|
Mobius1B7R posted:http://www.dugankinetics.com/ I feel like AA would've if they had the money and didn't make a massive narrowbody order. Maybe G4 will? I hope someone does.
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 05:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 14:44 |
|
|
Powercube posted:I feel like AA would've if they had the money and didn't make a massive narrowbody order. Maybe G4 will? I hope someone does. I'd be a little surprised if those sell well in the US, since most of the MD-80's owned by charter companies fly considerably fewer hours than they did in airline service, which means it'll take longer for an operator to recoup the cost of installing the augmentors. Since American is in bankruptcy, I can't see them spending the money to refit airplanes that are getting close to retirement, and I beleive Allegiant's business model is designed to fly individual aircraft fewer hours per day than most airlines (to save on labor costs), which might make the augmentors less attractive to them as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 05:50
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:Since American is in bankruptcy, I can't see them spending the money to refit airplanes that are getting close to retirement, and I beleive Allegiant's business model is designed to fly individual aircraft fewer hours per day than most airlines (to save on labor costs), which might make the augmentors less attractive to them as well. Yeah, AA's sending the MD-80s to MZJ as fast as they can. I feel like on the stage lengths G4 plays at with the MD-80s, the numbers are almost compelling... However, since they seem to be interested in acquiring some A319s and maybe even 320s at some point, I doubt their MD-80s will stick around much longer either. Oh well, at least I can still go for a ride on a DC-9-14 in 2012... I could do a -50 if I wanted to stay in America, but that seems too easy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 05:59
|
|
|
Found this on a site that is mostly Russian dash cam videos of crashes. It gets aeronautical about 20 seconds in. The sound is out of sync with the video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjrB7eoBosk
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 08:32
|
|
|
Polymerized Cum posted:I love how the 78's wing design is so bird like. Nature got it right first time, millions of years ago. I saw a 3D movie when I went to the CN tower this summer. It was basically a 30 minute Boeing Ad, but one of the things that they really drove home is that the wing was inspired by the Albatross's wing. The ad basically said that they looked for the best glider in the world, and it was the Albatross, so they tried to take as much of that as they could and put it into the 787 so that it would be more fuel efficient.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 15:00
|
|
|
The Locator posted:Found this on a site that is mostly Russian dash cam videos of crashes. Holy hell. I can't imagine even the Russians having rules lax enough not to be smashed by that. Obligatory unsolicited ID-call: Su-24 Fencer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 18:27
|
|
|
How about a link to the site?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 19:22
|
|
|
Godholio posted:How about a link to the site? Nothing (other than that one video) that's particularly related to Aeronautical, so didn't occur to me. Here it is - http://ru-chp.livejournal.com/ I got it off of this forum, I think from the youtube thread, but might have been a different one, quite a while back.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 19:36
|
|
|
So, what plane did this thing fall off of?  Bonus V-2!  And a whole lot of bombs! 
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 20:52
|
|
|
Shai-Hulud posted:So, what plane did this thing fall off of?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 21:31
|
|
|
Shai-Hulud posted:So, what plane did this thing fall off of? F6F Hellcat?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 21:44
|
|
|
Shai-Hulud posted:So, what plane did this thing fall off of? P-51 Mustang. The shape of the airfoil and the wingtip is a giveaway; the P-51 was the only WWII piston fighter that used a laminar flow airfoil, which is cambered quite a bit different to a conventional airfoil.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 21:46
|
|
|
MrChips posted:P-51 Mustang. The shape of the airfoil and the wingtip is a giveaway; the P-51 was the only WWII piston fighter that used a laminar flow airfoil, which is cambered quite a bit different to a conventional airfoil. Edit: is it a P-51C?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 21:52
|
|
|
grover posted:Ah, good eye, I didn't even think to look at the airfoil shape! Would have to be an early model P-51, as P-51D had six .50 cals. No, it's a D. The third machine gun port is obscured, plus the fact that there were like ten times as many P-51Ds as all the other versions. E: If you're basing your assumption on the number of ammunition bays, the D still had two bays for the six guns. MrChips fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Sep 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 21:59
|
|
|
MrChips posted:P-51 Mustang. The shape of the airfoil and the wingtip is a giveaway; the P-51 was the only WWII piston fighter that used a laminar flow airfoil, which is cambered quite a bit different to a conventional airfoil. That's not entirely correct. The Hawker Tempest had a laminar flow wing, as did the Sea fury that was derived from it (e: although the Sea Fury didn't quite make it for WW2, but the tempest was active in WW2, just not very sucessful). But the semi-elliptical planform would have given those away. SybilVimes fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Sep 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 22:06
|
|
|
MrChips posted:E: If you're basing your assumption on the number of ammunition bays, the D still had two bays for the six guns. 4-gun P-51 (The Tusgegee Airmen flew P-51Cs, IIRC?):  6-gun P-51D:  Besides Ds being the most common model, what about this wing is unique to the D-model that gives it away? grover fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Sep 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 22:10
|
|
|
Aren't those invasion stripes just faintly visable too? Edit: to answer myself, probably not after looking up better pictures of them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 22:43
|
|
|
MrChips posted:P-51 Mustang. The shape of the airfoil and the wingtip is a giveaway; the P-51 was the only WWII piston fighter that used a laminar flow airfoil, which is cambered quite a bit different to a conventional airfoil. I knew one of you plane freaks would get it quickly. Its been recovered a couple of years ago from a P-51 that crashed in a lake in germany.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 23:35
|
|
|
A Croatia Airlines pilot was forced to use butter in order to close the forward door on the carrier’s Dash 8 Q400 on a flight to Istanbul. Passengers observed as the pilot and cabin crew smeared butter over the latch which wouldn’t close properly. The aircraft landed safely in Istanbul where the problem was fixed. The jet passed all technical requirements for its return flight to the Croatian capital. The incident occurred on Wednesday on flight OU350.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 23:42
|
|
|
grover posted:I was, actually. And you are right, the D only used two ammo bays, too. The shape of the wing root leading edge. Early P-51s have either a straight wing root leading edge, or a slight curve. The P-51D has a much more pronounced wing root. B/C model:  D/K model:  Beyond that, it really is just a simple game of numbers - there's better than a 75% chance that any found parts from a P-51 are from a D model.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2012 02:30
|
|
|
grover posted:4-gun P-51 (The Tusgegee Airmen flew P-51Cs, IIRC?): Yes, but I think they had some others as well (D and maybe B?). Google-fu is failing and I'm already past my 5-minute homework break. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2012 05:16
|
|
|
Tuskegee Airmen (332d FG, to be more precise) started off in P-40s, flew P-39s for a bit, then transitioned to P-47s before moving to P-51s. -Cs are probably what they are most commonly associated with, but they also flew -Bs (I think) and definitely -Ds because I've seen pictures of -Ds with red tails.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2012 05:30
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:because I've seen pictures of -Ds with red tails. Pictures or paintings?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2012 05:51
|
|
|
front wing flexing posted:Pictures or paintings? Valid question:   (click for big on the next three)    Last three don't have the actual red tail, but all three are from the 332d FG...the last two should be obvious as to why, and the third one was pulled directly from an official USAF historical site that identified it as being 4 332d FG aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2012 06:15
|
|
|
Not sure if posted, but this is awesome. I would kill to see this happen in person. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9fkmqPHTDE
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 05:38
|
|
|
The Locator posted:Found this on a site that is mostly Russian dash cam videos of crashes. IFR also stands for I Follow Roads. Can't read the street signs from 20,000.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 17:54
|
|
|
Have an hour? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_yHtfGH0nI
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 04:34
|
|
|
Hey guys, everyone here seems to know their poo poo about flying so I was hoping you might be able to answer a retarded question I have (if this is not the appropriate thread just let me know and I'll erase the post). I'm a ground school scrub and trying to learn about the mystical, black art of getting an airplane in the air. I think I'm doing okay at that but I'm starting to wonder about the ground school teacher and what he's telling us. It has to do with VA (designed maneuvering speed) versus VBG best glide speed. He drew the "Total Drag Chart" on the chalkboard the other day and threw a line directly down right where the parasitic and induced drag meet, and said "Okay, and this is the designed maneuvering speed." I was completely confused because from what I had read (and come to understand) from our books is that the lowest point of drag was the best glide speed, not the designed maneuvering speed. The book states that the two are linked together as a function of one another (IIRC a 10% drop in gross weight means you lower your VA and your VBG by 5% if the POH shows the VA at maximum weight, but that's just off the top of my head and I could be wrong). However I'm thinking that the graph should look something like this instead:  Is this right? When I approached him after class and asked him if the lowest point of drag should be VBG he said "Oh, well yeah if the engine's not running, but we're talking about normal operations here". Suffice to say I'm completely confused, as I thought the aerodynamic drag profile of the plane didn't give a poo poo about the fact if the propeller is operating or not, and that VA would chill somewhere to the right of VBG on the graph. From what I understand VA signifies the speed that you can yank on the controls completely in one direction or another and not gently caress your airframe up, which also makes it the best speed to fly into heavy turbulence and such. Am I an idiot and just not getting this? Are there two total drag charts for an aircraft, one under power and one not? Any help you can provide is appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 12:14
|
|
|
Edit: You're not an idiot. You're asking the right questions. The propeller is a source of drag. A rather large one in fact. A spinning, un-powered propeller is nearly as good as a big flat plate of plywood out in front of your plane. A stopped propeller, is like having two narrow paddles of wood in front of the plane. An idling engine is somewhere in between. Va, and Vbg aren't related. Maneuvering speed is based upon the speed at which the plane will accelerated stall before breaking the airframe. And that can be much lower, or much higher than Vbg. (The gossomer albatross had a Vbg above Va, many fighter planes and some aerobatic airplanes simply can not reach their Va.) When you lower the gross weight, your Va goes up, because you are accelerating less weight. Vbg is based on where on that curve parasitic and induced drag cross. Less weight means you get the same induced drag at a lower speed, meaning less parasitic drag. So yes, both have the same dependent factor, but they're not a function of each other. Yes, there should be different drag charts for "propeller spinning" and "propeller feathered" and "propeller stopped." It sounds to me like your instructor was covering his butt, or he didn't understand your question, and didn't understand the mistake he made in class.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 15:13
|
|
|
Cool as hell and an hour well spent, thank you. Love the chute deployment system (~15:15 in). Am I correct in thinking that's the Venturi effect when it is sucking in the outside air?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 01:44
|
|
|
Here's some aviation/desert art for y'all:  Never mix bizjets and acid by Powercube, on Flickr  DC-3 Art is awesome by Powercube, on Flickr  More C-47 Art by Powercube, on Flickr  A new take on a bird strike by Powercube, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 04:54
|
|
|
i really want to go tag some abandoned aircraft shells now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 05:04
|
|
|
Fire Storm posted:Cool as hell and an hour well spent, thank you. Love the chute deployment system (~15:15 in). Am I correct in thinking that's the Venturi effect when it is sucking in the outside air? Yes. Exactly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 05:30
|
|
|
Preoptopus posted:i really want to go tag some abandoned aircraft shells now. If I had any artistic ability, I'd join you. Just go to ARMair in Tucson- the owner there is a crazy old hippie, I am sure if you slip him some cash you could tag anything in his yard that was not a cut up cockpit section. Bonus Polish oddity:  An EM-10 Bielik by Powercube, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 05:35
|
|
|
It looks like a caricature of a Flanker.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 16:07
|
|
|
Godholio posted:It looks like a caricature of a Flanker. I have no idea what became of the project, but it was supposed to be an affordable jet trainer. It did fly, but all I can find is that it did not fly well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 16:15
|
|
|
Powercube posted:Here's some aviation/desert art for y'all: I love these, they're great! Would you mind if I shared them (using your flickr link)?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 21:12
|
|
|
Linedance posted:I love these, they're great! Would you mind if I shared them (using your flickr link)? Go for it!
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 23:49
|
|
|
 This makes me want to see "heritage flights" where a P-51 is the most advanced generation and the others dating back to WWI...
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2012 00:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 14:44 |
|
|
Just ran across this on xplanes.tumblr The MAK-UL missile lock detection system on a TU-95. Want one of those things as a fruitbowl for my kitchen. Probably give you cancer though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2012 01:54
|
|
