|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:it's not like boeing products have a better safety record either, i really don't get the safety/quality dickwaving that goes on about airliners That's my point. Apart from a couple of statistical oddities, the worldwide accident rates for Boeing and Airbus are so close (and so low) that can be thought of as exactly the same.
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2011 17:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 02:40 |
|
|
Ridge_Runner_5 posted:Should just paint the rotor hubs instead. Fuckin classy. Tip lights show up better under NVGs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2011 17:39
|
|
|
They also remind you HOW loving BIG those rotors are.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2011 23:22
|
|
|
grover posted:What about Canadair and Embraer? CRJs are poo poo, ERJs aren't much better, E-170/175/190/195 own-zone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 05:13
|
|
|
Inspiration for the A-10 perhapse? Heavy, slow, dual engine, pilot sits in an armoured bathtub, giant gently caress-off gun! HS-129 
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 07:51
|
|
|
Blistex posted:Inspiration for the A-10 perhapse? The Panzerknacker provided part of the inspiration for the A-10...the A-X project was basically supposed to combine the best attributes of the Il-2, the Hs-129, and the Skyraider, with a dash of the Ju-87G being thrown in (Hans-Ulrich Rudel's Stuka Pilot was required reading for the dudes working on the A-X).
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 09:09
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:it's not like boeing products have a better safety record either, i really don't get the safety/quality dickwaving that goes on about airliners I just like Boeing design philosophies better. Cable and pulley with mechanical linkage is a lot more comforting to me than fly-by-wire. Not that it's a bad or poorly engineered system it's just that I feel more comfortable with mechanically-driven controls. Also, Boeing jet's look way better. Except the 757. That's just a gangly fucker.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 10:26
|
|
|
HeyEng posted:I just like Boeing design philosophies better. Cable and pulley with mechanical linkage is a lot more comforting to me than fly-by-wire. Not that it's a bad or poorly engineered system it's just that I feel more comfortable with mechanically-driven controls. Also, Boeing jet's look way better. Except the 757. That's just a gangly fucker. However, Boeing's control laws leave more up to the pilot, and are simpler and less restrictive. You can stall and barrel roll a 777, for instance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 10:44
|
|
|
Tsuru posted:The only difference between a 777 and an A330 with regards to the flight controls is the fact that Boeing put in an old fashioned arrangement with fully artificial feedback like a simulator. So no mechanical link for Boeing anymore either. Yea, forgot about the 777. Also didnt know about the FBW softened restrictions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 10:47
|
|
|
HeyEng posted:Yea, forgot about the 777. Also didnt know about the FBW softened restrictions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 11:19
|
|
|
HeyEng posted:Also, Boeing jet's look way better. Except the 757. That's just a gangly fucker. I live right by a small airport where most of the traffic is 737s and A320s. The 737s look more awkward to me because of the shape of their engines - looks like they've had an accident. e. Also if you fly cattle class in an A380 make sure you don't pick a window seat on the lower deck - no where for your legs to go. dissss fucked around with this message at 12:09 on Dec 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 12:07
|
|
|
dissss posted:e. Also if you fly cattle class in an A380 make sure you don't pick a window seat on the lower deck - no where for your legs to go. I flew to Singapore on one of Singapore Airlines A380s at the overwing exit window seat; gently caress it gets cold there. The return on their 777-300ER on the overwing exit seat was comfortable, didnt need a blanket or 5 to stay human.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 12:53
|
|
|
I had a similarly chilly experience on an AA 752 on the lovely Atlantic route. Had to wear two blankets and I'm definitely not a bitch about the cold. how is x or y more comforting when x or y is statistically equivalently safe?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 16:22
|
|
|
Window seats are often cold, and exit row seats especially so. I don't think there's a draft- positive pressure will cause hot air to leak out, not the other way around- but there there seems to be a lot less insulation and a lot more aluminum surrounding all the doors.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 16:28
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:
I keep hearing that but I don't know that it's true. http://www.airdisaster.com/statistics/ Model Rate Events No. Flights Rank Airbus A300 1.13 9 8.0 Million 12 Airbus A310 1.85 5 2.7 Million 13 Airbus A319/320/321 0.67 4 6.0 Million 7 Boeing 727 0.66 46 70.0 Million 6 Boeing 737 0.62 47 76.0 Million 5 Boeing 747 1.62 24 14.8 Million 14 Boeing 757 0.56 4 7.2 Million 4 Boeing 767 0.46 3 6.5 Million 3 Saab 340 0.33 3 9.0 Million 1 That's only considering events with fatalities. Edit: quote:In conclusion, gently caress you. Dear Lord, man, what crawled up your rear end and died? Phanatic fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Dec 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 18:09
|
|
|
Interesting statistics. Is there a breakdown somewhere about the incidents these aircraft were involved in? FYI, use can use FIXED or CODE to display that cleaner.code:grover fucked around with this message at 18:35 on Dec 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 18:30
|
|
|
so you're sold on their rate metric being statistically significant in a difference between 0.67 for the A320 and 0.62 for the 737? because i'm not, but i'm too lazy to drop the data in to a statistical processing suite because i am pretty confident that there's no statistically significant difference between those two numbers
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 18:54
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:I keep hearing that but I don't know that it's true. Now control for plane age, pilot training, airline safety standards, and the engineering and crew management advances made in the last forty years. For grins, let's look at fatal incidents between 12/3/2001 and 12/3/2010 in Part 121 air carrier operation as recorded by the US NTSB (follow along at http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/index.aspx ), and ignoring stuff like "belt loader driver gets wedged under airplane:" http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20030110X00049&key=1 bad maintenance http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20041020X01659&key=1 pilot distraction http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20051213X01964&key=1 pilot training http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20060106X00018&key=1 bad maintenance http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20060131X00140&key=1  http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20060828X01244&key=1 pilot distraction http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20090213X13613&key=1 pilot training and distraction Unlike automotive safety, which is mostly on the engineers that design cars and roads (because nobody loving knows how to drive), air safety has a substantial crew training and management component, and a well-established anonymous reporting component to assist in the design of the crew training and management systems. When operated by any airline licensed to operate in the US, Canada, or Europe, any model of plane is so safe to not even be worth the effort of thinking about whether you'd be safer on their competitor's model. In conclusion, gently caress you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 18:54
|
|
|
edit: ^ yeahgrover posted:I suppose the moral of the story is don't fly in 747s or A310s? Regardless, you're still more likely to die in the car on the way to the airport than in a plane crash. And just like a car I don't think you could contribute the design to accident rate from raw statistics. I'd venture data mining would show incidents more related to operating environment and operators themselves.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 18:55
|
|
|
Don't know why, but I've always been fond of the Me-110s with the Wespe paint scheme...
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 18:57
|
|
|
/\/\ You have good taste! Me-410 (Basically a 210 with all the kinks ironed out).  Fast, maneuverable, hard hitting, and able to carry a significant bombload. 410 Glamour video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zvkbIJWSRI 110 + 410 vs. B17's: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQeAMO_fh-g&feature=related
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 21:53
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:I keep hearing that but I don't know that it's true. In the case of the A300 that also appears to include the Iran Air flight that was shot down and some hijackings that resulted in fatalities. Pretty significant when we're talking about 9 events.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 22:06
|
|
|
dissss posted:In the case of the A300 that also appears to include the Iran Air flight that was shot down and some hijackings that resulted in fatalities. Pretty significant when we're talking about 9 events. Says right in the page: "Hijackings are excluded." dissss posted:Okay then where did the other 3 fatal events come from? That's a good question. Maybe they're double-counting incidents in which people died on another plane, but that would be dumb. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 22:24 on Dec 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 22:07
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Says right in the page: "Hijackings are excluded." Okay then where did the other 3 fatal events come from? http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/view_manu_details.cgi?aircraft=A300 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A300#Accidents_and_incidents
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 22:10
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Says right in the page: "Hijackings are excluded." so you're using questionably validated data to support a not-mathematically sound thesis
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 23:17
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:so you're using questionably validated data to support a not-mathematically sound thesis I think you're confusing me with someone who's arguing a particular case. Maybe if you scroll back up, you'll see where I mentioned that Boeing FCS aren't all that different from Airbus. Calm down, have some dip.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 00:30
|
|
|
your thesis is "maybe there is statistical significance" when there's almost certainly not and you're not actually doing anything to show it
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 02:02
|
|
|
indeed
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 02:07
|
|
|
E: ^^ Holy God  iyaayas01 posted:The Panzerknacker provided part of the inspiration for the A-10...the A-X project was basically supposed to combine the best attributes of the Il-2, the Hs-129, and the Skyraider, with a dash of the Ju-87G being thrown in (Hans-Ulrich Rudel's Stuka Pilot was required reading for the dudes working on the A-X). Neat, I didn't know they were actually thinking historically when they designed it. The HS-129 also might have been the first airplane to have the pilot inside a 'bathtub' of armor. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) It might have also been the first close support aircraft specifically designed as a tank killer. The initial engines for it were terrible, though. By the time it was going into production France had fallen, and the Reich found a bunch of French aircraft engines that were somewhat better, so that went into the HS-129. The other problem was cockpit space. The heavy plexiglass was so close around the pilot that there was no room for them to turn their head. Wikipedia posted:There was so little room in the cockpit that the instrument panel ended up under the nose below the windscreen where it was almost invisible; some of the engine instruments were moved outside onto the engine nacelles, as on some models of Messerschmitt's Bf 110 heavy fighter, and the gunsight was mounted outside on the nose." OK, dumb question: What made the Il-2 so great? Sometimes I get the impression that most of it's virtue was in that it was easily mass producible. Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 02:41 on Dec 5, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 02:36
|
|
|
Boomerjinks posted:HELIX ON THE SCENE Oh my god that is adorable 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 02:40
|
|
|
The HS 129 had a bunch of issues, it was badly under-engined like you said but it also was not all that maneuverable at low altitude, in part due to that engine and in part due to the design. the armarment also wasn't quite suited - the MG/151 was too light to destroy frontline soviet armor. so they installed a PaK which was better but massively heavy, and you only got a couple rounds off in a given pass anyway (this is why revolver cannon and multibarreled designes are awesome) honestly the FW-190 Jabo variants were a lot better and they shouldn't have really been screwing around with the HS anyway. Ground fire is always a concern but that's mitigated by being faster and more maneuverable, and one of the big issues with the Stuka was that it was incredibly vulnerable to enemy fighters, an issue that the HS didn't solve. Twin engines helped improve survivability but I'm doubtful about the actual ability of the airplane to fly on one engine. tldr Germans already had something better than the HS, which was theoretically innovative but practically a big old waste of resources
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 02:44
|
|
|
The Hawker Typhoon was always my favourite ground attack plane of WW2. Flawed yes but it looked so awesome
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 02:49
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:
There are pictures of the aftermath of this incident out there on the internet if you're morbidly curious. It looks pretty much like you'd imagine. There is a "spray zone" on the tarmac for probably 100 feet behind the engine. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 02:51
|
|
|
as you may be able to tell from my bitching about the HS 129, I am partial to the FW-190 G series, of which I was unable to find a good picture, but here's an F model all huge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FW_190_F.jpg
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 02:51
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:your thesis is "maybe there is statistical significance" No, it's not. I don't have a thesis. I'm not making an argument. What I said was that "Everyone says this thing, but I haven't actually seen data to support this claim." Why are you so pissed off about this? This is the way things are supposed to work, if you have a claim, and are asked to support it, then support it, I'm really not seeing what's got you so upset.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 03:08
|
|
|
Good God. Suicide? Or just negligence? Nebakenezzer posted:OK, dumb question: What made the Il-2 so great? Sometimes I get the impression that most of it's virtue was in that it was easily mass producible. Being Russian, it was massively overbuilt and because of that it was able to take a lot of fire and continue flying without giving a gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 03:11
|
|
|
i'm irritated because X airplane is safer than Y airplane is used as an annoying nationalist pissing contest between retarded Boeing and Airbus fanboys
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 03:12
|
|
|
Ridge_Runner_5 posted:Good God. Suicide? Or just negligence? quote:Witnesses on the ramp and in the airplane observed one mechanic position himself on the inboard side of the right engine and another mechanic position himself on the outboard side of the right engine. The third mechanic was positioned several feet clear of the engine during the accident sequence; this mechanic was assigned by the lead mechanic to observe the maintenance procedure as part of his on-the-job training.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 03:13
|
|
|
Previa_fun posted:There are pictures of the aftermath of this incident out there on the internet if you're morbidly curious. It looks pretty much like you'd imagine. There is a "spray zone" on the tarmac for probably 100 feet behind the engine. This was a stupid thing to search for.  http://www.elite-electro.nl/indexvies.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 03:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 02:40 |
|
|
BonzoESC posted:This was a stupid thing to search for. Jesus holy gently caress, I imagine that was an almost painless way to go considering there wasn't anything bigger than a fistful of meat left. "Coroner posted:The El Paso County Medical Examiner stated that neither an autopsy nor toxicological tests were possible due to the nature of the accident and the condition of the remains. Understatement of the year Wicaeed fucked around with this message at 03:27 on Dec 5, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 03:23
|
|