|
slidebite posted:I think that's quite good news actually (wonder if/when the news is going to pick up on that) but I must admit I wish for YQL service, although I know we're too close to Calgary to be high priority. YQL might yet happen, from my understanding; it's just a long way down the list right now - first, they want to get Encore going out here, then they want to take it east and fight it out with Porter and Air Canada's regionals. Only after that will they start looking at places like YQL and YXH - I'd say if it happens, it'll be in about five years or so. And it is great news, if only because it means there'll be an uptick in pilot hiring. Maybe I'll be able to take a step up soon. 
MrChips fucked around with this message at 02:51 on Feb 12, 2013 |
#
?
Feb 12, 2013 02:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 11:52 |
|
|
 This thing is sexy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 15:48
|
|
|
And remarkably slow for as fast as it looks. I really do wonder where mach homebuilts are. The BD-10 never broke mach.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 17:04
|
|
|
https://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_02_14_2013_p0-548819.xmlquote:At the same time, sources familiar with the design confirmed that the 777X design is expected to have folding wingtips, a novel feature that would allow bigger wings to fit into the same-sized airport parking space as the current 777. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 17:53
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:I really do wonder where mach homebuilts are. The BD-10 never broke mach. It did break into a lot of pieces though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 18:08
|
|
|
ehnus posted:It did break into a lot of pieces though. Oh, they just shed tails. :-) I really do think mach is achievable by a private citizen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 19:15
|
|
|
Cygni posted:https://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_02_14_2013_p0-548819.xml Don't count on this making it into the aircraft. Recall that the 777 was originally offered with a 20-odd foot wing fold so that it could fit into gates sized for the DC-10. There was some interest from the airlines, but nobody actually bought the folding-wing option, and Boeing killed it off so they could modify the wing to carry more fuel (which, based on the sales of the 777-300ER and -200LR, was the right decision). Granted, this is a pretty small folding section, but at the same time the small size is it's downfall. The folding mechanism adds weight and complexity; I somehow doubt the added cost (both in terms of building it as well as maintaining it over the life of the aircraft) will be outweighed by a slight savings at the gate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 21:01
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:Oh, they just shed tails. :-) I really do think mach is achievable by a private citizen. But it is so much cheaper to just buy an old jet. When are you going to get started on your Davis? Do I need to keep dropping links. http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_590719_Davis+DA2+.html
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 21:44
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Don't count on this making it into the aircraft. Recall that the 777 was originally offered with a 20-odd foot wing fold so that it could fit into gates sized for the DC-10. There was some interest from the airlines, but nobody actually bought the folding-wing option, and Boeing killed it off so they could modify the wing to carry more fuel (which, based on the sales of the 777-300ER and -200LR, was the right decision). Here is a pretty good writeup on it http://www.aspireaviation.com/2013/02/14/boeing-777x-787-10-unfazed-by-787-battery-woes/. The ability to keep the stretch a class E aircraft for only an estimated 400kg seems totally worth it, and from the looks of it the redesign from the original plan has far less that can go wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 16:28
|
|
|
so, this is pretty, kind of like an A-10 is pretty: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Sui26PR-bY
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 22:16
|
|
|
helno posted:But it is so much cheaper to just buy an old jet.  How does that saying go? If it looks good it will fly good. That sure isn't a looker.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 02:47
|
|
|
SCOTLAND posted:Here is a pretty good writeup on it http://www.aspireaviation.com/2013/02/14/boeing-777x-787-10-unfazed-by-787-battery-woes/. quote:Unlike the folding wingtip being studied for the original 777-200 in 1995 that included the aircraft’s slats and ailerons, the 777X’s folding wingtip is only going to include the outermost 11ft (3.35m) of the wings with no moveable parts. In order to quell concerns about the complexity of the folding mechanism and the implications on maintenance costs, Boeing has adopted a folding wing which is a “major scaled-up” version of the carbon fibre reinforced polymer (CFRP) replacement wings for the Northrop Grumman A-6E Intruder fighter jet in the 1980s. That sounds like a movable part to me... Still cool, especially the weight savings aspect. And I wouldn't dismiss the gate space savings; it's all about the business case, and apparently Boeing feels there is one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 04:04
|
|
|
SCOTLAND posted:Here is a pretty good writeup on it http://www.aspireaviation.com/2013/02/14/boeing-777x-787-10-unfazed-by-787-battery-woes/. While there are good points raised by that article, I'm still not entirely convinced it's a good idea; 800 lb. adds up to a lot of extra payload over the course of a year. There wasn't any information in that article, however, as to whether or not the folding wingtip will be offered as standard equipment or as an option - I imagine some airlines might want to opt out (or in, for that matter).
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 04:33
|
|
|
I think it was delta and American that wanted the folding tips originally, then they didn't. New one is supposed to be passive, no control surfaces outboard of it unlike the early design. I noticed that the museum of flight at Paine field has the engineering test rig for the 777 folding tips. If we could just get the drat battery woes over and back to flight/testing. Gotta get the pack c and pip 2 certified.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 07:34
|
|
|
Was testing the limits of my new camera, and wound up taking a picture of a plane. Looks like a C-17 to me.  P2160732.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 03:15
|
|
|
Definitely a C-17. One thing I've always wondered is why on the two bulges on the bottom where the main landing gear comes out, the bulge on the right side of the plane is slightly longer than the one on the left. Maybe some sort of basic ECM equipment?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 03:24
|
|
|
Mike-o posted:Definitely a C-17. One thing I've always wondered is why on the two bulges on the bottom where the main landing gear comes out, the bulge on the right side of the plane is slightly longer than the one on the left. Maybe some sort of basic ECM equipment?   Edit: mystery solved! http://www.barksdale.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/110507-F-BX159-005.JPG  e2: vvvv yeah, APU. grover fucked around with this message at 03:39 on Feb 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 03:32
|
|
|
grover posted:That's interesting, I've never noticed that before. Certainly doesn't look like it's for the landing gear. Best guess: Its the APU. EDIT: Yep: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 03:38
|
|
|
Well, some blowjob violated yet another TFR while Obama was playing golf and got an F-16 escort. If only there was some number you could dial that would give you such information, as well as NOTAMs and the weather...
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 04:09
|
|
|
My first TDY as a qualified controller (they rushed my paperwork and sent me out the next day) was to sit in a TRACON and yell at people on Guard.  2.5 days in Nashville for like 4 hours of work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 04:29
|
|
|
It's likely the bust was the result of huge complacency and ignorance of the pilot. However, with things like non depicted no-fly zones, "floating" TFRs, and FDC Notam'd TFRs that can pop up at a moment's notice and not necessarily be covered by a Flight Service briefing, I'm not ready to condemn any pilots. If you ever called for a briefing more than 5 minutes from your departure time, you have opened yourself up to liability. It's ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 04:31
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:It's likely the bust was the result of huge complacency and ignorance of the pilot. However, with things like non depicted no-fly zones, "floating" TFRs, and FDC Notam'd TFRs that can pop up at a moment's notice and not necessarily be covered by a Flight Service briefing, I'm not ready to condemn any pilots. If you ever called for a briefing more than 5 minutes from your departure time, you have opened yourself up to liability. It's ridiculous. Presidential TFRs are published far enough in advance that there's no excuse. I've never seen one change and I've covered over a dozen. There's no doubt in my mind he just didn't bother checking because "nothing ever changes." If they actually put a fighter on him, then he missed a lot of calls on guard as well. The entire thing is heavily scripted and he took it drat near all the way to the ugly end of the checklist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 05:56
|
|
|
I still think Presidential TFRs are needlessly restrictive on pilots. Here's a news link about the above mentioned incident. I've tracked a few TFR violators in my short career thus far and it always seemed like a bunch of commotion over nothing. The Ferret King fucked around with this message at 06:24 on Feb 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 06:21
|
|
|
Can the F-16 slow down enough to escort a Cessna, or how does that work?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 06:34
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:Can the F-16 slow down enough to escort a Cessna, or how does that work? F-16's generally can't fly slow enough to pace something like a 172, so I believe the procedure they use in that situation is to have two interceptors flying a kind of "racetrack" pattern around the target aircraft so that one of them can see (and presumably fire at) the target aircraft at any point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 06:48
|
|
|
Sounds like we need some type of turboprop interceptor.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 08:47
|
|
|
Maybe something with "super" in the name...
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 08:51
|
|
|
helno posted:But it is so much cheaper to just buy an old jet. Old military hardware is a lot cheaper. You're right. I wonder how many people have broken mach in a mig21 Yes, yes you do. Until you start seeing me post pictures of dies. :-) I've learned a lot about airfoils in the last two weeks. I was doing some second guessing of the engineering, pondering building with a 23012 airfoil. It turns out the USA-35b that Leon chose is better in most of the flight envelope, and more importantly, has a soft stall. At some point I want to re-calculate the VNE, and G limits. I saw that barnstomer ad too. Minnesota isn't to far to go for something like that. I did e-mail them, I got not response. I bought a house last year. It looks like my tax returns are going to be nice... SwimNurd posted:
It has a beauty to it. It's surprisingly slick, and it's frighteningly simple. IIRC there's only something like 150 parts in the airframe. 120mph at 4gph really sounds good to me. They also respond well to more horsepower. On another note. My grandmother passed away last week. She was a member of the "99's" flying club. Some of them showed up to the wake. It was quite touching.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 08:55
|
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:Sounds like we need some type of turboprop interceptor. Coast Guard and/or CBP were using helos (MH-65s and UH-60s respectively, IIRC) to deal with light GA aircraft busting the DC airspace restrictions for just this reason. Pretty sure that the USCG helos were equipped with similar armament as the HITRON choppers (Barrett .50 and a 240).
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 12:28
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:It has a beauty to it. It's surprisingly slick, and it's frighteningly simple. IIRC there's only something like 150 parts in the airframe. 120mph at 4gph really sounds good to me. They also respond well to more horsepower. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 15:20
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:F-16's generally can't fly slow enough to pace something like a 172, so I believe the procedure they use in that situation is to have two interceptors flying a kind of "racetrack" pattern around the target aircraft so that one of them can see (and presumably fire at) the target aircraft at any point. There are a few ways to do it, this is one. The other common one is to only use one to do basically the same thing, while holding the other jet at his CAP point. It depends. Helicopters do just fine. And yes, it's almost always over nothing. Every violator I'm aware of was a dude who just didn't read the NOTAMs to not fly w/in 30 miles or whatever of Podunk County Airport between X:00 and Y:00 but decides to take a day trip there. Edit: I've never had to control an intercept. My violators always got the point...sometimes it took 2 or 3 guard calls before they realized I'm talking to them but there was always a 90-degree (or more) turn immediately following a call. Godholio fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Feb 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 16:37
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Edit: I've never had to control an intercept. My violators always got the point...sometimes it took 2 or 3 guard calls before they realized I'm talking to them but there was always a 90-degree (or more) turn immediately following a call.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 17:20
|
|
|
grover posted:How does the average person react when they get an oh poo poo call from the USAF? I got a littler puckery once when USCG came aside when we sailed a little too close to aberdeen once, and that was just USCG. I can't imagine having USAF threatening to sic fighters on my rear end. They turn. It always looked funny because our radar refresh rate was slower than their turn, so we'd see a trail of dots moving in one direction, then suddenly it would be a completely new direction. Part of our call was to give them the quickest heading out, since obviously they don't know where the boundary is. I've never heard a response or acknowledgement on the radio.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 18:01
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:I still think Presidential TFRs are needlessly restrictive on pilots. Amen. Let's try not to get a god complex about 'your airspace.'
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 18:32
|
|
|
Timmy Cruise posted:Maybe something with "super" in the name... Super King Air! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 22:39
|
|
|
So apparently people landing on Taxiway Tango at KSEA is a recurring problem, despite efforts the port has taken to educate and prevent accidental landings there. I'm new to the whole aviation world, but from what I understand of avionics, wouldn't your localizer be pointing out helpfully the entire way down that you're significantly off, or would it only manifest when you got close enough for it to make no difference?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 23:04
|
|
|
ctishman posted:So apparently people landing on Taxiway Tango at KSEA is a recurring problem, despite efforts the port has taken to educate and prevent accidental landings there. I'm new to the whole aviation world, but from what I understand of avionics, wouldn't your localizer be pointing out helpfully the entire way down that you're significantly off, or would it only manifest when you got close enough for it to make no difference? No numbers, no piano keys, not a runway. Using the LOC to help align you prevents most of this, but a lot of it is due to the whole confirmation bias thing. If you think that the runway is left and the taxiway is right, evidence to contradict that doesn't really process in your head.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 23:32
|
|
|
ctishman posted:So apparently people landing on Taxiway Tango at KSEA is a recurring problem, despite efforts the port has taken to educate and prevent accidental landings there. I'm new to the whole aviation world, but from what I understand of avionics, wouldn't your localizer be pointing out helpfully the entire way down that you're significantly off, or would it only manifest when you got close enough for it to make no difference? A military crew flying a C-17 managed to land at the wrong loving airport several miles away from their intended destination...and not just any airport, they landed at a sleepy municipal airport with a runway several thousand feet shorter than the runway at the MILITARY INSTALLATION they were planning on landing at. You can have all the avionics and fancy gee whiz boxes in the world but if you're flying VFR and you think you see what you are looking for, it's entirely possible to get fixated on that and ignore indications that something is wrong. Like the article says: quote:But on clear days pilots generally opt for visual approaches rather than relying on their instruments. Both airlines and air traffic controllers prefer this because it allows shorter distances between incoming planes. Kathryn Vernon, air-traffic hub manager for the FAA in Seattle, says most airlines' policy is that pilots should check their electronic guidance anyhow when doing a visual approach.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 23:35
|
|
|
How'd they manage to get the C-17 home?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 23:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 11:52 |
|
|
ctishman posted:So apparently people landing on Taxiway Tango at KSEA is a recurring problem, despite efforts the port has taken to educate and prevent accidental landings there. I'm new to the whole aviation world, but from what I understand of avionics, wouldn't your localizer be pointing out helpfully the entire way down that you're significantly off, or would it only manifest when you got close enough for it to make no difference? So that article is from 2005, and now there's a 16C in between. Is this still a problem?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 23:47
|
|