[ / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / bedman / egy / feet / htg / hwndu / hypno / ita / x ]

/k/ - Weapons

Salt raifus and raifu accessories


Comment *
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 12 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 5 per post.

There's no discharge in the war!

File: c7bb6dc5d18c9bf⋯.jpg (164.54 KB, 752x559, 752:559, 4_2.jpg)

File: 2ba969f818dd599⋯.jpg (488.8 KB, 1200x840, 10:7, 2180793.jpg)

File: b15ffafdcd9aa05⋯.jpg (158.56 KB, 1024x655, 1024:655, photo_ru_po-2_1.jpg)

File: 3122aa7ce2ca8f1⋯.jpg (185.91 KB, 1024x681, 1024:681, po-2_css-13_goldtimerfound….jpg)

File: c25e3e1cae08560⋯.jpg (129.36 KB, 1024x629, 1024:629, po-2-blog-shot-2-1024x629.jpg)

4102f5 No.468233

Most produced military aircraft in history.

Second most produced general aircraft after Cessna 170.

f81442 No.468288

File: 489c3c7653d5405⋯.jpg (217.29 KB, 800x485, 160:97, Il-2 sideviews.jpg)

File: f7e724487895859⋯.jpg (36.71 KB, 460x215, 92:43, header.jpg)

File: 23da858a99eb7da⋯.jpg (44.7 KB, 645x330, 43:22, Ilyushin06.jpg)

Pretty sure you are thinking of the IL-2.

Because the IL-2 is the most produced military aircraft of all time, and the second most produced aircraft of all time.

9e87b9 No.468349

File: e289d115ace7580⋯.jpg (59.09 KB, 600x457, 600:457, RESPECT.jpg)


We all know what to respect.

21b0c0 No.468351


>It's a fighter

>It's a bomber


4102f5 No.468354


Common misconception. 30,000 Po-2 were produced by USSR, while 36,000 Il-2 during WWII.

Problem is that Il-2 production ceased after the war, whereas Po-2 continued, and dozens of third world countries started producing their own. They were made by Vietnam, Korea, most of Africa, Central America, South America, China…

But historians fail to count Po-2 built after the war, or outside of USSR.

17146d No.468412


I think you mean the C172

bac1ca No.468416

The Cessna 172 is also a pretty good base for a modern aerial version of a technical. Its cheap and easy to maintain, and has a rear door for cargo drops or an MG mount. Put some rocket pods and/or bombs under the fuselage/wings and you have decent air support.

b401bc No.468468

File: 8251f30258df01f⋯.jpg (38.34 KB, 300x225, 4:3, 1410496862827.jpg)

Slav planes are notoriously shit. That's like idolizing a mentally retarded person because of all the dumb shit they do.

8eff10 No.468474


I mean, the sheer amount of autism Chris-Chan holds can be respectable in some way.

4d872f No.468475



>posts picture of MiG-9

eeba95 No.468478

File: 410c28f2d203d5a⋯.jpg (67.18 KB, 660x795, 44:53, 2nbyk4k.jpg)

Beryoza best RWR. Harder to read and use then most Westren ones, but holds so much more capability.

4d872f No.468511


>communist electronics

>anything but shit

kys serbfag

4d872f No.468512


I know they're shit because we built them all btw

eeba95 No.468521


The latvian, much like the Croat, wishes nothing else but to be a butboy for the German.

The Beryoza is miles above any westren RWR of it's time. While westren ones let you have a better idea of where you are in space, they can only diffirentiate between Primary and Secondary targets, not actually provide you with information od there proximity. Glorious Beryoza measuers single strength of the closest contact or contact launching at you (Read Primary threat(Also gives Primary/Secondary threat, like NATO jet), which lets you determine how best to counter the attack. By the way the SPO-15 acts, you can determine if you are being chased by a F&F or SAR missile, letting you act in the best way to counter the contact, as well as letting you see if the primary threat is above or below you.

A F-15C RWR, can for example, do literally nothing but show you the direction off the radar contact, and warn you of lock/launch.

There are other features such as identifying the threats, which both are capable off, the NATO countepart in a slightly expanded capability.

5728d0 No.468529


How in the fuck do you read that?

82fdfb No.468531

File: 86dc5ff544065ae⋯.gif (134.78 KB, 960x200, 24:5, A FUCKING LEAF.gif)


Was it ever any surprise that the leaf has absolutely no idea what the fuck he's talking about?

Easy to maintain, no. If you want an aircraft that is reliable for a sortie, you use a turbine engine that has few moving parts, and all of them are rotating, not violently shaking back and forth. In this case, that'd be a turboprop, which has only novel examples on the airframe. The rear cargo door is small as fuck and has a limit of 120 pounds in the area, there is no possibility of putting anything of worth there unless you take off the door and put a midget with a sidearm in there. The newest model of the C172, the S model has a max weight of 2550 pounds, which is allowed 130% MTOW (3315 pounds) on special permit flights with reduced performance and new G limitations. You have almost no use for this, and this is why these aircraft are only used for training and liaison purposes in the distant aviation past.


b401bc No.468540

File: 28d21469e6b09f5⋯.png (245.81 KB, 679x601, 679:601, 28d21469e6b09f5243df50b124….png)


How's those vacuum tubes doing for you, Ivan? Cause another infraction against the established state and I'll cause another famine for you, fascist.

6725e0 No.468551


Well, what would you use to fill the role an improvised light attack aircraft?

82fdfb No.468562



Use existing tech like AT-6 Texan II, OV-10, even a OV-1 Mohawk, or if you want a similar aircraft, make the C172 a C337 in an O-2 role.

6725e0 No.468573


>AT-6 Texan II, OV-10, even a OV-1 Mohawk

I know the first two are proven, but expensive. I've never seen a OV-1 for sale though. I was trying to go for something a civilian could reasonably acquire. I don't think any of those three aircraft fit the bill.

I'm thinking of an aircraft that's:

>Cheap (>$120k)

>Reliable and has plenty of spares available

>Decent carrying capacity to carry either a small payload (500lbs), have a MG mounted, or carry some improvised rockets/bombs

>Can be operated by a relatively inexperienced pilot with only basic pilot training

Is what I'm asking impossible or just not very practical at that cost?

434c57 No.468612

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

the ground attack version of the Texan is cool as fuk

2a5a8e No.468624


You're essentially saying that, if you want an improvised APC, you're just going to buy a used minivan off of craigslist. Its not armored, and doesn't carry that many people. And again, engine reliability means you need a turbine, not a recip, which puts it outside of a improvised cost. If you want to do XYZ with a C172, you could do it to a point, but with little payload or effectiveness. A brand new plane would be in excess of your cost, and the only boxes it checks are ease of operation, and plenty of spare parts.

4102f5 No.468637

File: a2f250f1139bf57⋯.jpg (7.99 MB, 5852x2301, 5852:2301, MFI-9 Junior.jpg)



>weaksauce trolling attempts

Come on guy, no one is going to give you attention just because your parents don't.


During the Nigerian Civil War Canadian bush pilot mercenaries Chude Sokey and Godwin Ezeilo created a small but capable air force for the Biafrans, made mostly of propeller aircraft (which among other things flew Cessnas). A wing of this airforce under the command of Swedish Carl Gustav von Rosen and Canadian Lynn Garrison overflew four Nigerian airfields, dropping bombs on them out of pic related. The attacks accounted for the destruction of hundreds of millions of dollars of fighter jets like MiG-17 Fresco, bombers like Il-28 Beagle, and other jet aircraft (transport etc). Essentially crippling the Nigerian air force with what is a very similar civilian aircraft to Cessna 170.

You are hiding behind insults to an entire country because you know nothing, and are insecure. You are an insult to other American posters who know better than you, and whose reputation is damaged simply because they have a similar flag.

4102f5 No.468638

File: df82249345aaf05⋯.jpg (29.17 KB, 918x334, 459:167, biafra4.jpg)

File: c732ce23039ca8e⋯.png (7.61 KB, 384x500, 96:125, biafra9.png)

4102f5 No.468639

File: f7a039a6b235918⋯.jpg (223.26 KB, 631x449, 631:449, Lynn Garrison .jpg)

File: 1dee0c49ad3c494⋯.jpg (108.17 KB, 586x249, 586:249, Carl Gustav Von Rosen.jpg)


4102f5 No.468644

File: d16c4fe9014b346⋯.jpg (64.84 KB, 510x573, 170:191, minicoinattack.jpg)

File: 84263887672d183⋯.jpg (74.43 KB, 850x556, 425:278, image-621544-galleryV9-jqt….jpg)

>flood warning

f9711f No.468646

File: cf907cc51581d1f⋯.jpg (33.39 KB, 280x390, 28:39, Khadafi.jpg)

636225 No.468650

File: ad52e733f2bb922⋯.jpg (142.9 KB, 1920x1280, 3:2, 9may2015Moscow-40.jpg)

File: cbd8ee51247aa7e⋯.jpg (113.18 KB, 1920x1280, 3:2, 106th_Guards_Airborne_Divi….jpg)

File: 9360a9e9b441ed3⋯.jpg (2.35 MB, 2109x1423, 2109:1423, 106th_Guards_Airborne_Divi….jpg)

File: 6d2646535c37f3a⋯.jpg (2.61 MB, 4256x2832, 266:177, Afghan_Air_Corps_Mi-35_hel….jpg)

File: 04de645d9aedbea⋯.jpg (1.11 MB, 1500x997, 1500:997, Berkut_Mil_Mi-24PN_infligh….jpg)

>thread about respect

>derails into discussion about planes

Helis are the superior -fu.

636225 No.468651

File: 73514e60adcd0cc⋯.jpg (760.34 KB, 1950x2944, 975:1472, Helicopter-tank operation ….jpg)

File: 655fb10ef8d7302⋯.jpg (388.83 KB, 1600x1212, 400:303, its like painting an origi….jpg)

File: a76384c43e8d632⋯.jpg (306.44 KB, 1920x1280, 3:2, MAKS_Airshow_2013_(Ramensk….jpg)

File: a76384c43e8d632⋯.jpg (306.44 KB, 1920x1280, 3:2, MAKS_Airshow_2013_(Ramensk….jpg)

File: 6239b1bd6d31b1a⋯.jpg (46.78 KB, 1280x960, 4:3, Mi-24_Super_Agile_Hind_in_….jpg)

636225 No.468652

File: 993c274d66323f2⋯.jpg (318.03 KB, 1280x850, 128:85, Mil Mi 24..Cockpit..Luik 2….JPG)

File: 48ec79c7b60d2b5⋯.jpg (483.14 KB, 1200x800, 3:2, Mil_Mi-24P,_Russia_-_Air_F….jpg)

File: 29fda4e3c8cf343⋯.jpg (242.11 KB, 1920x1280, 3:2, MIL_Mi-35_Hind_(2018473095….jpg)

File: 55a917153a4ab39⋯.jpg (666.14 KB, 1500x1000, 3:2, Mil_Mi-35M,_Russia_-_Air_F….jpg)

File: 93eb96ad4be41a9⋯.jpg (503.77 KB, 1024x768, 4:3, SAAF_Rooivalk_675_and_ATE_….jpg)

Mil Mi 24 is best helifu of course.

4102f5 No.468664

File: 20a69a3dba1edde⋯.jpg (57.71 KB, 1280x960, 4:3, Denel_Rooivalk_flying_2006.jpg)

File: bf239dca8264c23⋯.jpg (920.52 KB, 2500x1236, 625:309, AHRLAC_Take-off.jpg)


Pic related are built by the same country, carry the same amount of weaponry and sensor equipment, and can land on unprepared surfaces.

Pic 2 has the following advantages:

>4x lower price

>4x longer endurance

>2.88x longer range

>2.3x lower weight (air portable)

>10,000 feet higher ceiling

>120mph faster speed

Attack helicopters are useful only in certain situations.

c15601 No.468667


Why wouldn't we love the /pol/ikarpov?

4102f5 No.468676

File: dae457c23b9fc86⋯.jpg (22.64 KB, 700x340, 35:17, polikarpov-po2.jpg)



636225 No.468678


Pic 2 is useless because it can't hover or VTOL.

4102f5 No.468681


Can you list a few missions which can't be performed without hovering?

330ccf No.468689


You're essentially arguing that you can hook two UGBs onto your light recip and sneak over a tarmac and blow up whatever is below you. This is the same tactic as that mailman who landed on capitol hill, it surely could work, and he could have had a payload as well, though whatever his gyrocopter could have lifted.

You're replying to an explanation of why a C172 wouldn't be a good CAS aircraft, not fill a light bomber role. If UGBs and rockets is CAS, I ask who would they support? Read the post you leaf.

4102f5 No.468692


>You're replying to an explanation of why a C172 wouldn't be a good CAS aircraft.

No, I'm not. My brother-in-syrup posted:

>The Cessna 172 is also a pretty good base for a modern aerial version of a technical.

330ccf No.468693


Riddle me this, what is "a technical"

f3d096 No.468698


Improvised fighting vehicle.

IFV is already an acronym of something that fucks up Technicals so it can't be used like IED

67f3ba No.468699

File: 2738f98910e1069⋯.jpg (24.8 KB, 500x279, 500:279, IMG_2915.JPG)


Fucking slavs

497e80 No.468701

File: 2fe7aa3eb3c2381⋯.png (3.04 KB, 209x214, 209:214, 2fe7aa3eb3c238165f8cefe772….png)




Too lazy to google. But there is a funny sense of doubt.

efa5cb No.468703

File: 028e0eb72336350⋯.jpg (775.96 KB, 1657x1200, 1657:1200, carpathian_basin.jpg)

File: 06ca71d2c1d6f69⋯.png (64.42 KB, 260x323, 260:323, balkans.png)




But that's wrong both culturally and geographically. It's like saying Florida is in Central America.

0452f1 No.468760



>easier to maintain than a small flat-6

For once I have to agree with the leaf.

96ca62 No.468767


Are you a pilot or a maintainer? Do you have operational experience with either in aviation? Turbines only break down when you overheat them, run out of oil, or throw a bird at one. Recips break themselves apart.

bb14a3 No.468775

c15601 No.468833


He may not be, but I am. Modern light aircraft recips are tremendously reliable if properly maintained, which is relatively simple and cheap to do. The difference in reliability only really becomes an issue when you're talking about huge recip engines like the R-4630s that were used on the last generation of recip airliners like the Boeing Stratocruiser and military transports like the C-124 (whose engines earned it the nickname "Old Shakey"). The problem there was that they had pushed recip technology as far as it could really ever go, and frankly, even a little farther, past a point of diminishing returns when it comes to things like complexity. If you read up on the Stratocruisers, you'll see that their safety record was pretty abysmal, and *very* frequent engine failures were a big reason why. Similarly, the only reason the C-124 lasted as long as it did was that the Air Force ended up needing every last transport aircraft it could lay its hands on to ship stuff to Vietnam during the war - basically as soon as the war ended, they sent Old Shakey straight to the scrapyard.

The upshot of all of this is that what you're saying is true only at a certain level - the last of the big recip engines vs. the turboprop engines like the T56 that replaced them. On the level of a smaller, simpler recip engine like the O-360 in a Cessna 172, the difference in reliability between that and a turboprop engine is negligible at best.

4102f5 No.468866


>Turbines only break down when you overheat them, run out of oil, or throw a bird at one.

You are ignoring massive centripetal forces involved, far more powerful than inertial forces rocking a radial engine. Radial crank shaft is shorter than in car engines, which means there's less vibrations and failure than your average sedan.

But lets address one point which you posted as a negative, but I think is a pro for radials: Turbines have to be cooled, if they loose coolant they die. Radials are air cooled, they can't lose coolant because none is needed.

Yet another benefit for radials: Turbines get shot and explode. Radials get shot and keep functioning even with multiple wrecked pistons! Even more pro's for radials: Turbine breaks down and it can either go in the trash, or get shipped 5,000km back to America for repair. Radial breaks down and can be fixed in the field.

There are advantages to both designs, and in my opinion radial is superior for insurgency work.

f5fcb6 No.468887

File: 3cd9fdaf89d20f0⋯.jpg (Spoiler Image, 168.72 KB, 1496x1796, 374:449, Jan20Pawel20II01.jpg)

348495 No.468891


What the fuck was his problem?

bd5437 No.468896

File: 73755913fb607d4⋯.mp4 (2.81 MB, 326x136, 163:68, 1461992614169-0.mp4)


>Turbines have to be cooled, if they loose coolant they die.

d234be No.468897


I'm going to jump back into this conversation.

If the original leafposter wanted a simple "aerial technical", wouldn't 7.62 machinegun mounted on the copilots side work fine? I mean, aren't basic technicals simply pickups with machineguns on the back? Is there not enough room for a machinegun in the Cessna?

d234be No.468898

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

Also to keep on topic:

It ain't me

bd5437 No.468900


If you don't have a machine of sufficient weight, endurance, and performance then you would be better off putting that machine gun in a technical. There is so much more that can go wrong with an airplane and it goes so much more wrong so much faster that it's hard to tip the balance in favor of putting that weapon (which will be precious in and of itself by the time you're so poorly equipped that you seriously consider slinging an M60 out the side of a Beechcraft) in a place where it will do minimal good from a combat effectiveness standpoint. You might as well A-Team it up and drop hand grenades out the side too.

If you're really desperate for your very own flight of the Valkyries moment, go for it, but you're almost certainly better off doing almost anything else.

0452f1 No.468904

File: e9ca55c4d35294d⋯.jpg (45.47 KB, 514x293, 514:293, Bazooka_Charlie[1].jpg)


Yes, but you're not going to accomplish much with a single M60. You'd be much better off carrying 2-4 fixed gun pods, or just using rockets.

c15601 No.468907

Anyhow, the 172 is a fine airplane, but wouldn't be a good choice for counterinsurgency. It has too little of a useful load. It has no armor (and you can't really bolt any on because of its limited useful load). And, ironically, it's too stable (stability in an airplane is great for making it easy to fly, but bad for maneuverability). If I was going to choose a light airplane to turn into an aerial technical, I'd choose something like a Cessna 185 or a Cherokee Six. The first has already been done (see: Cessna U-17) and the second because of its high useful load (the Six's reputation says that if it can fit through the door, you can pretty much count on being able to take off with it on board).

eeb8aa No.468912


What about a C210? Seems like it could haul enough weight. Are there any kit aircraft that can be used?

8a0822 No.468940


I don't disagree wholly which what you're saying, but just look at why the majority of revenue makers are turbine based. It's because you're more likely to have that issue with a recip, maybe not a failure, but a magneto issue, broken camshaft, fucked up cylinder/heads, etc. I mean, for a improv war machine, maybe you would ignore some of these, but best case you wouldn't fly it if you could use another in the fleet. I'm seeing a difference between a could, and what'd be better.


Vibrations vary greatly, My sedan is a V6, and my C172 is a opposed 4. The V6 has balance, and a opposed 4 actually uses the mounting of the prop to assist its balance issues. Until you move to a 6 opposed, you're not seeing good balance in a 4 banger. In a turbine, those centrifugal forces are designed into the blades, there's no real issue is a normal condition. As far as turbine coolant, that's fuel, not oil. You run fuel across the oil lines in the sump to cool the oil, so until you run out of fuel, you're fine on coolant. The oil is so you aren't grinding parts. I'll assume you meant recip when you said radial, but both can be air or coolant based. Air cooled recips are prone to overheating on the ground, climb, or at high power when in a hot climate, and of course liquid cooled engines are huge, and thus wouldn't apply to this theoretical aircraft. Now your analysis on breakdowns is mostly correct, except I'd expect battle damage on a 4 cylinder engine to seize the cylinder, not just stop it from producing power. You surely can't run a 4 cylinder with only two functioning at flight power. I certainly haven't, and wouldn't want to.


There isn't enough room IMO on a 172, youre volume and weight limited.


I'd agree on the Cherokee six, that fuckers got the balls, I'd recommend >>468912 that you'd really want a C208, certainly not any kit aircraft that I can think of. I'm glad to know I'm not the only anon against a theoretical C172, you have to get bigger.

497e80 No.468947

Someone has to fit BRRRT gun in the back of a Cesna.

4102f5 No.468952

File: 4c07acc5e1718db⋯.jpg (149.34 KB, 587x468, 587:468, 29.JPG)



If any of this delicate ductwork is damaged, you're in trouble.


No I meant radial when I said radial, Po-2 is powered by a radial.

96ca62 No.468955


That's pneumatic, unless I misunderstood the article you linked, you can't run out of air. Also, the writer is talking only about the turbine section of a turbine engine, not the entire turbine engine, so conflating the two is misleading. Plus, the pneumatic cooling on the turbine section blades energizes the boundary layer and lets the blades gain more lift from the passing exhaust. If you somehow lose your pneumatics, you'd produced less power because the turbine wouldn't act as efficiently and, while it wouldn't prevent an overheat of blades, it'd reduce the max overheat.

Also, why bring up a radial engine, those aren't widely available? They surely do fit the requirement and balance well, but they're not widely available.

f5fcb6 No.468980

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.


he ran out of kids to fuck

bd5437 No.468981


You can't just take out one of the cylinders in an average flat 4/6 and expect nothing bad to happen there either. Modern aircraft engines are not fault tolerant.

If you want to drag a museum piece out to win this argument then you'd better have a reliable source of wearable parts to finish the job otherwise after a couple hundred flight hours (the typical Time Between Overhaul of said museum pieces) the thing isn't going to produce enough power to get off the ground, let alone carry you into any kind of situation where maneuverability is required to continue breathing.

What's almost worse is that you know when a turbine is done that it's done. You won't have your redneck (or caucus mountain man) mechanic assuring you that all he needs to do is straighten out a bent pushrod or something and you can dedicate your resources to other more productive pursuits.

4102f5 No.469649


>What's almost worse is that you know when a turbine is done that it's done. You won't have your redneck (or caucus mountain man) mechanic assuring you that all he needs to do is straighten out a bent pushrod or something and you can dedicate your resources to other more productive pursuits.

I'll take this pathetic attempt as you conceding the point.

98288c No.469697


they keep making them heavier over the years, putting in bigger engines, and reducing maneuverability for the safety of poor pilots. Bird dogs are what you want for that kind of stuff, and they just can't carry much. If you're not a spotter or brass-taxi, you might as well go with armed and armored agtractors


>If you want an aircraft that is reliable for a sortie, you use a turbine engine

that's a funny way of say radial



> Turbines only break down when you overheat them, run out of oil, or throw a bird at one.


>Recips break themselves apart.



holy shit I want to do this


> Six's reputation says that if it can fit through the door, you can pretty much count on being able to take off with it on board)


78390b No.469727

File: e30ac248a0470b3⋯.webm (119.66 KB, 538x360, 269:180, Hmm.webm)


>Turbines have to be cooled, if they loose coolant they die

How the fuck do you propose a turbine loses its coolant?

671eb1 No.469751

File: 2bf7047908de674⋯.png (773.05 KB, 752x941, 752:941, 1421332453487.png)


Well congratulations, you don't understand engines. Now what's the next step of your master shitpost?

d4b830 No.469755

4102f5 No.469798

File: 13185319d148200⋯.jpg (175.1 KB, 583x601, 583:601, Shvetsov.jpg)


It gets shot.


Pic related, are you triggered?

>WWII variant: 125hp

>Cold war variant: 250hp

>Modern variant: ???

4102f5 No.469811

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.


By the way here's Hurt Buttan taking off on an aircraft with 18hp engine.

250hp is more than enough for a VERY capable COIN/ISR aircraft. Others have done it successfully, like Beechcraft Musketeer, Cessna O-1, Cessna O-2, FD-25, YO-3, SF.26, Schweizer SGM 2-37, UTVA 75….

4102f5 No.469814

File: 59251cc9e259760⋯.jpg (317.47 KB, 1024x704, 16:11, 14721.jpg)

File: 2ef27f827a2b183⋯.jpg (511.1 KB, 3598x2411, 3598:2411, USAF_Academy_T-41_Mescaler….jpg)

File: 19e19dc16c1f169⋯.jpg (185.66 KB, 600x400, 3:2, T41-01.jpg)

File: 0e43453b379bf2a⋯.jpg (76.33 KB, 720x497, 720:497, RTA-1604.jpg)

File: 3c15a38bd5252f5⋯.jpg (4.35 MB, 3648x2736, 4:3, [email protected]_05NOV09_(695071….jpg)


Cessna T-41, the militarized version of Cessna 172. the one SOME PEOPLE IN THIS THREAD THINK CANT BE MILITARIZED!

0452f1 No.469856


The T-41 is an unarmed basic trainer, it's literally just a standard 172 with new paint and some different instruments. We have now entered leafpost territory.

b401bc No.469864


It dropped agent orange in Vietnam, was a strategy involving crop dusters clearing out jungle brush.

1960f4 No.469922


Well yeah, it is a dedicated ground attack plane its not a wrong way to think about it

f173a0 No.469923


>no german aircrafts


96ca62 No.469980


>he still doesn't understand how turbines work

>he still thinks he's right


You can, ironically I have time in the T-41C, and guess what, other than 30 more horses than a standard C172, it was inferior in every other way. It's a super old design of a 172 and there's a reason they trashed it a long time ago from official use. If you can find a DoD flight club, you can experience it yourself. The guy who gave me the checkout flew them in primary training in probably the 60s in the army. It's worthless.


Are you saying that a canister of agent orange is like putting armor or weapons on a C172? You're literally just doing a low pass until you're either out of the drop zone, or run out of juice.

794d5f No.470014

File: 65ac3ae29dc8679⋯.png (250.5 KB, 998x888, 499:444, 1429135329863.png)



81b9b6 No.470019



68bc9c No.470045


Of course you'd respect it, its Turkish after all

b49cb1 No.470048

File: 5aad36d3a8c85ce⋯.jpg (6.97 KB, 184x184, 1:1, 1432746238391.jpg)

b401bc No.470050

File: f9d1eeaf531cf57⋯.jpg (35.24 KB, 479x316, 479:316, f9d1eeaf531cf578933b0b4651….jpg)


>he doesn't respect the robot

Why is the anglo such a massive homosexual?

68bc9c No.470065


All Jokes aside I respect the Roach Mobile suit


Also I'm a chink

4102f5 No.470355

File: b12d6280cd66bd5⋯.jpg (173.71 KB, 1024x768, 4:3, Cessna.jpg)



Ever get tired of being wrong?


If everyone else is so wrong why can't you provide a argument other than greentext?

81d49a No.470392

File: 2b76dc1222a845f⋯.jpg (139.87 KB, 994x1280, 497:640, gen patton.jpg)

>taking this thread back to things you respect

c15601 No.470406

File: 082395e42f37b13⋯.jpg (662.28 KB, 1600x1074, 800:537, miri_marlin60_9143.jpg)


Okay, look…

Putting a Cessna 172 into service as a CAS aircraft would be like making the Marlin 60 your army's service rifle. Yeah, I guess you could kinda find a way to make it work, sorta, but while there's nothing wrong with that item for what it is, it's not really meant for the task at hand and there are way better options available for it, so why would you?

6d843c No.470412

File: 233b85c9ae2f1c2⋯.png (Spoiler Image, 21.46 KB, 176x232, 22:29, 1247862490r.png)


>mfw I start imagining containers full of surplus Marlin 60's.

>Then I remember they're all gremlins now.

96ca62 No.470415

File: da632fc18ac21e8⋯.gif (909.42 KB, 400x361, 400:361, 1463098761533.gif)


Please explain to me what turbine coolant is. I've stated in the thread that turbine coolant is fuel which runs over the oil sump, and so long as you have fuel you have coolant. I've also stated that (You) can't run out of pneumatic coolant for the turbine section of the powerplant because you are running in the atmosphere. Without the pneumatics, you lose energy in the boundary layer which lowers the turbine's effectiveness, which lowers the thrust available and acts to cool the exhaust. It may not lower the ITT enough to fix itself, but it's only an efficiency thing. Unless you propose you have a pneumatic failure because a line blew out, you're not losing blade cooling. Then you reduce your thrust lever and lower the ITT as a resultant.

As for not understanding engines, recips function by canstantly reversing the pistons back and forth and need greater maintenance inherently, especially for a flight worthy engine. My description of when turbines break also is correct and you have yet to explain how I am incorrect. Now, a rotary recip is better as far as balance goes, but please show me a modern aircraft where one is used. Unless you want to use a fleet of vintage, rare aircraft, or buy a number of rotary engines and somehow mount them on a light single, they're all a theoretical. If you're looking to design a light single with a recip, fair enough, that's not related to the argument at hand.

126170 No.470416


He looks so much like Trump

4102f5 No.470424


Because I don't have access to

> there are way better options

Is this a serious question? Do you think every nation, separatist movement, revolt, insurgency in the world has their own DARPA?


> If you're looking to design a light single with a recip, fair enough, that's not related to the argument at hand.

OK What the fuck do you think we're talking about in the first place?

98ea86 No.470453


Using a C172 or other stock GA light single in a combat role. Also, thanks for sidestepping turbines, I'll accept that as a concession.

4102f5 No.470466



I'll accept this as a concession and an invitation to plow your mothers ass.

98ea86 No.470479

File: b0de025c90c7973⋯.gif (30.01 KB, 250x250, 1:1, b0de025c90c79736a22f4e9735….gif)


Slide somewhere else or admit you're wrong. Go back to canada hothead leaf.

4102f5 No.470487


Original post in the comment thread says Cessna 172 should be used as a base airframe for the COIN aircraft. Meaning there will be modifications.

You didn't even move goalposts, you just invented a bunch of brand new goalposts no one else knew about and then started arguing as if that's the topic.


c15601 No.470570


No, and I don't think that every nation, separatist movement, revolt, or insurgency in the world has its own Eugene Stoner or Sergei Simonov sitting around to design rifles for them, either. So fucking what? The analogy holds.

4102f5 No.470863


The idea is that only state actors can do purpose built shit.

Everyone else has to either buy from state actors, or when that fails (as it does 99% of the time), buy a commercial option and nigger rig it.


96ca62 No.470916


If I go down to my local airfield and have to make a light aircraft my new air force of one, I'm going to take a twin, a mooney, a bonanza, or something else of decent size, not a C172.

I've got my pick of the litter and will assume that a normal layman in this sudden apocalypse would be able to figure out how to start/taxi an aircaft. Even if they did, I'm sure the crash of the first couple guys would ward off new potential joyriders from ruining the rest of the GA fleet around the airfield. Hell, back home we have two C337 skymasters on the field, those would be a supreme choice if the were still airworthy. But I sure as fuck wouldn't pick a C172 when it's a buyers market.

98288c No.471025

Like the image in >>468904, what would you guys rather see on an old plane for entertainment value, rockets or guns?


make an argument any time

I've got an inline-twin, now that thing does try to break itself apart.


>it was inferior in every other way. It's a super old design of a 172

names some changes

>It's worthless.

that's cessna for you


A lot of faster GA planes would suffer immensely from guns bolted on, shit that's already got a lot of drag is less of an issue. The mooney and bonanza would be a problem. You'd need to be building fiberglass or aluminum fairings. Probably for most twins as well.


>I'm going to take


091427 No.471030

File: 68a8b645e1c6079⋯.jpg (93.78 KB, 600x357, 200:119, RWR.jpg)

c15601 No.471042


1) It's not like the only two choices are the Cessna 172 or a purpose-built specialty aircraft. The only way you could think that is if the 172 was literally the only light aircraft you knew existed. It's not. There are plenty of other light aircraft in the world, many of which would be way better choices for what you have in mind than the 172 would.

2) You don't need DARPA to design and build a light airplane. Google "homebuilt aircraft". There are dozens of options available as kits or sets of plans. Most of these were developed by relatively small companies. Basically all of them can be built by someone of reasonable mechanical skill in their garage.

c15601 No.471044


>A lot of faster GA planes would suffer immensely from guns bolted on, shit that's already got a lot of drag is less of an issue. The mooney and bonanza would be a problem.

Sure it would knock a bunch off of your top speed, but in this scenario, I don't think that's much of a consideration.

98288c No.471052


I mean it knocks off proportionally more speed and would effect controllability more on some types of airplanes then others. IF they have roughly the same engine size, the one designed around being slower looks like the better choice to me.

Putting shit on cropdusters still makes the most sense to me.

a2c2bf No.471076

File: 0f6a5567a961635⋯.jpeg (67.17 KB, 800x524, 200:131, image.jpeg)

File: 41fa599863c80a9⋯.jpeg (122.02 KB, 800x514, 400:257, image.jpeg)

File: b7fe844a9cd6248⋯.jpeg (32.58 KB, 421x800, 421:800, image.jpeg)


rip dive bombing

4102f5 No.471182

File: be78c6445565aec⋯.jpg (151.49 KB, 940x576, 235:144, Casio_F-91W_terrorist-009.jpg)


This is your personal option, it doesn't mean that everyone will choose raw performance over proliferation. There's a reason insurgents choose pic related instead of a Swiss watch.

>sudden apocalypse

Nice try but we're not talking about SHTF.

[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / bedman / egy / feet / htg / hwndu / hypno / ita / x ]