|
nagdt posted:Just found this thread! if you're thinking of contracting, get your EASA B1 license if you can. It'll mean more exams, but it'll open up the world to you. Contracting can be a very sweet and lucrative gig, but you always have to have your next contract lined up to avoid prolonged unemployment, and you may end up having to work in some lovely spots between good gigs. That said, even the shittiest gig is only temporary. I know of one colleague who is now working 5 weeks on/5 weeks off in Gran Canaria making $100k wrenching (or wiring, since he's avionics) Beech 1900s and King Airs. He's very savvy though, and has been doing contracting for some time now, even though he's pretty young. You'll also have to fund your own retirement plan, private health insurance, all that jazz (though being American, you probably have to do all that anyway  ). On the company minion side (that's me), what you get is slow and steady, with lots of unquantified benefits, especially flight benefits if you work for an airline. On the downside, poo poo bosses and extreme bean-counterism. The industry has/is changing and the sweet deals of the past ie DB pensions, airlines doing their own maintenance (flight benefits), etc. are becoming rarer or non-existent. That said, it's still a good gig if you can get it. One thing you will have to do though if you want the best opportunity is move to a major hub. I'm based out of Heathrow and there's a bit of a revolving door here as people move around searching for the best deal. It keeps things competitive so that whether you're contracting or staff, you can count on a company at least paying and treating you somewhat decently, because if they didn't, they wouldn't have any staff.
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 09:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 23:40 |
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Seconded, super cool photos. I like the 727 in the full fuselage Pan Am livery. Is that a -100? This is a 100 with the shorter fuselage. Bit of a 727 moneyshot altogether:  Couple more shots:    He's got a load more, may much earlier from the 60's and 70's, so when I get hold of some of those I'll post them here - Comets and Britannias and Handley-Page Heralds, oh my.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 10:23
|
|
|
Wibbleman posted:What one was the where the tri-engine (DC-10? my airline ID abilities are pretty poor) lands on what looks like sand? It's a 727 crashed for a Discovery Channel program, apparently. http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/2012/10/01/inside-a-doomed-jetliner-tv-show-stages-727-crash/1606749/ edit: Godholio posted:To put it in even more bizarre perspective, those are the engines the USAF was looking at installing on the JSTARS to replace the TF-33 (JT3D) a couple of years ago. They're a new iteration, don't know how much of a difference that makes though. Kia Soul Enthusias fucked around with this message at 11:15 on Apr 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 11:11
|
|
|
CharlesM posted:It's a 727 crashed for a Discovery Channel program, apparently. The JT8D-217/219 series are significant upgrades from the legacy JT8s, but still not exactly modern...
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 12:04
|
|
|
I seem to recall that one of the reasons given by the GAO for not re-engining the B-52 fleet was that the military had a pile of spare crated JT8Ds that stretched to the moon; that could be the reason?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 12:06
|
|
|
IPCRESS posted:I seem to recall that one of the reasons given by the GAO for not re-engining the B-52 fleet was that the military had a pile of spare crated JT8Ds that stretched to the moon; that could be the reason? The B-52 uses TF33s (military JT3s,) not JT8s, but I'm sure that was a factor in their decision.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 12:08
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:The B-52 uses TF33s (military JT3s,) not JT8s, but I'm sure that was a factor in their decision. That's specifically the reason AWACS hasn't been reengined, and I've heard the same about B-52s. Once they retired the old KC-135s and C-141s they had a LOT of spare parts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 16:50
|
|
|
Godholio posted:That's specifically the reason AWACS hasn't been reengined, and I've heard the same about B-52s. Once they retired the old KC-135s and C-141s they had a LOT of spare parts. This doesn't change the fact that my heart wants to someday see a B-52 lifting into the air on a quartet of RB211-535s, instead of being thrust into the sky on a huge godamned trail of smoke.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 20:24
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:This doesn't change the fact that my heart wants to someday see a B-52 lifting into the air on a quartet of RB211-535s, instead of being thrust into the sky on a huge godamned trail of smoke. At least with the TF33s on the -H they don't need to use water injection:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3umjlUQwNY
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:At least with the TF33s on the -H they don't need to use water injection: You say that like it's a bad thing...
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 21:10
|
|
|
I was moved from the EC-135 into the BK-117. This thing is POWERFUL. And a little roomier, too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 22:47
|
|
|
you guys are all panazies unless you can fit inside a wing like this: Cuz you know, Thin guy's get hosed first  more interesting stuff:  Stamp says AVRO if you can't read it. I used it to chop up scrap wing skins. There's 2 on top and 3 on the bottom of a CL300. It's fun... More work stuff; Global Express wing jigs: 
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2013 00:15
|
|
|
I don't care what engine is used, so long as I get to see BUFFs with 4 big ones. The first CF6 to fly was on a B-52, after all. We know they fit.FullMetalJacket posted:more interesting stuff: Nice! I never would have noticed that had it not been pointed out. Air tools kick rear end.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2013 03:49
|
|
|
AROs are great air tools. They last forever if treated properly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2013 04:17
|
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:I don't care what engine is used, so long as I get to see BUFFs with 4 big ones. The first CF6 to fly was on a B-52, after all. We know they fit. (Hosting is mine)
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2013 14:11
|
|
|
LOO posted:
Prompted me to do some quick searching, and I found that two B-52s were modified over the years as JB-52Es, and tested at LEAST the CF6-6, the JT9D, and the JT8D. Possibly others. The more you know...     The clear issue here is that the JT9D and CF6 probably wouldn't work on the #1 and #4 positions, due to ground clearance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2013 15:28
|
|
|
One of my Favorite aircraft Is the F-82 Twin Mustang. Take one of the most epic aircraft in history and double it. There is one on static display at Lackland AFB in San Antonio (along with an sr-71). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAd6t_On4rQ
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2013 17:08
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:The clear issue here is that the JT9D and CF6 probably wouldn't work on the #1 and #4 positions, due to ground clearance. Couldn't the balance legs be extended? I did some quick checking and it appears some versions of the CFM56 would provide the needed power. Even with a CF6 you could hamsterize it for a few more needed inches.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2013 17:11
|
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:Couldn't the balance legs be extended? Those wings aren't full of fuel, nor is there external ordnance hanging from them. Those wings dip a lot lower when it's loaded up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2013 17:14
|
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:Couldn't the balance legs be extended? There have been numerous proposals to re-engine the B-52 over the years; often th engine put forward is the Rolls RB211-535, which is found on the Boeing 757. The Pratt PW2000 (the alternate engine on the 757) is also the right size, as the CFM56-5C. Of course all of this is moot as the USAF has like a hundred-year supply of TF33s in crates, as others have mentioned.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2013 17:39
|
|
|
FullMetalJacket posted:you guys are all panazies unless you can fit inside a wing like this: You know, despite being a factory job, your workplace looks pretty cool. Do you mind if I ask what your qualifications are?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2013 18:21
|
|
|
I was in Air Cadets for 6 years where I took a summer courses related to leadership, teaching, ground schooling, engines, hydraulics and structures. At the same time I was taking aviation classes in high school where I got a co-op with Air Canada doing minion work on CRJ's and dash 8's. A few years later after university I did a short stint at Diamond Aircraft until the recession hit and a year or so later went to college and competed my AME S schooling. I applied for the M course in case this job fell through, but so far work can't get enough of me; the "go to guy" but I'm happy with that. my goal is to learn everything there is to know about the A/C, write the training manual and then present the draft to my supervisors. Maybe I can pull off promoting myself to training officer. Mchanics and workers don't really make for good teachers as they're too loving busy with their own work to baby sit and teach the next person properly to the point of where they won't gently caress up something major and cost the company a $200,000 wing panel. Also, most people in the industry are over 40 or nearing retirement. Teaching a new kid a complicated task means one less reason for the facility to keep them. we'll see!
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2013 21:05
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Those wings aren't full of fuel, nor is there external ordnance hanging from them. Those wings dip a lot lower when it's loaded up. Right, but if you slung 4 larger engines,mwhich may or may not weigh about the same as 8 smaller ones, and extended the wing gear the wings wouldn't sag as much. I'm not sure what kind of load issues extended gear would create on the center of the wing, but it seems like it could be done. The key would be to keep the wings from sagging. Or put bigger engines inboard and smaller outboard. But that would probably make the re-engine advantage even lower against crates of spares.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2013 21:12
|
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:Right, but if you slung 4 larger engines,mwhich may or may not weigh about the same as 8 smaller ones, and extended the wing gear the wings wouldn't sag as much. I'm not sure what kind of load issues extended gear would create on the center of the wing, but it seems like it could be done. The key would be to keep the wings from sagging. The thing is you can't really reduce the weight of the engines much, as the weight of the engines hanging ahead of the wings plays a critical role in aerodynamic flutter control. Based on dry weights, 8 TF33s weigh something like 38,000 pounds. The dry weight of 4 RB211-535s is roughly 31,000 pounds. If you add in the weight of the pylons, cowlings and thrust reversers, which I imagine are much heavier for the RB211s, the installed weight will be very close to that of the existing TF33 installation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2013 22:35
|
|
|
Yesterday I attempted to fly from Roanoke to Philadelphia on a US Airways dash 8. The flight was diverted back to Roanoke twice. The first flight left after being on a PHL ground stop until 5, they took off. They said the weather radar didn't work, so we went back to Roanoke. They replaced the radar, delayed for weather until 9:30 and we took off again. They announced "we have a different kind of problem with the radar now, we can't land in Philadelphia". This is after being in the air for two hours, flying through clouds. So they finally got us back around midnight (this was a 3:20p flight), gave us a voucher for another flight, re-booked us, and kicked us to the curb saying there are no hotel rooms available. (I got a room at the Holiday Inn right next to the airport no problem) Visual aid, the aircraft in question:  Most of the passengers I was flying with were rabid pissed, and wanted to kill everyone. Should I be pissed? Personally, I rather enjoyed my two free airplane rides.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2013 00:17
|
|
|
Does the airport close at night? We've been diverted to Sitka before and that airport kicks you out at 1am. You have no choice but to book a room, since they don't give hotel rooms for weather diversions. Well, that or wander around outside all night in Alaska wearing the clothes you boarded with in Maui.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2013 02:43
|
|
|
I'd be mad if I didn't just get two free flights in a cool prop airplane.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2013 03:42
|
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:I don't care what engine is used, so long as I get to see BUFFs with 4 big ones. The first CF6 to fly was on a B-52, after all. We know they fit. Not my best photoshop, but having 4 big ones makes the BUFF almost look commercial. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2013 02:26
|
|
|
Blistex posted:Not my best photoshop, but having 4 big ones makes the BUFF almost look commercial. I like how the outer one is noticeably hanging below the wingtip landing gear.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2013 03:02
|
|
|
ApathyGifted posted:I like how the outer one is noticeably hanging below the wingtip landing gear. Just put a skid plate on the bottom of the engine like they do with the wingtips on a U-2, problem solved. Man if I was a props guys at a BUFF base where they actually did that I'd probably just kill myself
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2013 04:13
|
|
|
The obvious solution is just to mount them overwing, like the An-72 or the YC-14.  (They have the prototype YC-14 at the Pima Air and Space Museum, go check it out if you can make it there) Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 04:18 on Apr 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2013 04:14
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:The obvious solution is just to mount them overwing, like the An-72 or the YC-14. Man, replace the raydome with a navagator/bombadier's glass nose and I'd swear that thing was Russian.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2013 04:18
|
|
|
Yeah, I was actually just about to edit my post to comment on how similar the two are. I never really noticed it before but drat. They both were under development at the same time, too. Sounds like someone was leaking something, one way or another...
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2013 04:20
|
|
|
The overwing engine design somehow also generates extra lift. I think the Antonov designers were specifically thinking about taking off in the summer in the mountains. Not sure about Boeing. That said, I think there is some penalty to fuel economy with the over-wing design. I remember reading Antonov now offered the An-72 with conventional engines?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2013 04:25
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:The overwing engine design somehow also generates extra lift. I think the Antonov designers were specifically thinking about taking off in the summer in the mountains. Not sure about Boeing. It seems like it would make the wing heavier, which would hurt fuel economy. Also maintenance access. And you're right about the An-72/74 being offered with underwing engines, this is what it looks like.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2013 04:35
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:The obvious solution is just to mount them overwing, like the An-72 or the YC-14. That's just ridiculous to look at. I also feel terrible for the crew because that poo poo has to be loud as all get out. Plane probably handles a one engine out emergency really well though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2013 04:37
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:The overwing engine design somehow also generates extra lift. It's like super mega blown flaps; a lot of the engine thrust sticks to the wing in this configuration, so when the flaps are down you get a lot of additional downward thrust. I'd imagine the same effect is what reduces fuel economy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2013 04:45
|
|
|
/\ Coandă effect! /\Nebakenezzer posted:The overwing engine design somehow also generates extra lift. I think the Antonov designers were specifically thinking about taking off in the summer in the mountains. Not sure about Boeing. Upper Surface Blowing is a variation on the blown flap concept for high lift devices; the really really overly simplified version is that by artificially increasing the amount of air traveling over a wing (either through using blown flaps or, in the case of USB, by just mounting the engine exhaust so it blows over the wing) you trick the wing into thinking it is moving faster than it really is, producing more lift. The AMST project that Boeing developed the YC-14 for was specifically concerned with STOL performance in the tactical airlift role, so mounting the engines in such a way above the wing also had the side benefit of reducing FOD concerns. Incidentally the C-17 (which was developed from the YC-14's competition in the AMST program, the YC-15) uses a form of high lift device that is somewhat similar in concept to USB, if not actual design, in that instead of having a split in the flaps for the engine thrust to be directed to (like most airliners, for example) the flaps just go straight across the wing. It means the flaps have to be structurally stronger than your average airliner but it also serves as a rather effective high lift device.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2013 04:46
|
|
|
1.5 months late but hahahaha gently caress the F-35. http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2013/03/01/us-general-australian-outburst-could-undermine-f-35-program/?intcmp=sem_outloud
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2013 07:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 23:40 |
|
|
Bogdan is the right man for the job.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2013 16:12
|
|