Aeronautical Insanity: switching to secondary tolerances

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Automotive Insanity > Aeronautical Insanity: switching to secondary tolerances

«‹›2241 »

ctishman: Apr 26, 2005; Oh Giraffe you're havin' a laugh!

AzureSkys posted:

I think the Y here is referring to Coach Class

That could very well be. I googled that one.

# ? Mar 13, 2013 22:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 28, 2024 00:34

Captain Postal: Sep 16, 2007

MrChips posted:

I guess I didn't elaborate enough on the competition statement; chalk it up to phone posting with a limited amount of time.

Airlines obviously compete with one another on many levels - I never implied they didn't. What I should have said is that airlines will often set themselves goals regarding market share on a given route, out of a given airport, etc. which in effect increases the competition on a very small aspect of their business. Let's say Airline A and Airline B both have flights from ABC-XYZ. Airline A flies 12 flights a day, lofting 1200 seats and filling 80% of them, giving them a market share of 40%. Airline B flies 8 flights a day, lofting 800 seats and filling 75%, giving them a market share of 25% (the remaining 35% of the market share is split between several other carriers). Now let's say Airline B has become particularly dissatisfied with their performance on their ABC-XYZ flights, and want to add a couple of flights and increase their load factor to 85%, which in the airline industry means that the flights are functionally full. Lots of things will happen; one of them being seat sales, often targeted at a specific location, in order to drum up new business (or to get loyal customers who otherwise can't fly on your airline to use them on this particular flight) or to just straight up take bums off A's seats and put them on B's seats.

This is correct, but it's the opposite of what you said before (which is why we're all jumping on you). In this case, Airline B is using browser cookies to increase sales. You said before that they would use browser history to decrease sales. I don't know if they can use cookies from other airlines but I'd be worried if they could. That would be the same as using cookies to access your facebook page, emails, bank accounts etc without permission.

It's a well known fact that online stores of any kind track who is accessing them. Try ordering from a store with "free" shipping - the price of the item itself varies considerably from where your ISP is showing. (This is a good way to get discounts because if you order from an ISP down the road and deliver to the other side of the world, you get the cheaper price and keep free shipping).

I will bet that dynamic pricing might be lower if you're browsing competitors, browsing from in-country etc and maybe higher if your details shows a user from a higher socio-economic background, using an iProduct, on a mobile device etc, but then the yield guys are playing with fire in assuming that the competition will also raise prices for you. Airline seats are the most perishable commodity in the entire modern economic world and you don't dick around when it comes to filling them, only with how much you can squeeze from pax.

Captain Postal fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Mar 14, 2013

# ? Mar 14, 2013 00:14

Dr. Despair: Nov 4, 2009; 39 perfect posts with each roll.

B-1B just cruising by my house.

P3150064.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr

# ? Mar 15, 2013 22:40

Cygni: Nov 12, 2005; raring to post

Was reading a bit about the F/A-XX and TACAIR programs that the Navy/Air Force are running for a potential 6th gen fighter in the 2030-2050 time frame, and came across these renders. F/A-XX is in the RFI phase, TACAIR just in the concept phase.

Boeing's F/A-XX concept:

Lockheeds vision for TACAIR:

Who knows what will happen in the future with funding levels and world political realities, but pretty interesting. The Air Force is projecting a pretty massive fighter gap once the F-15s/F-16s start retiring en mass and with continued F-35 delays.

# ? Mar 15, 2013 23:01

3 Action Economist: May 22, 2002; Educate. Agitate. Liberate.

We don't even have a working Gen 5 yet!

# ? Mar 16, 2013 00:42

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Colonial Air Force posted:

We don't even have a working Gen 5 yet!

F-22A's working pretty damned well.

# ? Mar 16, 2013 00:45

Koesj: Aug 3, 2003

I think there was a post on secretprojects on the Lockheed concept about how in some kind of strange fit of disinformation they've flattened out the image.

So instead of that aggressively elongated plane it might look more like this:

# ? Mar 16, 2013 00:46

KodiakRS: Jul 11, 2012

What's with the cockpits? Do they really think that the next generation of fighters are going to be manned? Just look at all the issues the F-22 has had keeping the squishy meat sack conscious.

# ? Mar 16, 2013 00:55

Koesj: Aug 3, 2003

Gots to sell planes to generals who used to fly themselves.

# ? Mar 16, 2013 00:59

Godholio: Aug 28, 2002; Does a bear split in the woods near Zheleznogorsk?

KodiakRS posted:

What's with the cockpits? Do they really think that the next generation of fighters are going to be manned? Just look at all the issues the F-22 has had keeping the squishy meat sack conscious.

Unmanned drones work because they don't need snap decisions. The systems in use for the foreseeable future flat-out wont work for fighters. In a couple of decades they might figure something out and integrate it, who knows.

# ? Mar 16, 2013 01:50

Jonny Nox: Apr 26, 2008

KodiakRS posted:

What's with the cockpits? Do they really think that the next generation of fighters are going to be manned? Just look at all the issues the F-22 has had keeping the squishy meat sack conscious.

Unmanned fighters are not exactly what you could call proven. They've never been used in a combat situation where the opposing force could combat the info link that is it's weak spot. Even Iran has shown it's possible to gently caress with drones in ways that aren't possible with manned aircraft.

Really that's the same kind of thinking that got the American into trouble in Vietnam, since no one needed guns since missiles were much better.

# ? Mar 16, 2013 01:52

iyaayas01: Feb 19, 2010; Perry'd

Jonny Nox posted:

Unmanned fighters are not exactly what you could call proven.

Forget proven, they flat out don't exist. The only "UCAVs" we have are poo poo like the X-47 that are still in the proof of concept phase, and even those are really just faster, stealthier, more maneuverable versions of the GA Predator/Reaper/Avenger line (in fact you could argue that the X-47 and Avenger are two sides of the same coin) . All the X-47 can do is drop air to ground munitions; it will have zero air to air capability because like Godholio said there are multiple show stopping limitations here when it comes to utilizing RPAs for air to air, both with hardware as well as overall CONOPS.

# ? Mar 16, 2013 02:05

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Jonny Nox posted:

Even Iran has shown it's possible to gently caress with drones in ways that aren't possible with manned aircraft.

No, they didn't. The drone Iran trotted out was a fake.

Godholio posted:

Unmanned drones work because they don't need snap decisions. The systems in use for the foreseeable future flat-out wont work for fighters. In a couple of decades they might figure something out and integrate it, who knows.

]That's only because todays pilots are burdened with highly restrictive ROE. Once you start talking unrestricted OTH combat, there really isn't much difference between a live pilot firing a missile at a target vs a UCAV. Once the target is identified by onboard sensors, link16, AWACS, what have you, the only thing left to do is pull the trigger. I know we prefer to think there's a human in the kill-chain making that decision, but is there really any difference between a human pilot acting upon orders to kill a target that meets a pre-determined set of criteria and a UCAV programmed to do the same?

grover fucked around with this message at 02:38 on Mar 16, 2013

# ? Mar 16, 2013 02:27

IPCRESS: May 27, 2012

You mean RQ1's aren't made out of papier mache, bailing wire and the avionics from a hobby microlight?

I can't believe that Iran would just lie like that.

# ? Mar 16, 2013 02:34

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Falkenbok posted:

You mean RQ1's aren't made out of papier mache, bailing wire and the avionics from a hobby microlight?

I can't believe that Iran would just lie like that.

Its really just a country of hobbyists and model builders.

# ? Mar 16, 2013 02:53

Mike-o: Dec 25, 2004; Now I'm in your room
And I'm in your bed; Grimey Drawer

I was pleasantly surprised when I saw this video didn't have some horrible soundtrack to go with it. It's kind of relaxing watching carrier ops to that kind of music, too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Cy3Cs4n7PQ

Here's the second video...I spoke too soon, he uses "Sail" in this one :arghfist:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4oBr744hY0

Third one is pretty good too, it's all the night ops stuff he filmed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58onKXrDP3E

# ? Mar 16, 2013 05:43

slidebite: Nov 6, 2005; Good egg

So what happened with that captured drone anyhow then? I thought it was real but "fixed up" albeit by an Iranian middle school art class to look like it hadn't crashed and came down under control by elite Iranian uber hackers.

# ? Mar 16, 2013 06:06

IPCRESS: May 27, 2012

The ayatollah had it executed when he couldn't play Angry Birds on it.

# ? Mar 16, 2013 08:03

OhsH: Jan 12, 2008

grover posted:

No, they didn't. The drone Iran trotted out was a fake.
]That's only because todays pilots are burdened with highly restrictive ROE. Once you start talking unrestricted OTH combat, there really isn't much difference between a live pilot firing a missile at a target vs a UCAV. Once the target is identified by onboard sensors, link16, AWACS, what have you, the only thing left to do is pull the trigger. I know we prefer to think there's a human in the kill-chain making that decision, but is there really any difference between a human pilot acting upon orders to kill a target that meets a pre-determined set of criteria and a UCAV programmed to do the same?

Yes, because anything in the military will fall under SOME SORT of roe. Don't act like an unmanned vehicle will skip over set military rules.

# ? Mar 16, 2013 08:13

vulturesrow: Sep 25, 2011; _{Always gotta pay it forward.}

grover posted:

No, they didn't. The drone Iran trotted out was a fake.
]That's only because todays pilots are burdened with highly restrictive ROE. Once you start talking unrestricted OTH combat, there really isn't much difference between a live pilot firing a missile at a target vs a UCAV. Once the target is identified by onboard sensors, link16, AWACS, what have you, the only thing left to do is pull the trigger. I know we prefer to think there's a human in the kill-chain making that decision, but is there really any difference between a human pilot acting upon orders to kill a target that meets a pre-determined set of criteria and a UCAV programmed to do the same?

You're a good dude but sometimes you write the dumbest crap. First off, unrestricted OTH air-to-air combat is probably not a realistic scenario unless we're full on robot planes vs. robot planes. Secondly, as someone has already pointed out, the datalink is a pretty serious weakness when you get right down to it, regardless of what you think of the Iran thing. Working around datalink frequencies was a huge pain in the rear end for me and the engineers I and my unit and I worked with(and no I'm not talking about Prowlers, I was on the ground in Iraq). Now, I think that at some time in the future it probably will be all unmanned but not any time soon, especially when you are talking air-to-air.

# ? Mar 16, 2013 08:15

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

vulturesrow posted:

You're a good dude but sometimes you write the dumbest crap. First off, unrestricted OTH air-to-air combat is probably not a realistic scenario unless we're full on robot planes vs. robot planes. Secondly, as someone has already pointed out, the datalink is a pretty serious weakness when you get right down to it, regardless of what you think of the Iran thing. Working around datalink frequencies was a huge pain in the rear end for me and the engineers I and my unit and I worked with(and no I'm not talking about Prowlers, I was on the ground in Iraq). Now, I think that at some time in the future it probably will be all unmanned but not any time soon, especially when you are talking air-to-air.

US isn't buying 2,443 F-35s to win hearts and minds in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the kind of WWIII scenario conflict we'd be unleashing untold hordes of missile-slinging stealth UCAVs into the enemy's juggernaut, the kid gloves would be off.

Jamming is a real possibility; they would have to be capable of operating entirely autonomously.

grover fucked around with this message at 11:58 on Mar 16, 2013

# ? Mar 16, 2013 11:47

Koesj: Aug 3, 2003

grover posted:

US isn't buying 2,443 F-35s

At least you got one prediction right.

# ? Mar 16, 2013 14:47

Nebakenezzer: Sep 13, 2005; The Mote in God's Eye

slidebite posted:

So what happened with that captured drone anyhow then? I thought it was real but "fixed up" albeit by an Iranian middle school art class to look like it hadn't crashed and came down under control by elite Iranian uber hackers.

Yeah, I thought they captured/got a malfunctioning drone.

# ? Mar 16, 2013 18:01

Godholio: Aug 28, 2002; Does a bear split in the woods near Zheleznogorsk?

grover posted:

]That's only because todays pilots are burdened with highly restrictive ROE. Once you start talking unrestricted OTH combat, there really isn't much difference between a live pilot firing a missile at a target vs a UCAV. Once the target is identified by onboard sensors, link16, AWACS, what have you, the only thing left to do is pull the trigger. I know we prefer to think there's a human in the kill-chain making that decision, but is there really any difference between a human pilot acting upon orders to kill a target that meets a pre-determined set of criteria and a UCAV programmed to do the same?

No, it's NOT only because of "restrictive ROE." There are technical reasons as well as ROE decision-making and legal ramifications. Basic fighter employment is a real big barrier to this and "the only thing left to do is pull the trigger" is absolutely wrong.

grover posted:

Jamming is a real possibility; they would have to be capable of operating entirely autonomously.

You haven't thought this through, have you?

Godholio fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Mar 16, 2013

# ? Mar 16, 2013 18:06

bloops: Dec 31, 2010; Thanks Ape Pussy!

flight deck porn :siren:

This time courtesy of a 777.

# ? Mar 16, 2013 19:47

Godholio: Aug 28, 2002; Does a bear split in the woods near Zheleznogorsk?

They're not really that obnoxious blue are they? Hello eyestrain.

# ? Mar 16, 2013 20:33

Cocoa Crispies: Jul 20, 2001; Vehicular Manslaughter!; Pillbug

Godholio posted:

They're not really that obnoxious blue are they? Hello eyestrain.

It's probably because the camera is above the proper viewing cone for those LCDs.

# ? Mar 16, 2013 20:39

Space Gopher: Jul 31, 2006; BLITHERING IDIOT AND HARDCORE DURIAN APOLOGIST. LET ME TELL YOU WHY THIS SHIT DON'T STINK EVEN THOUGH WE ALL KNOW IT DOES BECAUSE I'M SUPER CULTURED.

grover posted:

No, they didn't. The drone Iran trotted out was a fake.
That's only because todays pilots are burdened with highly restrictive ROE. Once you start talking unrestricted OTH combat, there really isn't much difference between a live pilot firing a missile at a target vs a UCAV. Once the target is identified by onboard sensors, link16, AWACS, what have you, the only thing left to do is pull the trigger. I know we prefer to think there's a human in the kill-chain making that decision, but is there really any difference between a human pilot acting upon orders to kill a target that meets a pre-determined set of criteria and a UCAV programmed to do the same?

The state department and President Obama asked Iran to return the drone. The one they put on state TV might have been a mockup, but they definitely had a real one somewhere.

As for the other half of your post, I'd like to point you to the F-4 in Vietnam.

# ? Mar 16, 2013 21:22

Dr. Despair: Nov 4, 2009; 39 perfect posts with each roll.

Cocoa Crispies posted:

It's probably because the camera is above the proper viewing cone for those LCDs.

Also that picture was probably a longer exposure to make sure the rest of the cockpit is right, so the screens are probably over exposed.

# ? Mar 16, 2013 21:27

Finger Prince: Jan 5, 2007

You wanna know what I think about ROE? It's good on SUSHI.

# ? Mar 16, 2013 21:55

bloops: Dec 31, 2010; Thanks Ape Pussy!

Mr. Despair posted:

Also that picture was probably a longer exposure to make sure the rest of the cockpit is right, so the screens are probably over exposed.

Yea. I work airshows a lot and the photographer dudes either do multiple exposures or one long one. I've held up lines for a while shooting the poo poo with some of them about lenses and stuff.

Also, one of them hosed me over by having me pose in the photo so now my visage is forever linked to the E-3 Sentry. The photo is floating around somewhere on Flickr.

# ? Mar 16, 2013 22:32

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Space Gopher posted:

The state department and President Obama asked Iran to return the drone. The one they put on state TV might have been a mockup, but they definitely had a real one somewhere.

What appears to have happened is that a real drone simply crashed somewhere in the remote mountainous part of Iran. It was most likely completely destroyed; US did not attempt retrieval or drop a bomb on the remains because they knew Iran couldn't track it and most likely had no idea it was even there in the first place, and didn't want to risk conflict escalation. US apparently failed to consider spies in Kandahar could watch it take off and head towards Iran, and knew it never returned. Thus follows a number of typical confused Iranian propaganda- first that they shot it down, then that they hacked it, and finally they they GPS spoofed it and captured it and about 2 weeks after the supposed capture, Iran unveiled a poorly done foam model with painted on panels, and claimed it was the real thing. US, choking a laugh, called their bluff and demanded it back, but Iran obviously couldn't.

# ? Mar 16, 2013 23:09

madeintaipei: Jul 13, 2012

holocaust bloopers posted:

Yea. I work airshows a lot and the photographer dudes either do multiple exposures or one long one. I've held up lines for a while shooting the poo poo with some of them about lenses and stuff.

Also, one of them hosed me over by having me pose in the photo so now my visage is forever linked to the E-3 Sentry. The photo is floating around somewhere on Flickr.

Found it! Here's his plane. And here's the man himself.

vvv: I found that a month ago while looking at neat Lego poo poo. I've been waiting a month to post it :downs:

madeintaipei fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Mar 16, 2013

# ? Mar 16, 2013 23:11

bloops: Dec 31, 2010; Thanks Ape Pussy!

Of course a loving AWO built a Lego AWACS.

# ? Mar 16, 2013 23:15

Finger Prince: Jan 5, 2007

Godholio posted:

They're not really that obnoxious blue are they? Hello eyestrain.

There's something seriously off with that colour palette. The real flight deck is a lot more brown.

# ? Mar 16, 2013 23:18

Finger Prince: Jan 5, 2007

Just some mobile phone pics I took today. I Can't decide which I like best.

Rainbows loving rock.

# ? Mar 16, 2013 23:40

iyaayas01: Feb 19, 2010; Perry'd

holocaust bloopers posted:

Of course a loving AWO built a Lego AWACS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZEdDMQZaCU

No pictures of hb found in my cursory search...I did find one of a jet taking off when you guys were at Ted Stevens (when was that, a year or two ago I think) that was kind of cool, but the owner disabled downloading so have this instead: