|
The real question is what kind of CFI would do it.
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 00:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 06:33 |
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:The real question is what kind of CFI would do it. There’s got to be an Instructor Jerry somewhere in the world.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 00:49
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:The real question is what kind of CFI would do it. Hey, if you wanna pay me to get trained on it, I'll do it. Enjoy your 200 hours before your first solo lol.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 00:49
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Hey, if you wanna pay me to get trained on it, I'll do it. Enjoy your 200 hours before your first solo lol. Somehow I don’t think the kind of guy that’d buy a TBM and insist on training with it would go for this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 00:54
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Somehow I don’t think the kind of guy that’d buy a TBM and insist on training with it would go for this. Yeah, well, they can go eat poo poo and find a new instructor as I shop for jobs with TBM time-on-type  And actually, I think I could not do this in Canada because the TBM requires a type rating according to our regulations. PC-12s do not, though, so 
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 00:55
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:I'm gonna buy that F4 Phantom that was for sale and do my PPL with it Brought back memories of some nutjobs on AboveTopSecret forums seeing a decommisioned Carrier for scrap. They had such lofty plans and 'if only each member here paid $10!'
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 14:50
|
|
|
Wasn't there a goon carrier thread too?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 17:11
|
|
|
Zero One posted:Wasn't there a goon carrier thread too? I can't believe that Some sort of attempt to troll Star Citizen cultists, surely
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 17:24
|
|
|
Zero One posted:Wasn't there a goon carrier thread too? Years ago. Check saclopedia, I’d link if I weren’t phone posting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 19:03
|
|
|
Midjack posted:Years ago. Check saclopedia, I’d link if I weren’t phone posting. I thought it was the Russian one that ended up being bought by the Chinese "for a nightclub" then reverse-engineered and refitted. Timeline doesn't line up with goondom activity, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 20:08
|
|
|
I think that it was a Brazilian carrier, the Minas Gerais.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 20:20
|
|
|
An-124 had quite the engine failure earlier today. Friday 13th indeed.  https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20201113-0 
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 23:03
|
|
|
monkeytennis posted:An-124 had quite the engine failure earlier today. Friday 13th indeed. Mentour Pilot had a video of this with a transcript from a russian interview of the captain. The plane suffered a complete electrical failure which prevented the use of thrust reversers and brakes. Also have video from the tower of the landing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAcaF5doFbA
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 02:29
|
|
|
Did it affect the landing gear as well, or are they buried somewhere under there? I assumed they bellied, and it looks like a hull loss. An-124s are tough basterds, though. e: OK gear down & in the snow. Maybe not that bad (from the excursion), then PainterofCrap fucked around with this message at 02:55 on Nov 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 02:52
|
|
|
PT6A posted:It's a terrible idea, but that's never stopped anyone from doing things which are a terrible idea in the past. Speaking of which.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAYGxgVZ618  He really is committed to dying in this thing, I'm impressed. I left him a comment with some questions, but I'm not confident I'll receive any answers...
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 04:00
|
|
|
It really bothers me that he doesn't seem to have any idea the min/max readings are displayed on that graph. He's putzing around with sliders and ignoring the rest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 04:10
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:The real question is what kind of CFI would do it. I flew with a guy for a flight when my regular CFI was unavailable, he had let his CFI lapse for a decade or two and had just gotten recurrent, so he was offering to do freebie instructions to get his name back out there. To illustrate a point about engine failure he cut power at like 300ft after take off when we were still on runway heading, yanked us around at a steep bank to land back on the runway we had just taken off of, and made no radio calls the entire time. If he had turbine time, that CFI would do it. It's not necessarily related, but a few weeks later the 100hr on that plane found a decent size crack in the spar.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 04:16
|
|
|
PainterofCrap posted:Did it affect the landing gear as well, or are they buried somewhere under there? Garage 54 will have that up and flying again in no time. EDIT: Considering recent F-4 chat. Curious Droid recently released a video on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02MMMoeH6vo Humphreys fucked around with this message at 09:16 on Nov 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 08:09
|
|
|
They did surgery on a story. 🛩️: ⏩❓ 📡: 🐌 ✈️: ⏩❓ 📡: 🐢 🚀: ⏩❓ 📡: 🐇 🚀: ... 🚀: 🐇 + 1 😂 📡: 😂
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 17:26
|
|
|
Saukkis posted:Mentour Pilot had a video of this with a transcript from a russian interview of the captain. The plane suffered a complete electrical failure which prevented the use of thrust reversers and brakes. Also have video from the tower of the landing. So when the electrical failure is complete, how does the aircraft not become completely unflyable? (I know it varies, but to this layman complete electrical failure sounds just this side of "the wings fall off".)
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 17:27
|
|
|
EvenWorseOpinions posted:I flew with a guy for a flight when my regular CFI was unavailable, he had let his CFI lapse for a decade or two and had just gotten recurrent, so he was offering to do freebie instructions to get his name back out there. To illustrate a point about engine failure he cut power at like 300ft after take off when we were still on runway heading, yanked us around at a steep bank to land back on the runway we had just taken off of, and made no radio calls the entire time. If he had turbine time, that CFI would do it. It's not necessarily related, but a few weeks later the 100hr on that plane found a decent size crack in the spar. Jesus Christ. Nebakenezzer posted:So when the electrical failure is complete, how does the aircraft not become completely unflyable? (I know it varies, but to this layman complete electrical failure sounds just this side of "the wings fall off".) That’d be a hydraulics failure. In this case I’d assume that they lost all electricity generation for whatever reason (more than one engine must have a generator, right?) and just had battery power for like the radio. Control surfaces and landing gear would still work however. hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Nov 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 17:28
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:
The radio also went dead. They assumed shrapnel cut electrical cables in the fuselage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 17:44
|
|
|
Radio going dead could also just mean shrapnel hit the antennas but regardless they clearly still had hydraulics to some extent
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 17:59
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:So when the electrical failure is complete, how does the aircraft not become completely unflyable? (I know it varies, but to this layman complete electrical failure sounds just this side of "the wings fall off".) The control surfaces are generally controlled both hydraulically and manually, with multiple redundancy. If you lose electrical power, that doesn't affect the hydraulic system in most airplanes, which is pressurized with engine-driven pumps; if you're in a new plane that uses electric pumps, or both engines blew up and you lost pressurization, then you deploy the ram air turbine to get pressure back. If the RAT doesn't work, you likely still have a manual linkage that moves the control surfaces when incredible effort is applied to the control column. In small airplanes without hydraulic systems the controls aren't affected by electrical power at all (except for maybe trim and flaps), so it's not an issue.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 18:04
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:So when the electrical failure is complete, how does the aircraft not become completely unflyable? (I know it varies, but to this layman complete electrical failure sounds just this side of "the wings fall off".) Electricity in airplanes is a convenience not a requirement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 20:02
|
|
|
dupersaurus posted:Electricity in airplanes is a convenience not a requirement. Complete layman here. Does this statement still apply to "fly-by-wire" aircraft (fighter jets I assume).
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 20:07
|
|
|
Z the IVth posted:Complete layman here. Does this statement still apply to "fly-by-wire" aircraft (fighter jets I assume). If there isn’t some standby direct connection to the trim tabs or similar they will have a battery or other source of emergency power (RAT, EPU, etc) dedicated to running the systems necessary for some level of flight control for some period of time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 20:15
|
|
|
Z the IVth posted:Complete layman here. Does this statement still apply to "fly-by-wire" aircraft (fighter jets I assume). It does not. And I'd like to see one of our resident large aircraft pilots to confirm if it applies to modern airliners as well, because I seriously doubt it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 20:22
|
|
|
 looks like a fan blade passed straight through the wing root box, which probably severed a wire bundle that resulted in electrical failure. backup generators and other engines won't help if the physical cabling is cut. as noted, though, even then they were still able to maintain control of the aircraft and land it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 20:28
|
|
|
Entry wound . Exit wound O
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 20:37
|
|
|
Z the IVth posted:Complete layman here. Does this statement still apply to "fly-by-wire" aircraft (fighter jets I assume). No, fly-by-wire jets need electrical power to fly, and the planes are designed with that mind. The F-16's control stick, for instance, only moves about 10 degrees in each direction, so even having a direct hydraulic connection as a backup wouldn't make much sense. Fly-by-wire jets have multiply redundant electrical and hydraulic systems, and an emergency power unit in the case that all the primary systems fail. In the case of the F-16 it's got a hydrazine-powered emergency turbine/generator that will keep the computers running and hydraulics pressurized long enough to make an emergency landing, hopefully. Godholio posted:It does not. And I'd like to see one of our resident large aircraft pilots to confirm if it applies to modern airliners as well, because I seriously doubt it. I also am curious about whether FADEC turbine engines can fall back to some sort of manual/mechanical operation in the case that the computer craps out, or if they just shut down. Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 20:56 on Nov 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 20:53
|
|
|
dupersaurus posted:Electricity in airplanes is a convenience not a requirement. lol. signed, widebody pilot
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 20:59
|
|
|
Fighter jets, like all cowardly aircraft, are equipped with a backup aircraft in case all systems fail.Sagebrush posted:I also am curious about whether FADEC turbine engines can fall back to some sort of manual/mechanical operation in the case that the computer craps out, or if they just shut down. Specifics depend on the engine and controller, but yes. Depending on the failure you may not be able to re-light it, and you may not get indications, but there are turbine engines whose fuel systems basically fail to becoming carburetors, with some asterisks. Other edit: a secondary google as a translate between civ and mil defines FADEC as 'no manual control possible' which is an odd cut line to make, but I'd bet it's engine specific still. Ambihelical Hexnut fucked around with this message at 21:05 on Nov 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 20:59
|
|
|
e.pilot posted:lol. Look, the airbus control laws chart clearly says you can fly with rudder and elevator trim as a mechanical backup! I’m sure that’s something that is extremely viable. http://www.airbusdriver.net/airbus_fltlaws.htm
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 21:05
|
|
|
e.pilot posted:lol. I’m here all week folks, tip your waitress
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 21:11
|
|
|
The flying bits are in the minority in this clip, but it fits in this thread as well as several others within the same topic space I figure. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcggNe-SEXU I really like these 60 fps upscales that are all over youtube these days. There's something about the machine learning interpolation that lends itself well to filling in the blanks between the frames of old footage. There aren't many noticable artefacts either. If you pause and step frame by frame with the period key, you can see one example on dust specks. They appear only on one frame on the real film, but they are interpolated as growing from a tiny point, being a dust speck, then vanishing again. With low detail and high contrast anyway, the algorithm has an easy job.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 21:17
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Look, the airbus control laws chart clearly says you can fly with rudder and elevator trim as a mechanical backup! I’m sure that’s something that is extremely viable. Funny, no one says that about the elevator trim in Boeing. I wonder why.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 21:22
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:I also am curious about whether FADEC turbine engines can fall back to some sort of manual/mechanical operation in the case that the computer craps out, or if they just shut down. On the PW150A, FADEC is required for the engine to function, but the system is designed in such a way that losing both engines to a FADEC failure is incredibly unlikely outside of the airplane being hit by an EMP or something. Once the engine starts, the FADEC system on each engine is powered by a dedicated alternator that doesn't rely on the aircraft electrical system at all, and the FADEC systems also don't connect in any way, so one can't fail and take the other with it. If there's an issue with the FADEC in flight, it'll just log minor faults without notifying the crew, but more significant issues will result in it throwing a master caution to warn the crew that engine response may be degraded and they need to watch that engine limits aren't exceeded. For serious failures, it'll generate a "FADEC FAIL" warning, which does require the crew to shut down the affected engine, if the FADEC doesn't shut it down automatically. If the FADEC system logs too many small faults over a given time, it'll wait until the airplane is on the ground, and then show a message that says "powerplant", which means the crew goes to get breakfast (or whatever meal is convenient), since maintenance has to interrogate the airplane and replace whatever was causing the faults before it can fly again. As far as I'm aware, in something like 15 years of operating that engine, my airline has never had a FADEC completely fail, but there have been cases where it's commanded an engine shutdown because it caught something like a bearing seizing and killed the engine before the problem got worse or the crew was even aware of what had happened.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 22:05
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:On the PW150A, FADEC is required for the engine to function, but the system is designed in such a way that losing both engines to a FADEC failure is incredibly unlikely outside of the airplane being hit by an EMP or something. "Interrogate the airplane" is such an entertaining mental image, at least compared to the more mundane reality of it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 23:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 06:33 |
|
|
azflyboy posted:On the PW150A, FADEC is required for the engine to function, but the system is designed in such a way that losing both engines to a FADEC failure is incredibly unlikely outside of the airplane being hit by an EMP or something. Ackhshully, the FADEC on a turbofan aircraft should live through a pretty beefy EMP according to the FAA required HIRF and EMI test levels. CarForumPoster fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Nov 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 23:45
|
|
