G650
Discord ID: 694678789653004369
566 total messages. Viewing 100 per page.
Prev |
Page 3/6
| Next
I see we have some model talk going on. I collect models as well, ranging from 1:100 to 1:500
Here is my Fedex 727-200. The wings are from when I was able to tour a operational Morningstar air 727-200F and the copilot gave me his wings.
Nice, I’m mainly a 1:400 guy myself. I have models ranging from the Gemini jets G650 1:200 to the Gemini jets BA A388 which I got in heathrow
I like your terminal
I’ll take a pic of some of my collection tmrw, I have at least 200 or so 1:400s now
I have two ikea drawer sets full of 1:400 and 1:200s
What’s cool is that I have some models which have the exact registration of aircraft I have flown on, for example there is D-ABVM and HB-IPV
Lol
I have discarded of most of my boxes
I keep the covers
Passing by the silver airways hangar in MCO in a Rouge A319
Yup
C-GNVC
No I’m not, but I’m going to get my PPL this summer
So I guess the proper answer is not yet
Thx mate
I’ll be able to do it in DA-20s and Cessna 172s. When I get my multi engine rating I will do that in PA-44s
See, I’m not planning on being a pilot as my primary living, I’m going into the business sector of aerospace
Nice 757-200
About 2 drawers worth
A few 1:200s are in the shot
I’m really looking forward to when I can get a 1:200 G700
Nice!!!!!
Bruh moment
They ceased operations in February
The air Canada stir sticks (when they still had them) make for a cool addition to a wing view
Who else here expects an A220-500 before 2030
It would destroy a lot of their A320 bro sales; however, the economics of an A220-500 would be second to none. Carriers life AF, LH, DL and AC would be perfect for it
@Yukon
May I point out that during the Heron systems AI in the test that you are (what I think you are) referring to was in conditions in which were unrealistic. Keep in mind that because in the test the only weapon allowed was the M61. Once the shot was fired with even a probability of being a successful shot, it was assumed to be successful. This leads to a very unrealistic scenario in which the AI was taking shots with much lower probability and this allowed for its quicker kill time. Banger was being more patient waiting for a higher probability shot. So I take the test with a grain of salt, the ai was facing very unrealistic probability with shot success. Additionally, the AI knew the data of bangers F-16 in the scenario, allowing for it to always know exactly what it was up against. In the real world such data is not what the AI would get.
The way I look at it is that in reality, banger may well have won the engagements. I would wait until a real world test. This test demonstrates that in a perfect environment with no adversity in knowledge about the opponent and a overblown shot probability, the AI is superior. But that is not the real world, and until I see the same results in the real world and dealing with probability and lack of knowledge of the opponent, I don’t see AI replacing pilots anytime soon. Loyal wingmen AI drones for strikes and Missile trucks, I can see them being implemented in the near future.
What I see from the test is that interoperability makes sense, replacement? Far from it for the moment, though that may change.
@KV
Supersonic flight has fantastic potential for trans Atlantic, and trans pacific (stop in HNL) routes
Yes, AI has a great capability in the high G environment. Though keep in mind, maneuverability is not entirely tied to Gs. To truely take advantage of the capability, realistically, it would need to fly at 400 knots or higher to truely take advantage of the maneuverability, but keep in mind that to maintain such flight is highly fuel intensive and range is severely hampered. That issue is the biggest problem with the idea of very high G fights.
An algorithm only has so much of an impact, the limit is engine performance. That fuel consumption is beyond any benefits from an algorithm. The fact is that the biggest challenge to ai in the high G environment is fuel burn
An algorithm even to maintain those speeds, even assuming a 10% augmentation in fuel use efficiency will not be able to overcome engine limitations.
When did I say a human will manage fuel use more efficiently, that is obviously not the case. I am saying engine limitations make any gains in high G performance irrelevant
And keep in mind while simulations are very accurate, they are not reality. They would be valuable in machine learning, but the true test would be in actual combat.
Because your range is shot. To sustain any high G sequence, the fuel burn to maintain the thrust required dictates the amount of time you can spend dogfighting in any scenario. Just to maintain the speed is ridiculously fuel intensive. I am saying that the fuel burn in which these maneuvers achieve destroys range and thus range is so compromised that any gains are negated by your resulting combat radius.
I’m not saying AI is useless, I see it as a great complementary force. But when it comes to replacement, the fine details from the darpa test paints a clear picture that AI is not at any stage to dogfight in the real world. They need real world testing. Bring the QF-16s and do a proper test
Even then, the simulation of bullets will not be completely accurate. Therefore, that test can be a proof of concept, but only combat will produce any results.
Instead of the 2020 Corvette, you should go for a McLaren 720S or a Porsche 911
@Yukon
Really nice 3D print job with the grid fins
Spotting from the Jungfrau at 13000ft
Thx
The jungfrau, about a 40 min cog train ride to the west of lauterbrunnen
They are lovely
Fun to walk on the glaciers
Unfortunately, Neowise was directly above city centre, so light pollution completely screwed up the lighting, but here is neowise
@Tack
I have a photo I think you will like
RCAF CP-140 Block III
God bless Chuck!
Darn it, launch aborted
I had an AC 737 Max 8 fly over my house today on a test flight
Where!??
One raptor failed, essentially the compressor stall equivalent of a rocket engine
By the looks of it, it then proceeded to burn its own components, hence the green flame
I am assuming it was the copper @Yukon
I’m really curious to see a report on it
@Simpnautica
Objectively false
I will use one picture to show you why airplanes are better
Airplanes>Submarines
Plus, aircraft such as the P-3 or P-8 are a perfect example to show the superiority of aviation to submarines
Don’t get me wrong, subs are cool, but planes are far cooler
I’m really hoping to get on Azerbaijan at some point
I believe so
Sorry for the quality, it is a picture of my picture on my Mac
It looks like there may be some possible indications that the USN “UFO” sightings may have been technology demonstrators. Though these reports take place after the fact, it shows the navy has interest in such technologies, and therefore could indicate they had other projects in the works as demonstrators.
Essentially, the second I saw those videos I immediately thought black project, or technology demonstrator.
I find it quite intriguing that people honestly expect that such a program would be revealed. Also, in such a program, very few individuals are even aware of its existence, so even relatively high ranking individuals may well have no knowledge of any such program existing.
Sorry about the picture of the screen, it was too large to send via discord
CF-18A
Tail number 188797
Luckily I will be able to see classic hornets fly until 2032
Am I the only one here who screen records the flight radar replay of flights you have been on?
Looking good mate
New additions to the fleet today
The image was too big for discord at 15mb but here is a challenger 350 I went spotting
566 total messages. Viewing 100 per page.
Prev |
Page 3/6
| Next