spudsmac wrote:Why would they not be able to go faster than 250 kts at lower altitudes? Is the low altitude airspace over Oregon specially designated for hang-gliders and micro-lights?Could be a number of things. Maybe they were testing sensors, maybe engine tests with more dense air, anything really. Maybe they flew at 10,000 because they wanted to pretty low but wanted to go faster than 250kts. Go to 10, then go as fast as you can....
citationjet wrote:"Also" designed? Hell, surely that's it's main mission. You don't hunt Soviet submarines from 30,000 ft."P-8 is also designed for low altitude missions..."
wikipedia wrote:That figures....The P-8 has a strengthened fuselage for low-altitude operations.
Ok, maybe anti-submarine warfare has changed a bit since I last checked.The P-8 is to be equipped with the High Altitude Anti-Submarine Warfare Weapon Capability (HAAWC) Air Launch Accessory (ALA), turning a Mark 54 torpedo into a glide bomb for deploying from up to 30,000 ft (9,100 m)
Flow2706 wrote:Never done any test flights, but I heard that slow flight/stall tests are done at around this altitude. At high altitude (typical cruise levels, FL300+) the aerodynamics are rather different due to the effect of the mach number. Altitude loss from a fully developed stall at high altitudes can easily reach 3000-5000ft, however at lower altitude it is usually less then 1000 or even less than 500ft.
GalaxyFlyer wrote:We know it’s a test flight due to routing and type. Why it was flown at 10,000’ is on the test card and nobody’s business but the crew, Boeing Flight Ops and US Navy. It didn’t seem to violate any regulations at that height, which then would be an issue for the FAA.
seb146 wrote:GalaxyFlyer wrote:We know it’s a test flight due to routing and type. Why it was flown at 10,000’ is on the test card and nobody’s business but the crew, Boeing Flight Ops and US Navy. It didn’t seem to violate any regulations at that height, which then would be an issue for the FAA.
It was not something I was used to seeing. I was curious. I know we have our differences in Non-Av but here?
I do not have experience with military aircraft like others do. I ask questions so I can understand and learn things. I don't know why that would be an issue.
GalaxyFlyer wrote:I’ve spent 40+ years in aviation, it can be a highly compartmentalized business. We had NDAs at all my civilian jobs; we even had them in the military. Despite today’s world of everything being a public matter, a lot isn’t and shouldn’t be unless it’s a violation of law or public safety. I was given a number of NDAs to sign in the military (and I had a TS clearance, too) and just recently signed one for work as a contractor. I’m sorry, but things that aren’t my business, I’m pretty used to ignoring.
seb146 wrote:As I said in the first post, we do not see much of anything flying over. I think is unusual for a modern commercial jet to be flying that low anyway. It was odd. I was not asking for state secrets. I was wondering what, in general, they would be doing. I was not blaming anyone, I was not wanting classified information.
Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe
Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days
Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit
Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior
Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft
Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials
Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions
Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin
Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon
Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos
Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft
Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries
Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground
Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos