|
if that pops up in GBS and they start talking about defections of fighter pilots I swear to God e- random f4 content video.....I got nothin' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XW4Ge7EQyUg I miss seeing those overhead when I was a kid 
Seizure Meat fucked around with this message at 22:25 on Nov 17, 2010 |
#
?
Nov 17, 2010 22:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 10:37 |
|
|
Godholio posted:Shiiiit. Never a good sign when a plane just disappears. Serously... I can understand a 2-4 passenger private plane, but a military fighter with bleeding-state-of-art computer tracking, etc. I would think they would have to the second tracking of any of these worldwide.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2010 22:34
|
|
|
dietcokefiend posted:Serously... I can understand a 2-4 passenger private plane, but a military fighter with bleeding-state-of-art computer tracking, etc. I would think they would have to the second tracking of any of these worldwide. You'd be surprised. When I worked out at EAFB we couldn't talk to crews that were off the coast around Catalina island from the control room for whatever (insert reason of the day here). VV - Here you go http://www.google.com/search?q=miss...5883ae207568818 Plinkey fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Nov 17, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2010 22:44
|
|
|
I haven't seen any other news reports, so until I do I'm not getting too excited yet. dietcokefiend posted:Serously... I can understand a 2-4 passenger private plane, but a military fighter with bleeding-state-of-art computer tracking, etc. I would think they would have to the second tracking of any of these worldwide. It is designed to not be found. It'd be weird if it wasn't being tracked by home base since it was a training mission, but flying low and fast through mountains; who knows?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2010 22:51
|
|
|
dietcokefiend posted:Serously... I can understand a 2-4 passenger private plane, but a military fighter with bleeding-state-of-art computer tracking, etc. I would think they would have to the second tracking of any of these worldwide. Perhaps he defected to Canada?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2010 23:19
|
|
|
I just talked to a friend of mine that works at NORAD. They've found the missing plane, no word on the pilot. NORAD/NORTHCOMM is a busy loving place today.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2010 23:35
|
|
|
grover posted:Perhaps he defected to Canada?  We're in the market for new fighters, maybe building our own F22s is the way to go! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2010 03:52
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:
When they're flying CONUS, they've got their IFF transponder on. The FAA still owns all the airspace, even the military ranges. We have to make a few phone calls to reserve it for use, and even then Center can still take it back if they need it (this rarely happens, and it's always for a good reason). Anyway, if the Raptor is squawking, it's as good as a radar return as far as tracking goes. So as long as you've got line of sight and you're in range, you can see it...but if the terrain is mountainous there are a lot of factors that come into play-loss of radar/IFF contact, loss of radio contact, bizarro weather patterns, difficulty in detecting emergency beacons/wreckage, so on and so forth. Not a pretty situation at all. I'll be keeping an ear out over the next few days, I'm curious to hear how all this plays out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2010 04:11
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Shiiiit. Never a good sign when a plane just disappears.  says they've been canning parts off of it
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2010 04:14
|
|
|
New pictures of the Qantas A380 damage: http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/fuel-tank-puncture-qantas-a380-lucky-to-escape-catastrophe-say-reports-20101119-180bq.html quote:Confidential preliminary reports seen by Fairfax Media reveal that high-velocity parts spat from the engine tore through a fuel line and wiring looms, punctured structural spars in the wing, struck the fuselage between the two decks of windows, hit the fuselage belly and tore through wing panels. Talk about 100% luck that thing didn't turn into a giant flaming fireball.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2010 07:00
|
|
|
JBark posted:Talk about 100% luck that thing didn't turn into a giant flaming fireball. I think you mean 100% laws of physics and newscorp bullshit. You can throw a burning match into that fuel and it won't ignite. Main spar damage and cg excursion are much more serious.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2010 08:39
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:I think you mean 100% laws of physics and newscorp bullshit. You can throw a burning match into that fuel and it won't ignite. You do know that it was a very similar incident that was the cause of the Paris Concorde crash? The fuel mightn't ignite when a hot chunk of metal goes through it, but it certainly will if it spills on to burning engine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2010 08:48
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:I think you mean 100% laws of physics and newscorp bullshit. You can throw a burning match into that fuel and it won't ignite.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2010 11:19
|
|
|
2ndclasscitizen posted:You do know that it was a very similar incident that was the cause of the Paris Concorde crash? The fuel mightn't ignite when a hot chunk of metal goes through it, but it certainly will if it spills on to burning engine. This is true, however.... sensationalism daily posted:It appears to be a matter of sheer luck that the fuel - an Airbus A380 carries 310,000 litres - did not ignite and cause an explosion. Did not ignite and cause an explosion? The average punter will read that and assume like they always have that throwing a match in a container of fuel will result in a devastating explosion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2010 13:10
|
|
|
There are quite a few airliner incidents where a fuel tank puncture has caused immediate fire.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2010 13:21
|
|
|
Ola posted:There are quite a few airliner incidents where a fuel tank puncture has caused immediate fire. Fire!=explosion Edit: However, there HAVE been such explosions on occasion. Godholio fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Nov 19, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2010 19:48
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Fire!=explosion
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2010 20:02
|
|
|
Revolvyerom posted:That's just being pedantic. It was a good thing the plane did not light up, as there was a non-zero chance it could have.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2010 20:58
|
|
|
Godholio posted:There is a big difference between a fire on an airplane and an explosion. Yeah, but we're not talking about someone smoking illegally in a toilet, we're talking about bits of engine punching a hole in the wing, causing structural damage and severing fuel lines.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2010 23:40
|
|
|
Lilbeefer posted:This is true, however.... I fail to see an issue with the average dipshit thinking that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2010 09:24
|
|
|
Godholio posted:There is a big difference between a fire on an airplane and an explosion. The answer: yes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2010 00:55
|
|
|
Banked through some clouds on an IFR flight today, flying a Beechcraft Duchess. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ivdMsg76Kw
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2010 01:22
|
|
|
Going back to the QF-4 brought up earlier, I have a ton on unanswered questions about "drone" aircraft, mostly concerning how they are flown and what, if anything, would distinguish them from a UAV. Boomerjinks fucked around with this message at 02:20 on Nov 21, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2010 02:18
|
|
|
JBark posted:New pictures of the Qantas A380 damage: that's not even the worst of it:  Click here for the full 1109x770 image. I don't know if Airbus has a repair scheme for spar damage that bad, my guess is that airplane is scrap.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2010 03:38
|
|
|
Boomerjinks posted:Going back to the QF-4 brought up earlier, I have a ton on unanswered questions about "drone" aircraft, mostly concerning how they are flown and what, if anything, would distinguish them from a UAV. Ask away. I know a little bit (the QF-4s were controlled in the building next to mine at Tyndall AFB), but not a whole lot. Technically they are a UAV (the current term of choice is UAS-the S meaning System) if they're flown with the seat empty, but often there is a person on board even though they dont control it unless they have to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2010 04:16
|
|
|
Linedance posted:that's not even the worst of it: In a modern airplane how much can you unbolt? Could they just replace that wing, or maybe both in a matching pair?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2010 05:26
|
|
|
I wouldn't want to be the engineer that signs off on a main spar repair in a hundreds of million dollar passenger aircraft. Whether or not they can replace a wing or part of a wing takes in way to many variables that only airbus knows. It totally depends on the design and construction. Not a modern airplane; but it's depot-level year long process to replace the center wing on a C-130 with a new sub assembly. I imagine that an a-380's wing would be "slightly" different than a herk which is pretty much an early cold-war flying tractor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2010 08:08
|
|
|
Kallikrates posted:I wouldn't want to be the engineer that signs off on a main spar repair in a hundreds of million dollar passenger aircraft. Qantas doesn't work that way. They've never lost an airframe since the jet age and they're not going to now. It'll be repaired. The 747 mentioned earlier that slid off the runway in Bangkok cost $250M+ to repair, and $200M to replace for a brand new one; they repaired it just to keep bragging rights. Like you say, the mainspar on those things is about the only bit that can't be fixed, so it'll probably be rebuilt from scratch but just enough left intact to keep the same manufacturers serial number. But it'll be "repaired" and the score card will show that Qantas has still never written off an airframe since the jet age
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2010 08:19
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Ask away. I know a little bit (the QF-4s were controlled in the building next to mine at Tyndall AFB), but not a whole lot. How about when they are used as target drones? They are obviously flown via radio control, but is there an observing aircraft, is there a video camera going to a guy in a simulator setup? I assume that they are mostly flown in straight lines and not necessarily used for any kind of maneuvering during live fire...
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2010 08:29
|
|
|
Kallikrates posted:Whether or not they can replace a wing or part of a wing takes in way to many variables that only airbus knows. It totally depends on the design and construction. Wouldn't the fact that the 380 wings are made elsewhere, and then shipped in and fitted indicate QANTAS would be able to get the damaged one removed and replaced?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2010 08:33
|
|
|
2ndclasscitizen posted:Wouldn't the fact that the 380 wings are made elsewhere, and then shipped in and fitted indicate QANTAS would be able to get the damaged one removed and replaced? Yea but technically speaking the aluminum is probably also dug up someplace else and shipped in too  . If stuff is welded or put together in an odd one-time fashion it might not be possible. Who foots the bill on this if it turns out it was 100% RR's fault?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2010 09:43
|
|
|
2ndclasscitizen posted:Wouldn't the fact that the 380 wings are made elsewhere, and then shipped in and fitted indicate QANTAS would be able to get the damaged one removed and replaced? dietcokefiend posted:If stuff is welded or put together in an odd one-time fashion it might not be possible. I would be very surprised if they couldn't replace the entire wing as a unit, but as to whether a sectional repair could be effected on the damage, it's probably more a question of confidence level rather than technical feasibility. quote:Who foots the bill on this if it turns out it was 100% RR's fault? Unless the root cause digs up someone having falsified test data etc, at which point it's  time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2010 11:31
|
|
|
Boomerjinks posted:How about when they are used as target drones? They are obviously flown via radio control, but is there an observing aircraft, is there a video camera going to a guy in a simulator setup? I don't think a dedicated observer aircraft is launched, but usually when blue air (the good guys, now usually F-22s since the F-15s are gone from Tyndall) flies they're in a 2-ship or 4-ship formation. I actually don't know too much about the the QF-4 control setup. Based on some of the other equipment used regularly at Tyndall (ACMI) I expect they get a lot of telemetry data. The ACMI system can show raw data (like altitude, speed, angle of attack, bank angle, etc) or it can show you a 1993-ish 3d view realtime. I would expect something like that, but probably a bit more primitive (ACMI pods ain't cheap, and they certainly ain't disposable enough to be loaded onto a target). As far as maneuvering...if they're not turning, what's the point? There are a couple of reasons for the live-fire exercises. One is to validate weapons systems. Missiles and aircraft. Missiles have to be proven to work, and the best way to do it is to launch at a realistic target. Same thing for aircraft. You don't want the first realistic test to be in combat. The other reason is pretty much the same thing, except for pilots. It's one thing to fly a normal training sortie with no live weapons, make a "Fox-3" call on the radio and do some mental math to see if it "should" work as advertised, it's another to feel the aircraft shudder and watch the trail of smoke disappear in the distance, then see a fireball miles ahead. But that's not enough...you also want to be able to track your enemy through maneuvers, and put yourself in a firing position where he'll have a hell of a time getting out of a defensive position. So yeah, they maneuver, and if the blue pilot doesn't do his job right, he just might miss. It's happened plenty of times. There are some pretty awesome videos on youtube actually. Godholio fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Nov 21, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2010 17:23
|
|
|
I'm sure the A380 wing (the skin) is made in one piece though (can't seem to find a YT of it but there was one posted on pprune) where the skin thickness varies enormously throughout the length. I imagine if they do decide to repair it will be very complex and extremely expensive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2010 18:53
|
|
|
The ask the Pilot guy at Salon has a pretty good write-up of everything that went wrong with the Quantas A380:quote:The following rundown is drawn from second- or third-hand accounts, but I take it to be reliable. This, in a nutshell, is what the crew of Flight QF32 was dealing with. Also in other airplaney news: quote:F-35 saga continues
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2010 01:25
|
|
|
The F-35B should've been scrapped 5 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2010 01:36
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Also in other airplaney news:
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2010 02:12
|
|
|
Godholio posted:The F-35B should've been scrapped 5 years ago. The F-35B is, of the 3 variants, the one where there is really NO alternative at all but to fix it. In the whole scheme of things, reinforcing parts of the structure doesn't seem to be that big of a deal. There are always engineering changes/updates in projects this big.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2010 02:47
|
|
|
grover posted:There are always engineering changes/updates in projects this big. True, but fatigue cracks appearing in a major structural component at less than 10% of the design life seems like a pretty "oops" this late in the program, especially with all the other schedule and budget overruns LockMart has run into during the F-35 project.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2010 03:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 10:37 |
|
|
grover posted:The F-35B is, of the 3 variants, the one where there is really NO alternative at all but to fix it. In the whole scheme of things, reinforcing parts of the structure doesn't seem to be that big of a deal. There are always engineering changes/updates in projects this big. I think this may be part of the problem, strangely. I'm not sure when we started saying "we're going to replace our Xs with Ys, which is filled with all sorts of new technology we're in the middle of developing but we're still going to start using them four years hence", but it seems to me this causes problems.* It makes the developers focus on meeting an arbitrary deadline instead of getting all the bugs worked out. In the Osprey, for example, if they had just kept working on it, and had the marines just buy regular helicopter replacements in the near term, the Osprey would have had far fewer problems. It's the same process that creates bad software and video games. Also weird fact about the Harrier: it is the most deadly aircraft in the Western arsenal, having killed quite a few of it's own pilots over the years. Of course, the thing is basically just a giant turbofan with some wings and mounting points attached.   *This is of course presuming defence contractors are not purposely proposing things that are insanely complex and over ambitious to begin with to keep the thing perpetually in development
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2010 03:51
|
|