|
Understeer posted:What was it about toy planes with retractable landing gear? Fixed gear? Not interested. Because fixed gear ruined *~my immersion~* when I was putting on pretend dog fights and air strikes.  Those Force One die casts were the best too because they had removable weaponry. Create your own loadout (I had a Blue Angels F-18 that of course always flew in clean configuration)
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 01:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 08:00 |
|
|
MikeyTsi posted:I've still got one of those, complete. Although a dog chewed on one or two of the missiles. Well if it's the F-35, it doesn't work at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 01:24
|
|
|
All of this toy chat has me thinking that I need to get my nephew something soon for his Birthday, and if I get him a plane/helo/etc, who makes good quality ones that aren't expensive ($30ish?). He's quite mechanical for his age of 7, and doesn't seem to go for big chunky things.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 02:14
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:Well if it's the F-35, it doesn't work at all. The F-35B and really the harrier are STOVL.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 02:51
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:All of this toy chat has me thinking that I need to get my nephew something soon for his Birthday, and if I get him a plane/helo/etc, who makes good quality ones that aren't expensive ($30ish?). He's quite mechanical for his age of 7, and doesn't seem to go for big chunky things. Die-cast airliners could be nice I guess. I mean, I liked them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 03:03
|
|
|
BTW, the aircraft carrier in the picture I posted IS the GI Joe aircraft carrier, the USS Saratoga. We found it at a garage sale about a year ago. Great find.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 03:51
|
|
|
vulturesrow posted:BTW, the aircraft carrier in the picture I posted IS the GI Joe aircraft carrier, the USS Saratoga. We found it at a garage sale about a year ago. Great find. Did you know the uss Flagg could support the weight of 2 but not 3 eight year olds on the deck? We found that out. My dad poo poo a brick. He played with it almost as much as we did.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 07:17
|
|
|
So, seems NBO is burning down: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-23598012 Impressive to see a fire start in the immigration area of an airport that can cause that much damage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 07:26
|
|
|
PatrickBateman posted:Did you know the uss Flagg could support the weight of 2 but not 3 eight year olds on the deck? We found that out. My dad poo poo a brick. He played with it almost as much as we did. The Christmas I came out of my room to find USS Flagg set up in the living room was one of the most amazing moments of my childhood. My dad ended up giving it to a coworkers son when I was in high school. (Late nineties.) Every so often, I send him ebay listings for complete Flaggs going for nearly $1k, just to taunt him a bit. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 11:39
|
|
|
Apologies if a respostquote:It is already known for one of America's most stomach-churning takeoffs, an abrupt, steep ascent which can make passengers feel like they are blasting into space. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/07/newport-beach-john-wayne-airport-takeoff Is the takeoff really that steep from there already?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 17:30
|
|
|
Illuminati by Nature posted:Is the takeoff really that steep from there already? I fly out of SNA fairly often- I'd say it's definitely steeper but it doesn't feel that out of the ordinary. There is often a power cut about thirty seconds after takeoff while crossing Newport Bay and then the climb/engine noise resumes, but it's quite possible not to notice it if you aren't paying attention, I'd estimate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 17:41
|
|
|
gently caress it, let's just close down every airport! Then all the NIMBYs can be happy, what with having to drive everywhere and not being able to travel international. The previous talk about these kind of people in the thread reminds me of a gun range I go to nearby. It is the oldest range in my area, founded in the late 1800s way before any development happened in the area. And yet all the shitheads that had houses built literally on all sides of the place complain about it all the time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 17:42
|
|
|
gently caress those people. I live 10-15 miles from O'Hare airport, under an often used take off/ascent path, and you just get used to the noise. It's not even that bad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 18:18
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:gently caress those people. I live 10-15 miles from O'Hare airport, under an often used take off/ascent path, and you just get used to the noise. It's not even that bad. But *my sense of entitlement* Dumb question: do piston-engined aircraft have transmissions? If they don't, do they have anything in place to keep the engine from running too fast and fraging itself?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 19:00
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:But *my sense of entitlement* Most light aircraft engines are direct-drive: there's a propeller bolted to the driveshaft. That, in itself, serves as a fairly effective governor. Since drag goes up with the square of velocity, the engines become horsepower-limited trying to spin an ever-increasing load before they over-rev.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 19:07
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:But *my sense of entitlement* There have been aircraft with gearboxes, they're incredibly uncommon though. A very light plane will likely have nothing but the throttle controlling the engine RPM, a not quite so light plane will have a constant RPM propeller & governor system that should limit the engine RPM, but any sudden change in airspeed (like a wind gust) has the potential of raising the engine RPM still, if you're flying too close to red line in a windy/gusty day, then you're risking your engine dying.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 19:08
|
|
|
You also manage the RPMs to keep them out of the red arc using either the throttle, for fixed pitch props, or the prop pitch level for constant speed props.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 19:09
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:gently caress those people. I live 10-15 miles from O'Hare airport, under an often used take off/ascent path, and you just get used to the noise. It's not even that bad. Used to live on Damen and Foster right under the international approach. Loved chilling with beers in my back yard watching huge gently caress off planes blast overhead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 19:27
|
|
|
I have no sympathy for people that build around airports/race tracks/gun ranges/etc. then start complaining about noise. Most jurisdictions seem pretty good at telling people to pound sand, but there are a few that just caved (Laguna Seca  )
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 20:05
|
|
|
The problem isn't so much the residents in my opinion, it's the retarded city and council that allow a lot of these developments in the first place. We are fighting a continual battle at our gun range with owners and a mayor hell-bent on closing us down. The real kicker with us is that we (as a club) actually owned land further away, but the city asked to swap land with us which moved us closer to population and then, to top it all off, zoned residential a very short distance from the top of the coulee which is our backstop. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 20:15
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Dumb question: do piston-engined aircraft have transmissions? If they don't, do they have anything in place to keep the engine from running too fast and fraging itself? A lot of them have a variable-pitch propeller, which you can think of as a kind of CVT. The engine RPM is the same but more torque is transmitted to the air. Feather the prop and you get neutral.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 20:16
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:But *my sense of entitlement*
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 20:34
|
|
|
Another dumb question: I heard piston engined airplanes still use magnetic ignitions, is that still true? Also, do they have fail-safes for things like the direct ignition system (assuming they have one?) too?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
Illuminati by Nature posted:Apologies if a respost Wow, they have been fighting the jets since 1968 and the 737 at that airport: http://www.ocair.com/communityrelations/faq-noise.aspx
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
As stated above, most small aircraft engines are direct drive, however, there are a few notable exceptions, like the GTSIO-520 in the Cessna 421, the GO-300 in the Cessna 175, numerous engines installed in the Aero Commander 500 series, every Rotax engine ever built, etc etc. they're certainly not unheard of. Smaller radial engines tend to be direct drive, as well, up to the R-985-sized engines, generally. Even these had transmissions of a sort, since many of them had supercharger drives. Again, as stated, engine RPM is generally governed not by the throttle, but by the propeller pitch, generally through some form of constant speed prop. Once you get into seriously large radials, particularly turbocharged engines, you start to see the danger of engine over-speed, since those engines were designed to be operated with the throttle opened all the way, and the turbocharger wastegate used as the means of setting power. In this condition, a governor failure could (and did,) result in engine damage, and even crashes. PAA943 was lost over the pacific due to an overspeed failure of one of its R-4360s, which left her too far from either shore on only three engines, with a flat-pitch fourth engine. She circled a coast guard cutter for hours and ditched in the morning with no loss of life. A minor correction to another poster above, think of flat pitch (knob all the way forward, highest RPM,) as first gear, and pulling the knob backward (lowering RPM,) as slowly changing gears upwards. Feathering a prop, in contrast, puts it at an extremely high angle of attack, in respect to the motion of the axes, but an extremely low angle of attack, reference the aircraft's motion; Feathered is actually more equivalent to a gear so high the engine can't make enough torque to turn it, in a car. But it is generally only used when an engine is shut down, so I guess the neutral comment makes sense in that way. Edited for derp. MrYenko fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Aug 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 20:47
|
|
|
longview posted:Another dumb question: I heard piston engined airplanes still use magnetic ignitions, is that still true? Also, do they have fail-safes for things like the direct ignition system (assuming they have one?) too? Currently, most aircraft use magnetos, yes, and almost always have two separate mags. Mags are cool, because the ignition key doesn't energize them, it actually GROUNDS them, in the off position. In almost every way, aircraft mags fail ON. That's why hand-propping is dumb, and dangerous.  Newer piston aircraft with FADEC use two entirely separate electrical systems, (dual batteries, dual alternators,) in order to run electronic ignition, but they're in a very small minority, due to the legally-imposed weight penalty of these failsafes. MrYenko fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Aug 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
Mike-o posted:gently caress it, let's just close down every airport! Then all the NIMBYs can be happy, what with having to drive everywhere and not being able to travel international. The previous talk about these kind of people in the thread reminds me of a gun range I go to nearby. It is the oldest range in my area, founded in the late 1800s way before any development happened in the area. And yet all the shitheads that had houses built literally on all sides of the place complain about it all the time. Those folks finally got the only drag strip in Kansas city shut down a few years back even though it had been there way longer than any developments in the area.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 22:16
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Currently, most aircraft use magnetos, yes, and almost always have two separate mags. Mags are cool, because the ignition key doesn't energize them, it actually GROUNDS them, in the off position. In almost every way, aircraft mags fail ON. This is why my Dad's Tigermoth has an electric starter now. (Another five pounds ahead of the firewall's just gravy)
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 22:19
|
|
|
slidebite posted:The problem isn't so much the residents in my opinion, it's the retarded city and council that allow a lot of these developments in the first place. All according to plan. They get the land they wanted, then get your closer swapped location shut down, you end up selling to a developer who pays lots of fees to the city for development, and then builds a big 'something' that increases the cities tax base.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 22:35
|
|
|
http://www.independent.co.uk/travel...ts-8749046.html Ryanair forces pilots to only have the bare minimum amount of fuel for the flight. How hard can Europe FAA come down on them if this is true?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 23:02
|
|
|
quote:It details how the 27-year-old Ryanair captain decided not to take on any additional fuel other than that calculated in his flight plan. Is it normal for a 27 year old to be in charge of 177 passengers? Even if he spent 18-26 flying for the military that seems like insufficient experience to have so much responsibility. quote:At that point the captain, and his 22-year-old co-pilot, made a decision to divert to Valencia. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 23:13
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:The only thing is, after a while, those landing gear stop sticking closed, so they just hang loosely all the time. I used tiny balls of that sticky poster-mounting tack, worked great! My problem was with the helicopter blades that folded up if you tried to make them spin for a prolonged period of time.  Hind!I couldn't stand the first generation of MicroMachines planes. Seriously, this is just unacceptable.  After I'd gotten out of them, they started making the really good loving plane sets with stuff like the Aurora and the Osprey. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 23:24
|
|
|
jaegerx posted:http://www.independent.co.uk/travel...ts-8749046.html It's happening in the US as well; AA has been the subject of many rants on this very subject, amongst others. According to the letter of the law, it is perfectly legal for Ryanair to restrict fuel loads to the legal minimum. However, if an aircraft fueled as such was to divert for minimum fuel, the pilots could be rung up under the catch-all for allowing the aircraft to get into such a state. It wouldn't get far from the pilot's perspective, as the blame would quickly shift from them to the airline. Also, as much as it would save fuel cost, it overlooks the cost of diverting an airliner - it only takes a handful of extra diversions to completely negate the rather small fuel savings they acheived. Penny-wise but pound-stupid, if you ask me. Jealous Cow posted:Is it normal for a 27 year old to be in charge of 177 passengers? Even if he spent 18-26 flying for the military that seems like insufficient experience to have so much responsibility. They do things very different in Europe to North America. Many airlines operate cadet programs that will take you pretty much right out of high school (or the equivalent) and into an airliner after 18-24 months of training and roughly 250 hours of experience. Also, they are really pushing the multi-crew pilot license over there, which allows pilots to move up to PIC a lot faster. The standard ATPL license has a fairly large requirement for PIC cross-country flying, which if you're flying right seat in a 737 as your first job, you're probably not going to get any time soon. Instead of that, there are a number of other requirements to get an MCPL that must be met that are more applicable to scheduled airline flying.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 23:24
|
|
|
jaegerx posted:http://www.independent.co.uk/travel...ts-8749046.html If the JAA is anything like the FAA, they probably can't (or won't) do anything until there's an accident caused by fuel exhaustion. Airlines publicly stating "we allow pilots to decide how much fuel to carry" (and putting it in writing) and then strongly discouraging pilots from actually carrying contingency fuel has been going on in the US for years, since airline management has realized that as long as a flight takes off with the legal minimum of fuel per FAA rules (regardless of what common sense says), the FAA will generally blame the pilot if the airplane is found to have burned substantially into that reserve by the time it lands. Generally, the bad press associated with being accused of cutting corners to the point where it endangers safety is enough to keep airlines in the US from going too nuts about contingency fuel, but since Ryanair seems to think "any publicity is good publicity", I'm not sure that method would work with them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 23:27
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:
Well I disagree with the opinion that it's "dumb," but certainly it's a dangerous technique when not performed correctly, as are many things involving complex machinery.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 01:09
|
|
|
It's not like airliners are running around on fumes here. Airlines all have some kind of contingency fueling going on in addition to the fuel needed to get to the destination and the three alternates needed (I think) to comply with part 121. Guys just get in a huff when they cant fly around with all of their "feel good" fuel which can add up to hundreds or thousands of extra pounds of weight just to give the pilots warm fuzzies. You want to have more fuel when you get to your destination? Fly higher.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 02:34
|
|
|
VOR LOC posted:It's not like airliners are running around on fumes here. Airlines all have some kind of contingency fueling going on in addition to the fuel needed to get to the destination and the three alternates needed (I think) to comply with part 121. Guys just get in a huff when they cant fly around with all of their "feel good" fuel which can add up to hundreds or thousands of extra pounds of weight just to give the pilots warm fuzzies. You want to have more fuel when you get to your destination? Fly higher. And then you have to go around a few times and are diverted, then are bellow minimums and are fined. Also go higher? That'll work we'll for short haul flights. RJ2s might not even reach their assigned altitudes!
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 02:44
|
|
|
VOR LOC posted:It's not like airliners are running around on fumes here. Airlines all have some kind of contingency fueling going on in addition to the fuel needed to get to the destination and the three alternates needed (I think) to comply with part 121. The number of alternates required under 121 varies with weather. If the weather is VFR at the departure and destination, it's legal to not file an alternate, but that requires an additional two (or three) hours of fuel to be on the aircraft. With a destination alternate, the fuel requirement is enough to get to the destination and alternate airport, plus an extra 30-45 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 02:52
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:And then you have to go around a few times and are diverted, then are bellow minimums and are fined. Go around a few times? I only need two fingers to count how many times I've gone around in the last year. Going around just doesn't happen that often, not nearly enough that you need to plan to do it every leg. Weather? you cant even start the approach unless you have the mins to get in, so that rare as well. Like I said, you still have contingency fueling as well, so I don't buy this whole "we don't have enough gas whah!" attitude. As for the CRJ 200, stop flying those pieces of poo poo and we wont have that problem
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 02:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 08:00 |
|
|
VOR LOC posted:Go around a few times? I only need two fingers to count how many times I've gone around in the last year. Going around just doesn't happen that often, not nearly enough that you need to plan to do it every leg. Weather? you cant even start the approach unless you have the mins to get in, so that rare as well. Like I said, you still have contingency fueling as well, so I don't buy this whole "we don't have enough gas whah!" attitude. I literally said what happened to the Ryanair flight though. edit: also posting from the exit row of a CRJ200
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 02:58
|
|