quote:

Hadde god fart

Simkin posted:

Nyyyyyyyyeeeeeeeooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIvv1PAmesM&feature=bf_play&playnext=1&list=QL&index=1

Heid the Ball posted:

Visited the Yorkshire Air Museum this weekend, home of Lusty Lindy:

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?

slidebite posted:

6 posts above yours?

Boomerjinks posted:

This is the one I was thinking of.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozIRwMhRVRY

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.

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.

slidebite posted:

So, uh, did you look 6 (or 7) posts above your earlier post?

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.

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.

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.

BonzoESC posted:

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.

PatrickBateman posted:

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.

BonzoESC posted:

BonzoESC posted:

The E170/E190 are pretty nice little planes

Boomerjinks posted:

Also gently caress gently caress gently caress I love Englands ugly-rear end Cold War planes. V's, baby!

Revolvyerom posted:

What am I even looking at here?

primitive posted:

They are really nice little planes -- I wonder if they're as nice to fly as they are to ride in

Revolvyerom posted:

What am I even looking at here?

Aargh posted:

Someone not turning their phone off for takeoff?

Aargh posted:

Someone not turning their phone off for takeoff?

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.

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.

Nebakenezzer posted:

That honestly sounds like the product of a drunken argument.

PatrickBateman posted:

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.

Used Sunlight sales posted:

Airplane mode maybe?

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?

NYT posted:

Interfering With Flight?

The announcement over the plane’s speaker seems as much a part of the routine before takeoff as the demonstration of how to buckle a seat belt: Please turn off all electronic devices.

But some passengers invariably ignore the request, perhaps thinking that their iPods or e-books do not count. And really, does it matter if the devices are left on?

The answer, it turns out, is that sometimes it may.

“It’s a good news-bad news thing,” said David Carson, an engineer with Boeing. Electronic devices do not cause problems in every case, he said. “And that’s good,” he said. “It’s bad in that people assume it never will.”

Passengers are taking an increasing array of devices on board planes — cellphones, tablets, GPS units and more. Many of these devices transmit a signal, and all of them emit electromagnetic waves, which, in theory, could interfere with the plane’s electronics. At the same time, older planes might not have the best shielding against the latest generation of devices, some engineers said.

“Is it worrisome?” asked Bill Strauss, an engineer who studied passenger use of electronic devices several years ago. “It is.”

Safety experts suspect that electronic interference has played a role in some accidents, though that is difficult to prove. One crash in which cellphone interference with airplane navigation was cited as a possible factor involved a charter in Christchurch, New Zealand, in 2003. Eight people died when the plane flew into the ground short of the runway.

The pilot had called home, and the call remained connected for the last three minutes of the flight. In the final report, the New Zealand Transport Accident Investigation Commission stated, “The pilot’s own cellphone might have caused erroneous indications” on a navigational aid.

Since 2000, there have been at least 10 voluntary reports filed by pilots in the United States with the Aviation Safety Reporting System, administered by NASA. In 2007, one pilot recounted an instance when the navigational equipment on his Boeing 737 had failed after takeoff. A flight attendant told a passenger to turn off a hand-held GPS device and the problem on the flight deck went away.

The Federal Aviation Administration says there are risks associated with electromagnetic interference and prohibits the use of electronics below 10,000 feet because pilots have less time at lower altitudes to deal with a problem. It is up to each airline to set the policy at higher altitudes. “There’s not enough evidence to warrant a change,” said Les Dorr, a spokesman for the agency.

There are many reasons that passengers do not comply with the restrictions. Mr. Carson of Boeing cited one. “Devices blur the distinction. P.D.A.’s that are cellphones, cellphones that play music. In the mind of the nominal consumer, it is hard to know what the device is actually doing.”

Some passengers are like Nicole Rodrigues of Los Angeles, who acknowledges that she listens to music on her cellphone when she is not supposed to. “In my head, I imagine it not being a problem,” she said. “The whole airplane is filled with electronics that are constantly on. Is my little cellphone going to make that big of a difference?”

Even flight attendants, charged with enforcing the rules, can fail to recognize the potential for problems, said Dinkar Mokadam, an occupational safety specialist with the Association of Flight Attendants. “I don’t believe it is general knowledge that someone could plug in an iPod and potentially harm the aircraft — even among the flight attendant and pilot community,” Mr. Mokadam said.

There is no recent survey of how often passengers ignore restrictions on use of their gadgets, though seven years ago, Mr. Strauss, then a doctoral student at Carnegie Mellon University, monitored the signals emitted from cellphones during flights and discovered that they were being left on.

Airline executives say that for the moment, they do not plan to create more restrictive policies. “We’re accommodating the wishes of our passengers,” said Tom Hendricks, head of safety and operations for the Air Transport Association, the airlines’ trade group. “They wish to use these devices.”

John Darbo, an air safety consultant and former airline executive who was a member of the group that helped the F.A.A. develop rules, said airlines could not police passengers or stop them from bringing electronics on the airplane. “Do you expect us to do that?” he asked. “That’s absurd. What we have to do is tell them what’s going on, elicit their cooperation and harden the airplanes.”

Before deciding whether to allow passengers to use phones before takeoff, several airlines conducted ground tests to see if cellphones would interfere with systems. At American Airlines, people dialed cellphones from out-of-service planes parked at various airports. “They found no interaction with the aircraft instruments on any aircraft type,” said Tim Smith, a spokesman for American.

As a result, the airline like most others, decided to permit the use of phones at the gate before departure and after landing.

Newer airplanes have more sophisticated protection against electromagnetic interference. “The technical advancements for wireless devices and portable electronic equipment is so rapid, it changes every week,” said Doug Hughes, an electrical engineer and air safety investigator. “The advances in airplanes take 20 years.”

Still, Mr. Strauss said the deterioration of planes and devices over time had not been taken into account. “A plane is designed to the right specs, but nobody goes back and checks if it is still robust,” he said. “Then there are the outliers — a cellphone that’s been dropped and abused, or a battery that puts out more than it’s supposed to, and avionics that are more susceptible to interference because gaskets have failed. And boom, that’s where you get interference. It would be a perfect storm that would combine to create an aviation accident.”

BonzoESC posted:

The E170/E190 are pretty nice little planes;

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.