|
Very first sortie on the E-3, I almost puked all over the throttle quadrant during transition. Standard Oklahoma City turbulence magnified the 110 degree heat in the flight deck.
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 02:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 19:23 |
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Very first sortie on the E-3, I almost puked all over the throttle quadrant during transition. Standard Oklahoma City turbulence magnified the 110 degree heat in the flight deck. And I thought having someone puke down inside my car door was a bitch to clean out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2013 01:06
|
|
|
So loving mad about this shot I got. The first thing I notice was the noise, oh the noise. I look up and see a B-25 (Maid in the Shade) flying loose formation with Sentimental Journey coming right at me. I scramble for my camera bag but fumble the loving hood, the cap, the strap flies everywhere, etc. By the time I got situated the 25 had banked out of sight and I managed a single rear end shot of the 17. DSC_3091 by jankyangles, on Flickr Click through for hugeness. Maker Of Shoes fucked around with this message at 05:43 on Apr 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2013 05:13
|
|
|
Maker Of Shoes posted:So loving mad about this shot I got. The first thing I notice was the noise, oh the noise. I look up and see a B-25 (Maid in the Shade) flying loose formation with Sentimental Journey coming right at me. I scramble for my camera bag but fumble the loving hood, the cap, the strap flies everywhere, etc. By the time I got situated the 25 had banked out of sight and I managed a single rear end shot of the 17. As a general rule, this is the sort of thing that happens whenever I try to photograph a Cathay Pacific 747.  Hey get back here! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2013 06:05
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:As a general rule, this is the sort of thing that happens whenever I try to photograph a Cathay Pacific 747. I had a Cargolux 747-800 do that to me the other day. Very frustrating.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2013 15:18
|
|
|
Well, this thing is happening. The Buggati 100p replica flight folks are running a kickstarter. http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/525000827/reve-bleu-bugattis-blue-dream-will-finally-fly Seems like this sort of thing would have been a slamdunk to get corporate sponsorship from VW or Redbull. Also seems like they didn't structure the kickstarter very well. I am interested in the project, and there aren't any pack-ins that make me want to dig deep.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2013 18:58
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:I had a Cargolux 747-800 do that to me the other day. Very frustrating. You might try a blind. I've caught some good shots with a cardboard pushback tug I made out of some refrigerator boxes and reflective safety tape. ctishman fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Apr 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2013 19:21
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:Well, this thing is happening. The Buggati 100p replica flight folks are running a kickstarter. Hopefully that kickstarter pays for some higher quality plexi work for their canopy, that's a lot of distortion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2013 20:55
|
|
|
So I'm sitting here watching FlightRadar24, and I see two flights: DL1649 (ATL-SFO) and HAL50 (HNL-JFK) looking to cross each others' path. Due to the 2D display, this appears to happen all the time, but you'll click 'em and see that one's at 11,000 ft and another's at 33,000 or some such. So I see those two crossing over Tonopah around 11:30 and check their altitudes. 39,000 and 36,000 ft respectively. I double-checked it, reloaded it to make sure the data was good. One was ADS-B data, one was from the FAA with a 5-minute delay, but still. That seems awful close for two airliners. Wouldn't that be close enough to get a TCAS RA issued?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 07:43
|
|
|
Speaking of flight tracker...
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 07:59
|
|
|
Does anyone have the Flighaware pic of boeing writing their logo on america with a dreamliner test flight? edit: This one 
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 08:23
|
|
|
I believe it's 600m or 2000 feet separation requires above 29000, 1000 feet surface to 29000. So they're good. But one of the real ATC can chime in and correct me if I am wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 09:04
|
|
|
RVSM-certified planes (my terminology may be wrong or not what civilian aviation refers to it as) can be within 1000 ft of each other. This may be a mil-only thing though. Altitude alerted and a TCAS is part of the requirements. Without those, it's 2000 ft.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 09:15
|
|
|
I thought it was evens and odds for contraflow. But I'm no ATC
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 10:15
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:RVSM-certified planes (my terminology may be wrong or not what civilian aviation refers to it as) can be within 1000 ft of each other. This may be a mil-only thing though. Altitude alerted and a TCAS is part of the requirements. Without those, it's 2000 ft. RVSM is a civilian thing as well. Above 29000' your separation is 1000'. Also if you've got u/s systems that affect your RVSM capability, you're effectively banned from flying in RVSM airspace because it fucks everyone else up too. You probably won't be going anywhere anyway though, because airlines don't like flying below below fl290 for any kind of distance because of the extra fuel burn.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 11:03
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:RVSM-certified planes (my terminology may be wrong or not what civilian aviation refers to it as) can be within 1000 ft of each other. This may be a mil-only thing though. Altitude alerted and a TCAS is part of the requirements. Without those, it's 2000 ft. RVSM is a common acronym, and the concept is not military. It's driven by European and FAA standards being tightened up. The E-3 fleet got fast-tracked because we almost couldn't overfly Europe. Captain Postal posted:I thought it was evens and odds for contraflow. But I'm no ATC Not always, but that makes it a lot easier to keep tabs on things.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 14:57
|
|
|
Airbus have announced they're going to open a factory in Mobile, Alabama to build A320sFabrice Bregier, Airbus President posted:In two years time we will have an up and running assembly line in Mobile and we will start producing the first US made A320s and for us this is ideal as we will be ready on the biggest market for single aisle with 5000 units to be delivered within the next 20 years to the US airlines. Here in America we enjoy around 17% - 20% market share. So there is a huge potential to get closer to this 50% and we will start the operations with this neo aircraft which is already a very strong success with 2000 aircraft confirmed in our backlog. We will create 1000 jobs in Mobile but at the same time we will create in Europe four times more jobs because the main components of these aircraft will be shipped to Mobile so it's really a win-win partnership getting closer to our US customers and being present like we are in China, on all the continents where it counts to be seen as the truly global player.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 16:15
|
|
|
ctishman posted:So I'm sitting here watching FlightRadar24, and I see two flights: DL1649 (ATL-SFO) and HAL50 (HNL-JFK) looking to cross each others' path. Due to the 2D display, this appears to happen all the time, but you'll click 'em and see that one's at 11,000 ft and another's at 33,000 or some such. So I see those two crossing over Tonopah around 11:30 and check their altitudes. 39,000 and 36,000 ft respectively. I double-checked it, reloaded it to make sure the data was good. One was ADS-B data, one was from the FAA with a 5-minute delay, but still. That seems awful close for two airliners. Wouldn't that be close enough to get a TCAS RA issued? Vertical separation is 1,000ft for two IFR aircraft up to 29,000ft. Above that, 2,000ft vertical is required, except that (at least in the US) we have established Reduced Vertical Separation Minima between 29,000ft and 41,000ft. Properly equipped aircraft can still be separated by 1,000ft within those altitudes then. Improperly equipped aircraft won't normally be allowed to fly at those altitudes. JO 7110.65U quote:4−5−1. VERTICAL SEPARATION MINIMA Additionally, unless we need it for certain exceptions, eastbound aircraft fly at odd altitudes, westbound aircraft fly at even altitudes, up to 41,000ft. Above 41,000ft, the 2,000ft separation rule results in all aircraft flying odd altitudes (41, 43, 45, etc).
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 16:20
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:Vertical separation is 1,000ft for two IFR aircraft up to 29,000ft. Above that, 2,000ft vertical is required, except that (at least in the US) we have established Reduced Vertical Separation Minima between 29,000ft and 41,000ft. Properly equipped aircraft can still be separated by 1,000ft within those altitudes then. Improperly equipped aircraft won't normally be allowed to fly at those altitudes. Pretty much what he said, E-TCAS shouldn't issue a advisory until the aircraft is within 1,000 ft above or below, and I think within 5,000 feet fore and 1,000 feet aft. It's supposed to give you enough time (1min-5min) to respond thus and navigate out of the way, but if both aircraft have all the functions of TCAS including reporting AGL and capabilities, the TCAS will give the advisory to the aircraft who has the most maneuvering space, or to both if there is enough airspace. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision_avoidance_system#Types_of_traffic_and_resolution_advisories
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 16:25
|
|
|
Though if one is climbing and one is descending, that can cause resolution advisories even when both aircraft were planning on stopping 1,000ft apart.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 16:56
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:Though if one is climbing and one is descending, that can cause resolution advisories even when both aircraft were planning on stopping 1,000ft apart. Yeah, naturally TCAS cannot anticipate your future actions. OR CAN IT 
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 17:23
|
|
|
PainterofCrap posted:And I thought having someone puke down inside my car door was a bitch to clean out. On my discovery flight eight years ago, I had two of my cousins in the back of a 172. The oldest one puked when we were in a bank traveling around 100knots. The second one puked shortly after. Neither made it into a barf bag. It was a long, disgusting flight back to KTKI. I felt really bad for the CFI, and gave him an extra $20 when we landed. I still don't think that was enough of tip.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 17:28
|
|
|
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad posted:Airbus have announced they're going to open a factory in Mobile, Alabama to build A320s That is drat interesting. In other news, sounds like Lockmart is doing a hardcore PR junket in Canada to pimp the F35. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/04/07/pol-lockheed-martin-f35-pr-campaign.html
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 17:49
|
|
|
Entone posted:KTKI. One of the better aviation photogs in the world flies out of TKI.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 17:53
|
|
|
slidebite posted:That is drat interesting. Lockheed now has the fear. The NYT ran an article on cuts the defense secretary was thinking of making, and like a third of the column was just the F-35. (One specific comment Hagel made was interesting: if you are cutting the military budget, cutting actual boots on the ground stuff/fighter squadrons etc. get you an immidiate savings. But the best way to save is to cut back on these super-expesinve long term DOD projects - but those savings, though larger, take awhile to show up.) My feeling is the Canadian offensive is a dry run for the main battle in America. I'm kinda expecting Lockheed to just go for bribery rather then let Canada buy good fighter jets. Ah, and they are taking the grover sales pitch I see. 'Anything less than 5th gen wonderplanes is 2nd rate! 5th Gen! 5th Gen!'
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 19:08
|
|
|
Godholio posted:The E-3 fleet got fast-tracked because we almost couldn't overfly Europe. And you thought GK didn't do jack poo poo now...  slidebite posted:In other news, sounds like Lockmart is doing a hardcore PR junket in Canada to pimp the F35. I think my favorite part is one of the biggest points that their
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 23:18
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:And you thought GK didn't do jack poo poo now... The NATO fleet was modified long before the US fleet. But to illustrate GK's uselessness, for several years they wanted a piece of that sweet, sweet, ISAF action but couldn't actually forward-deploy because several of the -stans refuse to recognize Luxembourg (where the aircraft are registered) and thus wouldn't allow overflight.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 23:31
|
|
|
Godholio posted:The NATO fleet was modified long before the US fleet. But to illustrate GK's uselessness, for several years they wanted a piece of that sweet, sweet, ISAF action but couldn't actually forward-deploy because several of the -stans refuse to recognize Luxembourg (where the aircraft are registered) and thus wouldn't allow overflight. I kind of figured they had been modified before the US fleet but I just wanted to make a GK joke. Do you know why they wouldn't recognize Luxembourg? A political thing or did they just not count it as a real country?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 23:43
|
|
|
I really wish Canada would just buy a couple dozen Silent Eagles. It's a really pretty airframe and it suits what Canada thinks are its air force needs far, far better than the F-35 ever would.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 00:16
|
|
|
slidebite posted:That is drat interesting. grover fucked around with this message at 00:52 on Apr 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 00:40
|
|
|
grover posted:Wait, until a couple days ago, Canada was only going to pay $65M per F-35? That was the actual quoted flyaway cost? That's about half of the LRIP cost the press have been throwing around as flyaway costs, but are clearly wrong about. Even with another $20M increase, $85M per F-35A is about the same price as a new F-18 ($80M) and much cheaper than a new F-15 ($108M). And it's a full-up stealthy 5th gen aircraft. And there's no way in hell they are only going to pay $85M per. Which is the real issue, the only people who have anything close to an idea how much this thing is actually going to cost are LockMart and the Program Office, and both of them are colluding lying pieces of poo poo (Lt Gen Bogdan's remarks notwithstanding), so when it comes to costs all we have are some rather nebulous estimates.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 00:50
|
|
|
slidebite posted:That is drat interesting. Definitely makes sense, they have a big backlog and I'd imagine they're getting up towards capacity limits in the Motherland.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 01:12
|
|
|
So at the risk of exposing my lack of knowledge, what is GK?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 01:27
|
|
|
Geilenkirchen. Home to the NATO E-3.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 02:04
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:I kind of figured they had been modified before the US fleet but I just wanted to make a GK joke. Do you know why they wouldn't recognize Luxembourg? A political thing or did they just not count it as a real country? As I understand it, they don't recognize it as a real country (which is a political thing).
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 03:45
|
|
|
Does anybody know what happened to the ultralight thread? I think it slipped off into the archives  Anway. I'm going to pursue my PPL pretty soon. As soon as I get more than 22 hours at home in a week so I can go get fingerprinted (yay not being a citizen. At least the TSA will have my fingerprints so they can identify my body whenever I commit whatever heinous terrorist act I plan on doing in my local flight school's Cessna 140.) As much as I'd love to own my own plane, that's just not in the cards right now. I'd also like to build one, but see the previous 22 hours a week thing. SO. The thought had occurred to me that an ultralight would be a good way to a) own my own plane and b) have a fun project. The only one that really stands out to me right now is the Legal Eagle. This is mostly due to the fact that it's a 4-stroke rather than all the other 2-stroke ultralights out there. Something about that awful 2-stroke screaming away while crawling along just screams "I've given up." Anybody have any endorsements or cautionary tales about the Legal Eagle? Any other advice?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 03:52
|
|
|
This was some oddity that came across my feed today http://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...weapons/274760/ An old LP of various engine noises of the cold war uploaded to the internets.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 04:18
|
|
|
It's still there. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3474976 I kinda like the legal eagle. It's moderately hard to actually build legal though. (most "normal" looking planes are that..) If you'd like other options, I think I have eight or ten of them handy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 04:34
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:It's still there. Excellent! Thanks very much. And yes, other options to at least hem and haw over wouldn't go amiss. If I could bring myself to get over the noise, a minimax or eindecker rep would go quite nicely. I just can't bring myself to listen to that screaming all the time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 04:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 19:23 |
|
|
charliemonster42 posted:Excellent! Thanks very much. Go throw a post there, and I'll dump all of my ultralight research. Just as a first tip. The Affordaplane isn't.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 05:50
|
|