|
Needs more pics. My favorite piston engine aircraft. Supposedly a new replica with an abortion of a canopy, but I don't care.  (C) Richard Seamen
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 04:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 15:58 |
|
|
The human brain does fine with depth perception on a screen. Otherwise all those full motion simulators used for training would be completely useless. At the distance stuff happens in aviation our normal depth perception breaks down anyway (because there's not enough parallax between the eyes). We stop registering depth as the difference in perspective between two eyes and start registering it by relative motion to your point of view. And really, pretty much every current concept for SST has cameras and screens. Here's an NY Times article from 10 years ago about NASA's work in just that area. You can google "eXternal Visibility System" for more info, although it was phased out in 1999 along with the High Speed Civil Transport project.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 04:45
|
|
|
Although it wouldn't fly, so to speak, on commerical aircraft, I could see military aircraft where you have two cameras mounted some distance apart to give you some depth perception at range. You would have to wear a helmet with a pair of screens over your eyes though. You could even have several pairs of cameras with varying degrees of separation (including maybe a pair on each wingtip) for different conditions.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 04:53
|
|
|
...The article I linked was about using a camera system on the High Speed Civil Transport. Going cameras on a military aircraft is bad (unless it was some insane high altitude waveriding bomber, which at that point you've got unmanned ICBM's, so who cares?) since you need to have as much visibility as possible what with missiles and other planes and all the other poo poo trying to kill you from every direction.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 05:27
|
|
|
ApathyGifted posted:...The article I linked was about using a camera system on the High Speed Civil Transport. General aviation is like that. Substitute missles with flocks of birds, aircraft trying to kill you with meandering aircraft not on your tower's frequency trying to kill you, and you still haven't addressed how to look 180 degrees in front the plane. Let alone the times I had to lean forward, put my head to the side glass and look back. The computer games/simulations do it because its a simulation, and you can use a joystick to move the pilots head. Not applicable in real life. edit: and really how much do you think windows weigh in comparison to triple redundant cameras/power. edit2:Grammar and lack of sleep really don't go well together. Entone fucked around with this message at 05:58 on May 6, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 05:54
|
|
|
I got Sled Driver today! What an excellent book. I had no idea it was so full of pictures. I got it in the most unexpected way possible. I mentioned it in passing to a friend and this morning she hands it to me with a "eh, no biggie" look.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 06:57
|
|
|
Bugdrvr posted:I got Sled Driver today! What an excellent book. I had no idea it was so full of pictures.  drat. That is on hell of a way to get that book.I don't suppose you have the ability to post some scans of random pages, do you?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 07:30
|
|
|
Entone posted:General aviation is like that. Substitute missles with flocks of birds, aircraft trying to kill you with meandering aircraft not on your tower's frequency trying to kill you, and you still haven't addressed how to look 180 degrees in front the plane. Let alone the times I had to lean forward, put my head to the side glass and look back. The computer games/simulations do it because its a simulation, and you can use a joystick to move the pilots head. Not applicable in real life. We're talking about replacing the droop nose of aircraft like the Concorde and Tu-144 with cameras and TV screens, not the Cessna down at your local airstrip. If your Cessna has a droop nose I want pictures. And the guy I was quoting in the post you're replying to said Commercial aviation, not General.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 07:32
|
|
|
ApathyGifted posted:We're talking about replacing the droop nose of aircraft like the Concorde and Tu-144 with cameras and TV screens, not the Cessna down at your local airstrip. If your Cessna has a droop nose I want pictures. IFR is IFR. Regardless if its an American Airlines 737 from DFW or a Learjet out of a municipal. The same rules still apply. You still didn't address a single concern I had about the cameras, besides triple redundancy  , regardless of airframe.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 08:28
|
|
|
Anyone ever see an APU give up the ghost? We pushed out a Frontier A319 last year and the APU started to spew flames out all over the grass by the taxiway and caught it all on fire. The ARFF got there pretty quick though.....good thing the station is by that airside.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 09:03
|
|
|
Entone posted:IFR is IFR. Regardless if its an American Airlines 737 from DFW or a Learjet out of a municipal. The same rules still apply. You still didn't address a single concern I had about the cameras, besides triple redundancy Your concerns: (This is literally from reading your posts on the subject just now.) Visibility, Field of View, a hypothetical total loss of electrical systems, and a snide remark about how much a drooping nose weighs compared to a quadruple redundant electrical system. I've addressed all three of them already, but here's a conveniently sectioned list: Visibility:Better with cameras. That's right. BETTER. I already covered how depth perception is already shot why flying because of the lack of parallax involved. Meanwhile, a camera can zoom in, the visual data can be used in conjunction with radar/GPS/traffic control to automatically highlight traffic around you (hell the F-35 already does this in the helmet mounted display so you can see enemies directly below you, through the floor). And that's just the day time. Switch over to night and all your eyes are good for is finding strobes out there, unless you're over a city in which case your night vision will be shot. But as pilot in the article I posted before point out, cameras aren't limited to the visual spectrum. It's much, much easier to find a plane out there in the night sky if you can see in the infrared. Not that you'll need that, what with the traffic highlighting I pointed out in the last paragraph. And if this all sounds fanciful to you, keep in mind that this technology is already in use in aircraft around the world, just not all of it in ONE aircraft. Except possibly the F-35. Field of view: Ties back into visibility, but you can use multiple cameras. They're aren't heavy and they're ridiculously small, you can put them pretty much anywhere you want. Hell, there are consumer 1080P cameras that are smaller than the palm of your hand for just over $1,000. I've personally worked with data-collection cameras that were smaller, about the size of a Duplo Block, although they were 720P. And of course, you can always have a zoom function. Compare this theoretically unlimited field of view to that in a Skyhawk. Anything to the left or right above the horizontal is obscured by the wing. Anything more than 10 degrees down in every direction but about a 45 degree window to your left is obscured by the fuselage. Anything from 60 degrees up from the 12 o'clock down to no more than 30 degrees above the horizontal at your 6 o'clock is obscured by the roof. drat near 2/3's of the sky is covered up by your own aicraft. Moving around like putting your head against the glass reduces this to somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 depending on your height and flexibility. If you're in a turn, the down wing obscures every altitude in a 30 degree field, conveniently in the direction you're turning towards. Commercial airliners are arguably worse. Haven't been into the cockpit of an airliner in flight, but crunching the geometry I'd guess you can see a greater angle downward, roughly the same angle upward when it comes to the forward views. You trade off the wings-in-the-way problem of the Skyhawk for the MASSIVE blind spot behind you that covers at least 1/3 of the sky no matter how hard you press against the glass. And of course you'll be relying on a co-pilot to press his head against the glass on the right side. An SST would be even WORSE. Concorde already is worse on the visibility front, even with the drooping nose. Hypothetical total power outage: Already addressed this with redundancy, which you scoffed at by saying you don't have quadruple redundancy in aviation. Funny thing is, when it comes to electronics in aviation, you often have MORE than quadruple redundancy. When taking overlapping redundancies in the system into account you can have upwards of a dozen redundancies dependings on the failure. I got a kick out of you mentioning all the batteries and magnetos failing as well. While you keep putting everything into the reference frame of General Aviation, the mere fact that I'm advocating this on SST's puts it in a whole different ballpark. In another city. On the other side of the country. Let's throw out an example of the ground in between the two: Commercial Jet Aviation. In some models you already have 3-4 redundant systems on power generation alone. Normally the electrical systems are powered by one engine. The backups can include any/all of the following: The other engine, (twin engine aircraft), the two other engines (four engine aircraft), the APU, a deployable wind turbine (already in place, and already put to use once on an Airbus A330), and a bank of backup batteries. Weight of droop nose compared to many-redundant eletronic system: I avoided using a number before because I couldn't find one I could cite for the Concorde's nose system, but I vaguely recall reading that the system added nearly 7,000 pounds of weight to the Concorde. Throw in the fact that it was as far forward as you could possible add weight, and as a pilot you should know the merry hell that played with the CG. Meanwhile, you could plaster the whole cockpit withe LCD's all over the walls, the floor, the ceiling, the back of the pilots' chairs and even put one in the yoke to show the in flight movie, plus a hundred 1080P cameras around the aircraft at the size I mentioned earlier and you still wouldn't even be close to that weight. Hell, I was only advocating the use of a no-windows camera system in an SST to remove the needless complexity and weight of a retractable heat shield (since that is what everyone who is still working on an SST concept is doing anyway). The more I read up on it in an attempt to cite myself, the more I want a camera system on EVERY plane (albeit in conjunction with windows on anything subsonic). The increase to situational awareness is just staggering. Although I don't know why the hell I'm still trying to say how you could fix these essentially non-existant problems when NASA already built the drat system and tested it.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 09:46
|
|
|
People are still working on SSTs?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 14:25
|
|
|
jandrese posted:People are still working on SSTs? Not seriously no. And it makes sense too. There isn't really any screaming market demand for quicker long distance travel and there is no real urge for technological advancement like in the 50s and 60s.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 14:52
|
|
|
Mobius1B7R posted:Anyone ever see an APU give up the ghost? We pushed out a Frontier A319 last year and the APU started to spew flames out all over the grass by the taxiway and caught it all on fire. The ARFF got there pretty quick though.....good thing the station is by that airside. Not an APU, but I've seen a JFS shell out. Was getting ready to crank and there was this god-awful cacophony of noise and a poo poo load of smoke and metal pieces shot out the exhaust. It genuinely looked like the F-15 poo poo itself. Scared the poo poo out of me and the pilot though. Don't think I've seen a zipper get out of a cockpit that quickly.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 17:05
|
|
|
Edit: Blah, nevermind.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2010 00:12
|
|
|
I could share a story about stopping ground traffic at PDX with a burnt bagel...
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2010 01:09
|
|
|
ApathyGifted posted:Your concerns: (This is literally from reading your posts on the subject just now.) The visibility out of the flight deck windows in an airliner is actually a lot better than you give credit for. You can turn around and look at your wingtips (or even engines) in some airliners (like the 737). One thing you neglect to mention is that in any fighter aircraft, having an unobstructed 360 degree view constitutes a fairly major tactical advantage, so it will be included no matter what the cost to the end user is. In an airliner, there just isn't a need for that kind of sensory information. Remember that airliners fly almost exclusively under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), where traffic separation is provided by ATC. Plus, with TCAS in every airliner right now and widespread utilisation of ADS-B coming in the next few years, the need for more visibility is reduced further. In fact, Boeing has decided that TCAS and other emergent technologies have mitigated the need for non-forward visibility to the point that they recently removed the so-called "eyebrow windows" from new-build 737s, and created an STC to remove them from all other models of the 737. jandrese posted:People are still working on SSTs? The supersonic business jet is still very much alive - Dassault, Gulfstream and start-up Aerion are all actively developing SSBJs. As a matter of fact, announcements made at EBACE this past week seem to indicate that both Aerion and Gulfstream's SSBJ projects have gathered quite a bit of momentum in the last year; the impression I got is that both projects are sufficiently advanced so as to move from the theoretical to the practical phase of development.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2010 02:46
|
|
|
Fire Storm posted:
I'll definitely get some scans as soon as I have a bit of time. I haven't even read it yet, just flipped through looking at the pictures.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2010 04:43
|
|
|
SyHopeful posted:I could share a story about stopping ground traffic at PDX with a burnt bagel... Why wouldn't you post it? 
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2010 11:07
|
|
|
Silly harrier, that's not your ship! Click here for the full 1024x700 image.  Click here for the full 415x640 image.  Click here for the full 640x460 image. quote:As Sea Harrier ZA 176 settled on the slick containers, it began sliding backward. Watson tried to retract the landing gear. The main gear dropped off the back edge of the container. A delivery van on the ship, en route to a florist shop in Tenerife, suffered a blow as the rear of the Sea Harrier hit the deck. The captain of the Alraigo refused to let the drop-in visitor throw him off schedule: The British government was informed that Watson and the jet would arrive in Tenerife in four days. http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/Oldies__Oddities_.html
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2010 19:19
|
|
|
Revolvyerom posted:That's kind of a post that takes up space an otherwise interesting story about just such that event could be in.  I used to do GA line service at Portland International. At the time of this particular story, I was working the graveyard shift, 9pm-7am. Once a month the Line Service Dept had a monthly meeting that all personnel were required to attend, even if it meant getting up in the middle of my night. I managed to drag myself down to the airport a half hour before the meeting and started BSing with the day shift line guys, wishing the whole time I wasn't on that god-forsaken graveyard shift. One of the perks of line service is leftover catering. Rich people usually bring an excess of perfectly good, gourmet food, and I noticed there were some tasty morsels laying out and up for grabs. So I grabbed a bagel, walked back into the kitchen that was attached to our conference room, threw the bagel into the toaster, and wandered back to the line service room overlooking the ramp. Well, maybe two minutes later the fire alarms in our building went off. Strobes, horns, the works. Nobody panicked or anything, but goddamn if it wasn't obnoxiously, painfully loud, especially when William Herbert Blueblood, III, Esq. is in the lounge trying to read the Wall Street Journal. The fire alarm system in our building wasn't just a local alarm: since our system was externally monitored, it automatically sent out an alert to the nearest fire department. The nearest fire department, at an airport, is of course the airport's fire department, which was on the other side of the airport. And since the taxiways were the most direct way to our ramp and building, the crash trucks rolled, and ground control called a halt to ground traffic along the path of the crash trucks. I knew what had caused the alarm; our toaster was known to do bagels extra crispy, but hadn't set the alarm off before, and I also blame my very fatigued state of mind. I sneaked back to the kitchen and retrieved my bagel, which at this point was more the color and texture of a hockey puck. So within 4-5 minutes of me putting my bagel in the toaster, our ramp is swarming with crash trucks, driving around assessing the situation. A smaller firetruck pulls up right in front of our building and the battalion chief or commander or whoever is usually the head honcho came walking swiftly into our lobby, turnout gear and all. I sheepishly presented him the lump of charcoal in my hand. He gave me a look that seemed like a 50/50 mix of disappointment and annoyance, checked the rest of the building to be absolutely sure, and radioed the good (bad?) news to the crash crews waiting outside. My manager apologized profusely, gave me a ration of poo poo, and promptly threw the toaster in the dumpster. Oh, and to add insult to injury, one of the Oshkoshes they rolled out in blew a head gasket or something similarly catastrophic. It began belching steam out of the exhaust stack while pissing antifreeze all over our ramp. I assuaged my guilt over that by deciding it was better to have the truck fail over a burnt bagel rather than an actual plane crash.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2010 00:29
|
|
|
Manny posted:Silly harrier, that's not your ship! I want to see the insurance claim the van's owner writes.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2010 04:05
|
|
|
jandrese posted:It's kind of a shame that nobody really built a scramjet. Impracticality be dammed, it would be awesome! As clarified, they do exist. NASA did the X-43 and the University of Queensland, in Australia, were actually the first to get one working outside of lab conditions. They and NASA work hand in hand on scramjet technology (I studied there and a few of my professors were former NASA employees, for example). Both groups share some element of research improvements and are contracted by the likes of DARPA, etc. to do their stuff. They've certainly been proven, but the issue is that they need to be accelerated to such high speeds that there's no real practical use for them yet. Furthermore, heating is a horror to deal with. edit: If there's some interest, I could cliffnote some of my scramjet lecture notes for you guys to give a general overview of the technical issues that they face. Let me know.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2010 16:15
|
|
|
Nam Taf posted:I have cool wall-of-text information that can keep bored AI readers busy for hours! Good god man post these details!
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2010 19:37
|
|
|
Nam Taf posted:They've certainly been proven, but the issue is that they need to be accelerated to such high speeds that there's no real practical use for them yet. Furthermore, heating is a horror to deal with. The recently canceled DARPA-funded Blackswift project was actually building on the X-43 and a few other SCRamjet concepts to create a hybrid turbine/Ram/SCramjet to enable travel from 0 to FAST without a booster rocket.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2010 23:53
|
|
|
Airplane youtube post Russian Pilots: balls of steel [Russian Pilots: 150 t in the mud(I know I've posted this before, but I didn't realize this took place at a Canadian airport.)
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2010 18:51
|
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=SDbQ5xvsrIU There's been quite a lot of SR-71 love in this thread and rightly so, but how about a radio controlled one? 
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2010 19:57
|
|
|
monkeytennis posted:http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=SDbQ5xvsrIU  Holy gently caress.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2010 02:03
|
|
|
monkeytennis posted:http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=SDbQ5xvsrIU gently caress. Me. That is beyond
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2010 02:15
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Airplane youtube post
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2010 02:19
|
|
|
monkeytennis posted:http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=SDbQ5xvsrIU My life is now meaningless until I get one of those.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2010 12:10
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Airplane youtube post Here's a Russian plane that changes is mind. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4DNEZbuivc Have posted it before, but it's a good'un.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2010 12:14
|
|
|
Ola posted:Here's a Russian plane that changes is mind. Here's a Russian plane that changes its mind and pulls it off. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSJoPi9oqSE
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2010 12:32
|
|
|
D. melanogaster posted:Here's a Russian plane that changes its mind and pulls it off. Holy hell that is a boatload of alpha. So close to making a very big mistake, the hook almost caught the wire and would have written off the airplane in a huge pancake splat. Continuing the series, here's a Russian plane that had its mind changed for it and not only didn't pull it off but pushed itself off. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1V4S5zsTlMU
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2010 12:37
|
|
|
SyHopeful posted:quote:]I knew what had caused the alarm; our toaster was known to do bagels extra crispy, but hadn't set the alarm off before  SyHopeful posted:Oh, and to add insult to injury, one of the Oshkoshes they rolled out in blew a head gasket or something similarly catastrophic. It began belching steam out of the exhaust stack while pissing antifreeze all over our ramp.  that cost. Holy poo poo. Definitely a good thing that didn't happen while it was trying to power a pump.Really, you did them a service, when you get right down to it. 
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2010 12:45
|
|
|
Ola posted:Holy hell that is a boatload of alpha. So close to making a very big mistake, the hook almost caught the wire and would have written off the airplane in a huge pancake splat. Did the cable break? that's what it looks like.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2010 15:40
|
|
|
Heres a russian plane hittin the e brake to really awesome music. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daOPK07baBw :edit: \/ This is EXACTLY why we love the motherland. 
Preoptopus fucked around with this message at 00:41 on May 11, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2010 23:22
|
|
|
The ski-jumps on those Russian carriers reminds me of of a story I heard once. On a ski-jump takeoff in a swept-wing plane, you don't build up enough speed to start flying for a few hundred yards. Pilots would hit the throttle, release the brakes, get flung a hundred feet into the air by the jump...and then fall 80 feet down towards the water as they built up speed. To prevent pilots from being lost should the takeoff screw up because of a tailwind or something, a number of Soviet jets had a short-range radar altimeter built into the belly that would arm as soon as the weight was off the wheels and automatically fire the ejection seat if it read less than about ten feet or so. This system was enabled and disabled with a switch in the cockpit. So, on occasion, a new pilot would have made a successful takeoff and flown their mission, and would be returning to the carrier on a perfect approach. They'd have their flaps and hook down, and high alpha, lined up perfectly on the runway, sweep over the fantail... ...and get punched out a fraction of a second before contact by the radio altimeter that they'd forgotten to turn off.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2010 00:03
|
|
|
orange lime posted:The ski-jumps on those Russian carriers reminds me of of a story I heard once. On a ski-jump takeoff in a swept-wing plane, you don't build up enough speed to start flying for a few hundred yards. Pilots would hit the throttle, release the brakes, get flung a hundred feet into the air by the jump...and then fall 80 feet down towards the water as they built up speed. To prevent pilots from being lost should the takeoff screw up because of a tailwind or something, a number of Soviet jets had a short-range radar altimeter built into the belly that would arm as soon as the weight was off the wheels and automatically fire the ejection seat if it read less than about ten feet or so. This system was enabled and disabled with a switch in the cockpit. That is at once scary, sad, and hilarious.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2010 00:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 15:58 |
|
|
Ola posted:Here's a Russian plane that changes is mind. Why are people just wandering around on the infield  Also people who were fondly reminiscing about the show Wings should know most of it is on Youtube I learned that the Su-22 Frogfoot can break the sound barrier when not carrying munitions.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2010 01:07
|
|