Congratulations! Your video, Latest Flight Testing!, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 520 Badge!

Your video, Latest Flight Testing!, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Two water tanks, each holding 3,655 litres (810USgal) of water, are located roughly at the aircraft's centre of gravity. The tanks are located predominately below the floor in the hull, with each side having a header tank that rises into the fuselage compartment. Forward of each water header tank is a 340.5 litre (681 litre total) foam tank, enough foam for 20 drops. Typically, the foam tanks are filled with a short-term retardant that "gels" the water, allowing it to hang up in the forest canopy and delaying run-off when it reaches the ground. https://www.flightglobal.com/flight-test-bombardier-415-the-superscooper/88562.article

When you have neither speed nor maneuverability, it's your own durability that is in question, not the opponents durability.

It took the capture of the Akutan zero, its repair, and U.S. flight testing, to work out countermeasures to the zero.

The countermeasures were basically :
- One surprise diving attack and run away with momentum, or just don't fight them.
- Else bait your pursuer into a head-on pass with an ally (Thatch weave) (which, is still a bad position, only it's bad for everyone.)

Zero had 20mm cannons. The F4F had .50's. The F4F did not out gun the zero. 20mms only need a couple rounds to down a plane.

Durability became a factor later in the war, after the U.S. brought in better planes, like the F4U, F6F, Mustang, etc... while the zero stagnated in near-original form, and Japan could not make planes like the N1K in meaningful quanitties, or even provide quality fuel for planes like the Ki84 to use full power.

History is history. We screwed up at the start of WW2. Hubris/pride/confidence made us dismiss technologies that came around to bite us in the ass hard, and cost a lot of lives.




Best rockets since the 1960's? Because it had the biggest rocket?
What about reliability, consistency, dependability.
If I had to put my own life on the line and go to space, and I had a choice, I would pick a Russian rocket.

-scheherazade

Christ....

Odd how Republicans always scream about "redistribution of wealth", but are fine with the fact that most employers no longer pay living wages the way they used to. They are fine if it's some rich guy taking his wealth generated by his employees' hard work for himself, but god forbid that the government take anything to help those that rich guy is leaving behind. Over half the people who work for Walmart qualify food stamps (only about 30% actually take it), despite the fact Walmart's profits are so high it could pay them all living wages, give them benefits, higher more, give more hours, and still make a huge profit while not raising prices... but it's the people needing food stamps that are bad, not the people who own and operate the company and take so much from their workers.

The one true small government candidate that the Republicans had was Rand Paul, and they rejected him for big government, tough talk, candidates that capitalize on their fears... most of which are fairly unjustified. Americans aren't lining up on the streets to get the sort of jobs that they accuse Mexican's of coming here to take. Our own actions of telling Muslims how to live is the reason they want to kill us, leave them alone and govern themselves... stop preemptively attacking... you know be more Christ like who wouldn't support such things...

And as @oritteropo basically noted, Reagan was far to the left what today's Republican party is. Reagan wouldn't even get through the Primary process. Fox News, Rush and all of them would be ripping him a new asshole for not being "conservative enough". Obama is far closer to Reagan style politics and economics than most today's primary candidates. McCain once upon a time was close to Reagan, but he swung to the right to appeal to the extreme right base, and then added an idiot running mate. Had he ran down the center as he used to be, and got a centralist running mate, he would have had a chance of winning... though Obama sort of captured a hope for progressive change that never came, he turned out to be a Democrat in Name Only and was closer to a Reagan Republican than a true progressive.

Let's also not forget that Congress controls the purse strings and the US economic outlook (at least to what degree the government can, since the rest is in the hands of investors and business owners). Congress has been obstructionist for the last 6 years, and haven't allowed ANY of Obama's policies through, any of his attempts to help fix the economy. Want to blame somebody in the government for the mess, blame Congress, not Obama... if they attempted his stuff, then yes it would be his fault, but they haven't tried a single one of them. You can't say no to trying something, then when what you did instead doesn't work blame the person you said no to.

For the price of the F35 program so far, a plane that only barely passed some of it's flight tests, the rest still failing, we could have bought every homeless person a $600,000 home.... in this area a $150,000 home is very nice (good 3 bedroom home, nice safe neighborhood with good schools), let alone what $600,000 would get you... for the price of it this year, we could fund the school lunch program for 24 years. Now to be fair, I haven't fully vetted those two "facts" myself, but what I have vetted, is for the price of the war in Iraq from 2001 to 2011, we paid more than NASA's entire history, even after adjusting for inflation. It's all a question of priorities. Republican's don't care how much the military costs the taxpayer, but suggestions to help the people being left behind as the rich take more and more for themselves (redistributing the wealth generated by their workers to themselves, rather than their workers) and suddenly they start screaming bloody murder.

Every time a Republican opens their mouth and spouts such things like this video I hate their gullibility... and all too often they talk about their faith and Christ... and I've already covered how the Republican views are 100% opposed to the teachings of Christ and it's why I first lost faith in God as he'd be screaming at them and trying to convict them that their views are wrong were he real. Don't just trust the first few Google results you see, as they filter their results to appeal to you and your views. Don't listen to the echo chamber. Learn to truly vet sources and understand what is actually going on. Don't parrot claims about a "liberal media" or whatever, when over 95% of the news sources out there are controlled by the same 5 companies, none of which have an incentive on letting people know just how bad they are being fucked by the business interests in this country... supporting gay marriage, supporting a minimum level of help isn't liberal, it's being a decent person... being against equal rights under the law because somebody sins differently than you, or not wanting to help somebody because they aren't working 80-100 hours a week is being a heartless asshole. But feel free to keep living in your echo chamber of stupidity, "You are a sad, strange little man, and you have my pity."

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Ordinance, flight testing, no sound, test pilots' to 'ordnance, flight testing, no sound, test pilots, drop tanks, bombs, missiles' - edited by calvados

Your video, New technology Airbus 350 setup for initial flight testing, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 26 Badge!

I have the feeling this is more of a worst case scenario or complete exaggeration being used as an enrolment tool for the AMA rather than a plan set in stone. That said, the FAA is required to respond to public input before setting their rulings, and usually actually listens, so comment to them and follow the story is the best advice I've heard. Sending your $60 to AMA does NOT seem like the proper course of action except for the AMA themselves.
The law is already fairly clear about this....
Here's what the statute says about exempting model aircraft from additional regulation.
(https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr658)
"SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law
relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into
Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this
subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration
may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model
aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft, if—
(1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;
(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-
based set of safety guidelines and within the programming
of a nationwide community-based organization;
(3) the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds
unless otherwise certified through a design, construction,
inspection, flight test, and operational safety program adminis-
tered by a community-based organization;
(4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not
interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and
(5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator
of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport
air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located
at the airport) with prior notice of the operation (model aircraft
operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of
an airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon operating
procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic
control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the
airport)).
(b) STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall
be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue
enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who
endanger the safety of the national airspace system.
(c) MODEL AIRCRAFT DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘model
aircraft’’ means an unmanned aircraft that is—
(1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;
(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating
the aircraft; and
(3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes."

oh what the fuck people ?!?

Seriously? There's even any doubt this is fake? You can clearly tell that there's CG involved; the physics of the contraption are very fake; when he's flying the tracking of the shot with the CG wings and guy flying looks terrible, AND who in their fucking right mind would, on a first flight test with such a fragile, experimental prototype go that way up into the sky risking certain death?

Look at 0:18. Notice the guy in the middle. His motion is really weird, and when he runs up to the camera, at a certain point, his edges are all blurry.

This is fake, and it's not even a good one.

Flight test pilots have an amazing amount of courage and certainly earn my respect:

Here are some videos of the legendary Tex Johnson:

Tex Johnson rolls a Boeing 707

Tex Johnson on test pilots

Scramjets look like they will be hard to mould into an everyday working technology though;

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramjet

"However, scramjets have weight and complexity issues that must be considered. While very short suborbital scramjet test flights have been successfully performed, perhaps significantly no flown scramjet has ever been successfully designed to survive a flight test. The viability of scramjet vehicles is hotly contested in aerospace and space vehicle circles, in part because many of the parameters which would eventually define the efficiency of such a vehicle remain uncertain. This has led to grandiose claims from both sides, which have been intensified by the large amount of funding involved in any hypersonic testing. Some notable aerospace gurus such as Henry Spencer and Jim Oberg have gone so far as calling orbital scramjets "the hardest way to reach orbit", or even 'scamjets' due to the extreme technical challenges involved. Major, well funded projects, like the X-30 were cancelled before producing any working hardware."

From Wikipedia,
The P-791 is an experimental aerostatic/aerodynamic hybrid airship developed by Lockheed-Martin Corporation. The first flight of the P-791 was made on 31 January 2006 at the company's flight test facility on the Palmdale Air Force Plant 42. According to press reports, the designation "P-791" has no particular meaning.

Hybrid airship design

The P-791 is an example of a hybrid airship. In such designs, part of the weight of the craft and its payload are supported by aerostatic (buoyant) lift and the remainder is supported by aerodynamic lift.

The combination of aerodynamic and aerostatic lift is an attempt to create a craft that is a "best of both worlds" combination with the high speed of aerodynamic craft and the lifting capacity of aerostatic craft. Critics of the hybrid approach have labeled it as being the "worst of both worlds" in that such craft require a runway for take-off and landing, are difficult to control and protect on the ground, and have relatively poor aerodynamic performance.[citation needed]

Proponents of hybrid designs claim that these shortcomings can be overcome through advanced technologies. In particular, it has been proposed that the use of various buoyancy control mechanisms can minimize or in some cases eliminate the need for a runway. However, to date, no effective buoyancy control mechanism has ever been demonstrated on a hybrid airship.

No hybrid airship design has ever been developed past the initial experimental stages. And, in spite of the fact that many such designs have been proposed over the years, very few proposed designs have ever flown. One example of hybrid airship design that did take flight was the Aereon 26.

Music: I Got Levitation - 13th Floor Elevators.

And the rest of the story:

In 1962, FRC Director Paul Bikle approved a program to build a lightweight, unpowered lifting body as a prototype to flight test the wingless concept. It would look like a "flying bathtub," and was designated the M2-F1. It featured a plywood shell, built by Gus Briegleb (a sailplane builder from El Mirage, California) placed over a tubular steel frame crafted at the FRC. Construction was completed in 1963.

The success of the Flight Research Center M2-F1 program led to NASA development and construction of two heavyweight lifting bodies based on studies at the NASA Ames and Langley research centers--the M2-F2 and the HL-10, both built by the Northrop Corporation, Hawthorne, California. The Air Force also became interested in lifting body research and had a third design concept built, the X-24A, built by the Martin Company, Denver, Colorado. It was later modified into the X-24B and both configurations were flown in the joint NASA-Air Force lifting body program located at Dryden.

The X-24B design evolved from a family of potential reentry shapes, each with higher lift-to-drag ratios, proposed by the Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory.

To reduce the costs of constructing a research vehicle, the Air Force returned the X-24A to Martin for modifications that converted its bulbous shape into one resembling a "flying flatiron" -- rounded top, flat bottom, and a double-delta planform that ended in a pointed nose.

First to fly the X-24B was John A. Manke, a glide flight on August 1, 1973. He was also the pilot on the first powered mission November 15, 1973.

Among the final flights with the X-24B were two precise landings on the main concrete runway at Edwards, California, which showed that accurate unpowered reentry vehicle landings were operationally feasible. These missions were flown by Manke and Air Force Maj. Mike Love and represented the final milestone in a program that helped write the flight plan for the Space Shuttle program of today.

After launch from the B-52 "mothership" at an altitude of about 45,000 feet, the XLR-11 rocket engine was ignited and the vehicle accelerated to speeds of more than 1,100 miles per hour and to altitudes of 60,000 to 70,000 feet. After the rocket engine was shut down, the pilots began steep glides towards the Edwards runway. As the pilots entered the final leg of their approach, they increased their rate of descent to build up speed and used this energy to perform a "flare out" maneuver, which slowed their landing speed to about 200 miles per hour--the same basic approach pattern and landing speed of the Space Shuttles today.

The final powered flight with the X-24B aircraft was on September 23, 1975. The pilot was Bill Dana, and it was also the last rocket-powered flight flown at Dryden. It was also Dana who flew the last X-15 mission about seven years earlier.

Top speed reached with the X-24B was 1,164 miles per hour (Mach 1.76) by Love on October 25, 1974. The highest altitude reached was 74,100 feet, by Manke on May 22, 1975. The X-24B is on public display at the Air Force Museum, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio.