|
Probably this one. http://avherald.com/h?article=43b5200d&opt=0
|
#
?
May 1, 2011 18:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 13:36 |
|
|
Cross-posting from the aviation megathread in Ask-Tell: Some of you may have seen this as it's spreading like wildfire on the aviation forums right now, but I'm posting it anyways. A Tupolev Tu-154 was taken for a test flight after being stored for 10 years, when all hell breaks loose. Any cause I've heard so far is just speculation, but it is thought that something was wrong in the aileron control feedback circuit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP5uLDnUOdI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ1CIByTz24 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM9UM33EKqY And a picture (whether or not it is real remains to be seen, but it's certainly dramatic nonetheless): 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2011 22:51
|
|
|
Mobius1B7R posted:Probably this one. That's the one. Never seen that site before...some awesome speculation there. A bird smoked the cowling, managed to crack it. Nothing went into the compressor section, but the cold stream area looked like a clive barker movie. One also went through the #7 canoe fairing and got stuck inside rather disgustingly. No abnormal parameters, noone knew they hit a bird(s) until after landing. No engine change. Just the cowling, still a pain in the rear end when you're stressed, exhausted and never done it before! smooth jazz fucked around with this message at 23:11 on May 1, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2011 23:07
|
|
|
MrChips posted:
Holy poo poo. I can't believe that thing made it. I REALLY want to see video of touchdown.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2011 00:34
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Holy poo poo. I can't believe that thing made it. I REALLY want to see video of touchdown. Biggest case of video blue balls ever. That is seriously impressive on the part of the pilot. The amount of adverse yaw you can see occurring would make me poo poo my pants if I was in a little private plane, let alone a passenger jet.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2011 02:31
|
|
|
Whoah, I honestly expected that series to end in flames. I can only imagine the drama going on in the cockpit.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2011 16:35
|
|
|
Guess where I was yesterday! This CRJ was towed in to a gate with a blown wing exit and followed by the highlighter-yellow fire truck: 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2011 16:57
|
|
|
just lettin the internet know that I MUTHAFUCKIN GRADUATED! my AME S course. now the fun part is trying somewhere that will let me fondle their airplanes.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2011 10:02
|
|
|
Holy hell. "Dutch rolling" should be called "Russian rolling" now.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2011 20:01
|
|
|
I have no idea how he put that down.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2011 20:30
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:I have no idea how he put that down. Probably used the force.... That was an ungodly amount of yaw
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2011 21:45
|
|
|
Video of the landing here: http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/450293-barely-controllable-tu-154-another-ua232-5.html
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2011 22:07
|
|
|
FullMetalJacket posted:just lettin the internet know that I MUTHAFUCKIN GRADUATED! my AME S course. now the fun part is trying somewhere that will let me fondle their airplanes. Nice! I will only be done my first year of just the regular AME program at the end of the month. I can't wait to be done!
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2011 22:58
|
|
|
I can't be the only one who thinks that's a fake, right? That plane moves entirely too much to keep the wings attached. Even assuming they could stay attached through movement that violent, they'd at least be flapping a bit. Instead it looks like a plane attached to a string, I just can't see the string. I want to believe.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2011 05:48
|
|
|
Looks like a very rapidly yawing airplane to me. And at maneuvering speed, it shouldn't be ripping itself apart even with full control deflections. Shouldn't.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2011 06:06
|
|
|
Crossposting this from GiP What in the everloving gently caress....
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2011 23:23
|
|
|
Some of those comments are pretty great, especially the one talking in very broken english about his "cousin in kabul" who fuels the choppers ("[he] say they fly sunday.") 
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 00:56
|
|
|
gently caress I want this to be real.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 06:31
|
|
|
Almost looks like they took cues from the failed Commanche and made a Commanch-hawk out of it.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 06:35
|
|
|
It's probably far less exciting than that, but I can still dream.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 06:41
|
|
|
Mobius1B7R posted:Almost looks like they took cues from the failed Commanche and made a Commanch-hawk out of it. The Comanche was always a typical procurement fuckup; I'm glad UAVs that take less than twenty years to develop obsoleted it. They're cheaper, the operators generally don't die when they get shot down, and they enable some absolutely ridiculous long-term missions that human endurance simply doesn't allow.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 07:08
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:The Comanche was always a typical procurement fuckup; I'm glad UAVs that take less than twenty years to develop obsoleted it. They're cheaper, the operators generally don't die when they get shot down, and they enable some absolutely ridiculous long-term missions that human endurance simply doesn't allow. Interesting to see him talking about how "simple" a solution it would be to build a camera that can resolve a 15cm target within a 20km field of view. That would require about a 20 gigapixel camera, at least 16 bits of dynamic range per channel, a completely new semiconductor processing plant to handle a semiconductor billet the size of a manhole cover, and it'd probably cost hundreds of millions of dollars per sensor. Simple! (and the optics to make an image circle that big would require a global hawk or bigger to lift). You could do it with lots of small sensors tasked to particular areas, but then you'd need something the size of a 737 to lift all the lenses/computers/power supplies. At any rate, it's still like saying "we'll just put some guy on a rocket and send it into space. Simple!" disclaimer: It was pretty obvious that this guy is your average internet crank with a "consulting company", so I skipped through many slides. Captain Postal fucked around with this message at 11:14 on May 5, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 11:09
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:At any rate, it's still like saying "we'll just put some guy on a rocket and send it into space. Simple!" I think that is literally the Soviet space program, circa 1960.  as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 17:44
|
|
|
Can we get a  for the 50th anniversary of Alan Shepard's Mercury flight?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 21:10
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:Can we get a The McAuliffe-Shephard Discovery Center is pretty cool.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 21:17
|
|
|
movax posted:I think that is literally the Soviet space program, circa 1960. Imagine what the US could accomplish if we had our technology, but the balls and blatant disregard for safety that the Soviets had. gently caress, we'd be orbiting Jupiter by now. e- Florida would probably be irradiated but that may be a positive instead of a negative
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 21:36
|
|
|
If the Soviets were just around we'd probably be orbiting Jupiter by now. There's no one fun to race anymore 8(.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 21:41
|
|
|
The Chinese have a bit of catching up to do and they are doing it on their own time, but I'd imagine things will pick up once they decide to join us in Doing Great Things™.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 21:54
|
|
|
Bondematt posted:If the Soviets were just around we'd probably be orbiting Jupiter by now. There's no one fun to race anymore 8(. I dunno. Space Station Freedom would have consumed a lot of time and money. I think a big part of it would be that the Soviets wouldn't have been interested in Mars/Jupiter, so we wouldn't have been either; we would have been content to start some kind of space station race or something like that. Which to be fair, if it meant pushing for even more shuttle flights, might have been rad; Shuttle was only penciled out on the assumption of something like fifty launches a year. Imagine if, to compete with a growing fleet of Soviet space stations, we built another dozen space shuttles and had a space shuttle launching every week. I mean in 1970 we were considering having a loving moon base in the 80s, but the Soviets gave up on the moon so we did too. If the Soviets were still "hell yes we're still going to the moon and then we're doing a moon base too and then we're going to Mars" then I bet we would have kept at it and have been to Mars by now, but I also bet that probably would have led to Soviet bankruptcy in Reagan's first term. 
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 22:39
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:Interesting to see him talking about how "simple" a solution it would be to build a camera that can resolve a 15cm target within a 20km field of view. That would require about a 20 gigapixel camera, at least 16 bits of dynamic range per channel, a completely new semiconductor processing plant to handle a semiconductor billet the size of a manhole cover, and it'd probably cost hundreds of millions of dollars per sensor. Simple! (and the optics to make an image circle that big would require a global hawk or bigger to lift). It's already "working" with 96 megapixel cameras on manned aircraft.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 23:12
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Cross-posting from the aviation megathread in Ask-Tell: Thanks for posting this, I saw the video today and was awestruck at how the pilot handled the oscillation. That's as close to a "tankslapper" as I've ever seen on something without without two wheels.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 23:32
|
|
|
Bondematt posted:If the Soviets were just around we'd probably be orbiting Jupiter by now. There's no one fun to race anymore 8(. If only they had made the N1 rocket work properly.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2011 03:28
|
|
|
Nothus posted:If only they had made the N1 rocket work properly. Yeah this sounds like a disaster: American budgeting and project management combined with famed soviet engineering!! Two awful tastes that lead to dead astronauts together.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2011 21:04
|
|
|
You guys need to play some Buzz Aldrin's: Race into Space. Also known Astro(Cosmo)naut death simulator 1993.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2011 23:24
|
|
|
Bondematt posted:You guys need to play some Buzz Aldrin's: Race into Space. Also known Astro(Cosmo)naut death simulator 1993. That game was impossible. Its like you're the bookie who has to eat all the odds NASA beat.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2011 23:28
|
|
|
I've still never won. Killed my fair share though.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2011 23:33
|
|
|
Bondematt posted:You guys need to play some Buzz Aldrin's: Race into Space. Also known Astro(Cosmo)naut death simulator 1993. Ola posted:That game was impossible. Its like you're the bookie who has to eat all the odds NASA beat. Bondematt posted:I've still never won. Killed my fair share though. Consider my interest piqued. Is this thing abandonware (hopefully)?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2011 03:52
|
|
|
Ola posted:That game was impossible. Its like you're the bookie who has to eat all the odds NASA beat. I guess they patched it in a later release to turn the difficulty down. Also someone recently LP'ed a 2-player game against goons following the thread, wherein the goons won and only lost a couple of dudes on the way.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2011 03:55
|
|
|
Boat posted:Consider my interest piqued. Is this thing abandonware (hopefully)? http://www.raceintospace.org/ Yup
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2011 03:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 13:36 |
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:The McAuliffe-Shephard Discovery Center is pretty cool. There's a McAuliffe Discovery Center here in my town at Framingham State
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2011 04:49
|
|
