|
ManifunkDestiny posted:Apparently China has a response to the upcoming Disney movie, Planes: Wow, this was pretty drat entertaining. "Sidewinder". GET IT?!? Ha.
|
# ? Jun 3, 2013 20:25 |
|
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 07:02 |
|
block51 posted:Wow, this was pretty drat entertaining. "Sidewinder". GET IT?!? Ha. I like how the Sukhoi Cobra-flipped down out of the way.
|
# ? Jun 3, 2013 20:41 |
|
block51 posted:Wow, this was pretty drat entertaining. "Sidewinder". GET IT?!? Ha. I want to see a A380 painted like a killer whale now.
|
# ? Jun 3, 2013 21:21 |
|
ManifunkDestiny posted:Apparently China has a response to the upcoming Disney movie, Planes: This is fantastic.
|
# ? Jun 3, 2013 21:27 |
|
ManifunkDestiny posted:Apparently China has a response to the upcoming Disney movie, Planes: A: Amazing. B: I will never be able to see video of a tanker ever again without hearing it moo with pleasure when the receivers disconnect, in my head. C: Most importantly; Why the gently caress haven't we been painting our F-22s like that?
|
# ? Jun 3, 2013 22:10 |
|
The real hilarity is when you read the youtube comments on any video featuring the Chengdu J-20.
|
# ? Jun 4, 2013 01:27 |
|
Blistex posted:The real hilarity is when you read the youtube comments on any video featuring the Chengdu J-20. It's the second coming, and the F-22 stands no chance, ya, got it.
|
# ? Jun 4, 2013 01:28 |
|
I'll leave this here. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fcd_1370222773 1960's aerobatics.
|
# ? Jun 4, 2013 12:23 |
|
The cause of the Bagram 747 crash has been confirmed by investigators on the scene to be the facture of tie-downs on heavy vehicles, leading to a load shift and the center of gravity moving out of the controllable range. Simple, stupid, sad.
|
# ? Jun 5, 2013 02:07 |
|
That first comment makes me so angry. loving stupid people.
|
# ? Jun 5, 2013 02:14 |
|
There is a ton of stupid on that page, so you're going to have to post the stupid coment that made you angry.
|
# ? Jun 5, 2013 03:02 |
|
I'm going to assume it was the "Computers BAD, if only some infallible human had loaded the palates correctly and some other infallible human had been piloting and used MAX POWER instead of trying for efficiency this wouldn't have happened." One. It makes my brain hurt.
|
# ? Jun 5, 2013 03:08 |
|
Yeah pilots typically use 60% thrust for takeoff and save the other 40% for emergencies right? E: I think standard procedure on some airlines is to shut off 2 engines for short hops.
|
# ? Jun 5, 2013 03:09 |
|
quote:Thanks, FAA! You are a bit late for the seven souls lost with that 744. MY concern is that typical pax/baggage/freight flights are loaded by computer model, rarely direct weights. May of the average norms are wrong (let's start with average pax weight) and I suspect that many very ordinary flights takeoff well overweight. If the pilots routinely used MAX thrust, they would enjoy a comfortable fudge factor. They don't, usually using FLEX-POWER or similar, to save fuel and early engine maintenance. The smart pilots add a bit of extra thrust just as they carry a bit more fuel than the absolute minimum, even if they have to do a Carpet Dance every year. I see that Perfect Storm brewing... For the smart pilot, it really boils down to this: If you want to taxi at high speed, go for it and leave plenty of room to stop; I you intend to FLY, do it and climb to a safe altitude as quickly as possible.
|
# ? Jun 5, 2013 03:09 |
|
This just reinforces my theory that people frequently conflate technical specialist skills (engineering, pilots, etc) with actually being intelligent or thoughtful.
|
# ? Jun 5, 2013 03:31 |
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:This just reinforces my theory that people frequently conflate technical specialist skills (engineering, pilots, etc) with actually being intelligent or thoughtful. For all we know that guy might just be a ...which he clearly isn't. For one, "FLEX takeoff" is a term unique to Airbus (and Fokker I think); Boeing calls a derated takeoff something different...probably "derated takeoff".
|
# ? Jun 5, 2013 03:48 |
|
Well the guy demonstrates a basic ability to (incorrectly) grasp what terms mean. Regardless, he knows enough to be an idiot.
|
# ? Jun 5, 2013 03:51 |
|
Would max thrust have made any difference?
|
# ? Jun 5, 2013 06:11 |
|
CharlesM posted:Would max thrust have made any difference? It would've made the problem happen that much faster. The moron that wrote that comment cannot comprehend simple physics. A dramatic CG change isn't corrected by more thrust.
|
# ? Jun 5, 2013 06:20 |
|
Colonel K posted:I'll leave this here. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fcd_1370222773 1960's aerobatics. Brilliant.
|
# ? Jun 5, 2013 08:03 |
|
MrChips posted:For all we know that guy might just be a Yeah, you're right that he's not necessarily any sort of technical expert. I had the extreme displeasure of the engineering staff across the cube from me having a discussion about how Seatbelts Are Dumb for 25 minutes yesterday.
|
# ? Jun 5, 2013 14:13 |
|
MrChips posted:...which he clearly isn't. For one, "FLEX takeoff" is a term unique to Airbus (and Fokker I think); Boeing calls a derated takeoff something different...probably "derated takeoff". Boeing has "derated" takeoff settings and "assumed temperature" settings that let them utilize reduced thrust within those derates. The Mad Dog (MD-80) used FLEX settings of assumed temperature to lower takeoff thrust and if my memory serves me the G4 had a single Flex setting of reduced thrust for takeoff. None of which is really germane to the argument that a lot of the commenters on Avherald, Airliners.net and (wayback machine) Avsig are totally loving retarded.
|
# ? Jun 5, 2013 16:38 |
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:This just reinforces my theory that people frequently conflate technical specialist skills (engineering, pilots, etc) with actually being intelligent or thoughtful. This is exactly what people do. See also: Dunning-Kruger effect
|
# ? Jun 5, 2013 16:45 |
|
holocaust bloopers posted:It would've made the problem happen that much faster. The moron that wrote that comment cannot comprehend simple physics. A dramatic CG change isn't corrected by more thrust. It's like saying more horsepower is going to keep your car (that's spinning out of control on black ice) from going into the ditch. $5 says this guy logged an hour in HAWX and things he's an "Aeronautical Einstein".
|
# ? Jun 5, 2013 17:37 |
|
Blistex posted:It's like saying more horsepower is going to keep your car (that's spinning out of control on black ice) from going into the ditch. $5 says this guy logged an hour in HAWX and things he's an "Aeronautical Einstein". I don't understand what's so hard to understand about "the only thing that would saved that 747 is properly securing the load before take-off", there are no magic aerodynamic tricks to compensate for multi-ton armoured vehicles tumbling in your cargo bay a few hundred feet off the ground immediately after take-off. Internet
|
# ? Jun 5, 2013 17:40 |
|
Well, you compensate with a giant loving counterweight that takes up most of the lower cargo hold that compensates for CG shifts. Boeing why didn't you halve the cargo carrying capacity of the 744 to prevent CG shifts!!!!!
|
# ? Jun 5, 2013 17:54 |
|
hobbesmaster posted:Well, you compensate with a giant loving counterweight that takes up most of the lower cargo hold that compensates for CG shifts. loving corporations always trying to make a buck
|
# ? Jun 5, 2013 17:58 |
|
I get a paid day off on Tuesday, because my employer apparently forgot that one aircraft's hourly and another's engine overhaul were going to overlap Seeing all the boxes labeled Honeywell and American Eurocopter are like Christmas in June
|
# ? Jun 6, 2013 02:48 |
|
movax posted:there are no magic aerodynamic tricks to compensate for multi-ton armoured vehicles tumbling in your cargo bay a few hundred feet off the ground immediately after take-off But what if they had a rocket? Your move, gravity.
|
# ? Jun 6, 2013 04:53 |
|
Boeing to develop SRB-powered airliner, news at 11.
|
# ? Jun 6, 2013 04:56 |
|
Fucknag posted:Boeing to develop SRB-powered airliner, news at 11. Well, Lockheed did it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSFjhWw4DNo
|
# ? Jun 6, 2013 05:43 |
|
Phanatic posted:Well, Lockheed did it: Ah, the answer to the ancient question "How do you get a C-130 in and out of a soccer field?"
|
# ? Jun 6, 2013 05:51 |
|
This is kinda cool. Idlewild Airport TWA terminal, circa 1964. Much nicer than any terminal I've been in lately, although Changi 3 isn't bad though...
|
# ? Jun 6, 2013 13:08 |
|
From before things needed to be wheelchair accessible.
|
# ? Jun 6, 2013 13:12 |
|
Ardeem posted:Ah, the answer to the ancient question "How do you get a C-130 in and out of a soccer field?" Fun fact for those of you familiar with Eglin AFB. Credible Sport was tested/developed on the same Aux. Field (Wagner/AF 1) the Doolittle Raiders practiced on.
|
# ? Jun 6, 2013 13:56 |
|
Credible sport was such a ridiculous plan. Eagle claw was such a disaster that I fear what would have happened if we went through with that plan...
|
# ? Jun 6, 2013 14:01 |
|
I don't think there was one part of Credible sport that made sense. We're going to land, Delta Force will free the hostages, and we'll take off. What about the Iranian guards? Won't they fire on the aircraft, the soldiers, and possibly execute the hostages? Awe... Awww? You didn't even thing of that? A single stray bullet could turn all those JATOs into a giant fireball, killing everyone and. . . No sir, "A-W-E" They will be in Awe of our awesomeness. Awe will render the Iranian guards ineffective. We plan to blast Mr. Reagan's campaign song, "Born in the USA" to tell the Iranians how awe-some it is to be American. They will have no choice but to fall to the ground in awe. makes sense to me!
|
# ? Jun 6, 2013 16:00 |
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw Why were they painting black-red-black stripes on air support planes for this operation? Wikipedia has a couple pictures, but no real explanation.
|
# ? Jun 6, 2013 16:32 |
|
polpotpotpotpotpot posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw Invasion stripes; we sold Iran F-4s and F-14s; there was a lot of potential for confusion.
|
# ? Jun 6, 2013 17:23 |
|
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 07:02 |
|
hobbesmaster posted:Invasion stripes; we sold Iran F-4s and F-14s; there was a lot of potential for confusion. I think Iran (like everyone else) had some C-130s at the time too (they certainly do today)
|
# ? Jun 6, 2013 17:33 |