|
Have a tri-jet. Merry Christmas.
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2011 07:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 13:07 |
|
|
Those are all fine points, and again they reinforce the difficulty of a scenario but don't render it impossible.movax posted:Unless defense contractor security is incredibly abysmal, or there was a huge unreported security breach, I don't think the scenario of breaking in and literally "stealing" the drone by taking over its command/control is feasible. Jamming it though to create the scenario you describ would be feasible though. Just to touch on this point, defense contractor security isn't perfect, and there were huge reported security breaches this year connected to China (which is Iran's close military ally). "To this day, RSA still won't confirm what exactly was stolen from its systems, but speculation has run high that the token seeds were compromised in some way." This attack was immediately followed by a remote infiltration of Lockheed Martin using RSA, who just so happens to make the RQ 170. The big story at the time was, were the hackers going after F-22 project material.. but in hindsight, the question could have just as easily been, were they after RQ 170 information? e: formatting Mr.Peabody fucked around with this message at 15:40 on Dec 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2011 15:37
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2011 21:55
|
|
|
GnarlyCharlie4u posted:For a driver that's an asslocking attention-getter, right there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2011 23:10
|
|
|
 Name the plane
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2011 23:19
|
|
|
DC3?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2011 23:26
|
|
|
Would a DC-3 and a (bell?) heli flight envelopes overlap at all?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2011 23:28
|
|
|
Looks like a gooney bird, but I can't see the flaps or intakes. A DC3 would sure explain how an A-Star could keep up, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2011 23:30
|
|
|
 It is a DC-3, so nice, havent seen any of the footage anywhere, we were filming a commercial for the owners coffee company. http://www.storyville.com/ The guy flew the entire crew from Seattle to southern Oregon every day in his Embraer Legacy, though we were staying down south with the heli. But yeah its full speed for the B2 (with that camera system) and just above stall for the DC3, around 100 knots. I think we've shot more DC3s then any other planes. D C fucked around with this message at 23:59 on Dec 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2011 23:54
|
|
|
D C posted:I think we've shot more DC3s then any other planes. Good, DC3s are amazing. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 00:11
|
|
|
D C posted:
100 knots stall is jet speed. First hit on google says clean stall is 65 knots, with full flaps 58 knots. Wiki specs actually say the AS350 cruises 2 knots faster, 132 vs 130.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 00:20
|
|
|
Ola posted:100 knots stall is jet speed. First hit on google says clean stall is 65 knots, with full flaps 58 knots. Full boat empty maybe. With the camera we are lucky to get 120 balls out. And all the DC3 pilots wouldn't go below 100 ish.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 04:42
|
|
|
I am now convinced that the Iranians simply jammed the GPS and used a gravity projector to throw the INS off course.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 11:53
|
|
|
D C posted:
Hell, didn't they build more DC3s than any other plane?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 13:01
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Hell, didn't they build more DC3s than any other plane? Any other airliner, yes. It's barely in the top twenty planes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_produced_aircraft Think the 737 will ever beat it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 13:53
|
|
|
I always thought of the FW 190 as such a rare aircraft, I have no idea they built so many.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 14:46
|
|
|
Manny posted:I always thought of the FW 190 as such a rare aircraft, I have no idea they built so many. Well, they're rare now, because they're an outdated war machine from the losing side: destroying as many as they could was literally a matter of life-or-death for RAF, RCAF, and USAAF pilots.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 15:52
|
|
|
Yeah I had the feeling that there was a far greater ratio of 109s to 190s built as more 109s survive to this day, but I guess a lot of those are licensed copies built after the war. I can't believe they were still building them in 1958!
Manny fucked around with this message at 16:17 on Dec 21, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 16:11
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:I am now convinced that the Iranians simply jammed the GPS and used a gravity projector to throw the INS off course. Ah yes, the Iranian Interdictor cruisers:  e: I looked it up based on the "Immobilizer 418" designator, oh my god I'm going to die alone
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 16:25
|
|
|
joat mon posted:
Phantoms give me an erection. :dongs: Used to watch them land over my head at McClellan when I was a wee lad. Those were the days... Phantoms, F-111s, A-4s, F-105s.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2011 01:41
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:Any other airliner, yes. It's barely in the top twenty planes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_produced_aircraft I'd be surprised if Boeing fills the almost 10,000 airframe gap.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2011 01:42
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:I'd be surprised if Boeing fills the almost 10,000 airframe gap. I think it is possible. Nowdays they just grandfather types under a previous certification and save the cost of expensive recertification, so the 737-MAX will be assumed to be an extension of a 50+ year old design, despite the only commonality being that it still has wings, a tail, a fuselage in between and two engines (the engines aren't even in the same place). It's just cheaper to squeeze a new 737 into a grandfathered type than certify a new type. It may change when they want an all composite plane, but they may also decide that upgrading this part and that part to composite is easier than a redesign, which may be followed by other parts being upgraded and so on... Another 10,000 over the next 50 years is unlikely to me, but not impossible
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2011 22:40
|
|
|
Counting the MAX numbers, Boeing has delivered 7,000 737s, and has orders for another 3,000. Assuming something radical doesn't happen, like Airbus dropping a whole new design on the single aisle market and forcing Boeing's hand (which doesn't seem likely right now), 737's got a good shot at the DC-3.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2011 22:48
|
|
|
Yeah, but the only replacement for a DC-3 is another DC-3. The only replacement for a 737 is an Airbus. That's not nearly as cool.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2011 01:12
|
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:Yeah, but the only replacement for a DC-3 is another DC-3. The only replacement for a 737 is an Airbus. That's not nearly as cool. Man, going from Continental United's 737-800 to United United's 757-200 is like going from 2009 to 1994. Those birds have been ridden hard and put away wet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2011 03:51
|
|
|
Cygni posted:Assuming something radical doesn't happen, like Airbus dropping a whole new design on the single aisle market and forcing Boeing's hand (which doesn't seem likely right now), 737's got a good shot at the DC-3. I was reading somewhere (here?) that the reason the Max is a year behind the Neo is because Boeing spent a year faffing about trying to decide whether to end the 737 line and start something new. On the other hand, that now makes 3 times they've talked bout ending the 737 line and making something new (after the originals, after the classics and after the next gens - man do they all sound like star treks), and 3 times they've decided to just put out a new 737 revision. So I'd say the 737 will be produced for a while yet. But 50 years to make 7000, and they need another 10000 to match the DC3.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2011 05:11
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:
Ain't gonna happen. The reason so damned many DC-3s were turned out was because they called them C-47s and loaded shitloads of cargo and troops in them and went out to kill fascists. I don't see that sort of thing spiking demand for the 737.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2011 05:21
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Ain't gonna happen. The reason so damned many DC-3s were turned out was because they called them C-47s and loaded shitloads of cargo and troops in them and went out to kill fascists. I don't see that sort of thing spiking demand for the 737. P-8 and Wedgetail! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2011 05:26
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Ain't gonna happen. The reason so damned many DC-3s were turned out was because they called them C-47s and loaded shitloads of cargo and troops in them and went out to kill fascists. I don't see that sort of thing spiking demand for the 737.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2011 14:38
|
|
|
grover posted:If you're going to count C-47s, you need to count the 5400 C-47s Russia built under license, too. The wiki list does include those, it seems.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2011 15:22
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Man, going from Continental United's 737-800 to United United's 757-200 is like going from 2009 to 1994. Those birds have been ridden hard and put away wet.  Try a 707.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2011 16:31
|
|
|
Came across these. Made me chuckle.  
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2011 17:13
|
|
|
grover posted:If you're going to count C-47s, you need to count the 5400 C-47s Russia built under license, too. That's the only way you're getting to that produced figure. The vast majority of the airframes were C-47s, there were under a thousand produced as DC-3s. If we're limiting ourselves to civilian airframes, then the 737's already way ahead of it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2011 17:24
|
|
|
The DC-3 is at least one of the most numerous WW2-era aircraft still in use. It's amazing to see the contrast with one of the top positions on that list. 36183 IL-2s were produced, there is currently 1 flying.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2011 18:02
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:That's the only way you're getting to that produced figure. The vast majority of the airframes were C-47s, there were under a thousand produced as DC-3s. If we're limiting ourselves to civilian airframes, then the 737's already way ahead of it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2011 18:23
|
|
|
Ola posted:The DC-3 is at least one of the most numerous WW2-era aircraft still in use. It's amazing to see the contrast with one of the top positions on that list. 36183 IL-2s were produced, there is currently 1 flying. It must be the most numerous. The only other aircraft I can think of that would even be in the same league would be a PBY Catalina.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2011 19:07
|
|
|
D C posted:
Hah! Here's my old Grand National with that very DC-3.....in Juneau, AK: 
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2011 19:31
|
|
|
I've been itching to post some pics of a small hobby of mine, and when the Cat got mentioned I couldn't resist. I am an aeronautical engineer who doesn't mind getting his hands dirty, and when I don't have to go to my aviation day job I help getting our Grand Old Lady back in the air. She just turned 70, and is registered PH-PBY. She is an ex-USN PBY-5A with 2,5 verified U-boat kills, and served as a water bomber in Canada before she came to The Netherlands to be beautifully restored and painted in late-1940's RNLNAS colours. We share a hangar, tools and spares with the DDA, an association who owns and operates two classic Dakotas painted in the colours of our largest airlines, let's get their pics out of the way first: PH-DDZ and PH-PBA, two C-47s in vintage Martinair and KLM colours respectively-        Hangar overview, with DDZ in the foreground and PBY in the back-  Some maintenance-in-progress action pics-      These engines and propellers are true works of art. We use the PW R1830 exclusively, with the same three-blade Hamilton prop. Looking at them and hearing their growl is one thing, but once you see and understand how these magnificent machines do their work and then realise they were first designed nearly 80 years ago in the early 1930s makes it all the more amazing. Crankshaft, pistons, carburettor, intake compressor, ignition, valve train, prop drive train, propeller governor and accessories all working in perfect harmony while spewing out lots of oil.  Video of a cut R1830 (not mine)- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2DJZx08CYg And what exactly is it I do, you ask? Well, since I work on simulators in my regular job I was given the task of minding the instruments, avionics and electrics. There's not much of it in these kind of aircraft, of course, but it's still important and delicate work that should be done extremely well. Upshot of course that I get to do most of my work in or around the cockpit  The cylindrical thing in the first pic is a Bendix 28V voltage regulator, which is basically a stack of carbon discs to, err... make 28V out of whatever is coming out of each DC generator.    A video of our bird from when she was airworthy- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW6b4AXzVi8 Our site- http://www.catalina-pby.nl/ Closing pic taken from flight deck of PBY of the other two ladies-  If all goes to plan we will be flying again early 2012, in time for the summer season. If the CAA cooperates, of course  The people here nonetheless are great... even though at 28 I'm the youngest dude there, everyone has 110LL running through their veins and are fantastic people.Thank you for watching... I will take your questions now 
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2011 20:25
|
|
|
Nice. I'm a Canadian and I remember when the 'Canso' water bombers were still being used. I know this is much less interesting then 2.5 U-boat kills, but where in Canada was this PBY from? Also: Cargo pilots sue FAA for excluding them from new safety regs because "it'd cost a little money." http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2017071505_apustiredpilots.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2011 03:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 13:07 |
|
|
Godholio posted:
Well, I was talking more about the interior/other crap on the inside; the exterior on the 757 was brand spanking new in the new United/Continental paint scheme with the Continental globe on the back (the interior, not so much)...but I'm sure your (former) steed is more than a little beat up on the interior as well. Tsuru, please post more pictures because those were awesome.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2011 06:30
|
|