|
Advent Horizon posted:You've clearly never priced out helicopters. We chartered one for a little less than an hour in June and it cost almost $1500. Which really says something about the price of an airship ride since their cost of upkeep compared to a helicopter is probably laughable (except for hangar costs).
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2012 23:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 02:51 |
|
|
Cygni posted:That's a great rate, too. Robinson or something? Probably a Jet Ranger. A-Stars are around 2k an hour.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2012 23:57
|
|
|
Triggs posted:Which really says something about the price of an airship ride since their cost of upkeep compared to a helicopter is probably laughable (except for hangar costs). Three words. Recurrent envelope inspections. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2012 00:15
|
|
|
Viggen posted:Out of complete boredom, I spent most of last week consuming every pro/anti and various political propaganda about this I could find - along with some viable information. That's the gist of it. Even then, the reactor SCRAM almost saved it, but the design of the control rod tips actually displaced coolant as they inserted, causing the lower half of the reactor to actually INCREASE in reactivity as the rods moved back down, which took around twenty seconds. It took reckless operation of a faulty design, that was poorly engineered, to cause that accident. Comparing ANY western-designed reactor to Chernobyl is simply laughable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2012 00:21
|
|
|
D C posted:Probably a Jet Ranger. It was an AS350. We actually did two trips, one out and one back. The return trip was awesome because we circled over a pod of orcas and went over two glaciers in a mountain pass. That took all of two minutes more flight time than the direct over-water route. We actually went Christmas light viewing in the same AStar (coincidence) last Friday. I could see my (future) house from there!
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2012 01:11
|
|
|
Since I did the research, I thought I might share it here. This stems from a discussion of someone wanting to build a personal jet fighter. (A pipe dream.. but that's neither here nor there.) Model jet engines are getting into the ballpark where they might be able to fly real airplanes. I started looking for high power model jet turbines. I went with the company I know best, Wren turbines. Their biggest engine is the 160. http://www.wrenturbines.co.uk/engines/turbojet/wren-160 It produces 35lbs of thrust, and drinks 19.5 oz per minute at full thrust. And that's in a 3.5lb package. I also looked at the engines from that guy who flys with the delta wing strapped to his back. That brand is Jetcat: http://www.sitewavesstores5.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=JetCat&Product_Code=P200-SX&Category_Code=TURB Their biggest engine produces 52lbs of thrust uses 24.7 fl oz per minute and weighs 5.6lbs. And then stumbling along I found a company called JetBeetle. The usual chinese ceveats came to mind, but I started digging. It seems to be run by just one guy, who really seems to know what he's doing. His biggest engine is a 250lb thrust engine. That's where things get interesting. The SubSonex runs on a 290lb thrust engine. The BD-5J ran on similar thrust. So here's jetbeetles website. http://jetbeetle.com/ And the engine I first found of theirs was a 150lb thrust engine. The Locust H150R. It produces 150lbs of thrust 57.5 fl oz per minute and weights 31lbs. You'll notice two things. First, as the engines get bigger, their thrust to weight ratio goes down. But their BSFC gets better. And for some grounding. Here is the engine that is used in the subsonex: http://www.pbsvb.com/pdf/dlt_motor_tj100/en_tj100.pdf
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2012 18:00
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:That's the gist of it. Even then, the reactor SCRAM almost saved it, but the design of the control rod tips actually displaced coolant as they inserted, causing the lower half of the reactor to actually INCREASE in reactivity as the rods moved back down, which took around twenty seconds. Sorry for continuing the derail, but... You don't happen to have other resources on this, do you? This interview with Gorby has me intrigued. Pripyat (the abandoned city about 2 miles away from the accident) had alcohol when most of the USSR was under a 'don't drink' banner, groceries were plentiful, and there were plenty of entertainment possibilities. Gorby stated they were funded outside of the common pool, and years later, there are still strange things found by RadUrbEx'rs. I'm quite curious exactly what the highly educated folk there were actually doing. The cold war technologies intrigue me, some 20+ years on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2012 20:01
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:Since I did the research, I thought I might share it here. This stems from a discussion of someone wanting to build a personal jet fighter. (A pipe dream.. but that's neither here nor there.) Fake edit: Found it! with a little more info here. No clue what power it uses, but since it "should have enhanced performance with over 36 Kg (80 lbs) of thrust available," I think it has even less power than that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2012 20:37
|
|
|
I think I was vaguely aware of someone throwing jet engines on a Cri-Cri. The thing was designed to fly on ~30hp anyway. And is quite a plane! The fuel tank on one is kinda silly though. 3.5 gallons IIRC, and it's a fiberglass thing that's litterally between and under the pilots legs. You check the fuel level by looking at the side of the tank. I want to see someone try to take up the BD-10 cause again. Well not a BD-10, but a home built plane that can do mach. ... I suppose spaceship one is that. Maybe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2012 20:44
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:Since I did the research, I thought I might share it here. This stems from a discussion of someone wanting to build a personal jet fighter. (A pipe dream.. but that's neither here nor there.) 
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2012 21:47
|
|
|
Viggen posted:Sorry for continuing the derail, but... This is slightly more detailed than what is availible on wikipedia. The RBMK wiki page also has some information that doesn't seem to be co-located in the article about the accident. Watching the video you posted now.  EDIT: RE: The photographer in the first 7 minutes: Only a Russian would be smoking a cigarette, years after being in a helicopter over the melted-down reactor the morning of the accident. He's just flipping the Grim Reaper the bird, at this point. "Прийти и получить меня, ублюдок" MrYenko fucked around with this message at 22:06 on Dec 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2012 22:01
|
|
|
Viggen posted:Sorry for continuing the derail, but... Funny, I just watched that video last night! My understanding is that at the time of the accident, the Chernobyl plant was still relatively new, and Pripyat was being held up as a "model city" of sorts by the Communist party. As such, not only did you have to be specially selected to live and work there, but they were afforded privileges and luxuries that simply weren't found elsewhere in the Soviet Union.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2012 22:26
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Funny, I just watched that video last night! That is kind of what I initially decided, but Pripyat was declared a city over 15 years prior (in 1970), and the fact that I have Eureka on my playlist, I just thought "Hmm.. perhaps they were to build the socialist future of Russia?" It wasn't serious, but I did give it a brief thought. I've watched this display of idiocy, and it annoys me with her inabilities to comprehend basic things as well as giving herself a few rads for the hell of it, but I still find it intriguing as a fan of UrbEx (and bloody curious about the current state of affairs). So far, the only documentary on this which I openly scoff is the one produced by National Geographic, for many reasons.. but I don't want to derail this thread further. Where would we do a post on this that isn't just background noise?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2012 22:48
|
|
|
Viggen posted:That is kind of what I initially decided, but Pripyat was declared a city over 15 years prior (in 1970), and the fact that I have Eureka on my playlist, I just thought "Hmm.. perhaps they were to build the socialist future of Russia?" It wasn't serious, but I did give it a brief thought. The Miscellaneous Chat thread of course...more than just jortchat! Pripyat was built at the same time as the power plant, starting in 1970.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2012 02:41
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Three words. Please explain because I don't know what this is and I genuinely want to know more. Airship envelopes? What?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2012 07:32
|
|
|
I think it involves going over the gas cells with a toothbrush, magnifying glass and some duct tape?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2012 11:19
|
|
|
Totally off topic, but came across this which I thought was kind of interesting, A380 approach into KSFO. Some really good video in it. http://www.wimp.com/approachlanding/
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 02:24
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Totally off topic, but came across this which I thought was kind of interesting, A380 approach into KSFO. drat that looks like an awesome craft to pilot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 02:45
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Totally off topic, but came across this which I thought was kind of interesting, A380 approach into KSFO. I've only flown into SFO once, and it was unfortunately (surprising, I know) cloudy/foggy, because that's about as pretty as I'd imagine it to be. I guess it probably wouldn't have mattered anyway because I was pretty zonked out since it was on the second leg of an awesome three leg redeye flight from ANC to ICN. Cool video.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 02:56
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Totally off topic, but came across this which I thought was kind of interesting, A380 approach into KSFO. This owns. I still don't think it was very nice to call the flight crew names at 20' RA though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 03:01
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Totally off topic, but came across this which I thought was kind of interesting, A380 approach into KSFO. You can see the airship hanger when they fly over Moffet airfield 
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 03:18
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:You can see the airship hanger when they fly over Moffet airfield I wanted to check out Moffett when I was in San Francisco a couple weeks ago, but nobody had access to a car. There used to be some cool stuff there from NASA and others, I don't know if that's still the case.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 03:24
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Totally off topic, but came across this which I thought was kind of interesting, A380 approach into KSFO. God drat A380's are so cool.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 03:33
|
|
|
My friend pointed out the tail camera: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KK1Al4WxoU What purpose does this camera serve?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 04:06
|
|
|
Gullous posted:My friend pointed out the tail camera: Not sure if there's any official purpose (beyond situational awareness), but passengers can bring it up on their seat monitors in flight.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 04:38
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:I wanted to check out Moffett when I was in San Francisco a couple weeks ago, but nobody had access to a car. There used to be some cool stuff there from NASA and others, I don't know if that's still the case. There's also the 129th Rescue Wing, which is a California Air Guard unit that flies Combat Shadow Hercs and Pave Hawks. Pretty cool dudes. Dunno about NASA (I know they still have offices there but I don't know for sure about aircraft), but I'm pretty sure the Google guys still have a few bizjets there. Speaking of Moffett, anyone know what they decided to do with Hangar One? I know they've stripped it down to the skeleton, but are they leaving it like that or are they going to resurface it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 04:47
|
|
|
Just a thought, but when you're crabbing in an airplane whose fuselage is longer than the runway is wide by a decent margin, it would be good to know if both your front and rear landing gear are going to touch tarmac when you land. Also, for checking to see if there are gremlins sitting out on the wing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 04:50
|
|
|
Gullous posted:My friend pointed out the tail camera: Terrifying Effigies posted:Not sure if there's any official purpose (beyond situational awareness), but passengers can bring it up on their seat monitors in flight. Situational awareness is a hell of an official purpose when you're driving a small building around a crowded terminal area: I'd guess that Air France's rearranging of JFK's regional jet ramp probably cost them (or their insurers) over a million bucks: http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post/2011/04/air-france-a380-spins-delta-regional-jet-in-jfk-collision/155560/1 e: non-usa-today link for people who read above a fourth-grade level: http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20110412X23201&key=1 Cocoa Crispies fucked around with this message at 05:05 on Dec 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 05:03
|
|
|
I once read that airplanes have windows simply because passengers wouldn't ride them without them. Some sort of psychological thing going on. With a tail camera like that maybe one could get over it. I wouldn't think that sort of thing would bother me too much. But I know, in the back of my mind, that it would bother me. Can anyone confirm this? I read it a very long time ago when Boeing first started the blended wing research for the X-48.
rcman50166 fucked around with this message at 06:55 on Dec 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 06:51
|
|
|
Gullous posted:My friend pointed out the tail camera: Holy poo poo that is fantastic, if nothing else it makes understanding crosswind landings that much easier for non-pilots
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 07:08
|
|
|
rcman50166 posted:I once read that airplanes have windows simply because passengers wouldn't ride them without them. Some sort of psychological thing going on. With a tail camera like that maybe one could get over it. I wouldn't think that sort of thing would bother me too much. But I know, in the back of my mind, that it would bother me. Can anyone confirm this? I read it a very long time ago when Boeing first started the blended wing research for the X-48. Also a higher chance of motion sickness if you have no external visual references (specifically because your only visual reference will be the inside of the plane, which will be moving around, compared to being able to focus on a distant object/the horizon out a window). So in general yeah, passengers would be more reluctant to fly on a plane without windows. The lack of windows and easy access to emergency exits were two of the biggest human factor related issues for developing a BWB airliner. One of the proposed solutions was cameras hooked up to the IFE system. Anyway, windows add complexity/weight (and because of that, cost), there's a reason that pretty much all military transports don't have them (besides where they're needed in stuff like the troop doors).
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 08:56
|
|
|
Cocoa Crispies posted:Situational awareness is a hell of an official purpose when you're driving a small building around a crowded terminal area: I'd guess that Air France's rearranging of JFK's regional jet ramp probably cost them (or their insurers) over a million bucks: http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post/2011/04/air-france-a380-spins-delta-regional-jet-in-jfk-collision/155560/1
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 11:26
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:There's also the 129th Rescue Wing, which is a California Air Guard unit that flies Combat Shadow Hercs and Pave Hawks. Pretty cool dudes. Dunno about NASA (I know they still have offices there but I don't know for sure about aircraft), but I'm pretty sure the Google guys still have a few bizjets there. I live pretty close to Moffet (totally worth it to have c-130s going by all the time), and last I heard they still don't have a plan for it. The proposal by the Google guys to lease it and park their jets there didn't take, and now some locals are trying to get it turned into a museum: http://www.airandspacewest.org No clue how that'll turn out, but at least there don't seem to be any imminent plans to tear down what's left of the place. One of my greatest childhood memories was going out there for a scouting event, when they had all the planes out and you could get inside the cockpit of every drat one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 11:52
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:Notice, however, that the rear camera still doesn't give you a view of the wing tips, which I think was cited as being a factor in that collision. Plainly what it needs are the little trace lines showing where the wing tips will go under current steering settings, just like on a Nissan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 14:11
|
|
|
Gullous posted:What purpose does this camera serve? Emirates has the best seat-back entertainment system of any global airlines, I wish airlines in the US would stock their aircraft with systems even half as good. It's just so utterly depressing to board a flight and find out they in-flight entertainment consists of movies I don't want to see shown on old-style CRTs dropping in the aisles. At least put USB chargers into every seat so we can provide our own entertainment! grover fucked around with this message at 14:49 on Dec 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 14:45
|
|
|
grover posted:Must be refreshing to finally fly an aircraft from a proper 3rd-person camera POV, just like the pilots grew up training with. For US domestic, wi-fi is super-cheap to add, and you can do iPad poo poo constantly during the longest-possible flight without running out. In-flight entertainment that requires heavy equipment and wiring at every seat is dead.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 14:53
|
|
|
Cocoa Crispies posted:For US domestic, wi-fi is super-cheap to add, and you can do iPad poo poo constantly during the longest-possible flight without running out. In-flight entertainment that requires heavy equipment and wiring at every seat is dead. Emirates does it, they have USB jacks in every seat back, and will even let you stream your own movies to the really big (17" IIRC) LCD monitor. I've run into a handful of other airlines recently that have USB charging jacks, which is really really nice. USB *and* 115V would be the best, though. First/business almost always gave it. Incentives to upgrade, maybe? grover fucked around with this message at 16:19 on Dec 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 15:06
|
|
|
Tupolev Tu-204 just had its first fatal accident in 18 yearsa of service, 4 dead, only the crew was aboard the aircraft at the time. Looks like the pilot overshot the runway. http://rt.com/news/plane-vnukovo-airport-moscow-073/
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 16:17
|
|
|
The airline is called red wings 
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 17:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 02:51 |
|
|
Polymerized Cum posted:The airline is called red wings Pass on trying to join the mile high club on one of their flights.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 17:10
|
|
