Search results

Isn't it the opposite? Since the F-18 is banking towards the target it would need to be even slower for the apparent increase to make sense. I've always ignored the banking however since the time differential is miniscule and I think the difference would be negligible. But I might be wrong. We...

Neither altitude nor speed. We know the general "flight envelope" limits but don't know exactly the speed. Simulating in DCS would be fun... Another note: the plane is banking around 20-30°? That reduced the stall speed. Also. I've found this which might be useful...

Physics concluded that. You can't do those slow manoeuvres at 25k-40k feet. The air isn't dense enough and the engines are less powerful. To give you an idea here is the graph for the Pratt & Whitney JT8D-17 Also we know the plane isn't flying like that. Compare where the nose is pointing in...

Just had some new ideas. Can we estimate speed for level flight by approximating the angle of attack and attitude of the F-18? Fighters have very "flat" wings so they get most of their lift from AOA. It looks to be flying pretty flat. Also, looking at the right DDI screen. What mode is it in...

Agree with jarlrmai. Let's see a picture of that with an iPhone 8 raw from the camera like in the F-18. We have demonstrated that the F-18 would need to be travelling unrealistically slowly for the size to match. So the batman balloon isn't a good match. Also 500 feet = 152 meters. Merging...

A video would be helpful to understand what is going on. One note: the aircraft is not moving a perfectly circular trajectory. It's changing it's bank angle throughout the video. But it could be a good initial approximation.

He's not impressed. He's confused because the object observed does not correspond to any "usual" flight profile. They are watching a fleet of radar contacts in formation. In restricted airspace. They are 25k feet. They look strange on IR. They don't look like an aircraft. They don't look like...

:-O thirded? That's huge.

Once you start the optical track you would loose the boxed SLAVE indicator as ATFLIR is not using the Radar to track but just the optical track. It's either one or the other.

Absolutely. But in a case such as the Nimitz encounter you have 4 (+1) reputable, expert observers that all agree they clearly saw something out of the ordinary from 2 different points of view. With radar tracks backing their observations. That's one hell of a rare mistake. Although it is...

Totally agree. This is also my conclusion on why the L+S is not boxed. The use the track to point and then switch to optical track. A lot of simmers are pilots/ex-pilots ;-) Also they simulate old versions (such as the 2000s circa era F-18C) so that more info is available on them publicly.

And the Pilots? Are they all just insane or lying or dumb? Also remember: the Pentagon "technically" can't lie to the US public. It would be against the law. And the only reason we will see this report is because during classified briefings to congress committees overseeing them the Pentagon...

Now THAT looks like glare 100%. What we see in the video looks much different.

I have your model open right now but I think I have missed something. I can't see a point where all three lines converge as it would be necessary for a static object. There is no static solution I can find on your model. What are the values for your proposed solution? What speed of the object...

He explicitly says so here (exact moment cued up): Source: https://youtu.be/Tyw4JA00AMc?t=752

3 observations: the object is not at "constant speed". It seems to be slowing down. So I think Chris's analysis would need to use a line that is rotated counterclockwise a little bit. the object does seem to be substantially bigger by the end of the video. We are getting closer to the object...

You would see the body/nose of the aircraft if seen from the side. Directly form the back is the only way this would make some sense. And even like that I think you would see the body of the aircraft. Those pods are good. Also: the only aircraft with centrally mounted jet engines are military...

Source: https://twitter.com/alpha_check/status/1401853489295380488?s=20 This is baffling to me. I was assuming that range was from the radar and probably accurate. Pilots disagree. Obviously, we should listen to them as they know how those systems really work (we really don't unfortunately)...

1.2 mach is fast even for a fighter. Going beyond that is unusual and expensive. Not ordinarily done. And would be on all radars IFF etc. Hornet has a top speed of Mach 1.8 so you aren't going that much further even at top speed. I would exclude this source for the glare. It can be glare but...

what is the source of that image?!