Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Kim Campbell landed a severely damaged A-10 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Campbell_(pilot) http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Stories1/001-100/0016_...

The A-10 is designed to fly with one engine, one tail, one elevator, and half of one wing missing.




Mandatory A-10 worship post requirement satisfied. Now onto why guns > missiles, and how the SR-71 was really cool.


Hard to believe that the SR-71 is almost 50 years old and it's still the fastest plane in the world.

[Update] For some reason, I can't reply to the X-15 comment, so I'll add the extra info here. The X-15 is dropped from a B-52. There are a set of rules to qualify for the record. An unpowered scramjet dropped from another plane isn't going to quality either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_airspeed_record


> Hard to believe that the SR-71 is almost 50 years old and it's still the fastest plane in the world.

Its not really that surprising -- survivability through sheer speed seems to have been largely abandoned in favor of focussing largely on stealth (see, B-2 Spirit vs. B-1 Lancer).

With the motivation for pouring money into moar speed gone, you stop getting moar speed.


The SR-71 was never the fastest plane in the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_X-15). It's the fastest "air-breathing" (i.e. not rocket-powered) plane.


> An unpowered scramjet

The X-15 isn't even a scramjet, it's a rocket with a bloke at strapped in.


Does anyone know why the reply function breaks sometimes? Or is it a feature?


The deeper the nesting, the longer it takes a "Reply" link to show up. Wait a bit, reload, and it will be there, or follow the "link" link and it will be there immediately.

This is a deliberate feature to slow down "discussions" that are actually unproductive back-n-forth arguments.


If you load a comment within X minutes, it won't show the reply link. If you click on "link", you'll see the text box for entering your reply as normal anyways.


I'm curious: why guns > missiles?

SR-71 was really cool, except for the leaky fuel issue.


I think nether has decided there are a group of A-10 fanboys who love the plane unconditionally. It has guns not missiles, therefore guns must be better than missiles. Perhaps the same group has unconditional love of SR-71. Not saying any of this myself, just trying to interpret nether's thoughts for you.


In my ROTC days they described the A-10 as basically a "flying gun" ... the rumor was they chose a massive gun, and then designed a plane to fit around it, done.


They're not, which is part of the reason the A-10 is being retired.


Either you're giving people ideas or you have your finger on the pulse of HN:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7363115




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: