|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:I was on a new AA 737 recently and had a bulkhead-facing seat... and on the seatbelt was an AIRBAG? Anyone else seen this? Is it only on bulkhead seats or what? Seatbelt airbags are pretty common on newer general aviation airplanes, but I wasn't aware they were being installed on airliners. Despite making the seatbelt a little buklier, they actually make bulkhead seats much safer than they were before. At my old flight instructing job, we had a student manage to get disoriented during a night takeoff, and he essentially flew a Cessna 172 (which had an airbag fitted) into the ground at about 100MPH. Despite the airplane being a total loss, the student walked away with nothing more than a few cuts and bruises, but if there hadn't been an airbag present, he probably would have fractured his skull from hitting the instrument panel.
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2011 05:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 04:22 |
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:I was on a new AA 737 recently and had a bulkhead-facing seat... and on the seatbelt was an AIRBAG? Anyone else seen this? Is it only on bulkhead seats or what? the business class Contour seats on Air Canada all have them. They're herringbone oriented pods with hard things like monitors to smack your head on in the event of a dodgy landing. I'm guessing for someone figured the same thing for the bulkhead seats on the plane you were on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2011 11:14
|
|
|
 I have to agree, something about this image just says "Tu-154" to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2011 11:55
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:I was on a new AA 737 recently and had a bulkhead-facing seat... and on the seatbelt was an AIRBAG? Anyone else seen this? Is it only on bulkhead seats or what? Flew on a Cathay Pacific A330 recently, every seat had them, at least in economy. I don't think they mentioned it in their safety literature or demonstration (can't be sure, the entertainment system died while we were taxiing), I would think that you wouldn't want to use certain brace positions with an airbag in your lap?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2011 14:08
|
|
|
Cross-posting this from TFR's planes thread... I got a ride on the EAA's B17, "Aluminum Overcast" this morning. I don't have many photos of the interior because I didn't want to spend time looking through a viewfinder instead of actually enjoying the flight, and I forgot to take some once we landed, but here's some of the exterior.           
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2011 21:05
|
|
|
I had no idea the turret gunner sat perpendicular to the guns. I think I prefer the F model without the chin, but it's still a gorgeous plane anyways... 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2011 03:35
|
|
|
Ridge_Runner_5 posted:I had no idea the turret gunner sat perpendicular to the guns. Did you take that back in July when AO was at Centennial? I was set to volunteer for Wings at that event, but then I got a job that ate up my volunteering time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2011 03:44
|
|
|
Boomerjinks posted:Did you take that back in July when AO was at Centennial? I was set to volunteer for Wings at that event, but then I got a job that ate up my volunteering time. I think I took it last year when she was out there. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2011 04:15
|
|
|
GREAT pics! Ball-turret gunner had to be the suckiest job on a B-17, imagine the cramp!
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2011 13:04
|
|
|
Little worse than cramp. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eM3DOs9oxc&t=1132s YOU GO TO HELL! That whole episode is amazing/depressing. Cygni fucked around with this message at 13:40 on Nov 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2011 13:38
|
|
|
Cygni posted:YOU GO TO HELL! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WD7B0cfTXlc Amazing Stories episode about the unthinkable happening to a ball turret gunner. Linked because it's a multi-parter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2011 19:57
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
Delivery McGee posted:And if the wheels get shot off and the turret sticks, you're pretty much hosed. It rarely, if ever, actually happened, but like a lot of rare things it's the one people fixated on because it's so terrible. You'd be far more likely to die from a flak shell to the face, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2011 04:02
|
|
|
Tail-gunners on Lancasters/Halifaxes were just as bad, and were always the first target. Power-operated turret you had to be locked into.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2011 04:17
|
|
|
From 1945, a haunting short poem: Randall Jarrell The Death of the Ball Turret Gunner From my mother's sleep I fell into the State, And I hunched in its belly till my wet fur froze. Six miles from earth, loosed from its dream of life, I woke to black flak and the nightmare fighters. When I died they washed me out of the turret with a hose.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2011 06:42
|
|
|
b0nes posted:Can anyone ID this plane? it appears to be some sort of taildragger
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2011 06:59
|
|
|
grover posted:There's at least one incident of it happening for real Yeah, in the linked Modern Marvels the late Andy Rooney claimed to have personally seen it happen, but it wasn't nearly as often as people think.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2011 07:02
|
|
|
Well, if anybody has 2500$ kicking around, you can pick up an A-12 Flying Dorito canopy, for pickup in Indiana. http://www.govdeals.com/index.cfm?fa=Main.Item&itemid=53&acctid=3844#.TssDkWMgcd1 Only another 45 minutes left on the deal. Looks like they still have the mockup sitting at Carswel AFB, if you wanted to complete the set. http://maps.google.com/maps?q=carsw...rswell+afb&z=20
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 03:07
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:Well, if anybody has 2500$ kicking around, you can pick up an A-12 Flying Dorito canopy, for pickup in Indiana. Looks like an F-35C mockup between the F-16s right next to it, as well...
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 06:52
|
|
|
Ridge_Runner_5 posted:Looks like an F-35C mockup between the F-16s right next to it, as well... B. The C is the big-wing naval version. The B is the Marines STOVL version that doesn't work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 07:06
|
|
|
Attention Avro Arrow fans: Every Orenda Iroquois engine found to date has been torched so it will never run, and it's true performance will never be known. They missed one.  http://youtu.be/NnPfNPbNgFE
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 08:05
|
|
|
That is pretty cool, but I hope that stuff has since been declassified since he's advertising on the internet that he has it and identifies who he got it from. That is an awesome project and I hope it works out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 11:19
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:B. The C is the big-wing naval version. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVj4vC81Ea4
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 11:54
|
|
|
grover posted:The F-35B looked like it was working pretty well when the marines conducted shipboard flight tests last month. Good to know that objective source LockheedMartinVideos says that there are no problems! Back in the real world, those tests had a few problems. Nothing serious, though - just enough cracking to stop all VTOL testing on three of five airframes. I'm sure that Lockheed can fix the problem on a shoestring. Probably not more than a few hundred mil, and what's that, really?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 12:08
|
|
|
Can we not turn this thread into a F-35 D&D, like every other loving F-35 conversation on the internet? I really don't give a poo poo what your personal opinion of the planes financial situation is. I really don't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 18:05
|
|
|
Cygni posted:Can we not turn this thread into a F-35 D&D, like every other loving F-35 conversation on the internet? I really don't give a poo poo what your personal opinion of the planes financial situation is. I really don't. Seriously.  PP-XMA, Embraer's E190 testbed visiting Portland back in 2005. It had a water ballast system we had to fill up every day for them, as well as fuel the plane. The Brazilians were really cool though, they'd always tip me in cans of guava juice. And I think the flight crew were the only ones who didn't dress exclusively in soccer jerseys. E: wtf, both imgur and Windows Media viewer or whatever won't let me rotate it properly 
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 18:22
|
|
|
grover posted:The F-35B looked like it was working pretty well when the marines conducted shipboard flight tests last month. This landing style and the short take-off (as opposed to vertical take-off) tells me they're still worried about scorching the decks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 20:27
|
|
|
I recall that during testing they had some re ingestion problems. So dropping the last few feet could be a byproduct of that, or just a way of avoiding a loss of control due to re-ingestion at low level.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 20:33
|
|
|
F-35 isn't really intended to be VTOL (vertical take off and landing), it's STOVL (short take off, vertical landing). While it CAN do vertical take offs, you can't really do it with any meaningful load, just like the Harrier. And you generally come down a lot faster than that when doing a vertical landing on a ship, that was pretty danty. Remember that ships move around as you are trying to land on them. Last thing you want is to be coming down all slow and timid, only to find your landing deck suddenly pitching 20 degrees. They've got heavy landing gear for a reason, get 'er down.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 20:36
|
|
|
I don't want to poo poo up this thread with D&D, but when was the last time Marines were asked to operate over 2000 miles say from either a carrier group or a military airbase? As in, why do they need STOVL/VTOL/anything with fixed wings at all? When was the last time the USN or USAF couldn't provide cover for them?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 20:46
|
|
|
Godholio posted:That is pretty cool, but I hope that stuff has since been declassified since he's advertising on the internet that he has it and identifies who he got it from. That is an awesome project and I hope it works out. The Iroquois is almost 60 years old, for Christ's sake...why would anything about it be classified anymore, especially when you consider that it's at least five or six generations removed from a modern engine? We don't have the massive classified boner that the Americans have either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 21:05
|
|
|
I've heard that there's an actual airframe hiding somewhere that wasn't destroyed, you would think by now that coming forward with it would be okay, I dont see how the government would have issue with it, I'm sure most of the people involved with the decision to cancel it would be dead by now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 21:38
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:I don't want to poo poo up this thread with D&D, but when was the last time Marines were asked to operate over 2000 miles say from either a carrier group or a military airbase? Me being an rear end in a top hat (but with a grain of truth) answer: Henderson Field. The Marines have basically hosed up the biggest tacair procurement in history because of a battle fought almost 70 years ago. The Navy jetted because they didn't want to risk the few remaining carriers in the entire Pacific to be sunk sitting vulnerable off a coast supporting an almost completely unopposed Marine landing. Because of the withdrawal of the carriers the supply ships left before they had completely unloaded, and therefore the Marines had an absolutely miserable existence on Guadalcanal for the next several months, as well as a dearth of air support until the Cactus Air Force got stood up and began operations. The serious answer is that the Marines have a firm belief in the MAGTF's ability to self support (provided it has Navy amphibs, of course). There are some issues with this (not the least of which that the Navy would be loath to risk a bunch of amphibs in a contested environment without detailing at least one carrier strike group to protect them), but it has a solid basis. The real question is whether STOVL is an essential capability (like the Marines make it sound) worth screwing up an entire procurement program, or if it is a "nice to have" capability that should have been discarded once it started dragging down the rest of the program. I have my answer to that, but there are pros and cons on either side.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 21:43
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:I don't want to poo poo up this thread with D&D, but when was the last time Marines were asked to operate over 2000 miles say from either a carrier group or a military airbase? Almost no way to address that without getting D&D as gently caress. All branches of the military buy the equipment for the war they want to fight, rather than the one they are actually fighting or ever going to fight. The Marines are somewhat more noticeable in this because the stuff for the war they want to fight is a much larger portion of a much smaller budget, and they also crash in front of cameras a fair bit. Here are some pictures of airplanes though:  yf-23-3 by RReiheld, on Flickr YF-23 at restoration hangar of the USAF museum, before they put it back together. I like the engine on mattress.  xXF4U-40001-0093-02-0008-1944 by RReiheld, on Flickr Just like it says on the tin, experimental Corsair  XB-39_Spirit_of_Lincoln_January_1946 by RReiheld, on Flickr B-29 with the ill-favored Allison W engines in place of the radials.  v2n2ad12 by RReiheld, on Flickr Mockup of the XB-70's escort fighter, I think.  TB2D_Skypirate by RReiheld, on Flickr Postwar torpedo bomber  pb2y-4 by RReiheld, on Flickr PB2Y Coronado rocket assisted takeoff  Nooky Booky IV at Neubiberg airport, Munich, 1947 by RReiheld, on Flickr They were just throwing this poo poo away.  image005 by RReiheld, on Flickr Nuclear Cargomaster  am1_mauler_c1949 by RReiheld, on Flickr Martin Mauler, the late-war torpedo-everything-else bomber, ended up losing the contract to the smaller Skyraider. The Mauler still holds a number of records for most payload off a carrier deck with a single radial engine. The R-4360 is mounted a couple degrees off center to help address engine torque.  3139822984_459d9dc2f0_o by RReiheld, on Flickr Uglied up Viggen  2279698625_a7333ddbda_o by RReiheld, on Flickr Metalclad airship.  27xi42w by RReiheld, on Flickr Mustang with wingtip ramjets  1233645 by RReiheld, on Flickr  040315-F-9999G-008 by RReiheld, on Flickr YB-60. An all-jet swept wing retread of the B-36. Competed, poorly, against the much more modern B-52. Slo-Tek fucked around with this message at 22:00 on Nov 22, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 21:50
|
|
|
SyHopeful posted:Seriously. E-170/175/190/195 is one of my favorite narrowbodies; I can stand up straight unlike on the CRJs, and the windows are high enough to look out of. Delta's have a (usually empty and therefore easy to upgrade to) first class section, and they're putting wifi in them too. (Your image looks right on Chrome on Lion.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 21:54
|
|
|
I love that last photo...but the P-51 graveyard made my jaw drop.MrChips posted:The Iroquois is almost 60 years old, for Christ's sake...why would anything about it be classified anymore, especially when you consider that it's at least five or six generations removed from a modern engine? I expect he's probably fine, but even though declassification is often supposed to happen at a given time, someone actually has to make the effort to make it happen. Godholio fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Nov 22, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 21:58
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:
LeMay.jpg
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 22:00
|
|
|
That V2N2AD12 looks ridiculous. If looks counted in aviation, it could go supersonic without lighting its turbines.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 22:04
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:
Huh. So this is what a real world Fallout would look like.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 22:10
|
|
|
Zorak of Michigan posted:That V2N2AD12 looks ridiculous. If looks counted in aviation, it could go supersonic without lighting its turbines. That is allegedly Republic's entry into the TFX program that got us the F-111. Can't really see it in that photo, but it has little vestigial swing-wings. 
Slo-Tek fucked around with this message at 22:18 on Nov 22, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 22:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 04:22 |
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:
I loving love the 1950s.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 22:21
|
|
