|
VikingSkull posted:Supposedly, they are getting a shuttle, too. I kind of doubt they'll get a shuttle unless it's Enterprise and even then I wouldn't give it strong odds. Smithsonians going to get one (thats already acknowledged), KSC will almost certainly get one and I bet some west coast or at the very least mid-west facility will get one (AF museum in Dayton and/or Seattle MoF). I would have a hard time believing it won't fall out that way. So all that leaves is poor Enterprise to play second fiddle when it's shuffled from the Smithsonian.
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 20:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 18:23 |
|
|
I would think that Huntsville would be in the mix there, although aside from their Saturn V display building, everything at the US rocket center is kind of... yucky. I can't imagine where USAFM would put an orbiter, it's so packed already. They were all built in California, but where might they go aside from the desert at Edwards - LA Science Center? Midway? Hornet?
Boomerjinks fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Apr 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 21:06
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Yeah, it's on a barge next to the Intrepid Nope, its at the end of the pier now. No more barge.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 21:27
|
|
|
Boomerjinks posted:I would think that Huntsville would be in the mix there, although aside from their Saturn V display building, everything at the US rocket center is kind of... yucky. I can't imagine where USAFM would put an orbiter, it's so packed already. They were all built in California, but where might they go aside from the desert at Edwards - LA Science Center? Midway? Hornet? I wouldn't be surprised if Wright-Patterson built a new hangar just for the orbiter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 22:09
|
|
|
Minto Took posted:I wouldn't be surprised if Wright-Patterson built a new hangar just for the orbiter. The model in the lobby has a 4th hangar about the same size as the others for the orbiter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 22:34
|
|
|
Boomerjinks posted:I would think that Huntsville would be in the mix there, although aside from their Saturn V display building, everything at the US rocket center is kind of... yucky. I can't imagine where USAFM would put an orbiter, it's so packed already. They were all built in California, but where might they go aside from the desert at Edwards - LA Science Center? Midway? Hornet?  if KSC gets one.Really, only 1 orbiter and Enterprise are up for grabs. Smithsonian is getting one. KSC is 99% getting one. That only leaves 1 more and poor OV-101 to get shuffled. I can't imagine Dayton not getting one considering the ties the shuttle had to DoD missions. Too bad it never launched from Vandenberg.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 23:43
|
|
|
Random shuttle-related Googling leads me to this: http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2010/december/178743/NASA-offers-space-shuttle-tiles-to-school-and-universities So if you have any swing with your local educational establishment (USA only, I'd expect), get them to crack open their chequebooks to the tune of $24 and get a genuine shuttle heatshield tile for their science department. Or history department, as shall soon be equally appropriate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 23:57
|
|
|
Godholio posted:We need to bring a few of those bitches back home. We used to have three at the dropzone I jump at. Two were moved to Hemet, but there is still one there. DJCobol posted:Went to the USS Intrepid Sea-Air-Space museum today and took some pics for anyone interested: The gently caress... For the USAF/F-14 thing are you guys just referencing the F-111 snafu or? Tremblay fucked around with this message at 02:49 on Apr 11, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2011 02:40
|
|
|
I saw the B-36 mentioned already, but the takeoff sequence from the 1955 movie "Strategic Air Command", starring Jimmy Stewart is absolutely amazing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGjyH2ulsCk&feature=channel_video_title Also, each one of these monsters had 336 sparkplugs (2 per cylinder, 28 cylinders per engine, 6 piston engines)- which would foul and require replacement if the flight engineer wasn't careful. There also was no oil change interval- each engine needed an oil change after every flight, and missions were often cut short due to lack of engine oil.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2011 05:51
|
|
|
I would probably kill everyone I know if it meant someone would make a 1950s version of Red Dawn that focused primarily on bombers and their escorts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2011 06:23
|
|
|
Itzena posted:This is a Dornier Do-17 fast bomber AKA "The Flying Pencil" Sure the American PBY was a decent flying boat, but just look at this hard-rear end mofo. Take special note 18 seconds in when a wave crashes over the bow and all you can see is the wing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nU8JMbe9ljU One of the few aircraft to fly on both sides in WWII -- it was designed for the Dutch in the '30s, and sent some over to their part of the East Indies. When Germany invaded the Netherlands and Japan invaded the Indies, the Dutch gave them to the Aussies, and they flew search-and-rescue for the RAAF until the end of the war. Factories in Germany and occupied France kept building them until 1945. One made a forced landing in neutral Sweden and was impounded, bought off, and used until '52. Unlike the Catalina, the Do. 24 had no wheels, so most of the Nazi-held airframes were sunk at their moorings during the war; the Aussie, Spanish and Swedish planes were flown until they fell apart -- well into the '70s, in the case of some Spanish ones. Currently there are four and a half remaining: three whole and one raised-from-the-seabed forward fuselage in museums, and one refitted with turboprops, a better wing, and landing gear by the grandson of the man who designed it. He flew it around the world to raise money for charity, and plans to put it in passenger service with his charter airline in the pacific islands.    Sunshine89 posted:There also was no oil change interval- each engine needed an oil change after every flight, and missions were often cut short due to lack of engine oil.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2011 09:45
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
routlej1 posted:GPS can tell you your groundspeed, but not your airspeed. The difference depends on the local windspeed, which you can't measure with GPS. Modern avionics can use your actual heading compared ground track and figure out roughly what your crosswinds are.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2011 16:31
|
|
|
Psionic Sasquatch posted:That's pretty nuts. What type of AMT are you? I do contract maintenance as well, mostly on A319/320s I'm a A&P in the States. Worked for Panasonic Avionics maintaining IFE systems for a few years. I'm with Boeing now working on 737 weight and balance stuff. I need to dig up the pictures (poor quality from my phone) of the Aluminum Overcast B-17. When in A&P school it came to our field on it's tour. We were invited to come check it out. I wore out my VHS tape of Memphis Belle as a kid and got to tour the inside at Oshkosh, but this time we had free reign to explore it. The trade off was we had to clean it. The cleaning solution was "wing solvent" which meant getting a bucket of avgas out of the sump drain and a rag. I washed down the flaps and the aft fuselage. We weren't alowed in the ball turret, but got to crawl every where else. I also have an information manual for the B-25 that my grandpa got in WWII. In '45 he was a tail gunner in training but the war ended before finishing up. I have his bomber wings attached to my headset flight bag. A quick story, he had two buddies, one named Glen, the other Dale, but they were in a different crew. They had big plans when back home to get a DC-3 or something and fly produce from WA State to Alaska. Sadly, the two friends were killed in a training crash. My grandpa named one of his sons Glendal in their honor. I wonder in some alt-universe how that would have turned out. He pursued his pilot license in the 50s in a Piper Cub, but never finished. On his first solo he ran out of fuel, landed in a farm field with barely any room, got fuel from the farmer, and had to get rolling one direction, make a u-turn, then take off to get out. Nothing else came from the pilot stuff. I guess that's where I got my love for it hearing the stories and seeing pictures when young. I have his log book, too, which is pretty neat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2011 17:10
|
|
|
Tremblay posted:For the USAF/F-14 thing are you guys just referencing the F-111 snafu or? No it was just two idiots having an argument in front of the displayed F-14 at a show here years ago. One was sure the USAF fielded the Tomcat, but the other was so dumb he couldn't effectively argue his case. It was hilarious. Also in shuttle news, I guess we find out who gets what tomorrow sometime.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2011 18:23
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:Not so much oil change as oil refill; radials as a rule leak oil like a sieve and burn the rest. That's why you see so many WWII planes with black streaks down the sides/wings behind the engines. But you're right, drat near everything with a radial (except possibly the hotrod fighters) was range-limited by oil capacity rather than gas. So why bother with air-cooled, oil-hungry radials when you had things like the Merlin V12? One small-caliber bullet to the radiator could kill a water-cooled engine, while a Wright Cyclone or P&W Wasp would chug along just fine with entire cylinders shot off and connecting rods flapping in the breeze. And aside from the rough running, you couldn't tell -- the things didn't use all that much more oil with the crankcase open to the airstream than in normal operation. Good god, that's amazing. I knew about the advantages of Air cooled vs. liquid cooled, but the damage resistance is just mindblowing. Did radial engines also start easier? I've been doing a little reading on something of tangential interest to this thread, and one of the things I've read about is pre-warming oil systems for liquid cooled engines. The Japanese, after Guadalcanal, set plans in motion to build the world's first strategic submarine. It was that clever bastard Admiral Yamamoto who thought them up; he knew that the odds were long that Japan could win the war to keep its empire, so he dreamed up aircraft-carrying submarines as a way to strike at America itself. The hope was that air raids would sow fear and panic among the general population, and put political pressure on the Americans to make peace. The I-400 series of subs was the result.   Aircraft carrying submarines were not new; several subs had been built that had aircraft launching capabilities. The difference here is that 1) the aircraft were to be used for attack instead of scouting, and 2) because the number of aircraft were so few, and the carrier subs could traverse the globe without refuelling, the targets they would strike would be strategic, instead of tactical. Up until then, nobody thought of using subs this way, and the Japanese not only managed to design these monster subs, but build them in total secrecy. The USA learned of all then when two subs the size of destroyers surrendered to them.  Each I-400 sub could carry three aircraft specially designed for them. Space was tight, as the aircraft hanger had to be able to withstand submarine diving depths. The diameter of the cylindrical hanger was 12 ft, which was dictated by the diameter of the plane's propellers. The wings of the Aichi M6A Seiran folded back hydraulically, and the tail similarly folded itself for storage. Once wings and tail were deployed, the Seiran had pontoons attached, and then was launched off the goddamn hydraulic catapult the I-400s sported. To get all three aircraft in the sky took about 45 minutes, though the time was far shorter on suicide missions, as they just left the pontoons off.  Oh, and since it was mid-1944 before these things got launched, the Japanese borrowed from their best buds the Germans all of their new sub technology. The I400s had snorkels, antichormatic coatings to hide noise from hydrophones, and some technology borrowed from the Graf Zeppelin. (Uh, that's an aircraft carrier, not an airship.) The I-400s had oil warmers to pre-warm the oil in the aircraft engines, so the aircraft didn't have to waste time warming up. Speaking of going Kamikaze, by the time two subs were launched and ready for use, that was pretty much the only kind of mission the Japanese Navy flew. Since it was obvious that there would only be a few of these things around to help in the war effort, it was decided to change the target of the subs to the Panama canal. They also toyed with the idea bombing American cities with plague carrying rats and fleas, but surprisingly they decided against this, as they feared it would be the first shot "in a war against all humanity." The Japs had good intel on the target area, and had even figured out the best place to strike: on the Gatun locks on the east side of the canal. Apparently striking there would cause Lake Gatun to drain, and it'd be 6 months to a year before the allies could repair the damage. The I-400 and the I-401 trained for this mission, and were ready to go in July 1945. This Tamiya model has a transparent bit which allows a good view into the aircraft hanger.  It's here Hollywood would start making stuff up, as the story has a anti-climactic ending. As you might of guessed by the sail date, blowing up the Panama canal was judged by the Japanese as not a very important goal anymore. The I-400 and the I-401 were diverted to attack a atoll which was a staging point for the vast American fleet. The plan was now to launch a Kamikaze attack on the American carrier there, and as a bonus the planes were painted like American aircraft, a violation of the laws of war that even the Nazis didn't stoop to. Fortunately, peace was declared, and the subs surrendered.  As in the end of the European war, the victors were very interested in studying former Axis technology. The Japanese subs were superior to American ones, especially in torpedo technology, and the I-400s were viewed as an unexpected bonus. Unfortunately, the Soviets also wanted to study the subs, especially the I-400s. So the Navy, after studying the strategic submarines thoroughly, scuttled them in deep water off of Hawaii to keep them from the prying eyes of the Soviets. One of the subs's aircraft still exists, in the National air and space museum. So if you find yourself there and see a sleek pontoon plane, know that it's the end of a rather amazing story.  PS> To see this post in the form of a hour long PBS Documentary, please click here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2011 03:31
|
|
|
I'm guessing this is probably the best thread for marking the fiftieth anniversary of Gagarin's Vostok flight. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2011 07:33
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:PS> To see this post in the form of a hour long PBS Documentary, please click here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2011 11:01
|
|
|
Beep beep! A380 comin' through! Regional Jets outta my way! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMKGv3KFqKo http://youtu.be/fMKGv3KFqKo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjuCI2yAVD8 http://youtu.be/WjuCI2yAVD8
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2011 15:33
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Did radial engines also start easier? I've been doing a little reading on something of tangential interest to this thread, and one of the things I've read about is pre-warming oil systems for liquid cooled engines. Radial engines (and some inline designs as well) usually had an oil dilution system fitted, which would inject fuel into the engine oil to thin it out in lower temperatures. Once the engine warmed up to normal operating temperatures, the fuel would simply evaporate, bringing the oil back to it's normal viscosity. Both types of engines were somewhat difficult to start, and the degree of difficulty depended more on the specific starting system fitted to the airframe than the inherent design of the engine. Radial engines did have a bit of a problem with oil pooling in the lower cylinders when sitting on the ground for extended periods, and if the oil wasn't removed before trying to start the engine the pistons would try and compress the oil, usually resulting in a bent connecting rod.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2011 15:43
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkcX0KGIBwk A radial start can be quite a spectacle.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2011 16:57
|
|
|
Shuttle homes have been named. Link. Atlantis - Kennedy Space Center Endeavour - California Science Center, LA Discovery - Smithsonian Enterprise - The Intrepid  quote:U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said the Johnson Space Center in Houston should have been one of the retirement homes for an orbiter, "but it is clear political favors trumped common sense and fairness in the selection of the final locations for the orbiter fleet," he said in a statement.  Tell you what Senator, send us a Saturn V and you can have the Enterprise. Seizure Meat fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Apr 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2011 21:19
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Shuttle homes have been named. Link.  Saturn V/Apollo by milan.boers, on Flickr  Restored Saturn V rocket by bkgunner, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2011 22:03
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:Heh, Kennedy Space Center has a Saturn V and a shuttle now too. Hopefully Atlantis will get a building as nice as the Saturn V Center: That Saturn V exhibit is so loving badass. If you're anywhere southeast of Kansas, just get in the goddamned car and drive to KSC to see it, already. It is so big that I just sort of stopped, stared, and came to the easy conclusion that its sister ships took people to the moon. When you're right next to a Saturn V, the vehicle is more awesome than the journey to and from THE MOON.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2011 22:20
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:Beep beep! A380 comin' through! Regional Jets outta my way! So whats the damage costs on those two planes going to be like? Also how the hell did the Air France guys not see the parked/stationary puddle jumper? Are normal taxing events that close in proximity to other aircraft?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2011 23:08
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:Heh, Kennedy Space Center has a Saturn V and a shuttle now too. Hopefully Atlantis will get a building as nice as the Saturn V Center: Your post is a little misleading, the second picture is at the Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville. I had a nice dinner under that thing and watched Werner Dahm (The younger one) make a presentation on tech development in the Air Force.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2011 23:53
|
|
|
dietcokefiend posted:So whats the damage costs on those two planes going to be like? Also how the hell did the Air France guys not see the parked/stationary puddle jumper? Are normal taxing events that close in proximity to other aircraft? You gotta understand just how huge the A380 is. Doing some very rough math, and seeing that it looks like it was the very tip of the wing that hit that jet, the pilots were around 300 feet away from the point of impact. That's loving crazy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2011 23:56
|
|
|
Seeing that CRJ take it like a trooper makes me feel a LOT better about flying in the old rattletraps. On the other hand, if that one returns to service, it will make me feel a lot worse.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 00:29
|
|
|
Fayez Butts posted:You gotta understand just how huge the A380 is. Doing some very rough math, and seeing that it looks like it was the very tip of the wing that hit that jet, the pilots were around 300 feet away from the point of impact. That's loving crazy. The A380 has a tail-mounted camera, but it's not wide enough to see the wingtips, which seems like a great way to miss the point. http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=a380%20tail%20camera&biw=1413&bih=853 This isn't that rare an accident either: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TugTwO6Zhg http://youtu.be/9TugTwO6Zhg
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 00:51
|
|
|
dietcokefiend posted:So whats the damage costs on those two planes going to be like? Also how the hell did the Air France guys not see the parked/stationary puddle jumper? Are normal taxing events that close in proximity to other aircraft? Airbus, and Air France have probably flown technicians and engineers out to JFK by now; without thinking about the torture tube, A380 opportunity cost alone will probably run into the millions. 600 euro * 449 economy + 1200 euro * 80 business + 5000 * 9 first twice a day adds up quickly. It's a big airplane and JFK is a busy place. If taxiing events at JFK are close and precise, that means the airport is operating correctly. It's one of the busiest airports in the world, and frequently has serious taxiway issues due to traffic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 01:00
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:Heh, Kennedy Space Center has a Saturn V and a shuttle now too. Hopefully Atlantis will get a building as nice as the Saturn V Center: I toured KSC before the Saturn V got its own building. It used to sit outside in the elements on some pylons. The new display looks SO much better, plus, I hear they basically returned it to a ready to fly condition in the process.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 01:58
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:
And I have a hard time understanding why Enterprise has only moved to NY. That surprised me the most.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 02:36
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Texas has Columbia Hah, ouch. Here's some old footage of the "Dont mess with Texas" commercials from the 80's with a B-17, P-51 and T-6. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlFD0Zyl_f0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgd3o--LIyg
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 03:32
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Texas has Columbia Fuuuuuck. Every once in a while, somebody reminds me that this is Something Awful. This is a roots post, right here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 04:01
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Texas has Columbia 
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 05:08
|
|
|
Sexual Lorax posted:Fuuuuuck. Every once in a while, somebody reminds me that this is Something Awful. This is a roots post, right here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 05:20
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Texas has Columbia Oh my god
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 06:51
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Texas has Columbia  quote:And I have a hard time understanding why Enterprise has only moved to NY. That surprised me the most. Honestly, I kind of figured the Intrepid was a lock. I think that to the general public the Intrepid and the Smithsonian are the best known Air & Space museums. Plus the Intrepid has its own personal history with the space program, so it makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 11:32
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Honestly, I kind of figured the Intrepid was a lock. I think that to the general public the Intrepid and the Smithsonian are the best known Air & Space museums. Plus the Intrepid has its own personal history with the space program, so it makes sense. *=I know they're not really equal
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 17:33
|
|
|
slidebite posted:I just figured that 2 shuttles* within approx 200 miles of each other is pretty extreme. Would have made a bit more sense to me to spread them out giving more of the country an opportunity to see one. Honestly if we're looking to expose them to the most people, two in the Northeast is kinda needed. One sixth of the US lives here, and most of them are reliant on mass transit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 23:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 18:23 |
|
|
emf posted:Seeing that CRJ take it like a trooper makes me feel a LOT better about flying in the old rattletraps. On the other hand, if that one returns to service, it will make me feel a lot worse. I wouldn't call any CRJ an old rattletrap - they're all under 20 years old (that one in particular was built in 2003). I will admit, they're not the best from a passenger's perspective, especially the CRJ-100/200 family.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2011 00:12
|
|
