|
Captain Postal posted:Then add on the savings of not having to drag all those huge tip vortices around the sky which add significant vortex drag themselves but aren't related to aspect ratio. They kinda are related. The reason for that elliptic distribution of lift is because the high pressure underneath the wing tries to flow up around the wingtip into the lower pressure on top. Some of of it is successful, reducing lift and creating those vortices as the air swirls around the wing tip. High aspect ratios help fight those vortices because they essentially reduce how much high pressure air is available to try to flow around the tip. If you have two wings of the same area but different wing spans, then the higher aspect (thinner one) essentially has less available wingtip for the air to flow around, reducing just how much can swirl around the tip to create a vortex and reduce lift. And this is why the formula for vortex drag actually includes the aspect ratio as part of the denominator, so that higher aspect ratios = less vortex drag. And since I'm assuming you're an AeroGoon too, I'll go ahead and say that yes I know this is an extremely simplified explanation, I did that on purpose for the benefit of goons who didn't study aerodynamics.
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2011 20:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 02:52 |
|
|
ApathyGifted posted:They kinda are related. Yeah, I know all too well that everything is related to everything else in aero eng. I was giving the simplified simplified version for the same reason. Captain Postal fucked around with this message at 11:33 on Oct 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2011 11:30
|
|
|
Aero737 posted:And they even put a radar dome ontop of one!  This is actually my wallpaper on one of the office computers at work. I'm in a USAF AWACS squadron.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2011 23:26
|
|
|
Godholio posted:
Here's some heritage for ya:  High resolution
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2011 07:15
|
|
|
quote:Slidebite's long reply to my long post about the F-35 Sorry for not saying sooner, but god, it is so nice to have an intellegent conversation about this! It's also good to see that there's common ground between us: we both are worried about the F-35 turning into a total fiasco, either due to the plane itself being poo poo, or by being so expensive that they do huge damage to procurement programs elsewhere. Also since I'm doin' this, shoutout to iyaayas01 as I read his big-rear end post on the F-35 in the parallel thread, I found it extremely interesting. Finished a new plane a little while ago. BV-(p)194.    I find it extremely comical that an asymmetrical crazyplane needs yellow wing tips, least it be mistaken for one of those allied asymmetrical aircraft 
Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Oct 11, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2011 19:53
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Sorry for not saying sooner, but god, it is so nice to have an intellegent conversation about this! It's also good to see that there's common ground between us: we both are worried about the F-35 turning into a total fiasco, either due to the plane itself being poo poo, or by being so expensive that they do huge damage to procurement programs elsewhere. Likewise. The biggest issue I have with the F35 that there really isn't a good argument against is the single engine bit. If we start writing off fighters because they lose an engine enroute to tukto-yo-butt-gently caress up north the whole decision will be pounced on again. I actually heard a good interview on CBC Power and Politics a couple weeks back with MP Laruie Hawn (also a CF18 test pilot) and Steve Fuhr, another CF18 pilot and fleet manager. It was pretty basic in a couple of ways but I think that a good point was made about the super bugs and the far lower overall cost and faster delivery. Of course, Laurie Hawn towed the government line but he also made some good points, not the least of which was life cycle of the AC and he pretty much confirmed that we'll be flying these well after I'm old and grey. Most humorous point was Evan Solomon, the CBC host saying WE SHOULD JUST BUY BOTH BECAUSE IF THE US CAN DO IT WHY CAN'T WE???!  Laurie Hawn's reply was  quote:
Good job, by the way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2011 20:18
|
|
|
The BV 141 was Smokey Yunick's inspiration for the 1964 sidepod car, the Hurst Floor Shift Special.Smokey Yunick posted:So you're thinking, where in the hell did you get the plan to build such a goofy car? Over Regansburg Germany, in 1944, I was driving a B-17 carrying ten tons of remodeling equipment up there to an aircraft bearing factory, when I see a very skinny fuselage airplane hauling rear end with a small capsule on one side, with a pilot in it. Turns out two small shapes with same frontal area as one single shape has less parasitic drag. I was always told those weenie gobblers were sharp, so I paid attention. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2011 20:44
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Here's some heritage for ya: Badass. At Tinker they recently gave the static display Connie some much-needed TLC. The aircraft was placed there in the early 80s and had never been touched since. So this summer someone finally brought it up that allowing such display to degrade like that was actually in violation of an AFI. Next thing you know, 30 years of bird poo poo, nests, and other crap are being scraped out, Connie gets a new paint job...and the fuel and oil are drained. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2011 23:01
|
|
|
Godholio posted:and the fuel and oil are drained. Alright then. Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 07:50
|
|
|
slidebite posted:You sonuvabitch. Do you have any idea how much plastic I have in boxes under my stairs that I forgot all about... and then you post this. Thanks. This hobby is a lot more fun now that as an adult I have money for airbrushes and whatnot. VikingSkull posted:The BV 141 was Smokey Yunick's inspiration for the 1964 sidepod car, the Hurst Floor Shift Special. This is some amazing AI crossposting, right here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 20:59
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Badass. There's a Connie out at Tinker? Might have to stop by and check it out. I'm pretty sure I can get on the base with my FAA ID?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2011 20:24
|
|
|
I have no idea, but I doubt it. If you do get on, look at google maps satellite view. Find where the E-3s are parked and look NW along the road. The Connie is almost due south from the main gate. I think I got this from iyaayas as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsY4G-NS0Hc But this one is mine (sorry about letting it get out of frame, the camera was on a tripod and I was busy being loving amazed): STS-135 Godholio fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Oct 13, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2011 22:36
|
|
|
Butt Reactor posted:This ugly thing, made by the Brits and modified by Northrop Grumman Hmm, where did you take this at. Salt Lake City? Also stop calling our planes ugly, that's like the 3rd time in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2011 01:23
|
|
|
slidebite posted:This is kind of cool: Retro Dyna-Soar is cool
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2011 01:31
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:
Okay, so you'll be apologizing for the BAe 146 now, then?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2011 03:42
|
|
|
But we don't fly any of those  .3 BAC 1-11s, a 737 a few Sabreliners, Bombardier something and an Islander.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2011 03:52
|
|
|
Oh I thought you were apologizing on behalf of the British aircraft industry. Carry on. All those are fine except for the One-Elevens.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2011 04:16
|
|
|
1-11s own man don't be a jerk.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2011 21:49
|
|
|
fknlo posted:There's a Connie out at Tinker? Might have to stop by and check it out. I'm pretty sure I can get on the base with my FAA ID? Theres a visitors center at Tinker that has all the static displays that is open to the public 365 (although it was closed the day I drove out there). You could try getting on base with your FAA ID. I got waved onto Andrews with a FAA ID while the president was on base, but I was meeting with a squadron there and they may have alerted the guard shack.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2011 22:19
|
|
|
Connie's not in that air park. She sits alone in the middle of the 552 Air Control Wing compound, along with the Yukla 27 Memorial. That's a neat little airpark though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2011 23:43
|
|
|
Epic Fail Guy posted:Okay, so you'll be apologizing for the BAe 146 now, then? For all that the Quadra-Puff is slow, unreliable and inefficient, there really isn't another aircraft out there that can do what it does. How many aircraft can carry 100 passengers off a 3600' runway?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2011 23:53
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:Hmm, where did you take this at. good guess, did the timestamp on the photo tip you off? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2011 00:36
|
|
|
MrChips posted:For all that the Quadra-Puff is slow, unreliable and inefficient, there really isn't another aircraft out there that can do what it does. How many aircraft can carry 100 passengers off a 3600' runway? It just always seemed like it was designed around London City, and was kind of pointless anywhere else. You can stuff a few less people onto a Dash or CRJ or JungleBus or with a slightly longer runway use a 318 or MD-90 or whatevs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2011 02:25
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I think I got this from iyaayas as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsY4G-NS0Hc I dunno if I posted that or not but that dude screaming incoherently is me if I ever see that. What's the Yukla 27 memorial look like down there? KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:1-11s own man don't be a jerk. 1-11s are cool, but the NG testbed aircraft certainly do have an..."interesting" look to them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2011 03:02
|
|
|
Butt Reactor posted:good guess, did the timestamp on the photo tip you off? Nah, I didn't even look at the timestamp. My old roommate was 'baby-sitting' the jet while it was out there for some testing, I have no idea what testing it was for though. Plinkey fucked around with this message at 04:28 on Oct 15, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2011 03:16
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:What's the Yukla 27 memorial look like down there? I saw the crash; I too am curious about the memorial. Plane crashes smell awful 
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2011 08:27
|
|
|
MrChips posted:For all that the Quadra-Puff is slow, unreliable and inefficient, there really isn't another aircraft out there that can do what it does. How many aircraft can carry 100 passengers off a 3600' runway? Even the RJ updates?  (We are talking about the BAE 146 right?)Weirdly, I've heard from several people who as passengers, really like the things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2011 19:36
|
|
|
A few weeks ago I had to take an emergency work trip up to Yellowknife to film a Dornier 228 from Summit Air for the Discovery Channel. I guess Summit Air is giving a plane to the UN World Health Program and they are making a show about the pilots flying it from Yellowknife to Sudan or something like that. Such a strange looking airplane  This isnt the one we shot, it was done up in UN colors and logos and such.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2011 20:29
|
|
|
I don't trust them. A local airline runs 328s and they just recently had one of them slide off the runway because of some hydraulic failure during an emergency landing here in Louisville. Thank god we got bumped to a 737 when we flew a week later.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2011 21:02
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Even the RJ updates? The rebranded Avro RJs are a bit better, but the aircraft is still at a big disadvantage compared to its competitors such as the CRJ-700/900 and the E-Jet. The only reason why the BAe-146/Avro RJ sold as well as it did was because it was the only aircraft of that size for the better part of a decade.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2011 21:51
|
|
|
revmoo posted:I don't trust them. A local airline runs 328s and they just recently had one of them slide off the runway because of some hydraulic failure during an emergency landing here in Louisville. Thank god we got bumped to a 737 when we flew a week later. Apparently they land hard on a good day, and any sort of variable such as a quartering tailwind really fucks up their whole steeze.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2011 00:43
|
|
|
The new BA commercial is incredibly well done, and features some classics. Love that VC-10. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4JdQi60an0
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2011 00:46
|
|
|
I actually liked the 146. Probably rose colored glasses though since I haven't flowing on one for about 15 years. I do remember the cool-rear end howl the flaps made when they came down.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2011 15:46
|
|
|
slidebite posted:I actually liked the 146. Me too actually. The only thing I didn't like about them were the stories in Private Eye about contamination of the cabin air system. Unclear whether this was actually a Thing or whether it was the result of fevered imaginations.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2011 20:52
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Likewise. The biggest issue I have with the F35 that there really isn't a good argument against is the single engine bit. If we start writing off fighters because they lose an engine enroute to tukto-yo-butt-gently caress up north the whole decision will be pounced on again. I did quite a lot of work on one of the engine parts ~2-2.5 years, ~12 engines (both test stand and flight quality) to make sure this won't happen. I can't say whether or not the other parts had the same care put into them. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2011 02:27
|
|
|
Aeronautical Insanity? How bout a Jewish Messerschmitt?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2011 03:57
|
|
|
dubzee posted:Aeronautical Insanity? How bout a Jewish Messerschmitt? Jewish Avia! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2011 06:06
|
|
|
Epic Fail Guy posted:The new BA commercial is incredibly well done, and features some classics. Love that VC-10.  God the loving Concorde was a sexy machine. I can just imagine being one one of them and the kick in the rear end it must have been when the burners lit off.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2011 08:47
|
|
|
Saga posted:Me too actually. The only thing I didn't like about them were the stories in Private Eye about contamination of the cabin air system. Unclear whether this was actually a Thing or whether it was the result of fevered imaginations. A bit of both. Partly there are a significant number of 146 crew who are no longer medically fit to fly due to exposure to engine air, and partly fevered imaginations that occurred as hallucinations during exposure to engine air. But it's a real thing. There were even crashes that were thought to be due to pilots being incapacitated from the fumes. The fault lies in the itty-bitty compressors in the itty-bitty engines not being able to compress cabin air enough so the bleed was taken at the final stage of the compressor right near the core, where on a normal engine the bleed is taken at 1st or 2nd stage.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2011 11:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 02:52 |
|
|
Captain Postal posted:A bit of both. Partly there are a significant number of 146 crew who are no longer medically fit to fly due to exposure to engine air, and partly fevered imaginations that occurred as hallucinations during exposure to engine air. Yeah, that was it. A bit worrying when you're locked inside one!
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2011 13:36
|
|