|
Genderfluent posted:This is like those AI generated images where you know you recognize something in the picture but you can't figure out what anything in the picture is Because they've kept the original landing gear (two sets of...) sticking out of the floats, and the rest of the plane is mounted tail-down on the floats in the same attitude it would have it was sat on its wheels, it looks like when you get your addon files in the wrong order in MSFS and an An-2 has clipped through a speedboat. Edit: That must be quite an imposing thing in real life. In a normal An-2 the pilot it something like 15 feet off the ground as it is. When I flew on one here in the UK, the group that own it have to be careful which way they park it at their rather sloping airfield, since if you increase the normal tail-down angle by parking it nose-up an incline it can be very difficult (not to mention unnerving) climbing along the spine of the fuselage to extract the locks from the slats, not to mention your eyes being about 22 feet off the ground once you're standing level with the leading edges. I do love An-2s. They're one of the aircraft that got me interested in aircraft. I remember first encountered one in an 'oddballs' section at the back of a 'All The World's Aircraft' sort of book that was printed in the 1970s and my parents found at a jumble sale for me. It had some pictures of Aeroflot and Interflug An-2s and I just loved the idea that there were still bits of the world where prop-driven biplanes were chugging in and out of grass fields as airliners like it was the 1920s. The same page featured the Ford Trimotors still used to hop between some islands in the Great Lakes (IIRC). Every now and then I do a search of YouTube for vids of An-2s cropdusting. It's just bizarre to watch a 1000hp 5-ton biplane being chucked around at low altitude like its in War Thunder or something: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmocx8fVniY&t BalloonFish fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Jan 25, 2021 |
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 18:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 07:45 |
|
|
winnydpu posted:I found this at the Chinese airforce museum- they found a way to make the AN-2 even slower: And I thought the F-18's canted pylons were draggy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 18:12
|
|
|
dev/null posted:"Extensive field maintainence and temporary repairs" = new set of wheels, some sheet plastic, and three cases of duct tape SPEEDTAPE 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 19:47
|
|
|
babyeatingpsychopath posted:And I thought the F-18's canted pylons were draggy. The drag isn’t so bad when you’re only doing 75kts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 19:48
|
|
|
I saw an An-2 taxi past me and take off in front of me while I was in the run-up bay. It's an absolutely stunning airplane IRL, it's quite something to see something that gently caress-off huge hoist itself into the air with such a short takeoff roll. I was overtaken in flight by one once too, and he said on the radio it's the first time he's ever overtaken anything in the An-2. It's slow, but it's still faster than a 172! Fun fact: the procedure to recover from an engine failure in night or IMC is to hold the controls all the way back and settle down to Earth at a parachute rate. Ukrainians be like "airframe parachute? That sounds stupid, the entire airframe can be a parachute if you try hard enough!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 19:59
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I saw an An-2 taxi past me and take off in front of me while I was in the run-up bay. It's an absolutely stunning airplane IRL, it's quite something to see something that gently caress-off huge hoist itself into the air with such a short takeoff roll. Isn't that Diamond's approach as well?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 21:16
|
|
|
This is not how the treadmill problem is meant to be approached
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2021 08:52
|
|
|
Mao Zedong Thot posted:Isn't that Diamond's approach as well? At least on the Diamonds I'm familiar with (the DA-20 and DA-40) they'll definitely stall, so the engine-out procedures are pretty much what you'd expect from a piston single.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2021 08:52
|
|
|
Phy posted:This is not how the treadmill problem is meant to be approached nice
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2021 08:57
|
|
|
Phy posted:This is not how the treadmill problem is meant to be approached In Russia, treadmill problem trains you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2021 14:17
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:At least on the Diamonds I'm familiar with (the DA-20 and DA-40) they'll definitely stall, so the engine-out procedures are pretty much what you'd expect from a piston single. According to a rumor I heard once, setting the trim all the way nose-up is supposed to give you vbg in a Diamond. My source is literally "my friend who used to work for Delta", so I could be wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2021 16:00
|
|
|
Most GA planes full nose up trim gets you pretty close to best glide
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2021 23:55
|
|
|
The important difference being, you really don't want to stall in most planes, you need to fly to a landing spot. Apparently in the An-2 either the stall is not possible or its so benign that a prolonged stall will result in a gentle descent that will be safe upon impact.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2021 00:56
|
|
|
PT6A posted:The important difference being, you really don't want to stall in most planes, you need to fly to a landing spot. Apparently in the An-2 either the stall is not possible or its so benign that a prolonged stall will result in a gentle descent that will be safe upon impact. The stall speed of an AN-2 is less than 30 knots so the idea is probably you either make it out of the cloud bank or have a relatively survivable crash.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2021 01:20
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTbm5ZzZQy8 fast planes are cool and all but reeeallllly slow planes have a magic all their own 
HookedOnChthonics fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Jan 27, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2021 01:31
|
|
|
HookedOnChthonics posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTbm5ZzZQy8 That's not how sailplanes work! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2021 02:00
|
|
|
It's not a sailplane, it's a flying boat 
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2021 17:24
|
|
|
Supersonic airliner company builds swank new HQ in Orlando https://edition.cnn.com/travel/arti...m_source=fbCNNi
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2021 18:14
|
|
|
I don't care if defies the laws of physics, I want them to succeed so bad. Hell, even if they defraud a bunch of VC investors and make off with piles of cash to a country with lax extradition laws, I'll consider that a win.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2021 18:23
|
|
|
quote:But perhaps one of the AS2's most innovative features is its "boomless cruise" which allows the plane to fly supersonically over land without the boom striking the ground. Instead, the noise gets refracted back up into the atmosphere. the gently caress is this
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2021 19:47
|
|
|
It’s either bullshit or they accidentally made a civilian version of whatever replaced the Blackbird, though I’d expect Lockheed would have bought them out long ago if their idea worked.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2021 19:49
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Supersonic airliner company builds swank new HQ in Orlando Supersonic airliner company should probably be focusing on building a supersonic airliner.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2021 20:22
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:the gently caress is this Bullshit Artist posted:The world can't wait until 2050 to become carbon neutral. We have to do this today.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2021 20:42
|
|
|
Midjack posted:It’s either bullshit or they accidentally made a civilian version of whatever replaced the Blackbird, though I’d expect Lockheed would have bought them out long ago if their idea worked. Satellites don't have to worry about a sonic boom hitting the ground. Edit: Neither does the U-2. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2021 20:43
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/cityoftlh/status/1354482737688797184?s=21 Tornado
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2021 20:50
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Supersonic airliner company builds swank new HQ in Orlando $300 million on a loving headquarters, lmao if there was ever a sign not a single end item will be produced, let alone sold and operated profitably. the only thing going supersonic here is the burn rate of VC cash.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2021 21:05
|
|
|
i'm trying to come up with something more tone-deaf than, in the middle of a global pandemic and recession, "we think people will pay for the time savings" go gently caress yourself up the rear end with a cactus. this last year has proved that essentially all business travel at the white-collar or executive level is completely redundant. if the meeting can't wait you can do it instantly for free over zoom. this jet is for the elon musks of the world, with so much money that they literally can't find enough things to spend it on, to get between their various pieds-a-terre slightly faster, nothing else. nuke em
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2021 21:18
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Satellites don't have to worry about a sonic boom hitting the ground. You’re not wrong, but I still remember when they retired them then briefly brought them back into service several years later.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2021 21:26
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:i'm trying to come up with something more tone-deaf than, in the middle of a global pandemic and recession, Weird snake-oil-salesman-vibes from the article aside, It’s not like all travel is business-related. The general traveling public does appreciate shorter flight times. Plus, given how long development cycles are, they’re not planning for having the airplane enter the market any time soon. I imagine they’re thinking about 10 or more years ahead when the air travel market should have recovered significantly for this investment to make sense. cigaw fucked around with this message at 22:49 on Jan 27, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2021 21:43
|
|
|
I guess the real scam here is to own a construction company, just need a couple VCs to pay for overpriced buildings.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2021 22:16
|
|
|
Midjack posted:You’re not wrong, but I still remember when they retired them then briefly brought them back into service several years later. So do I, but the first retirement was very Cold War-based. Everything was being chopped. And the AF knew the mission was still important, which is why they were kept available for returning. The differences between the two retirements are not coincidental.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2021 22:45
|
|
|
cigaw posted:Weird snake-oil-salesman-vibes from the article aside, It’s not like all travel is business-related. The general traveling public does appreciate shorter flight times. Even in good times, airlines have stupidly low profit margins, and the trend over the last 30-ish years has generally been towards larger, more cost effective aircraft. I'm sure they'll sell some of these airplanes to charter companies, governments, and super wealthy people, but I just don't see the economics working for airlines to buy relatively small airplanes that'll be 100% reliant on high end business travelers and wealthy individuals to turn a profit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2021 23:34
|
|
|
The general public has proven time and time again that they are more sensitive to overall flight price than they are to duration, connections, luxury, seat width, pitch, temperature, not being beaten by the flight crew, or literally any other factor. I hope they build the thing and sell at least a few, but the idea of airlines buying them is laughable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2021 23:38
|
|
|
I misread their mission and target audience for sure. Thanks for correcting me. Still, I think there is a market for it and I don’t see a problem with its development whether or not it happens during a pandemic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2021 00:08
|
|
|
cigaw posted:Weird snake-oil-salesman-vibes from the article aside, It’s not like all travel is business-related. The general traveling public does appreciate shorter flight times. The article says they are planning to have the first flight in 2024 and on the market in 2026. And while the public does appreciate shorter flight times, I don't think they appreciate them enough to pay for the exponentially higher costs of operating a supersonic airplane, let alone one that has to amortize the cost over 12 people. The general traveling public did not consider the shorter flight time to be worth the price of a Concorde ticket, and that was a full-sized airliner that flew at Mach 2. Aeronautical engineering has gotten better since the 1960s but it will always cost more money to fly at m=1.4 than m=0.85. If the plane ever exists (I would give them, generously, a one in four chance of making it to a supersonic test flight) it will be for rich assholes like Musk and Bezos, full stop. cigaw posted:I misread their mission and target audience for sure. Thanks for correcting me. I believe it is unethical to design things that could only be used by the vampire class that are ruining the planet. gently caress them. The only upside here is that it's taking a shitload of money from those same rich assholes and distributing it to relatively normal aeronautical engineers and such (but mostly just to slightly-less rich assholes) Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Jan 28, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2021 00:12
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:The article says they are planning to have the first flight in 2024 and on the market in 2026. Like I said, I was incorrect about their market. You're right that it's a tight development if they're planning a first flight in 2024. Why is its development that much more different than any initial development in aviation? Air travel cost in the past few years has been the cheapest ever, allowing for a drastic increase in the flying public when compared to the Golden Age and it's still inaccessible to vast swathes of the world population. Business and personal jets are all targeted to a very small portion of the population and they keep rolling out new and upgraded ones - is this wrong? I'm not trying to antagonize you, it seems to me that you're against this thing in particular, I have no idea what your views are regarding business jets or a similar market segment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2021 00:45
|
|
|
Apropos of nothing one of my favorite little things about Concorde is how the seats + floors of the passenger cabin are completely separate units that sit on rollers inside the fuselage, to mask the expansion and contraction of the metal
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2021 00:46
|
|
|
cigaw posted:Like I said, I was incorrect about their market. You're right that it's a tight development if they're planning a first flight in 2024. I would say I'm generally against business jets too, lol. And million-dollar supercars, and twenty-million-dollar mansions, and all that poo poo. No private person should ever own that sort of thing (until everyone can). So yeah it's not about the plane, specifically -- a small supersonic airplane is cool. If it were NASA developing it with government money for MSF to quickly fly doctors to disaster zones or whatever then that would be super cool. I am just disgusted knowing that it only exists as a rich person's toy, just another way that the stratospherically wealthy can be even further separated from the rest of humanity. Sort of a "why are we giving the CEO a bonus when the janitors still make $7.85/hr" thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2021 00:57
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:The general public has proven time and time again that they are more sensitive to overall flight price than they are to duration, connections, luxury, seat width, pitch, temperature, not being beaten by the flight crew, or literally any other factor. I work for an airline that was obsessed with winning those stupid JD Power awards, and we'd get emails about once a month telling us that we were supposed to do *insert thing here* to try and get the stupid JD Power score go up so we could pay JD Power about $300k to say we won an award that no one cared about. At a mandatory "all hands" propaganda meeting a couple years ago, someone included a slide that conclusively proved that the traveling public gave exactly zero shits about JD Power (In a survey of why people booked with a specific airline, it was nowhere on the list of reasons given), but the airline finally shut up about it when JD Power changed the rules so we were competing with Southwest and JetBlue, who absolutely kicked our asses. The other thing about the "supersonic airliner/business jet" business model that makes zero sense is that both of the companies promising one of those airplanes are relying combining a new airframe and new engine, which rarely works for companies like Boeing or Airbus, let alone a startup based on VC morons giving them money.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2021 02:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 07:45 |
|
|
cigaw posted:Like I said, I was incorrect about their market. You're right that it's a tight development if they're planning a first flight in 2024. If they produce a single airframe that goes supersonic I'll eat a ban. The only vehicle that company's researching is a vehicle to funnel stupid VC money into a giant pile of blow for the CEO and his friends. Sonic boom redirecting and carbon neutral somehow? Give me a break. E: It's a trijet though, that's cool! Elviscat fucked around with this message at 02:36 on Jan 28, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2021 02:32
|
|
