|
Of the many things Germany builds properly, airports don't seem to be one of them. Is Berlin Brandenburg open yet? Having said that, the new concourse at Frankfurt where the LH A380s come in is very nice. The rest of the airport, not so much. Nothing beats stepping off the shiny A380 from Tokyo and walking into a brand new terminal, only having to go on what seemed to be an endless array of elevators, escalators, checkpoints and narrow hallways to gate Z999 to be bussed to the (very well maintained) 737 classic home, parked miles away somewhere out on the apron. I think sometime in the 1990s one of the terminals even burned down.
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 18:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 11:41 |
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Also the -G wasn't so much a prank as it was a prime example of what Lockheed's bribe money could get them. Seriously outside of what Kelly Johnson and Ben Rich designed everything that company has ever done can just gently caress right off. See also: The F-35 project.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 21:25
|
|
|
Tsuru posted:Of the many things Germany builds properly, airports don't seem to be one of them. Is Berlin Brandenburg open yet? Berlin Brandenburg will open roughly when Berlin as a state isn't poorer than Germany on average. So never. And Frankfurt airport is a shitshow, especially Terminal 1. I used to regularly fly Frankfurt-Incheon and it's hard to come up with a bigger contrast in airport quality. Flying back into Frankfurt was always slightly depressing. I can't wait until they open Terminal 3, which is on the other side of the goddamn runways. Good luck if you have to transfer to or from that terminal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 21:32
|
|
|
Glad I'm not the only one who dislikes Frankfurt.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 21:57
|
|
|
parrhesia posted:Berlin Brandenburg will open roughly when Berlin as a state isn't poorer than Germany on average. So never. I go from YVR to LAX on a regular basis, its night and day different. I wish they would bulldoze LAX and start again. Separating airlines by terminals and having no train line connecting them is terrible, getting in and out of the airport is terrible, most of the terminals are terrible. Heaven help you if you are flying out of Terminal 1, the check in lines and the security lines often stretch out the door and down the street its so bad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 21:58
|
|
|
Anybody seeing anything worth reading about the F-15SE buy in S. Korea? Internet seems to indicate that EADS dropped out due to paperwork irregularities, and Lockheed can't bribe themselves past the pricetag, so Boeing is in. They pretty much have to build these in St. Louis, right? Am I likely to see test articles flying in my neighborhood more and soon?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 22:01
|
|
|
parrhesia posted:I can't wait until they open Terminal 3, which is on the other side of the goddamn runways. Good luck if you have to transfer to or from that terminal. RIP Rhein-Main Air Base (closed in 2005). Flew in to there for my first assignment. From what Wikipedia says it looks like most of the buildings are long gone, I assume the air park is still there with the Berlin Airlift memorial and C-47.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 22:12
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Also the -G wasn't so much a prank as it was a prime example of what Lockheed's bribe money could get them. Seriously outside of what Kelly Johnson and Ben Rich designed everything that company has ever done can just gently caress right off. But Kelly Johnson designed the F-104! Also, I've said it before, but I'll say it again; there wasn't anything about the F-104 itself that made it an inherently dangerous or otherwise bad aircraft. If you take a brand new air force that had only flown simple, slow F-84s and F-86s, then give them a complex, Mach 2-capable fighter, then tell them to fly at 480 knots and a hundred feet of the ground over a country notorious for cloudy and hazy weather...yeah, you're going to have a LOT of accidents. Having said that, Lockheed and their bribery can gently caress right off though. OptimusMatrix posted:HD video of the most awesome airplane ever. The F14. The F-14 is like the C3 Corvette of fighter aircraft; cool as hell to look at but irredeemably bad underneath.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 22:19
|
|
|
OptimusMatrix posted:HD video of the most awesome airplane ever. The F14. gently caress F-14's are awesome. I wish some developer would create a full-on flight sim to the extent that DCS A-10 is but for the Tomcat. I'd play that forever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 22:29
|
|
|
MrChips posted:If you take a brand new air force that had only flown simple, slow F-84s and F-86s, then give them a complex, Mach 2-capable fighter, then tell them to fly at 480 knots and a hundred feet of the ground over a country notorious for cloudy and hazy weather...yeah, you're going to have a LOT of accidents. NATO had the whole 'interdiction is the only viable ground attack' approach going on at that time, so the F-104G was kind of inevitable from that point of view, and you can see the same doctrine with the Jaguar and Tornado. And IIRC the -G was necessary for the ultimate (interceptor) F-104 (the -S) so it'd have been a sadder world without it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 22:32
|
|
|
MrChips posted:But Kelly Johnson designed the F-104! Lockheed was pretty far along with a project to build a big-winged F-104 that would have addressed a lot of the performance issues with the stub-winged must-go-mach2 version. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_CL-1200 Would have competed in the F-5 and F-16 markets, had they gone ahead with it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 22:33
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:gently caress F-14's are awesome. I wish some developer would create a full-on flight sim to the extent that DCS A-10 is but for the Tomcat. I'd play that forever. *Starts top gun theme* gently caress yeah this is awesome! *twists stick a little too much after take off* *both engines flame out* On second thought... SybilVimes posted:NATO had the whole 'interdiction is the only viable ground attack' approach going on at that time, so the F-104G was kind of inevitable from that point of view, and you can see the same doctrine with the Jaguar and Tornado. And IIRC the -G was necessary for the ultimate (interceptor) F-104 (the -S) so it'd have been a sadder world without it. This is the F-15E's role as well yes?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 22:38
|
|
|
MrChips posted:The F-14 is like the C3 Corvette of fighter aircraft; cool as hell to look at but irredeemably bad underneath. As someone who grew up watching Top Gun, I'd fuckin' cut you if if it wasn't for the pity I have because you're so clearly fail-at-life wrong  As a grown-up engineer who never had or will work with F-14's, I'm curious to hear just what was wrong with them and what god-awful design decisions were made, apart from the swing wing box being a loving nightmare. I've read that they were a "maintenance bitch", but never any more than that. Paging Nebakenezzer, Nebakenezzer to the F-14 mega-post
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 22:39
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:
And F-16.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 22:41
|
|
|
hannibal posted:I assume the air park is still there with the Berlin Airlift memorial and C-47. Is the other part at Tempelhof or something? https://plus.google.com/114023407285847570186/about?hl=en Looks p. cool. The airpark shouldn't have to be vacated since it's outside the construction zone for the new terminal, but if they ever redevelop that particular spot it'll probably be moved to an appropriate site nearby. CharlesM posted:Glad I'm not the only one who dislikes Frankfurt. Transferred once, never again. Hell, I'd rather use CdG if the choice was between those two since the French have at least kept the terminals clustered and up-to-date. DUS and HAM are nice enough as alternative destination points for NW Germany/the Low Countries/Denmark (since O/D tickets in Germany tend to be cheaper) but they all massively suck in security hassle and customs slowness. The former because all that poo poo got outsourced to companies like G4S who now get to play out their power fantasies, while the latter always seems to be massively understaffed/unable to cope with the tiny number of really big international arrivals coming in at relatively small airports. Slo-Tek posted:Anybody seeing anything worth reading about the F-15SE buy in S. Korea? Internet seems to indicate that EADS dropped out due to paperwork irregularities, and Lockheed can't bribe themselves past the pricetag, so Boeing is in. This is the fixed-cost contract right? Internet forum scuttlebutt was that no bid would come in at, or below, the asking price so the thing would either be A. postponed to show the Korean people they're serious about cost management & doing things transparantly or B. evolve into multiple bidding rounds to get one of the suppliers to eat into their own margins and buy their own revenue/production line security. It all sounded a bit fanciful and this was a couple of months ago and I can't remember where I read it  e: Northrop allegedly bribed the NL into a(n extra) F-5 contract as well so it wasn't solely a Lockheed thing (more like a number of big hitters on the European side independently pressured suppliers into buying them off). I've always wondered whether or not the F11-F Super Tiger would have done well instead of the Witwenmacher. Koesj fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Aug 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 22:45
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:As someone who grew up watching Top Gun, I'd fuckin' cut you if if it wasn't for the pity I have because you're so clearly fail-at-life wrong Top Gun sucks, The Final Countdown sucks. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 23:10
|
|
|
Koesj posted:I've always wondered whether or not the F11-F Super Tiger would have done well instead of the Witwenmacher. Considering the F-11 is the only jet with the dubious honor of shooting itself down, I'd say no. http://www.aerofiles.com/tiger-tail.html quote:On Sep 21, 1956 Grumman test pilot Tom Attridge shot himself down in a graphic demonstration of two objects occupying the wrong place at the same time—one being a Grumman F11F-1 Tiger [138260], the other a gaggle of its own bullets.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 23:20
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:As someone who grew up watching Top Gun, I'd fuckin' cut you if if it wasn't for the pity I have because you're so clearly fail-at-life wrong Basically, the early "A" models had some serious teething issues, but they were largely fixed by the time the "D" model rolled out. Most of the issues were caused by the choice of the TF30 engine for the initial production models. Soon after being put into service on the F-14, the TF30 developed a somewhat alarming habit of turbine blade failures, which required reinforcement of the engine bays to prevent the shrapnel generated by a blade failure from taking out critical flight controls, starting a fire, or disabling the other engine. Adding to the fun, the TF30 was originally designed for use on an airliner, which meant that rapid power changes and heavy maneuvering weren't something the engine was happy with. During rapid power changes or maneuvers at high AoA (or simply flying above about 30,000ft), the TF30 was very prone to compressor stalls with the resulting asymmetric thrust often causing severe yaw oscillations, and it could lead to an unrecoverable flat spin in some situations. Aside from the compressor stalls, it was also discovered that launching missiles at certain altitude/airspeed combinations would result in the engine ingesting the rocket exhaust from the weapon, which lead to a compressor stall. The exhaust ingestion issue was largely solved by modifications to the intakes, but the compressor stalls wouldn't be resolved until a new engine was fitted. Starting with the B model, the F-14 switched to using the GE F110 series of engines, which was not only far less prone to compressor stalls than the TF30, but also produced around 10,000lbs more thrust per engine, improving carrier takeoff performance, high altitude performance, and providing a much needed boost to the Tomcat's thrust/weight ratio when heavily loaded. The F-14 also suffered from stability issues that could make the aircraft a handful on landing. Although the aircraft was quite stable through most of the flight envelope, in the landing configuration it was prone to a phenomena known as Dutch roll, where a roll input from the pilot would cause the aircraft to also yaw, which made lining up with an aircraft carrier somewhat problematic. The Dutch roll issue (along with the flat spin problem) was largely addressed in the mid 1990's by the addition of a digital flight control system. By the time the F-14D came out in 1991, most of the underlying issues with the aircraft had been resolved, but the large number of older F-14A models still in service (557 A models were built, versus only 52 built as/converted to D models) meant that the F-14 fleet required about twice as much maintenance per flight hour as the newer F-18, and lacked the precision ground attack capability of the Hornet, in addition to having aging avionics that were increasingly obsolete and incompatible with newer weapon systems. There was consideration given to modernizing the F-14 fleet, but in the end it was decided the upgrades would simply be too expensive relative to buying brand new F-18's that didn't already have decades of wear and tear on them. azflyboy fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Aug 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 23:21
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:As a grown-up engineer who never had or will work with F-14's, I'm curious to hear just what was wrong with them and what god-awful design decisions were made, apart from the swing wing box being a loving nightmare. I've read that they were a "maintenance bitch", but never any more than that. OK but the first step in the project is usually me spending a month building a plastic model so it may take awhile Actually I'm curious about the tomcat too, for the reasons you listed and a few others. I do know that the F-14A that flew in the 70s and 80s had a terrible, terrible engine in it; literally described in a senate hearing as "the worst engine ever put into a Navy aircraft." I can also tell you right now is that Dick Cheney was already working on being the most hated man in America when he was Defense Secretary, as he wanted to cancel the F-14D upgrade because it was a 'jobs' program (IE not a republican jobs program as Grumman is based in Long Island.) Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 23:24 on Aug 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 23:22
|
|
|
CharlesM posted:Top Gun sucks, The Final Countdown sucks. You shut your whore mouth 
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 00:36
|
|
|
Mike-o posted:You shut your whore mouth  Now tell me again, with a straight face, that Top Gun is awesome.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 01:26
|
|
|
Mike-o posted:You shut your whore mouth I choose to believe he's trolling, because clearly, it's just not true. Although Final Countdown is very much a B-grade movie. And Tom Cruise is a loving space-cadet looney who hides under the bedsheets because Xenu is coming to get him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 01:26
|
|
|
D C posted:I go from YVR to LAX on a regular basis, its night and day different. As far as I know, ATL is the only big airport that nails this: you can get between any two domestic flights with at most a train ride and a long walk, no matter if you're changing airlines or not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 01:57
|
|
|
Cocoa Crispies posted:As far as I know, ATL is the only big airport that nails this: you can get between any two domestic flights with at most a train ride and a long walk, no matter if you're changing airlines or not. Yeah it's great. Get to your plane on time just to wait an hour until takeoff. I hate atl so much. I landed once and spent 45 minutes taxing to gate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 02:04
|
|
|
Cocoa Crispies posted:As far as I know, ATL is the only big airport that nails this: you can get between any two domestic flights with at most a train ride and a long walk, no matter if you're changing airlines or not. Counterpoint: every loving connection through ATL involves switching terminals on a train. v vEdit: usually I make it with minutes to spare.... only to find my connection delayed for 2 hours.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 02:05
|
|
|
polpotpotpotpotpot posted:Counterpoint: every loving connection through ATL involves switching terminals on a train. v I usually give myself at least two hours, and drink at the Sky Club closest to (what is believed to be) my departure gate. A train ride is better than a bus ride and re-clearing security though (gently caress you LHR).
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 02:57
|
|
|
MrChips posted:
Is this supposed to convince us that it's not? Because...uh...
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 03:25
|
|
|
ATL was my hub for 10 years or so, and I got real good at walking between terminals (instead of using the train) and ignoring the Mayor's high-volume recorded announcements. Also I was a Deltalina fan. 
ChickenOfTomorrow fucked around with this message at 03:28 on Aug 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 03:26
|
|
|
I used to fly out of ATL 4-6 times a year for over a decade growing up (divorced parents living states away), and I can still recall and mimic perfectly the automated train announcers voice. I was so disappointed when I went back a few years ago and they had updated the system with a different voice.  It can be a bitch trying to get to your gate on time, though I mostly found that traffic on the way to the airport was the biggest deciding factor in that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 03:49
|
|
|
I learned quickly to schedule connections through ATL with at least an hour lay-over. Guaranteed at least a 30 min delay, and gives you plenty of time to get from gate to gate. I've argued until I was blue in the face with people who would connect through there with only a 15 min layover. "Oh, it'll be landing in terminal A and i'll take off in terminal D. Can't be that bad, it's only 3 letters."
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 04:14
|
|
|
You guys are making me glad the worst I usually have to deal with is SeaTac. The only problem there is that every goddamn flight arrives after the last flight to wherever you want to go has already left, necessitating an overnight wherever you can get the furthest away from the news TVs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 05:29
|
|
|
ChickenOfTomorrow posted:Also I was a Deltalina fan. Is she telling passengers where the emergency exits are or announcing that she is about to eat their souls?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 05:49
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Is this supposed to convince us that it's not? Because...uh... Hell I'm straight as an arrow and that scene is so gay that it warps back around to straight awesome.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 05:54
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:Is she telling passengers where the emergency exits are or announcing that she is about to eat their souls? "Smoking is not allowed on any Delta flights."
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 06:08
|
|
|
Cocoa Crispies posted:"Smoking is not allowed on any Delta flights." Well then, she should not be allowed on any Delta flights. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 07:16
|
|
|
MrChips posted:The C-2 seat, fitted to the majority of F-104s, actually fired upward (the downward firing seats were only fitted to the first hundred or so Starfighters). The C-2 had stirrups because it was thought they would prevent flail injuries, as well as to ensure the pilot didn't leave his shins behind in the aircraft. Leg restraints are pretty standard on ejection seats, they've been on every type of ejection seat I've sat on. Also the F-14 stuff was covered pretty well except for one thing: the F-14D turned out to be a pretty good bomber. I'll try to write more tomorrow but I'm up way late (as usual) and need to hit the hay!
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 07:27
|
|
|
vulturesrow posted:Leg restraints are pretty standard on ejection seats, they've been on every type of ejection seat I've sat on. Leg restraints were standard equipment on (martin/martin-baker) seats by 1957, enough that this article on a new design notes that the leg restraints are not visible: http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1958/1958%20-%200052.html According to this they were originally added to the Mk3 seat, after Mk1 and Mk2 seats didn't sufficiently contain leg flailing, which was fitted to the early V bombers, so that'd be the Valiant in 1951: http://www.ejectorseats.co.uk/mba.html
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 11:28
|
|
|
ATL is set up for success, they're just so drat busy. I believe they tie, or lead, a couple other large US airports for busiest in the nation. The layout is as good as it gets though. All parallel runways, simultaneous operations authorized assuming proper weather/atc staffing conditions, large movement areas for aircraft. Plus, the terminals are set up the way they are so that any flight, leaving any gate, can taxi to either the north or south runway complex without having to go around the large terminal structure (since there are paths straight through either way.) Compare to DFW, where if you're on one of the east terminals but departing to the west, and it's busy, DFW might make you taxi all the way around the terminals to a bridge taking you over to the west side of the airport so you don't have to cut across traffic when departing the wrong side. I guess despite ATL's optimal configuration, the runways and airspace are still just too busy to keep up. Airports of that size tend to be capacity restricted due to the runways. The maximum number of operations on a given runway is finite and known, with allowances for non-perfect operations or conditions, and the only way to increase that capacity at peak times is to build more runways.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 11:41
|
|
|
Hartsfield is the busiest airport in the world by several metrics.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 12:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 11:41 |
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Hartsfield is the busiest airport in the world by several metrics. I believe it flops back and forth with O'Hare depending on how hosed United/American's scheduling is in a given year.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 14:31
|
|
