|
Look at Precious Metal. I've never heard it described as a replica despite the fact that anything Mustang left on the plane started as a spare part.
Advent Horizon fucked around with this message at 06:35 on Jan 9, 2013 |
#
?
Jan 9, 2013 06:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 06:30 |
|
|
Here's an anecdote from my Father: After the second world war was over an enterprising man bought a lot of the RAFs surplus Tiger Moths to ship to America and resell as private aircraft. He took the wings off, put them in shipping containers and sent them home. When they arrived he put no effort into matching the wings to the airframes, if something had broken in transit he just grabbed a part from the next one down the line. Many years later a gentleman's restoring his Moth and finds a data plate on one of the lower wing spars. Hot drat he's got #83 (I think, it was something 2 digit anyway) off the assembly line, that's gotta be worth something. So he lists it in Trade-A-Plane. And gets an angry phone call from the man who found a matching data plate on his fuselage and claims he owns #83. Who's actually got #83?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2013 06:39
|
|
|
Ardeem posted:Here's an anecdote from my Father: Let the rich fucker that would potentially buy one determine that. Rarities like that don't really have a value until sold.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2013 06:44
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6bKCsJd2K0 Goddamnit, Russia.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2013 07:04
|
|
|
ctishman posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6bKCsJd2K0 I think this related video is of the same incident, if so then it was an An-224 that overshot the runway and they weren't really offroading for the hell of it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyTbi2Jxvxw
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2013 08:17
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:I think this related video is of the same incident, if so then it was an An-224 that overshot the runway and they weren't really offroading for the hell of it. Ahh, all right. That makes way more sense. I mean, I know Russians are hardcore, but a 4-engine strategic airlifter doesn't strike me as a good choice for muddin'.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2013 09:00
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:There is always the philosophical problem of originality. "This is my grandfather's axe, I've replaced the head twice, and the handle three times"
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2013 15:12
|
|
|
 Spitfire Update Partially excavated crate is full of water (surprise). Starting to pump it out. http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/search-for-world-war-ii-spitfire-in-myanmar-turns-up-water-filled-crate-1.1106443
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2013 15:21
|
|
|
slidebite posted:
Welp, so much for that crate being rebuild-able...
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2013 16:16
|
|
|
slidebite posted:
Gotta love the optimism David J. Cundall posted:British aviation enthusiast David J. Cundall, who is driving the hunt for the rare Spitfire planes, called the results "very encouraging." 
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2013 16:24
|
|
|
PainterofCrap posted:Gotta love the optimism  Don't tell them about the magnesium rivets.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2013 16:27
|
|
|
Are they covered in grease or some other kind of mothballing?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2013 16:34
|
|
|
What's that saying? If it's Boeing it's not going? http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/jan/09/boeing-dreamliner-fire-fuel-leakGuardian posted:Boeing Dreamliner 787 fire and fuel leak add to safety concerns Awkward.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2013 17:02
|
|
|
I hope it was a lithium battery, just for the irony.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2013 19:35
|
|
|
PainterofCrap posted:Gotta love the optimism I got nothing. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2013 20:41
|
|
|
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad posted:What's that saying? If it's Boeing it's not going? http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/jan/09/boeing-dreamliner-fire-fuel-leak Not to belittle the seriousness of a fuel leak, but they're certainly not rare, and definitely not limited to Dreamliners or Boeings.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2013 21:52
|
|
|
If it hasn't been posted yet, the U-2 Flight Manual from 1959 was recently declassified and posted online: http://www.scribd.com/doc/119476487/Utility-Flight-Hb-1-Mar-1959
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2013 21:58
|
|
|
Ardeem posted:How do you leave the Fairey Swordfish out of a list of British aeronaughtical shenanigans? Ahem. Boulton Paul Defiant
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2013 22:10
|
|
|
Ardeem posted:A lot of it has to do with regulations. "Ah, you have a warbird... with a transponder in it, excellent here are the general avation restrictions." vs "Ah, an experemental aircraft, have fun never leaving line of sight of an airport without filing a flight plan, or over a city or highway until you've jumped through all these hoops." Rebuilding an aircraft from a data plate has to do with regulations, but not quite like that. According to the regulations, the entire technical history of an aircraft is associated with the data plate; every part added, removed or repaired, every maintenance job, every minute of flying time is tied to it for legal purposes - from that standpoint, it is the aircraft, rather than the collection of parts it's attached to. Because of that, it also signifies that the aircraft it's attached to complies with whatever certification requirements it was built under. In the case of old aircraft like warbirds, they were built before FAR Part 23/25 was written, but they still comply with the standards of the day. If you were to build an absolutely perfect replica of a P-51 for example, you would never be able to certify it under modern regulations (in fact, you'd have a hard time getting it certified as an Experimental aircraft as well). Slapping an old data plate on the replica would greatly streamline the certification process.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2013 22:36
|
|
|
xaarman posted:If it hasn't been posted yet, the U-2 Flight Manual from 1959 was recently declassified and posted online: I like this part from the Technical Data Changes in the front: quote:(Delete) - Engine icing is not a problem on this aircraft. Wonder how they figured that one out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2013 23:47
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Rebuilding an aircraft from a data plate has to do with regulations, but not quite like that. According to the regulations, the entire technical history of an aircraft is associated with the data plate; every part added, removed or repaired, every maintenance job, every minute of flying time is tied to it for legal purposes - from that standpoint, it is the aircraft, rather than the collection of parts it's attached to. Because of that, it also signifies that the aircraft it's attached to complies with whatever certification requirements it was built under. In the case of old aircraft like warbirds, they were built before FAR Part 23/25 was written, but they still comply with the standards of the day. If you were to build an absolutely perfect replica of a P-51 for example, you would never be able to certify it under modern regulations (in fact, you'd have a hard time getting it certified as an Experimental aircraft as well). Slapping an old data plate on the replica would greatly streamline the certification process. I'm curious about this. What would be most out of compliance about a P-51? Is it a matter of required equipment, or design of the airframe?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2013 23:53
|
|
|
NightGyr posted:I'm curious about this. What would be most out of compliance about a P-51? Is it a matter of required equipment, or design of the airframe? The following link is a non-FAA website, but it has a convenient table of contents for FAR Part 23, Airworthiness requirements for aircraft in the normal, utility, aerobatic, and commuter categories. http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/23-index.shtml Just read the subpart titles, and think about whether half of that poo poo was even remotely a design concern for a fighter aircraft in 1940. All modern GA aircraft are roughly the same, because they're regulated into a tiny little box. Something like a P-51 laughs at the regulatory box, and pisses in its mouth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 00:08
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Wonder how they figured that one out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 00:17
|
|
|
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad posted:What's that saying? If it's Boeing it's not going? http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/jan/09/boeing-dreamliner-fire-fuel-leak gently caress Boeing, gently caress the 787, gently caress composite parts and especially gently caress incompetent project managers who can't read the parts list for the poo poo they're responsible for
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 00:39
|
|
|
NightGyr posted:I'm curious about this. What would be most out of compliance about a P-51? Is it a matter of required equipment, or design of the airframe? In the case of a P-51, most of the structure would likely comply with Part 23 with few problems; there would be some minor things that don't comply, but it wouldn't be hard to make it work - the techniques and whatnot used in metal aircraft construction haven't really changed much since then. In terms of equipment and instrumentation, that really isn't an issue even for modern aircraft - you can pretty much install as much or as little as you need to be compliant and be done with. Where the P-51 would fall foul is in it's flying characteristics, and boy would it fall foul. Just off the top of my head, there's about a dozen points where it would fall foul of Part 23, and in all honesty, probably fall foul of Part 21 (which governs experimental aircraft). The only reason why a P-51 is allowed to fly today is because it's been grandfathered into Part 21 and allowed to fly with a limited type certificate, which basically means that the FAA has determined the aircraft is safe to fly and that's about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 01:18
|
|
|
rscott posted:gently caress Boeing, gently caress the 787, gently caress composite parts and especially gently caress incompetent project managers who can't read the parts list for the poo poo they're responsible for Why so hostile?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 03:23
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:I decided years ago that any instructions or warnings are far more interesting if you assume they exist because someone, somewhere, did it. The Big Book Of Things We Don't Do Again
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 04:02
|
|
|
Anta posted:The Big Book Of Things We Don't Do Again Largely true.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 04:47
|
|
|
rscott posted:gently caress Boeing, gently caress the 787, gently caress composite parts and especially gently caress incompetent project managers who can't read the parts list for the poo poo they're responsible for The amount of hate on the internet for the 787 at the moment is astounding. I think almost all of it is due to the introduction of an aircraft with a completely new systems architecture in the era of twitter and the 24 hour news cycle. Issues like those the 787 are dealing with happen on a daily basis on all aircraft, but those aircraft aren't new and don't receive the news scrutiny. Go read up on how EIS went for the A320. Three hull loses in the first four years, yet no one has any doubts about that aircraft's safety. Also, I'm curious what you have against composite parts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 07:33
|
|
|
 Snakes on a plane! And it's an Australian species. And it's the largest one. They should make a movie
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 11:46
|
|
|
MrChips posted:In the case of a P-51, most of the structure would likely comply with Part 23 with few problems; there would be some minor things that don't comply, but it wouldn't be hard to make it work - the techniques and whatnot used in metal aircraft construction haven't really changed much since then. In terms of equipment and instrumentation, that really isn't an issue even for modern aircraft - you can pretty much install as much or as little as you need to be compliant and be done with. I'm looking over the FARs right now, and I can't see anything as obvious as you can. Granted, I don't know manufacture of P-51s all that well, but it still seems like a full-scale reproduction of this aircraft built with modern techniques would pass airworthiness requirements for an acrobatic aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 12:36
|
|
|
babyeatingpsychopath posted:I'm looking over the FARs right now, and I can't see anything as obvious as you can. Granted, I don't know manufacture of P-51s all that well, but it still seems like a full-scale reproduction of this aircraft built with modern techniques would pass airworthiness requirements for an acrobatic aircraft. Just for starters, Part 23 requires single engine aircraft to stall at 61kts or slower.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 15:31
|
|
|
A friend of mine who works for a news affiliate in Georgia sent me a message the other day:quote:NOTE TO NEWS MEDIA: This Friday morning a group of people who were rescued in the Congo in 1964 by the U.S. Air Force are coming back to the Museum of Aviation to see the C-130 aircraft involved in the rescue and the pilot, Mac Secord, who flew it. Secord who now lives in Atlanta, was here back in May I made it halfway through before I realized the plane was still in service. Yeah, it's not that uncommon, and everyone talks about how C-130s and B-52s last forever, I just thought it was cool to come across that in practice. Apparently reuniting crew members with their planes from Operation Dragon Rouge has been a thing for multiple museums over the last few years. The entire conversation got started after I was browsing Google Maps satellite view and came across the 8 C-130s that Lockheed built for Libya but still have sitting around their airfield in Marietta. Boomerjinks fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Jan 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 16:21
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Just for starters, Part 23 requires single engine aircraft to stall at 61kts or slower. I looked at the stall speed requirements, and it appears that 61 knots isn't an absolute limit; you're just required to comply with some additional requirements for structural strength and crash worthiness. Also, Cavalier built civilian Mustangs in the 60s. I think these were all based on military airframes, though, so they were conversions rather than new aircraft. Looking at the actual type certificate is interesting. It prohibits new built aircraft and only permits parts. http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/4f7a595fdcb10b5b862576ab006a4ffd/$FILE/LTC-11.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 16:21
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Why so hostile? The delays on the 787 means that we're winging in two pretty huge contracts (something like 900 new parts that need FAIs plus subassembly FAIs and assembly FAIs) instead of just one right now and suffice to say we're out kicking our coverage right now. You know the phrase "up poo poo creek with out a paddle?" I don't even have a loving boat. Understeer posted:Also, I'm curious what you have against composite parts. They're a pain in the rear end to inspect compared to al or ti parts and the dust created from drilling hole in them makes my skin itch. rscott fucked around with this message at 17:00 on Jan 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 16:57
|
|
|
rscott posted:
Wait 'til you're stress-testing them to failure by the dozen in a tensile test fixture. Breathing masks for everybody.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 17:14
|
|
|
rscott posted:something like 900 new parts that need FAIs plus subassembly FAIs and assembly FAIs
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 18:17
|
|
|
NightGyr posted:I looked at the stall speed requirements, and it appears that 61 knots isn't an absolute limit; you're just required to comply with some additional requirements for structural strength and crash worthiness. What Pilatus had to go through to get four extra knots for the PC-12 makes me think that the FAA isn't going to be ok with an extra thirty-four.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 18:22
|
|
|
Classy, CNN: So, I guess not?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 20:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 06:30 |
|
|
smackfu posted:Classy, CNN:  
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 21:18
|
|