|
Aren't all the snakes in Australia in some kind of competition to see which could kill a human faster?
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 07:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 16:28 |
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:Aren't all the snakes in Australia in some kind of competition to see which could kill a human faster? Pretty much every animal is, even "lovely" koalas and kangaroos will rip your face to pieces if given a chance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 09:48
|
|
|
Not to mention the dropbears.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 13:06
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:Get used to it. Huge, high-bypass twinjets are simply the most economical commercial airliner you can build right now (source: 777, 787, 737, A320, A350, E-170/190). I don't mind them on anything other than the 737 just because the 737 is still using a gear height and overall design for the JTD8 
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 13:37
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:Never be a tall person in a Canadair Regional Jet; I don't have anywhere to put my head and shoulders if I'm in a window seat, and if I'm standing up, I have to stoop over. I actually find the ERJ to be more comfortable than the CRJ, but if we're talking 75-100 seat market the E-Jets are awesome.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 13:38
|
|
|
Blacknose posted:Not to mention the dropbears. The dropbears 
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 15:12
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:TA-134? He used to park that thing at Summit all the time when I was down there working. If it's the "Cumberland Belle," then yup, less nose cone:  Actually no, not only the nosecone but the wings aren't painted yellow. PainterofCrap fucked around with this message at 15:31 on Apr 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 15:28
|
|
|
PainterofCrap posted:If it's the "Cumberland Belle," then yup, less nose cone: Yeah, different airplane.  They both have Chinooks in the background, though. Old ones get dismantled at Summit, new ones get modded at Milville.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 15:41
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:I don't mind them on anything other than the 737 just because the 737 is still using a gear height and overall design for the JTD8  A lumpy 737 engine; the clearance between engine and ground is basically the constraint on engine size. The 737 MAX will have longer gear in order to support a bigger engine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 15:50
|
|
|
I'm curious how much that's going to screw with ground crews. Some of the jetways probably won't move vertically without a fight.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 16:39
|
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:I'm curious how much that's going to screw with ground crews. Some of the jetways probably won't move vertically without a fight. Would it be possible to build kneeling gear? It's not like that lumpy nacelle is dragging on the ground.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 17:40
|
|
|
Greetings from opening day at  Nostalgia4Infinity fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Apr 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 18:00
|
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:I'm curious how much that's going to screw with ground crews. Some of the jetways probably won't move vertically without a fight. It'll probably only be a problem at Southwest stations; the front doors on existing 737 classics (200-500) and NGs (600-900) are all between 2.6m and 2.8m above the ground1, the popular knockoff A320 has that door 3.5m off the ground2, and the MD-90 used when a 737 is too big has it 2.5m off the ground3. They're not boosting it up to the towering 7.8m the upper deck of the A3804 by any means. See section 2.3 in all these documents: 1: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/737sec2.pdf 2: http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/media_gallery/files/tech_data/AC/Airbus_AC_A320_20110501_Apr11.pdf 3: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/md90sec2.pdf 4: http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/media_gallery/files/tech_data/AC/Airbus-AC-A380-20111101.pdf
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 18:15
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:It'll probably only be a problem at Southwest stations. And any concern they may have didn't stop them from placing a firm order for 150 planes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 18:23
|
|
|
Understeer posted:And any concern they may have didn't stop them from placing a firm order for 150 planes. Considering it's only a gear length change of six inches (0.15m), that height change is the same as the one between an empty and a full 737-300/500/700.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 18:31
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:Greetings from opening day at A-10 flyovers are awesome if they're booking it OR if they're only 100 feet up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 18:36
|
|
|
Phy posted:Would it be possible to build kneeling gear? It's not like that lumpy nacelle is dragging on the ground. What why the gently caress would you go to this level of expense when you could just repair the jetbridges that are stuck in place?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 18:36
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:A lumpy 737 engine; the clearance between engine and ground is basically the constraint on engine size. The 737 MAX will have longer gear in order to support a bigger engine. I know all this?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 18:37
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:Greetings from opening day at  You're a Michigoon too?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 19:24
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:What why the gently caress would you go to this level of expense when you could just repair the jetbridges that are stuck in place? Agreed. It's far cheaper to 'fix' the airport. Look at the A380; all airport modifications for the upper jetway combined don't add up to a single airframe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 20:04
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:Greetings from opening day at A-10s again this year? I heard them in my neighborhood but didn't see them. Not like last year when a pair streaked over the house and set me and my daughter giggling and pressing our faces against the window to have a look at them. Movax posted:
Lotta Michgoons up in here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 21:56
|
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:Agreed. It's far cheaper to 'fix' the airport. Look at the A380; all airport modifications for the upper jetway combined don't add up to a single airframe. There was an interesting thing that was pointed out to me. The soviets tended to design aircraft to accommodate the extant infrastructure - so for instance the IL-86 has extremely low ground pressure for its size due to the fact that they didn't want to rebuild a shitload of runways. The West took basically the exact opposite approach - just build the plane exactly the way you want it in a vacuum and the infrastructure will be created to fill the need.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 22:35
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:A-10 flyovers are awesome if they're booking it OR if they're only 100 feet up. They were doing neither of those things  It might be the Eagle-keeper in me but it isn't a fast jet flyover it isn't a flyover  movax posted:
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 22:54
|
|
|
I am cool with B1/B2 flyovers those are rad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 23:28
|
|
|
Every non T-38 flyover is a good flyover.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 23:32
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:There was an interesting thing that was pointed out to me. The soviets tended to design aircraft to accommodate the extant infrastructure - so for instance the IL-86 has extremely low ground pressure for its size due to the fact that they didn't want to rebuild a shitload of runways. The West took basically the exact opposite approach - just build the plane exactly the way you want it in a vacuum and the infrastructure will be created to fill the need. Your average runway costs something like $1-2 Million per linear meter to build. You need 2,000 to 3,000 such meters to operate a conventional heavy aircraft design. Russia has very poor infrastructure throughout most of its vast territory and would require many hundreds of those 2,000-3,000 meter runways. At $1M/meter it adds up. The Russians were building aircraft capable of operating from poorly prepared runways in Siberia, Urals, Caucuses and the other 90% of the country, which I think is a bit different to building to fit a jetway height edit: The B-36 was originally designed with single wheel main gear, but the contact pressure would shatter any runway in the world with the exception of 3 (I can't remember which 3). They changed the design the 6 wheel bogies to compensate - it's not just a russian thing to build to your runway specs. Captain Postal fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Apr 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 23:33
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:
Ha, you would have loved the Astros game in Corpus earlier this week, with a T-34 flyover. Impressive!
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 23:51
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:Never be a tall person in a Canadair Regional Jet; I don't have anywhere to put my head and shoulders if I'm in a window seat, and if I'm standing up, I have to stoop over. The difference is you're only ever on a CRJ for a couple of hours. Singapore to London is about 12 hours which is particularly irritating when its the second leg of your trip 24 hour trip.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 23:52
|
|
|
CroatianAlzheimers posted:Lotta Michgoons up in here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2012 06:49
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:Your average runway costs something like $1-2 Million per linear meter to build. You need 2,000 to 3,000 such meters to operate a conventional heavy aircraft design. Russia has very poor infrastructure throughout most of its vast territory and would require many hundreds of those 2,000-3,000 meter runways. At $1M/meter it adds up. Yeah sorry if it wasn't clear but I wasn't talking about jetway heights and poo poo. Obviously at the extremes you have to compensate for infrastructure, per your B-36 example. There wasn't any implication that what the Russians did was wrong or incorrect, which you seem to be ascribing to my post. It's just a different approach and one that may well have been better suited to their specific realities.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2012 12:36
|
|
|
Fire Storm posted:Yup. I didn't know that Selfridge had an A-10 squadron until just now. No clue how I missed that. Seems like a weird place to base A-10s out of. Don't worry they're going away due to budget cuts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2012 13:26
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:Your average runway costs something like $1-2 Million per linear meter to build. You need 2,000 to 3,000 such meters to operate a conventional heavy aircraft design. Russia has very poor infrastructure throughout most of its vast territory and would require many hundreds of those 2,000-3,000 meter runways. At $1M/meter it adds up. Your figure seems awfully high. ATL completed a new runway in 2006: 9000ft by 170ft at a cost of $1.3B. This included $390M in land acquisitions, $160M in bridge structures for an interstate crossing, and $44M for a new control tower. The cost of turning a parcel of unimproved land into a modern widebody runway seems to be more on the order of $300k per linear meter. Still not exactly a bargain...
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2012 14:43
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:Don't worry they're going away due to budget cuts. I think that just leaves us with a few KC-135s? Michigan has no significance 
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2012 14:44
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:I am cool with B1/B2 flyovers those are rad. My dad and I saw a B2 flyover at an airshow when I was in high school. It was all foggy, of course. The announcer guy on the loudspeaker was saying stuff like "I promise it's out there, folks," but we could hear nothing and see nothing. With absolutely no warning it just kind of appeared. To start with it was only a horizontal line, but then it banked and showed us its soft underbelly. Only then did I hear anything. Cool loving plane.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2012 15:47
|
|
|
movax posted:I think that just leaves us with a few KC-135s? They did that with Eielson, too. I think they just have enough KC-135s they just hand them out to keep people happy the base isn't straight-up closed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2012 16:24
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cL0gQhqhAjs A windy day at Tokyo's two airports. Video showing a bunch of go arounds. Look at that wing flex. One casualty was a Japan Airlines 777 which suffered a tail strike through the rear pressure bulkhead. Supposidly there is a youtube video of it happening at Haneda, people said it looked like it was ago around after deploying thrust reversers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2012 17:32
|
|
|
movax posted:I think that just leaves us with a few KC-135s? And some Coastie and Army Choppers. There was talk of some of those new small cargo planes but welp those were cut. Rumor had it UAV's were coming to Battle Creek (but only the pilots). KC-135 could be cool I guess.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2012 17:45
|
|
|
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/06/navy-jet-crashes-in-virginia/quote:A Navy jet crashed Friday near Virginia Beach, Virginia, a military spokesman said. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2012 18:03
|
|
|
Witnesses say the pilots ejected, but it hasn't been confirmed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2012 18:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 16:28 |
|
|
grover posted:Witnesses say the pilots ejected, but it hasn't been confirmed. Navy spokesperson confirms both pilots ejected, at least one is currently at a VA Beach hospital. http://www.wavy.com/dpp/news/local_news/va_beach/military-plane-crashes-in-virginia-beach A few more photos of the crash site there as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2012 18:27
|
|
