|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:This thing rules. Holy poo poo.
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2011 06:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 16:20 |
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:One could also argue that this is a design fuckup: DC10 ruining the Concorde too! 
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2011 08:32
|
|
|
Epic Fail Guy posted:That's because the FAA is literally in bed with the manufacturers and airlines. No, the FAA is in a federal office building and the manufacturers and airliners are in their own, separate office buildings. They are metaphorically in bed. News stories, or should I say wild rear end speculation furthered by journalists, are suggesting poor fuel or fuel contamination as the cause of the Yak crash. Not unlikely as it didn't have proper thrust to climb out, but just mushed through the air, inevitable crash hastened by hitting something tall. I'm skeptical to fuel issues because that's usually the first theory in a scenario of all engines apparently failing - and it's usually wrong. Quite amazing that two people survived.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2011 09:32
|
|
|
benito posted:Three engines on the rear end-end of the aircraft? How about four, comrade? I remember these honkeys. In the 80s they used to stop all the time. 2 Things the soviets did not care much about on it's airliners 1) fuel consumption 2)noise. Though for noise the IL-86 is the champ. MrChips posted:(stuff on Discovery air) Thanks. It's good to hear a con perspective to balance the press release. I'm not a pilot or a engineer, so my bickering carries little weight. But still, I'd say the weather, anyway, is less of a concern then you might think. In WW2, the US Navy used blimps for convoy escort that flew perfectly in the worst weather the North Atlantic could dish out. Your other objections, though... MrChips posted:Even beyond that, Transport Canada has virtually no regulations pertaining to lighter-than-air commercial operations Considering that static lift is 80% of these things...maybe they could be classified as ultralights? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2011 22:48
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I remember these honkeys. In the 80s they used to stop all the time. 2 Things the soviets did not care much about on it's airliners 1) fuel consumption 2)noise. You forgot about smoking.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2011 23:19
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:But still, I'd say the weather, anyway, is less of a concern then you might think. In WW2, the US Navy used blimps for convoy escort that flew perfectly in the worst weather the North Atlantic could dish out.   fake edit: just sassing you
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2011 23:21
|
|
|
Aero737 posted:
Still flying with the RAF! Eventually to be replaced by the new A330 MRTT. 4 Rolls Royce Conway turbofans, rated at 22,500lbs thrust each. When taking off, they seem to be hurled aloft on a pillar of smoke by the noise alone. 
reddeathdrinker fucked around with this message at 00:01 on Sep 9, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2011 23:57
|
|
|
There's something insanely British about both that plane and the fact that the RAF still fly it. In a good way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2011 00:47
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:One could also argue that this is a design fuckup: quote:Sioux City Approach: United Two Thirty-Two Heavy, the wind's currently three six zero at one one; three sixty at eleven. You're cleared to land on any runway. Dude's a stone cold badass.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2011 01:13
|
|
|
Cygni posted:There's something insanely British about both that plane and the fact that the RAF still fly it. In a good way. The eyebrow windows are even more superfluous than the (basically all gone) ones from US-made planes.  http://www.airliners.net/photo/Southwest-Airlines/Boeing-737-3.../1490216/L/ Edit: Southwest actually removes them: 1999:  http://www.airliners.net/photo/Southwest-Airlines/Boeing-737-3H4/0131211/L/ 2010:  http://www.airliners.net/photo/Southwest-Airlines/Boeing-737-3H4/1800042/L/ Cocoa Crispies fucked around with this message at 05:25 on Sep 9, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2011 05:19
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:The eyebrow windows are even more superfluous than the (basically all gone) ones from US-made planes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2011 06:08
|
|
|
Enker posted:If eyebrow windows are useless enough to outright remove from an aircraft, what was the point of having them in the first place? Were they intended for a use that never came up? Celestial navigation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737#Flight_systems posted:Most 737 cockpits are equipped with "eyebrow windows" positioned above the main glareshield. Eyebrow windows were a feature of the original 707. They allowed for greater visibility in turns, and offered better sky views if navigating by stars. With modern avionics, they became redundant, and many pilots actually placed newspapers or other objects in them to block out sun glare. They were eliminated from the 737 cockpit design in 2004, although they are still installed in military variants and at customer request. These windows are sometimes removed and plugged, usually during maintenance overhauls and can be distinguished by a metal plug, which differs from smooth metal, which appear in later aircraft that were not originally fitted with the windows.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2011 06:10
|
|
|
There was a video posted in here a while back of in-cockpit footage of the Fat Albert C-130 from the Blue Angels. They were making liberal use of the eyebrow windows to see where the hell they were going in some ridiculously tightly banked turns.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2011 06:37
|
|
|
Cygni posted:There's something insanely British about both that plane and the fact that the RAF still fly it. In a good way. Sadly they have alreaady started being withdrawn from service and many have been flown to the airfields where they will be scrapped. I once was on a school trip to RAF Finningley which was a Flight Training School. We were in the control tower when a VC-10 took off. The noise, the power! He rotated almost immediately, it was staggering, I was open-mouthed impressed. The ATC guy said 'probably got some saucy young stude in the jumpseat' and raised his eyebrows like it happened every day. It probably did! I hear that the 'Vickers' badges from the control columns often disappear on the way to the scrapyard. Apparently they sell for £600 each!
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2011 08:12
|
|
|
ApathyGifted posted:There was a video posted in here a while back of in-cockpit footage of the Fat Albert C-130 from the Blue Angels. They were making liberal use of the eyebrow windows to see where the hell they were going in some ridiculously tightly banked turns. When was the last time you were on a 737 doing turns like that?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2011 14:11
|
|
|
The VC-10 was kind of a heinous pile of garbage although it is a really neat airplane. It was highly noncompetitive outside of MRE hot and high routes within the Empire and its superior shortfield was rendered irrelevant by the fact that major airports expanded to accomodate the 707/DC-8. If you wanted an overengined plane with less capacity than the 707, Boeing was glad to sell you the 720 which was better than the VC-10 in pretty much every conceivable way other than the VC-10 having the raddest layout of all time. I think the IL-62 is the biggest commercial plane to have mechanical controls.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2011 14:16
|
|
|
monkeytennis posted:Sadly they have alreaady started being withdrawn from service and many have been flown to the airfields where they will be scrapped. I guess that explains why we haven't seen them come through YYC this year.  I'll always have the memories of the glorious noise and smoke they made, so awesome.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2011 14:32
|
|
|
SwimNurd posted:When was the last time you were on a 737 doing turns like that? Due to the way inertia and gravity work during a turn, you might not notice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2011 14:32
|
|
|
SwimNurd posted:When was the last time you were on a 737 doing turns like that? Have you ever flown Southwest into Chicago Midway?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2011 16:02
|
|
|
As someone who grew up in Chicago, I avoid midway at all costs. Hell my family wont even pick me up there when I fly in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2011 18:35
|
|
|
DJCobol posted:Have you ever flown Southwest into Chicago Midway? A lot of small airports in upstate NY only have ILS equipped on one end of the main runway, so circle-to-land approaches happen more than you think. Although i've only flown into KITH on jungle busses.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2011 19:57
|
|
|
So flew space-a on a C-17 yesterday, happened to know one of the pilots. Got to ride up front during takeoff/climbout, which was pretty cool, but to get some training out of an otherwise worthless transit to an airshow, they did some aerial refueling with a KC-135...which I also got to ride up front for. That was  .
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2011 20:51
|
|
|
Epic Fail Guy posted:A lot of small airports in upstate NY only have ILS equipped on one end of the main runway, so circle-to-land approaches happen more than you think. Although i've only flown into KITH on jungle busses. Stewart has this happen a lot. Today the morning FedEx flight took off and climbed out while turning around 270 degrees. Probably due to the weather, but the man was banked and on the gas.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2011 23:19
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:So flew space-a on a C-17 yesterday, happened to know one of the pilots. Got to ride up front during takeoff/climbout, which was pretty cool, but to get some training out of an otherwise worthless transit to an airshow, they did some aerial refueling with a KC-135...which I also got to ride up front for. That was I got a fam ride on a KC-10 once. We were asking all the receivers to drop flares as they broke away from the tanker...most did. The RAF Harrier did it while he was on the loving drogue taking fuel, surrounded by vapors and somehow avoided blowing us all to hell. The poor boom operator about poo poo his pants.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2011 00:08
|
|
|
Not as cool as sitting up front in a 17 like iyaayas, but I got hang around the nearby air-to-ground range yesterday after working on some equipment, and got to see some F-16's doing strafing runs with live ammo at targets not even 2000' away. Those cannons are much louder than you would expect. At least louder than I expected after firing it in flight sims over the years. I should hopefully have some pics/vids in a couple days. Also, firearm safety has been drilled into my head, and I know that at a range, always be to the sides or behind of someone firing at a target. Staring at an F-16 coming in with an armed cannon, being maybe 20-25 degrees to the right of the target seems to violate that rule, but it was too cool to care about.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2011 00:08
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I got a fam ride on a KC-10 once. We were asking all the receivers to drop flares as they broke away from the tanker...most did. The RAF Harrier did it while he was on the loving drogue taking fuel, surrounded by vapors and somehow avoided blowing us all to hell. The poor boom operator about poo poo his pants. Oh those wacky Brits. Flare chat: When I went up in the Aussie C-130J for a Red Flag sortie, they punched off some flares...we got to go and watch from the rear troop doors, which are right behind where they mount the mods; goddamn those things are hot. I mean, I knew they were (kind of necessary job knowledge) but there's a difference between knowing academically that something gets 2,000 degrees and feeling 2,000 degrees from a few feet away with just an aircraft window between you and it. pkells posted:Not as cool as sitting up front in a 17 like iyaayas, but I got hang around the nearby air-to-ground range yesterday after working on some equipment, and got to see some F-16's doing strafing runs with live ammo at targets not even 2000' away. Those cannons are much louder than you would expect. At least louder than I expected after firing it in flight sims over the years. I should hopefully have some pics/vids in a couple days. Hm, I'm going to go with this being at least as cool.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2011 00:34
|
|
|
Epic Fail Guy posted:A lot of small airports in upstate NY only have ILS equipped on one end of the main runway, so circle-to-land approaches happen more than you think. Although i've only flown into KITH on jungle busses. Not a pilot, but isn't what what backcourse hold is for?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2011 00:46
|
|
|
SwimNurd posted:As someone who grew up in Chicago, I avoid midway at all costs. Hell my family wont even pick me up there when I fly in. It's ironic the MDW is better to travel from and ORD is better to get in and out of.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2011 02:16
|
|
|
pkells posted:Not as cool as sitting up front in a 17 like iyaayas, but I got hang around the nearby air-to-ground range yesterday after working on some equipment, and got to see some F-16's doing strafing runs with live ammo at targets not even 2000' away. Those cannons are much louder than you would expect. At least louder than I expected after firing it in flight sims over the years. I should hopefully have some pics/vids in a couple days. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h12K82s6MO4  for language, I suppose, but this always made me go  as to how loud those things can be. Granted it's a bigger tun than the F-16's, but still, it's freaky as hell how long it takes you to hear the gun firing after you see the rounds hit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2011 04:32
|
|
|
revmoo posted:Not a pilot, but isn't what what backcourse hold is for? There are a lot more airports with one localizer than there are airports with a published backcourse approach. And if the weather wasn't lovely enough to warrant it, gently caress I would rather circle to land.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2011 05:17
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h12K82s6MO4 "Yeah, we're cool!" BRRAAPP pffchthpfhfpfphfpf I think he jinxed it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2011 05:55
|
|
|
They don't do any circles to land here, since the weather is usually way too bad for it (and our doppler coverage is severely lacking, especially in the winter), but the do it on takeoffs pretty often: http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=2o46rxK8Lpw I hope that link works... Oh, and that white thing you stare at the whole length of the runway is a glacier. Our airport is pretty badass. We were leaving in January a couple years ago, in a blizzard, and snow was falling at about a foot an hour. We lined up on the runway, the plows lined up in front, they scrambled and we followed. Hell. Yes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2011 06:08
|
|
|
SwimNurd posted:As someone who grew up in Chicago, I avoid midway at all costs. Hell my family wont even pick me up there when I fly in. Midway is so much easier to get in and out of than O'Hare. Plus, with it being a Southwest hub I can fly almost anywhere on a direct or 1 stop no plane change flight.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2011 16:29
|
|
|
Bristol Brabazon: 8x 18-cylinder radials buried in the wings driving counter-rotating props
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2011 17:52
|
|
|
OK, this might be a really stupid question but I gotta ask: What has stopped turboprops becoming commonly used on big long distance aircraft? It seems like their niche is commuter AC like the Dash-8 and Pilatus. I understand they don't have the same ceiling as turbofan/jet AC, is that the big reason why? They are more efficient though aren't they?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2011 18:59
|
|
|
DJCobol posted:Midway is so much easier to get in and out of than O'Hare. Plus, with it being a Southwest hub I can fly almost anywhere on a direct or 1 stop no plane change flight. I assume you mean as a traveler since I-55 to Cicero is the WORST DRIVE EVER.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2011 19:06
|
|
|
superdylan posted:Bristol Brabazon: 8x 18-cylinder radials buried in the wings driving counter-rotating props I had assumed the engines were layed out in tandem. seeing them set in at angles, it surprises me that it wasn't even worse than it was. Anybody know if the Saunders-Roe Princess which had a similar 8 counter-rotating props (plus two more singletons), was also layed out all slantwise like that? [edit] looks like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AV1eUeo27tc Note the SARO Squirt in the video as well. Jet powered flying-boat fighter. Slo-Tek fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Sep 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2011 19:32
|
|
|
slidebite posted:OK, this might be a really stupid question but I gotta ask: Slow.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2011 19:42
|
|
|
slidebite posted:What has stopped turboprops becoming commonly used on big long distance aircraft? It seems like their niche is commuter AC like the Dash-8 and Pilatus. I understand they don't have the same ceiling as turbofan/jet AC, is that the big reason why? Turboprops get less efficient at lower speeds and altitudes than turbofans. Since they're slower, aircraft and crew can't be used for as many daily operations, which leads to higher costs. An airline offering turboprop flights today has to compete with turbofan aircraft, they'd have to charge way less or offer more convenience to justify the longer time. For example, turboprop service from MIA to MLB (Melbourne FL, 180 miles north of MIA) would rule for me, since it'd be faster than driving (hour of flight and an hour of MIA vs. three hours of driving) and way faster than turbofan MIA-ATL-MLB, but it would still have to compete against turbofans on itineraries that don't end in MIA; MLB-MIA-LHR vs. MLB-ATL-LHR for example.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2011 19:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 16:20 |
|
|
^^ I guess in the big picture, slow does make a difference all around if the cycles are cut that much.KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Slow. Well, I thought of that but they're not THAT slow... about 1/3 slower than a 737, give or take. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_Dash_8#Specifications quote:Typical cruise speed 310 mph (500 km/h) 269 knots 334 mph (537 km/h) 290 knots 328 mph (528 km/h) 285 knots 414 mph (667 km/h) 360 knots if there was a big enough savings I don't think the airlines would care if they were a bit slower.. or is it as simple as too slow after all?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2011 19:49
|
|