|
Couple of blokes doing donuts in a car park http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/artikkel.php?artid=10082210
|
# ? Feb 27, 2011 17:34 |
|
|
# ? May 27, 2024 03:57 |
|
That was cool, at first I thought he was just going to drive in a big circle.quote:Hadde god fart
|
# ? Feb 27, 2011 19:03 |
|
Visited the Yorkshire Air Museum this weekend, home of Lusty Lindy: Click here for the full 2048x1536 image. Only had the iPhone with me, so broke out Hipstamatic for some stylish(!) shots: Victor K1 - converted from bomber to tanker Click here for the full 1536x1536 image. Fairey Gannet - Naval ASW & AEW plane from 1940s. This is the AEW variant. Contra-rotating props powered by twin gas turbines. Insanely complex. Click here for the full 1536x1536 image. Click here for the full 1536x1536 image. Nimrod - The Mighty Hunter. Anti-submarine & search-and-rescue. Click here for the full 1536x1536 image. Gloster Meteor with an old-timey monoplane hanging above it. Click here for the full 1536x1536 image.
|
# ? Feb 28, 2011 15:12 |
|
I don't specifically know why, but contra-rotating props always make me think of some futuristic cartoon. Also, I love the Victor - it's just so amazingly fugly (functionally ugly).
|
# ? Feb 28, 2011 21:41 |
|
Simkin posted:Nyyyyyyyyeeeeeeeooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww I'm actually working on a display for a 104 at my local museum, and I'd like to add the howl as an audio feature. Someone posted a video a while back with a 104 throttling up (while still on the ground), which produced a very pure example of the howl. Can anyone remember the video?
|
# ? Feb 28, 2011 22:12 |
|
Heid the Ball posted:Visited the Yorkshire Air Museum this weekend, home of Lusty Lindy: Also gently caress gently caress gently caress I love Englands ugly-rear end Cold War planes. V's, baby!
|
# ? Feb 28, 2011 22:14 |
|
Boomerjinks posted:I'm actually working on a display for a 104 at my local museum, and I'd like to add the howl as an audio feature. Someone posted a video a while back with a 104 throttling up (while still on the ground), which produced a very pure example of the howl. Can anyone remember the video? 6 posts above yours?
|
# ? Feb 28, 2011 23:36 |
|
Does anybody know why the A-10 was never sold internationally? No interest? No export licenses? Was just commiserating with an internet buddy that it doesn't seem likely that we could pick one up on the cheap from some south american airforce garage sale. Seems like it would have had a ready market, after all Apaches sell like hotcakes, and they are not cheap. Was Republic just already on its way out? I know their Senator died, and took with him any hope of getting a new trainer contract.
|
# ? Mar 1, 2011 01:33 |
|
slidebite posted:6 posts above yours? This is the one I was thinking of. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozIRwMhRVRY
|
# ? Mar 1, 2011 01:46 |
|
Boomerjinks posted:This is the one I was thinking of.
|
# ? Mar 1, 2011 01:56 |
|
Slo-Tek posted:Does anybody know why the A-10 was never sold internationally? No interest? No export licenses? Was just commiserating with an internet buddy that it doesn't seem likely that we could pick one up on the cheap from some south american airforce garage sale. Not many countries really fancied the role of facing off against the Soviet tank hordes. A-10s were expected to take horrendous losses from SAM/AAA/fighters. I think most of NATO was more than willing to let the US and Germany attrit the Reds.
|
# ? Mar 1, 2011 01:58 |
|
slidebite posted:So, uh, did you look 6 (or 7) posts above your earlier post? Thanks.
|
# ? Mar 1, 2011 02:19 |
|
Godholio posted:Not many countries really fancied the role of facing off against the Soviet tank hordes. A-10s were expected to take horrendous losses from SAM/AAA/fighters. I think most of NATO was more than willing to let the US and Germany attrit the Reds. People forget that the A-10 was the red-headed stepchild of the USAF for a long time - certain groups within were trying to kill it off from day one (and they almost succeeded a couple of times). Some of it was that the A-10 just wasn't regarded to be as "sexy" as other programs - after all, what place does a gawky, slow, straight-winged anachronism have in the Air Force of the 1980s? This attitude probably didn't help export sales that much. Fortunately, saner heads prevailed, and the A-10 later got to prove unequivocally how effective it was during Desert Storm.
|
# ? Mar 1, 2011 03:50 |
|
Further proof of that was the A-16 program where they tried to strap an Avenger on to an F-16. It was stupid inaccurate which is why the Air Force dropped it.
|
# ? Mar 1, 2011 04:00 |
|
Slo-Tek posted:Does anybody know why the A-10 was never sold internationally? No interest? No export licenses? Was just commiserating with an internet buddy that it doesn't seem likely that we could pick one up on the cheap from some south american airforce garage sale. I think a lot of the reason the A-10 never got exported was that the USAF was the only air force (outside of the USSR) that really had the money to buy dedicated close air support aircraft. Most air forces at the time had doctrines based on using either fighter-bombers or attack helicopters for attacking troops and tanks, since they didn't have to plan on repelling a mass of Soviet tanks pouring through the Fulda Gap. For countries without the massive budget the USAF had during the cold war, buying fighter-bombers and helicopters was a better use of their money than a "one trick pony" attack aircraft. The A-10 is excellent at killing tanks, but it doesn't really have the performance to survive in the presence of fighters or to carry nuclear weapons (which fighter bombers can do), and it requires more support to operate than an attack helicopter would. Fairchild (which bought Republic before the A-10 was built) did try and sell the A-10 overseas, and although they brought one to the Farnborough air show in 1976, it failed to attract any export customers.
|
# ? Mar 1, 2011 04:12 |
|
And now, when you fly on most regional jets, you have the A-10 to thank for its engines. The CF34 is a derivative of the A-10's TF34. But they arent nearly as robust.
|
# ? Mar 1, 2011 04:14 |
|
PatrickBateman posted:And now, when you fly on most regional jets, you have the A-10 to thank for its engines. The CF34 is a derivative of the A-10's TF34. But they arent nearly as robust. The E170/E190 are pretty nice little planes; the windows are mounted high enough for grown-ups to look out them comfortably. The "Canadian Torture Tube" CRJs aren't nearly as nice.
|
# ? Mar 1, 2011 04:59 |
|
BonzoESC posted:The E170/E190 are pretty nice little planes; the windows are mounted high enough for grown-ups to look out them comfortably. Oh wow, this is the perfect post. Those Embraers are awesome, seemingly designed with human beings in mind. I had to be on a CRJ almost twice a week for two years, and grew to deeply despise that airplane. It reminded me of that thing how some public places install chairs that are seriously uncomfortable/anti-ergonomic so people don't hang around forever. Anything more than an hour on the CRJ and you arrive at your destination angry and miserable. Spend an extra hour sitting on the tarmac and you just know that the the actual flight is going to be pure torture.
|
# ? Mar 1, 2011 05:43 |
|
Yeah I fly in pretty much brand new E190s on JetBlue and Air Canada on the regular these days and they're pretty nice airframes. Seats are a hell of a lot more comfortable than the Bombardiers.
|
# ? Mar 1, 2011 16:03 |
|
We call the crj700/900 lawn darts. Now the 757-300, that's a nice looking stretch bu performance blows compared to the -200 which is a goddamn rocket ship. Only thing better was a dc-9-30 with an intermix of jt8d-9 or higher power.
|
# ? Mar 1, 2011 16:11 |
|
PatrickBateman posted:We call the crj700/900 lawn darts. I'm so glad Florida is populated enough I get to take my "regional" flights in one of these:
|
# ? Mar 1, 2011 16:30 |
|
BonzoESC posted:
|
# ? Mar 1, 2011 17:35 |
|
BonzoESC posted:
They are really nice little planes -- I wonder if they're as nice to fly as they are to ride in
|
# ? Mar 1, 2011 18:39 |
|
Boomerjinks posted:Also gently caress gently caress gently caress I love Englands ugly-rear end Cold War planes. V's, baby! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS6xD_HCc9A A flying Vulcan from Leuchars 2010
|
# ? Mar 1, 2011 19:29 |
|
Revolvyerom posted:What am I even looking at here? Someone used a g-sensing dyno app on an iphone or something designed for cars on a loving airplane.
|
# ? Mar 1, 2011 19:32 |
|
The E190 is a great plane to ride in but it's horrible to work on from the underwing side. The bins are tiny, you destroy your head every time on the fire extinguisher cages and all kinds of other things that make you wonder if they even put any thought into any of it. The Airbus on the other hand, is a dream to work on.
|
# ? Mar 1, 2011 19:36 |
|
primitive posted:They are really nice little planes -- I wonder if they're as nice to fly as they are to ride in When Air Canada first started flying their Embraers, they started to call them "Embraer 180s", as their reliability was piss poor. The flight control computers and FMS were crash-prone and show, often requiring a complete shutdown and restart of the entire electrical system. The potable water tanks had an unheated valve in the supply line which would freeze in the cold Canadian winter, rendering the toilets and more importantly, the coffee machines inoperative. That said, AC has ironed out the problems with their E-Jets; nowadays, they are the most reliable aircraft in their fleet.
|
# ? Mar 1, 2011 21:08 |
|
Revolvyerom posted:What am I even looking at here? Someone not turning their phone off for takeoff?
|
# ? Mar 2, 2011 06:27 |
|
Aargh posted:Someone not turning their phone off for takeoff? Airplane mode maybe?
|
# ? Mar 2, 2011 07:14 |
|
Aargh posted:Someone not turning their phone off for takeoff? http://art.penny-arcade.com/photos/215554049_kesRm-L-2.jpg
|
# ? Mar 2, 2011 07:25 |
|
benito posted:Oh wow, this is the perfect post. Those Embraers are awesome, seemingly designed with human beings in mind. I had to be on a CRJ almost twice a week for two years, and grew to deeply despise that airplane. It reminded me of that thing how some public places install chairs that are seriously uncomfortable/anti-ergonomic so people don't hang around forever. Anything more than an hour on the CRJ and you arrive at your destination angry and miserable. Spend an extra hour sitting on the tarmac and you just know that the the actual flight is going to be pure torture. I think the CRJs are about the smallest engineered space you'd ask normal people to get into. It's like the engineers were looking really hard at the space efficiency found in U-boats. Minto Took posted:Further proof of that was the A-16 program where they tried to strap an Avenger on to an F-16. It was stupid inaccurate which is why the Air Force dropped it. That honestly sounds like the product of a drunken argument.
|
# ? Mar 2, 2011 07:58 |
|
Nebakenezzer posted:That honestly sounds like the product of a drunken argument. I think this is the story behind every variant of the F-16. "Hey, let's get the gun out of an A-10 and mount it on a Viper." (A-16, as mentioned) "Hey, let's make the Viper a cranked delta wing and then cover the entire bottom of it with bombs." (FB-16, designed to compete against the F-15E as a new strike fighter) "Hey that didn't work, fill in the bomb notches and give it to NASA." (The result of the FB-16 losing, renamed F-16XL) "Hey can we just flip the wings around and call them forward swept?" (Lost competition for FSW research aircraft to the F-5 based X-29) "Hey, let's add some vertical canards under the intake and see if we can make this bitch skid steer!" (I don't even know what the gently caress) "Let's give it wings from the F-22 and chop the tail off." (What the gently caress are these people on crack? A proposal for a new multirole USAF fighter.)
|
# ? Mar 2, 2011 08:54 |
|
PatrickBateman posted:We call the crj700/900 lawn darts. The 757-200 is definitely my favourite aircraft to ride in as a passenger, with second place being the Saab 2000. I used to do occasional commuter flights in the -200 back when I also flew a fair amount of long distance in fully loaded 747-400s and later the occasional A340-600 (!). I loved the fact that, unlike especially the -600, where you were never sure if it was actually going to rotate or just run out of runway, the 757's climbout performance, especially when lightly loaded, was fairly dramatic. Takeoff roll felt like about 5 feet and you could see the taxiways shrinking into the distance before you were even over the boundary fence.
|
# ? Mar 2, 2011 11:22 |
|
Used Sunlight sales posted:Airplane mode maybe? Aren't you still meant to turn off all electronic devices during takeoff and landing? Or have they changed that in the last 6 months?
|
# ? Mar 2, 2011 11:39 |
|
Aargh posted:Aren't you still meant to turn off all electronic devices during takeoff and landing? Or have they changed that in the last 6 months? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/18/business/18devices.html NYT posted:Interfering With Flight? I've attached a chart of the spurious emissions from a typical cell phone as an example. Bear in mind the the static floor for cell phone reception is around -105dBm, so all those off-band frequencies it emits, while not a problem normally, can effectively jam airplane communications and navigation equipment. grover fucked around with this message at 12:19 on Mar 2, 2011 |
# ? Mar 2, 2011 12:11 |
|
BonzoESC posted:
You have obviously never stacked the pit in one. Imagine crawling under your kitchen counter, on your knees, and stacking 85 bags, including the wonderful 70lb bags headed to Manilla.
|
# ? Mar 2, 2011 19:34 |
|
Here's Embraer's 190 testbed in Portland when I was doing line service; this was in either 05 or 06. The inside was, of course, filled with all kinds of testing apparatus and they had a pretty massive water ballast system that we had to fill up every day. The crew were really nice though, and introduced me to guava juice.
|
# ? Mar 2, 2011 21:08 |
|
Oh hell, I'll share a few pics from my ramping days. The above King Air picture is a single exposure with no digital manipulation beyond some sharpening and turning up the saturation a few points.
|
# ? Mar 2, 2011 21:21 |
|
I suppose I can share a few pics from my albums as well....
|
# ? Mar 2, 2011 23:37 |
|
|
# ? May 27, 2024 03:57 |
|
grover posted:That guy with dynolicious was risking the lives of everyone aboard that plane for his little joke, and probably didn't even realize it. That's absurd. There was absolutely no risk involved nor is there any with using cell phones on planes and has not been for a very long time. That article you posted is full of maybes and oh it could have been that! An engineer with Boeing doesn't mean anything (hint they don't manufacture their own navigation systems). In fact the only actual tests performed in that article were by American Airlines that found no interference across their different plane types, which you conveniently didn't bold, in addition to other airlines. My father has been an engineer working on them for 3 decades, and he is the most careful person I have ever known, and if he doesn't buy it, I don't either. He's logged thousands of hours of approaches working on these systems from personal aircraft to 747s. That article is worth as much as one about Obama being a closeted Muslin foreign born terrorist.
|
# ? Mar 3, 2011 09:31 |