|
ApathyGifted posted:It's all good, I enjoyed the opportunity to say "rear end-cockpit." I can't understand why anyone wouldn't want to say a lovely word like cockpit.
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2011 00:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 11:19 |
|
|
know what's also a good word? Monocoque 
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2011 03:14
|
|
|
I only manage a semi monocoque on most mornings
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2011 03:20
|
|
|
Grover, the R-4360 was never used in the Corsair, just the R-2300 The R-4360 powered: Aero Spacelines Mini Guppy Aero Spacelines Pregnant Guppy Boeing 377 Stratocruiser Boeing B-50 Superfortress Boeing C-97 Stratofreighter Boeing KC-97 Stratotanker Boeing XF8B Boeing XB-44 Superfortress Convair B-36 Convair XC-99 Curtiss XBTC Douglas C-74 Globemaster Douglas C-124 Globemaster II Douglas TB2D Skypirate Fairchild C-119 Flying Boxcar Fairchild C-120 Packplane Goodyear F2G Corsair Hughes H-4 Hercules ("Spruce Goose") Hughes XF-11 Lockheed R6V Constitution Martin AM Mauler Martin JRM Mars Martin P4M Mercator Northrop B-35 Republic XP-72 Republic XF-12 Rainbow SNCASE SE-2010 Armagnac Vultee A-41
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2011 03:49
|
|
|
I think it's an indication of how complex and uneconomic it is to operate such large piston engines when the only planes on that list with any sort of commercial success are the Mars and Buck-Nineteen. Even in those two examples they weren't exactly common. When I'm in Anchorage for Christmas, I'll see if I can't get close to the pair of C-119s in Wasilla. As far as I know, they're the only two currently flying in 'commercial' service. Even they only fly a couple times a year, if that. They were down for over a decade when one lost an engine in Kodiak and they had to cannibalize parts. I'm pretty sure they only reason they got both in the air again was because they got evicted from Anchorage International along with the C-133.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2011 04:23
|
|
|
Kilonum posted:Grover, the R-4360 was never used in the Corsair, just the R-2300 Post-war super Corsair. Think it didn't have hinged wings, but did have the corncob radial.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2011 04:49
|
|
|
whelp, QANTAS is dead (or dying)... For those that don't know, under law qantas must be 51% australian owned while ever it flys, but it's low cost subsidiaries have no such restrictions. Qantas staff are paid first world salaries whilst the low cost carrier staff are flown in form SE Asia or are otherwise hired under much lower wages. The objective of Qantas is to get staff on the union rates of pay to the non-union ones. Obviously if they can't it would be beneficial to sell off the assets to other airlines and let the Qantas brand (and legal restrictions) wither and die along with all those union pay packets and pensions, but they have to be shown to run at a loss for that to happen. Qantas actually does run at a loss and the low cost subsidiaries are indeed profitable. The management plan is to pump as much into the LCC's as possible and flog them off. The catch is that Qantas pays for the maintenance, ground handling, ground facilities along with most of the management/back office and disruption costs of the LCC's for nothing in return which is why they are running at a "loss" whilst the LCC's are "profitable" Interesting thing is that 1) this just happened to accidentally coincide with the end of CHOGM and 13 (or 18?) heads of state visiting Perth are booked to fly Qantas tomorrow morning, and 2) Qantas is rumoured to have booked every hotel room in the country they could find a week ago and 3) the CEO Joyce awards himself a $5M pay packet friday and shuts down the company saturday. Interesting timing. Still, when they put a Ryan air guy in charge of a legacy flag carrier specialising in premium service, what did they think would happen? edit: there's an emergency meeting of fair work australia (the strike/industrial relations overseer) scheduled for 10pm tonight Captain Postal fucked around with this message at 12:10 on Oct 29, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2011 11:51
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:Post-war super Corsair. Think it didn't have hinged wings, but did have the corncob radial. F2G Super Corsair: 
grover fucked around with this message at 12:22 on Oct 29, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2011 12:16
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:whelp, QANTAS is dead (or dying)... The workers for QANTAS really have no right to be asking for so much from QANTAS, they get an assload of money already. If I was a QANTAS CEO I'd be telling them all to get out as well and just replace them with people that aren't going to try and dick me over. I actually found his pay rise amusing, especially that 98% of shareholders approved it even with the Union poo poo going on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2011 15:23
|
|
|
Shimrod posted:The workers for QANTAS really have no right to be asking for so much from QANTAS, they get an assload of money already. If I was a QANTAS CEO I'd be telling them all to get out as well and just replace them with people that aren't going to try and dick me over. I agree that the unions need to realise they are in the second most fluid industry in the world (after IT) when it comes to moving assets to where the low costs are so they need to lower their demands. I also think that maintenance and piloting jobs require an attitude to the work that you don't get when you employ the cheapest labour available. They require skills like giving-no-gently caress what the boss says if you think he's wrong, and that comes from having staff who don't fear loosing their jobs for disagreeing with authority. The 98% of shareholders is bullshit. It was 98% of votes. 1 share = 1 vote, so something like 90% of votes come from 4 or 5 institutional shareholders, and their votes were cast by 2 shareholder advisory companies. Anyone who abstains or doesn't vote gives their vote to the chairman to cast (and he isn't going to vote against his own board). And the Qantas board happens to have a good relationship with those companies. Captain Postal fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Oct 29, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2011 22:48
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:whelp, QANTAS is dead (or dying)... Qantas has a really impressive safety record, if I recall correctly one of the best among legacy 1st world carriers. I wonder if a transition to outsourced pilots is going to give that a black eye.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2011 23:12
|
|
|
Epic Fail Guy posted:Qantas has a really impressive safety record, if I recall correctly one of the best among legacy 1st world carriers. I wonder if a transition to outsourced pilots is going to give that a black eye. well they're also trying to outsource crew rest and training from Aus standard (which is a copy of the FAA standard) to the local SE Asian standards. I think the biggest hit to safety from changing pilots will be due to loss of seniority. At the moment I believe the next guy to get promoted is more-or-less the one who is next in line. Sounds poo poo and bad for safety, but the alternative is that the next guy to get promoted is the one who is willing to make the most marginal landings/take-offs for schedule purposes and who burns/carries the least fuel, keeping costs down. The other interesting thing is that they are trying to outsource maintenance, but Qantas defence services (they do maintenance for RAAF heavy aircraft) can't be outsourced for security reasons. So they're trying to outsource their own maintenance whilst still operating a maintenance base. As an example of how they now operate, I've got a friend who works for their engineering who has to reapply for his job. They have 440 staff, want to reduce it to 400. They offered voluntary redundancies and had 150 people apply. Rather than pick 40, Joyce instead made them all reapply for their jobs as a cost cutting measure. Obviously there weren't enough managers to do 440 interviews so they instead hired on a couple of dozen HR people to do it. It's truly a farce at the moment. Mr.Peabody posted:The Queen Elizabeth II uses 57.5 gallons per passenger mile Captain Postal fucked around with this message at 02:59 on Oct 30, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2011 00:19
|
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:I think it's actually more fuel efficient to fly. It's certainly more labor efficient. The Queen Elizabeth II uses 57.5 gallons per passenger mile while a Boeing 777-300ER gets 60.06 passenger miles per gallon when configured for maximum capacity (365x 3rd class seats) So if fuel costs skyrocketed and we consider fuel costs as being equal, I would actually think the cruise tickets would be less expensive. The reason, the bulk of their operation can be subsidized through alcohol sales.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2011 00:43
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:I hope that's a typo. Otherwise, poo poo. The QE2 has a fuel capacity of approx. 1,000,000 gallons. She has a claimed cruising range of 7500 miles, so rough math says 133.33 gallons burned per mile. She carries 1778 passengers, and 1016 crew (2794 total). So, fully loaded: Counting only passengers: 0.075 gallons per passenger mile. If my math is right, this is about 13.33 passenger miles per gallon. Counting crew + passengers: 0.0478 gallons per passenger mile. Again, math, approximately 20.96 passenger miles per gallon. Edit: If she got 57.5 gallons per passenger mile, she would (using *only* passengers in the calculation) use 102235 gallons of fuel per mile traveled, and have a maximum range of 9-3/4 miles. Hell of a short cruise. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2011 03:38
|
|
|
So basically the Queen Elizabeth 2 is like taking a Lamborghini across the pacific. Hmm. What about, say A380s or 747s?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2011 03:59
|
|
|
The Locator posted:The QE2 has a fuel capacity of approx. 1,000,000 gallons. She has a claimed cruising range of 7500 miles, so rough math says 133.33 gallons burned per mile. Of course, there's a pretty big disconnect between a 777 set up in cattle-car configuration, and the QE2 or QM2 hauling around a bunch of staterooms, restaurants, and her own drat mall. Per pound or cubic foot of cargo, ships are much, much more efficient - that's why container ships and bulk haulers, rather than airplanes, are used to move non-time-critical stuff all over the world. When it comes to passengers, the equation does change somewhat. People can tolerate cramped coach seating for a flight, but on an ocean trip they're going to need a lot more infrastructure for sleeping, eating, showering, crapping, and so forth. And, naturally, there will always be a premium for shortening the trip from seven days to about half of one. Still, if you're looking at straight passenger-mile fuel efficiency, planes only win out because the few modern ocean liners are set up to be ridiculous floating palaces rather than efficient means of transportation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2011 04:09
|
|
|
what if you compare with overnight passenger ferries from the Baltic/Aegean/wherever else? That'd be a more informative comparison. I'd do it but I don't have figures. Sea cats would also be interesting to look at as the concorde of the sea
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2011 05:52
|
|
|
Fayez Butts posted:So basically the Queen Elizabeth 2 is like taking a Lamborghini across the pacific. Hmm. What about, say A380s or 747s?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2011 06:05
|
|
|
The Locator posted:WORDS Using tank capacity/range is a fairly crude way to do it when you have a more precise calculation available: What is the range when all fuel tanks are full? At service speed, QE2 carries enough fuel for 12 days continuous sailing, but at the slower, more economical speed of 20 knots, she could sail for 30 days or two-thirds of a circumnavigation of the world. I assumed that the QE2 was cruising at 20 knots for maximum efficiency, not at service speed. It's a huge difference in fuel consumption for those 7 knots difference in speed. Here's a detailed explanation e: added links Why argue over which when you can have both? 
Mr.Peabody fucked around with this message at 13:56 on Oct 30, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2011 13:38
|
|
|
Mr.Peabody posted:Why argue over which when you can have both?  You'd have to have quite the brass buns to fly in that thing
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2011 15:52
|
|
|
Qantas ordered to resume flights. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-15514802
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 00:41
|
|
|
I was just watching AgentJayZs Youtube channel (which is pretty much the best thing if you want to learn about turbine engines) when I saw they actually managed to get an Orenda Iroquois engine. If you don't know what plane that came from prepare to be greatly saddened http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_CF-105_Arrow EDIT: I also ended up watching this documentary http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kj9iESBy7u8 which is pretty awesome but also sad. Bugdrvr fucked around with this message at 06:27 on Oct 31, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 06:24
|
|
|
Mr.Peabody posted:Why argue over which when you can have both? A combined sailing boat / aircraft is so much worse than the flying car concepts I don't know what to say. Someone is good at 3D design but has never read about either sailboat or aircraft design.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 07:05
|
|
|
AEROSPERGIN' BOOK CLUB I just finished Outlaws Inc. this morning. It's about Russians affected by the collapse of the Soviet Union taking IL-76s and starting independent cargo operations, with all the sketchiness and mafia connections that implies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 14:30
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:AEROSPERGIN' BOOK CLUB Still haven't finished my copy yet, but I mentioned the book earlier as well. I've liked what I've read so far, but I think I'm doing it a disservice only reading it while I poop. Might have to actually sit down and read it for a hour or so at a time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 16:15
|
|
|
movax posted:Still haven't finished my copy yet, but I mentioned the book earlier as well. I've liked what I've read so far, but I think I'm doing it a disservice only reading it while I poop. Might have to actually sit down and read it for a hour or so at a time. I looked for your post but you didn't use the book title 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 16:54
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:I looked for your post but you didn't use the book title Oops, didn't realize I never actually posted the name of the book, just an Amazon link  The author's description of what was essentially a firesale of Soviet military hardware was pretty chilling though, everyone at all levels was selling poo poo just to make ends meet. Brand-new jets and tanks disappeared overnight; hell an Il-76 slated to be a display for an aviation school "disappeared" en route. These loving jets just walked away on their own, I thought that only happened in movies, but then again, crazy poo poo happens when an entity like the Soviet Union implodes. e: wow the Wiki article on the Il-76 doesn't have a mention of the Candid that crashed in Serbia carrying two Jastrebs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 17:45
|
|
|
I want a Tu-144 to just go missing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 21:06
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:AEROSPERGIN' BOOK CLUB I just got the the other day from Amazon, probably from the other recommendation!
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 22:50
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:AEROSPERGIN' BOOK CLUB I read a few of your posts, read the Amazon description, bought it immediately. Thanks for the heads up!
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 22:53
|
|
|
movax posted:e: wow the Wiki article on the Il-76 doesn't have a mention of the Candid that crashed in Serbia carrying two Jastrebs. I thought that this reference was it? Wikipedia posted:On 19 August 1996, Il-76T Spair Airlines Flight PAR-3601, crashed and exploded while trying to land at Belgrade Nikola Tesla Airport killing 12 crew members
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 00:20
|
|
|
ehnus posted:I thought that this reference was it?  Yeah, that is the one, I somehow glossed over it  Apparently, a crew of a Il-76 that was imprisoned by the Taliban for a year, and then escaped after covertly repairing their plane with the help of a US Congressmen wrote a book called Escape from Kandahar, but I can't seem to find it on Amazon. Maybe it is in Russian.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 06:19
|
|
|
LOT 767 makes gear-up landing in Warsaw: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-N1L82VVoM
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 16:44
|
|
|
Wow, it doesn't really get any better than that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 22:16
|
|
|
http://www.affordaplane.com/ Well that's an ultralight that makes sense to me. I ordered the plans. They say you can build the airframe in a weekend...
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 23:39
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:http://www.affordaplane.com/ gently caress you for posting that link. You stupid cocksucker. You basically ruined any chances of me traveling this winter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 00:24
|
|
|
Haven't been able to find a video of that airplane flying on youtube so far.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 00:32
|
|
|
Tsuru posted:LOT 767 makes gear-up landing in Warsaw: that pilot had to lay 'er down
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 00:52
|
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:Haven't been able to find a video of that airplane flying on youtube so far. http://www.youtube.com/user/gentharris
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 01:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 11:19 |
|
|
Nerobro posted:http://www.affordaplane.com/ Keep us updated on how your build goes. I just got a better insurance quote for my Lazair, $189 for on ground/not in motion and liability.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 02:19
|
|
