flew first the O-1 Bird-Dog. He survived long enough to fly the O-2 Skymaster and eventually the OV-10 Bronco. He was the most controlled level-headed person I ever knew. As a slow-fac, he commanded very destructive power. If he decided that a section of jungle needed attention, he marked it with his Zuni rockets and the fighter-bombers swooped in and obliterated that part of the jungle. The bad guys learned not to fire at his O-1 from either of the front quarters due to his sensors and the eventual indirect answer from him they could not outrun. Unfortunately the rear 2 quarters were relatively unguarded and FAC losses forced the transition to ever faster A/C. However as he put it, the O-1 Bird-Dog as an A/C was very forgiving to fly. The OV-10 Bronco was not as forgiving, but was fast enough to avoid being so much of a target. Oddly enough, I do not recall him saying anything about flying A/C once he exited the military. Now a drone would take over his FAC job.

 

[StarHalo]

the O-2 Skymaster and eventually the OV-10 Bronco.

Can't count the number of Skymasters I've seen, and yet I've still never seen a Bronco..

 

[moldyoldy]

The German news service Spiegel is reporting this evening that the Russian Defense Firm Rostec alleges that it has managed to break the comm link to a US drone identified as a MQ-5B Hunter at some 4000 meters over/near the Crimean peninsula and take it over. The drone is now in the hands of the 'self-defense' forces in the Crimea and 'nearly intact'. Hmmm, if true, so much for the US belief that all opponents will be low-tech combatants.

This is supposedly different than the recent claimed shoot-down of a recon 'aircraft' over Crimea.

Also, North Korea has evidently successfully copied a US drone shot down in their territory. Their version is supposed to be armed.

 

[Steve K]

Can't count the number of Skymasters I've seen, and yet I've still never seen a Bronco..

The USMC was flying them when I was enlisted, but can't say that I've seen one flying since then.

This is a Marine Bronco that stopped by the base where I was stationed...

and by chance, I spent the day at the USAF museum in Dayton, OH. Yes, they do have a Bronco on display, along with a remarkable collection of common and uncommon aircraft. Not sure if any secret aircraft were on display, but there were a number of formerly secret aircraft. If you haven't been there, you really should find time to visit!

 

[moldyoldy]

The USMC was flying them when I was enlisted, but can't say that I've seen one flying since then.

<snip>

and by chance, I spent the day at the USAF museum in Dayton, OH. Yes, they do have a Bronco on display, along with a remarkable collection of common and uncommon aircraft. Not sure if any secret aircraft were on display, but there were a number of formerly secret aircraft. If you haven't been there, you really should find time to visit!

I may have to do that! An engineer acquaintance of mine recently took a job at Wright-Patt, so I have more than one reason to stop by Dayton. From the photos everyone has shown just on CPF, I understand that I need more than one day to wander thru my memories in person. Kind of the same way I felt when I walked thru the Deutsches Museum in München and kept thinking: "I worked with this a lot of this gear, and they already have it in a German Museum?". Ouch!

 

[Steve K]

The USAF museum is very large, in a way that I can't describe. I'd say that it is divided into roughly 3 main sections/hangar areas. Each of these is large enough that they can easily swallow up a B-52 or B-36 or B-29 so that you can't see it a modest distance away. Big.

There is also a hangar across the runway where previous presidential aircraft, the various Air Force One aircraft are on display, as well as a few dozen experimental and research aircraft. You can only get there by taking a short bus trip there, and you need to sign up for the bus trip early in the day. If you ever wanted to see an XB-70, an X-15, the X-1B, a YF-12, etc., then this is where you have to go.

If you want to take pictures, I recommend bringing a tripod. The lights are relatively dim in the museum, and it's difficult to handhold the camera. Even at ISO 400, some pictures can take a second or two.

 

[Steve K]

back to the USAF museum and formerly secret aircraft.... the Boeing Bird of Prey (again). A few new photos from the recent visit. Yeah... I do think it's about the coolest looking thing in the museum.

 

[StarHalo]

The funny bit about the Bird Of Prey program was the patch - the plane itself was hidden on it the whole time..

 

[Steve K]

The funny bit about the Bird Of Prey program was the patch - the plane itself was hidden on it the whole time..

that is clever!

Do many black projects have project patches?? My short career at McDonnell Douglas didn't include any black programs, which I'm happy about. Too many hassles.

 

[moldyoldy]

The SR-71 acquired the name "Habu" and patch after the existence of the SR-71 became public.

Reportedly only pilots that flew an operational mission were allowed to wear the Habu patch.

 

[moldyoldy]

Ref the question about black projects with project patches: yes and no. Maybe there were patches, but the denizens of the project would never have been allowed to wear them in public as long as the project was in the black.

 

[idleprocess]

The "NOYFB" mission patch allegedly worn by the transport aircraft crews that supplied Groom Lake serves as the unofficial mascot for my work group because we get it done and you really shouldn't ask how...

http://www.bellwethergallery.com/images/artwork/large/2006-NOYFB-patch-lg.jpg

 

[moldyoldy]

A great patch! I always appreciated the effort that went in to designing our patches, even if they could not be worn.....

 

[moldyoldy]

Back to aircraft: I find it somewhat curious that the BBC website is posting articles about former US aircraft, usually the high & fast type:

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140325-the-fastest-plane-ever-flown

the simple data about the X-15 from Wiki:
"...As of 2014, the X-15 holds the official world record for the highest speed ever reached by a manned, powered aircraft. Its maximum speed was 4,520 miles per hour (7,274 km/h).[1]​ During the X-15 program, 13 different flights by eight pilots met the USAF spaceflight criterion by exceeding the altitude of 50 miles (80 km) thus qualifying the pilots for astronaut status."

 

[Steve K]

just for fun, a shot of the X-15 at the USAF museum at Wright-Patterson AFB:

I love the fact that this part of the museum allows the visitor to walk up to the aircraft and look at all the details.

And speaking of fast planes, you'll notice that the X-15 is parked under the wing of the XB-70. The XB-70 is the remaining prototype of the Mach 3 bomber. Very cool plane! Not especially practical, but that's a separate issue.