|
Saw this flying over North Seattle this afternoon, but all I had was my phone to get a picture. Anyone know what it is? Edit: I should say that the engine sounded pretty loud. It looks like a model in the photo, but it was too loud and low to be, in my opinion ctishman fucked around with this message at 06:56 on Sep 27, 2013 |
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 06:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 04:52 |
|
|
Probably some type of kit-plane. http://gearpatrol.com/2011/06/22/velocity-kit-aircraft/
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 06:56
|
|
|
Linedance posted:This laser chat is cool, but y'all are forgetting the havoc a kid with a 5mw laser pointer can wreak on an airliner from a mile or so out. We're talking about 100w. Deliberately, permanently blinding your adversary is probably banned under some convention or another, but targeting the flight deck /canopy is probably going to have more effective results than trying to burn a hole in the fuselage and hoping to get lucky hitting something critical. I'm pretty sure that actually is banned by something. Laser for killing = ok lasers for blinding = nope.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 07:05
|
|
|
Thanks for answering my question so thoroughly! This thread is really neat and I learn something new practically every time I read it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 08:09
|
|
|
ctishman posted:Saw this flying over North Seattle this afternoon, but all I had was my phone to get a picture. Anyone know what it is? I was going to say Beech Starship but that looks like it only has 1 engine. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 08:37
|
|
|
Linedance posted:This laser chat is cool, but y'all are forgetting the havoc a kid with a 5mw laser pointer can wreak on an airliner from a mile or so out. We're talking about 100w. Deliberately, permanently blinding your adversary is probably banned under some convention or another, but targeting the flight deck /canopy is probably going to have more effective results than trying to burn a hole in the fuselage and hoping to get lucky hitting something critical. Hey! There's a John Nance aviation fiction book about that! Blackout by John Nance posted:Minutes after a Boeing 747 rises majestically into a Hong Kong sunset, a flash splits the darkening sky. The pilot - suddenly blinded and doubled over in pain - fumbles in the dark in a frantic effort to gain control as the huge jet shudders through its descent. Kat Bronsky, FBI agent and terrorism specialist, is assigned the hunt for a Challenger-class business jet seen nearby just before the incident. The case poses countless questions: Was the flash a pilot error, a missile attack, or a malfunction? Or was it some new kind of weapon? And why are several government agencies interested in what Kat uncovers?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 10:49
|
|
|
Linedance posted:This laser chat is cool, but y'all are forgetting the havoc a kid with a 5mw laser pointer can wreak on an airliner from a mile or so out. We're talking about 100w. Deliberately, permanently blinding your adversary is probably banned under some convention or another, but targeting the flight deck /canopy is probably going to have more effective results than trying to burn a hole in the fuselage and hoping to get lucky hitting something critical. I remember reading that there was some issue with the YAL. Inside some range, call it range<R1, you will insta-kill the aircraft and/or pilot, so it's all legal. Outside some other range, call it range>R2, you will not hurt the aircraft or pilot, but will fry the sensors, so that's also legal. In between, R1<range<R2, you will not kill the pilot, but will blind them, so that's illegal under the Geneva convention (something-something-no weapons that intentionally maim...), so there is a ring in which they couldn't legally fire. But, [citation needed] and all that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 11:03
|
|
|
ctishman posted:Saw this flying over North Seattle this afternoon, but all I had was my phone to get a picture. Anyone know what it is? I'm going to guess it's a VariEze or Long-EZ.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 12:47
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:I remember reading that there was some issue with the YAL. Inside some range, call it range<R1, you will insta-kill the aircraft and/or pilot, so it's all legal. Outside some other range, call it range>R2, you will not hurt the aircraft or pilot, but will fry the sensors, so that's also legal. In between, R1<range<R2, you will not kill the pilot, but will blind them, so that's illegal under the Geneva convention (something-something-no weapons that intentionally maim...), so there is a ring in which they couldn't legally fire. Yeah, that's not true. Laser weapons designed to permanently blind as their sole or as one of their combat functions are verboten, it's the Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons. Blinding of an "incidental or collateral effect" isn't covered. Dazzling isn't covered. There are already non-weapon laser systems in regular active use that have the capability to blind people. We're required to train the users to avoid blinding anyone if they can help it, but if someone does get incidentally blinded, oh well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 14:14
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:I have no doubt that within most of our lifetimes there's going to be combat lasers mounted on fighter-sized aircraft that are instant death for anything they target. Anyone who thinks that that aircraft will be an F-35 variant are high as gently caress, though.  I hate to break it to you, but the F-35 is going to be in service for probably a decade after most of the posters in this thread are in the grave.B-52 KC-135 RC-135 C-130 F-15 F-16 A-10 C-5 E-4 E-3 E-8 (I know they entered service in the 90s, but they're all second or third-hand airframes) U-2 vs F-22 F-35 C-17 B-1 B-2 C-27 F-15E One of these lists is populated by the major fixed-wing platforms over 30, the other is under 30.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 16:24
|
|
|
F-15 may not be the best example of that since they're literally disintegrating due to age.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 16:27
|
|
|
The current schedule means there will literally be 80 year old B-52s flying in in the 2040s. If NASA takes one again we might get to have a "100 years of continuous operation" ceremony of some kind.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 16:31
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:F-15 may not be the best example of that since they're literally disintegrating due to age. And yet we will continue to use them until the F-22's replacement is in service.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 16:42
|
|
|
Godholio posted:And yet we will continue to use them until the F-22's replacement is in service. All six of them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 16:43
|
|
|
Godholio posted:
I don't know how much longer the E-8Cs will be in service, they are hitting major limitations especially the JSTARS.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 17:25
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:All six of them. Six? You gotta be kidding. We can only afford two five trillion dollar airplanes at a time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 17:38
|
|
|
Godholio posted:C-27 Not for long. You're welcome Army. Godholio posted:And yet we will continue to use them until the F-22's replacement is in service. Unless we don't. (Eliminating the entire F-15C fleet and canceling the whole Golden Eagle idea is so I don't even know where to begin.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 17:39
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Not for long. Air superiority is overrated.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 17:49
|
|
|
Godholio posted:B-1 Only 3 more years until 30!
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 17:53
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:Air superiority is overrated. Well that and the fact that the Golden Eagle thing was already our Plan D for air
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 18:22
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:Air superiority is overrated. A B-52 with AIM-54 and AIM-120 rotaries and an E-3 - what more do you need?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 18:38
|
|
|
vulturesrow posted:Totally off topic, but if you are working tomorrow, I'm flying into NAS Corpus. I'll be in ROKT 500. Listen up! I don't go in until 1515L and who knows what position I'll work (might be in the tower so I wouldn't talk to you). Aren't the ROKT callsigns Sabreliners? How'd you land that gig?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 19:19
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:A B-52 with AIM-54 and AIM-120 rotaries and an E-3 - what more do you need? We won't even have that 
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
currently watching a documentary called "unbelievable flying objects" on PBS America. It's both entertaining and educational! It's edutaintional! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGCR0AkhDuo (Looks like the link doesn't work outside the US, so if you're not there try a proxy)
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 20:26
|
|
|
Godholio posted:
I wasn't commenting on the service life, I'm just of the opinion by the time lasers are small enough to see combat in a smallish aircraft, it won't be the F-35. Rather, it will be in something designed specifically for it. F-35s will probably still be in service, but you know, we need 6th gen to fight the next war and the aging F-35 is 5th gen degraded obsolescence. You know the drill.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 20:40
|
|
|
Linedance posted:currently watching a documentary called "unbelievable flying objects" on PBS America. It's both entertaining and educational! It's edutaintional! Man, if you're going to going to have a collection of weird planes and not include any Russian WIGEs or the ME163 or any of Horton's weird ideas...
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 21:29
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:I wasn't commenting on the service life, I'm just of the opinion by the time lasers are small enough to see combat in a smallish aircraft, it won't be the F-35. Rather, it will be in something designed specifically for it. F-35s will probably still be in service, but you know, we need 6th gen to fight the next war and the aging F-35 is 5th gen degraded obsolescence. My point is that the F-35 is going to be in service for at least 30 years, and I don't think it's going to take that long to shrink a laser. I also don't think we'll see any kind of purpose-designed fighter in that timeframe. At best it'll be another attempt at a jack of all trades.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 22:07
|
|
|
No, I agree, purpose built fighters are an extinct breed. You might be right that they shrink one down enough in that time frame, but I'm not holding my breath. Even if they do, that refit and acquisition process is gonna be a laugh riot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 22:11
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Even if they do, that refit and acquisition process is gonna be a laugh riot. Absolutely. I can't wait. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 22:20
|
|
|
So I'm heading up to KPAE and I hear this roar and watch an E-3 scream overhead, trailing four plumes of exhaust and climbing slowly into the cloud cover. I've never seen one of those old jets take off, and it was breathtaking. Such a slow rate of climb compared to modern craft, too. Thought it was going to clip some telephone poles.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 23:09
|
|
|
I saw (what I assume to be) the same E-3 pass low under the south seatac departure, heading northwest, just before 2pm. Never seen a jet on that route before, never that low, and never seen an S-3 down here either.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 23:39
|
|
|
deck posted:I saw (what I assume to be) the same E-3 pass low under the south seatac departure, heading northwest, just before 2pm. Never seen a jet on that route before, never that low, and never seen an S-3 down here either. It's the NATO/Luxembourg E-3. Apparently it came to PAE for a few touch and goes- but the weather was so poo poo I couldn't be arsed to take any photos.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2013 03:16
|
|
|
Ardeem posted:Man, if you're going to going to have a collection of weird planes and not include any Russian WIGEs or the ME163 or any of Horton's weird ideas... Or the other Nazi crazy flying contraptions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2013 18:25
|
|
|
So this is a weird video. Not so much for the engine 'exploding', as for the amazing vortexes that are being formed from the inboard engines. I've never seen anything like it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K95m2KEtF_A
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 05:38
|
|
|
The Locator posted:So this is a weird video. Not so much for the engine 'exploding', as for the amazing vortexes that are being formed from the inboard engines. I've never seen anything like it. Back-taxi with thrust reverser. They got some compressor stall. It's like a backfire, but louder.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 05:55
|
|
|
C-17s always do that when reversing. Not exactly sure of the fluid dynamics behind it though. Pretty cool to watch though. edit: the vortices not the compressor stall
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 05:56
|
|
|
Compressor surges are common when you've got thrust reversers out at low speed- reingestion of hot gases are no-nos for gas turbine engines. NWA's DC-9's that powerbacked (backed up from the gate using reverse thrust instead of a tug) would surge so often we stopped investigating each and every one and just attributed it to the powerback, not to compressor condition. Once we stopped powerbacking engines lasted significantly longer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 06:40
|
|
|
PatrickBateman posted:
We had guys reversing King air's into parking spots and causing hella prop and turbine blade erosion. Management came down hard on the practice but some kept doing it. Gotta love laziness.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 13:14
|
|
|
Fellow nerds...I was flying back home on American this weekend and had an older 737 for ORD->SEA. I didn't pick a seat before the flight because 1) the only left to pick cost $$$ and 2) 95% of the time I get a seat at the gate, it's one of the upgrade seats. Anyway, it was a 3+3 config, and I ended up in an aisle seat (C) behind the exit row...and there was no middle seat (B). It was just this plastic table thing, that didn't look all that useful. Seemed to be the case across the aisle as well. Why'd they give up a revenue generating seat? Not enough life rafts/emergency rations for an extra 4-8 passengers? First time I'd ever seen that. (No complaints from me though, sprawled my poo poo all over that empty seat / floor). e: Also I got stuck on a S80 from DFW to ORD and of course a mechanical problem hosed up my entire weekend travel and I need to write a letter to American. Why do they call it the S80 instead of the proud Mad Dog name 
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 19:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 04:52 |
|
|
movax posted:Anyway, it was a 3+3 config, and I ended up in an aisle seat (C) behind the exit row...and there was no middle seat (B). It was just this plastic table thing, that didn't look all that useful. Seemed to be the case across the aisle as well. Why'd they give up a revenue generating seat? Not enough life rafts/emergency rations for an extra 4-8 passengers? quote:Previously American’s 737s had 160 seats, and after the reconfiguration there would have been 154 seats. However, the FAA requires there to be one flight attendant per 50 seats, so essentially they’d need an extra flight attendant for those last four seats, regardless of whether or not they’re filled. Given that a vast majority of the time those last four seats aren’t filled (and if they are filled, probably not by revenue passengers), American has instituted some permanent seat blocking. The two rows behind the exit row nows have the middle seats blocked, as you can see on the seatmap below:
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 20:32
|
|
