|
Phanatic posted:I've had the opportunity to fly BA business class twice now, and while it's still flying and it's not exactly something pleasant that you'd jump at the chance to do, this sort of exchange makes an 18-hour flight go by a lot faster: Going through customs messed up on wine is tons of fun. 
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2011 22:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 16:27 |
|
|
AF has some passable cognac that they give out in quantity if you ask nicely in coach. Either that or the attendant thought I was cute.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2011 22:54
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:AF has some passable cognac that they give out in quantity if you ask nicely in coach. KLM has a rad as hell dessert wine that is super-sweet and awesome for washing down weird-rear end Dutch food; they also have "genever," and give you a little ceramic house of the stuff if you're in WBC. Delta has Woodford Reserve, the best of all airplane bourbon; they also have Glenlivet 12, which is quite decent. Make sure you you specify "neat without ice," because the FAs aren't bartenders and don't know what "neat" means.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2011 23:12
|
|
|
CRAZY NAZI poo poo: MAN PORTABLE HELICOPTERS  
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2011 23:14
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:CRAZY NAZI poo poo: MAN PORTABLE HELICOPTERS Why didn't you include pictures of the last remaining Ho 229? It was right there! edit: unless they moved it to another facility, in which case the Ar 234 would have substituted nicely! Also: that second helicopter was meant to be towed behind a submarine. Like a kite. With a guy in in. I guess that makes it an autogyro.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2011 23:26
|
|
|
Boomerjinks posted:Why didn't you include pictures of the last remaining Ho 229? It was right there! Photos are from 2008, no idea why!
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2011 23:29
|
|
|
Ah, well. Fair nuff!
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2011 23:37
|
|
|
It never ceases to amaze me how crazy the Nazis were. If that helicopter/submarine thing had a chance to develop, you know they would have strapped rockets on both of them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2011 03:22
|
|
|
Boomerjinks posted:Why didn't you include pictures of the last remaining Ho 229? It was right there! Fw-190F and Ar 234B on the floor, Ho HIIIf hung above.  Bonus Do335A-1: 
grover fucked around with this message at 03:58 on Aug 13, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2011 03:53
|
|
|
I don't care how inefficient that pusher prop on the Arrow was, its such a loving awesome design. And I secretly think delays, ESPECIALLY delays when I'm traveling for work, are just the greatest. I generally only have a small carry-on, so delays are a great excuse to not worry about a thing and get schlammered at a Home Turf or Gordon Biersch or TGI Friday's, or whatever the hell they have. I've met a lot of genuinely interesting people at airport bars. When the whole airport is on delay, like at San Fran for fog (CONSTANTLY) or Reagan for thunderstorms (CONSTANTLY), counting the number of people falling down drunk who get drug off by the airport cops is a great game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2011 04:51
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:Could anyone care to explain why a rotor mounted engine makes a tail rotor unnecessary? To me it seems as a rotor mounted engine would create an even higher mass of the rotor and more torque to handle for the tail rotor, not less?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2011 07:36
|
|
|
Yesterday I was in the Sierra Nevadas (in Plumas County on the Feather River), and a fighter and some white jet (a trainer?) flew over quickly. Didn't get a good look at it, but the fighter might've been an F-15. I never realized how loud those things are. Then two C-130s flew over us while my family and I were going down the river in inner tubes. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2011 10:09
|
|
|
Dr. Klas posted:Could anyone care to explain why a rotor mounted engine makes a tail rotor unnecessary? To me it seems as a rotor mounted engine would create an even higher mass of the rotor and more torque to handle for the tail rotor, not less? Newton's third law. Since the the engines on the rotor blades drive small propellers the torque is between the rotor blades and the propellers, where in a conventional helicopter the torque spins the rotor one way and the fuselage the opposite direction. Stormangel fucked around with this message at 10:38 on Aug 13, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2011 10:34
|
|
|
Dr. Klas posted:Could anyone care to explain why a rotor mounted engine makes a tail rotor unnecessary? To me it seems as a rotor mounted engine would create an even higher mass of the rotor and more torque to handle for the tail rotor, not less? Speaking of which, the science museum in Toyko has some awesome rotor-tip ramjets on display, hidden behind their Zero. The scale isn't shown too well in this photo, but the ramjet is really small, about the size of a 2-liter bottle:  Of course, after saying that, I'd be an rear end if I didn't show the Zero, too:  
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2011 11:40
|
|
|
Cygni posted:I don't care how inefficient that pusher prop on the Arrow was, its such a loving awesome design. Was it inefficient? I thought it was one of the fastest prop-driven planes of the day? But yes it's loving awesome beyond belief.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2011 12:47
|
|
|
Stormangel posted:Newton's third law. Since the the engines on the rotor blades drive small propellers the torque is between the rotor blades and the propellers, where in a conventional helicopter the torque spins the rotor one way and the fuselage the opposite direction. Thank you. I actually figured it out myself after I logged out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2011 17:07
|
|
|
Ar234's are great for one thing in Aces High II. Making retards chase you for no reason. I'm doing 450, please land your La-7, you look ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2011 17:19
|
|
|
grover posted:When the rotor is powered from the rotor, the only rotational forces transferred to the fuselage are through friction, which is quite small and fairly easily controlled. Rotor tip ramjets you say? I give you the Hiller YH-32/HJ-1: 
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2011 22:17
|
|
|
grover posted:When the rotor is powered from the rotor, the only rotational forces transferred to the fuselage are through friction, which is quite small and fairly easily controlled. What throws me off about Zeros is how hosed up the firing mechanism is. It had to be nerve wracking to move your hands from yoke to trigger.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2011 23:31
|
|
|
Minto Took posted:What throws me off about Zeros is how hosed up the firing mechanism is. It had to be nerve wracking to move your hands from yoke to trigger. Elaborate?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2011 23:55
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:Elaborate? Instead of the triggers for the guns being on the yoke, the pilot had to move one or both hands off the yoke to fire the guns.  Oh yeah, they had to be hand charged too. Full Collapse fucked around with this message at 00:39 on Aug 14, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2011 00:12
|
|
|
....and despite that glaring handicap, the US was still inferior until later in the war goddamn, navy, what were you doing
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2011 00:37
|
|
|
Minto Took posted:Instead of the triggers for the guns being on the yoke, the pilot had to move one or both hands off the yoke to fire the guns. What about the 20mm cannon in the wings? VikingSkull posted:....and despite that glaring handicap, the US was still inferior until later in the war To be fair, "inferior" might be a bit harsh...both the Wildcat and P-40 could more than hold their own provided they were in the hands of any semi-competent pilot who knew not to get in a turning fight with fighters (Zero with the IJN and Ki-43 with the JAAF) that had a tighter turning radius than almost anything else in the war.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2011 02:12
|
|
|
Minto Took posted:Instead of the triggers for the guns being on the yoke, the pilot had to move one or both hands off the yoke to fire the guns. Whilst they were hand charged, those levers with the wooden handles cock the machineguns, the firing controls for both those machineguns and the 20mm cannon on the wings was a lever and selector on the throttle. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=R6W9MBK1gJI#t=110s astropika fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Aug 14, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2011 02:48
|
|
|
Does this appeal to anyone? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsY4G-NS0Hc
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2011 08:21
|
|
|
ursa_minor posted:Was it inefficient? I thought it was one of the fastest prop-driven planes of the day? But yes it's loving awesome beyond belief. I've never seen any mention of the Do-335 being inefficient (other than some engine problems that weren't related to the aircraft design), and during post-war testing, it was indeed found to be about 30kts faster than a P-51 in level flight. There is a story that a group of Tempest pilots near the end of the war surprised a Do-335 flying at low altitude, but the German pilot was able to simply outrun the RAF pilots, despite the Temptest being one of the fastest fighters of the war at low level.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2011 09:27
|
|
|
Mobius1B7R posted:Does this appeal to anyone? I just about jizzed in my shorts, so yes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2011 09:36
|
|
|
Mobius1B7R posted:Does this appeal to anyone? Seeing as how I pop a chubby every time the Everts Air Cargo DC-6s (with four Double Wasps) take off out of here on their weekly-ish supply runs, yes. The dude on the video is a pretty close approximation of what I'd be doing if I witnessed that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2011 10:10
|
|
|
Mobius1B7R posted:Does this appeal to anyone? It did until I remembered I don't have my VHS from when a B-17 and B-24 did the same thing at Stewart back in like '99. Then I was sad. Then I watched it again, and it's really loving cool. iyaayas01 posted:To be fair, "inferior" might be a bit harsh...both the Wildcat and P-40 could more than hold their own provided they were in the hands of any semi-competent pilot who knew not to get in a turning fight with fighters (Zero with the IJN and Ki-43 with the JAAF) that had a tighter turning radius than almost anything else in the war. Probably the wrong term, yeah. We were at a disadvantage, at least, and when you look at that setup it's hard to fathom why. Thank god I could just use the buttons on my Saitek when I fly a Zero. Seizure Meat fucked around with this message at 13:51 on Aug 14, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2011 13:49
|
|
|
n8r posted:Can't you at least wear shoes when you fly? Why the hell would I? I roll out of bed for an 8:40am, 2 hour long flight every monday morning, to then go and wear high-vis PPE and ankle-high steel-capped boots for a week. The least I can do is be comfortable for the trip since I'm not for the rest of the week. If I plan to go in to the airline's lounge I will wear jeans + shoes but if I'm stumbling in to the airport half-asleep then screw it. Nam Taf fucked around with this message at 14:59 on Aug 14, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2011 14:57
|
|
|
I was always under the impression that you wear the type of footwear you'd want to run through burning flames or twisted metal should anything happen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2011 15:33
|
|
|
OptimusMatrix posted:I was always under the impression that you wear the type of footwear you'd want to run through burning flames or twisted metal should anything happen. If you're in a large plane crash it generally doesn't matter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2011 15:35
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:If you're in a large plane crash it generally doesn't matter. Not every plane crash is a lawn dart.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2011 15:39
|
|
|
I always fly in full bomb disposal gear with flotation collar and redundant parachutes. Tend to get some stares, but at least I get left alone by smalltalkers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2011 16:15
|
|
|
Ola posted:I always fly in full bomb disposal gear with flotation collar and redundant parachutes. Tend to get some stares, but at least I get left alone by smalltalkers. If you pay attention during the safety demonstration, you'd know there's flotation collars included in the life vests under every seat (between seats in first class).
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2011 17:35
|
|
|
OptimusMatrix posted:Not every plane crash is a lawn dart. Yeah but most large airline crashes are. If there's twisted and flaming metal you'd have to walk through, it's generally bad enough where your feet are probably the least injured thing on your body.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2011 18:01
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Yeah but most large airline crashes are. If there's twisted and flaming metal you'd have to walk through, it's generally bad enough where your feet are probably the least injured thing on your body. In which case you want to wear closed-toed shoes so they can identify your remains by toe print. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2011 18:53
|
|
|
Nam Taf posted:Why the hell would I? I roll out of bed for an 8:40am, 2 hour long flight every monday morning, to then go and wear high-vis PPE and ankle-high steel-capped boots for a week. The least I can do is be comfortable for the trip since I'm not for the rest of the week. I gotta ask, what the hell do you do and why do you weekly commute by plane?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2011 19:23
|
|
|
OptimusMatrix posted:I was always under the impression that you wear the type of footwear you'd want to run through burning flames or twisted metal should anything happen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2011 19:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 16:27 |
|
|
BonzoESC posted:If you pay attention during the safety demonstration, you'd know there's flotation collars included in the life vests under every seat (between seats in first class). Impossible to hear through the helmet and the visor is usually pretty fogged up by the time boarding is completed so that's actually news to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2011 19:43
|
|