|
slidebite posted:Cessna tries their hand at a $20,000,000 "tactical" aircraft which was designed and built in 22 months and consists largely off the shelf components Why, exactly, would anyone buy this over a Super Tucano?
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 07:17 |
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:Why, exactly, would anyone buy this over a Super Tucano? Faster and with a bigger payload and possibly bigger combat radius (at 6 times the hourly cost).
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
I don't see why the Philippines would buy this when they're already negotiating a T-50 order with the ROK.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 05:11
|
|
|
What tends to make up hourly cost on a light attack craft like this anyway? Is there generally much headroom on maintenance expenses to cut? Can this thing's twin jets burn something like a fifth the fuel of an F-16, carry any payload and not be slower than mud?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
Tsuru posted:"Possible" in any post I make is always meant purely in terms of "theoretically possible in the physical universe we occupy", and has no bearing on whether it would be legal or even wise to actually try it for real. I work in the simulator business, you see. Sorry, "doable" sounds like you were advocating proceeding with an approach in the existing conditions, not saying that it was theoretically possible to land. I've seen a lot of stupid poo poo operating into ASE and it applies pressure to the pilots who are responsible enough to avoid adverse conditions there. Circling minimums are dictated by the steep final approach path from the final approach fix to the missed approach point. In fact, if you don't visually pick up the airport until the missed approach point you can't make a stabilized approach to runway 15. Actual circling to runway 33 should be rare and taken VERY seriously. The 2% downslope of runway 33 is at the very limit of most transport category aircraft, a true pattern to the east has limited visibility of the landing runway and circling massively fucks up the arrival and departure traffic. The 601 involved in the accident uses category B for straight in approaches and category D for circling (like the 7X I fly). Approach categories are based on the landing airspeed at maximum landing weight for the configuration. The Challenger uses less than normal landing flaps for circling which ups the landing speed. Approach category D is NOT authorized for the approaches into Aspen. Unless I had been thoroughly trained in circling to runway 33, I'd never attempt it (assuming I was in an aircraft that it was legal to do so).
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 06:34
|
|
|
I want to know everything about flying the Falcon 7x. I love trijets and it is one of the sexiest.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 14:11
|
|
|
ausgezeichnet posted:Sorry, "doable" sounds like you were advocating proceeding with an approach in the existing conditions, not saying that it was theoretically possible to land. I've seen a lot of stupid poo poo operating into ASE and it applies pressure to the pilots who are responsible enough to avoid adverse conditions there. You may be surprised to know that while the use of simulators for accident investigation is of course commonplace, the opposite is also true: we also use these events to verify the performance and accuracy of the simulator modelling itself in these extreme conditions (in addition to the extensive array of normal tests already in place for normal conditions). The reason we do this is precisely because the box is used to train aircrew, who, time permitting, may even want to use it to "have a go" at the accident for themselves. We have to make sure the sim is not capable of more than the actual aircraft in extreme conditions, and that the response and performance of the sim corresponds with the trends and magnitudes as experienced in the accident. By requirement, flight and wind tunnel testing is still the source for all of our data, so as morbid as it may sound accident data is invaluable in checking whether our intra- and extrapolations are correct. Have you ever trained windshear/microburst scenarios in the sim? (you have) The sad fact is that the source and verification data for these models is basically written in blood. But the FAA/CAA-UK have researched this at length in the 1980s, have required us to use it, and require you to train with it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:I want to know everything about flying the Falcon 7x. I love trijets and it is one of the sexiest. Absolutely the best hand-flying aircraft I've ever flown and this is coming from a guy who previously sided with the 737-200. The fly by wire controls, the side stick and the stupid-easy-to-use path-based navigation (instead of the standard pitch and roll based flight director) make it a dream to actually fly. It'll fly 35% farther on 15% less fuel that the G4 I used to fly. We can make Moscow non-stop from Chicago Midway and (generally) get back from central/eastern Europe. At light weights the thing climbs like a 20-series Lear and we can typically cross the airport boundary fence at 2000 ft AGL. I loving LOVE having three engines for operating in/out of Aspen, over the North Atlantic and around the Himalayas. If you lose an engine at anything but max gross weight, you descend from 41,000 ft to 39,000 or 37,000. Every two engine jet I've flown has you drift down to 23-21,000 ft which can put you in the poo poo depending where you are. Unfortunately, the computer driven everything else can be an enormous pain in the rear end. It doesn't like excessive heat. It really doesn't like excessive cold. It doesn't like cold-soaking during 8-11 hour legs. If you don't boot it up EXACTLY the way Dassault instructs at EXACTLY the right speed (no quick-hands button pushing or getting up for coffee during the init sequence) it will save each and every perceived insult and gently caress you right back at the worst possible time. Like when you release the parking brake to take the runway. Dassault is constantly releasing upgraded software and parts for "added robustness", because the cheap/lightweight ones they delivered originally have a high failure rate. I was stuck in Mwanza, Tanzania for five days and Beijing, China for eight (over loving Christmas) in 2013 with slat lock hydraulic leaks. After the first AOG event Dassault came out with an improved design for the slat locks, but it wasn't until after the second that our ex-Dassault Tech Rep mechanic got them to replace all six gratis (it's going in Monday to get this done - thank Yahweh). The rich guy I fly for has had about enough of the reliability problems and recently put a deposit down on a Gulfstream 650. I'll let you know what flying that is like in 2017. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
I do a little inspection work for G650 parts, it's really amazing the emphasis they put on weight.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
Tsuru posted:I'm sorry that's the way you see it. But I'm intrigued to know how a post on the internet could apply pressure on a professional pilot? It may be wiser to direct your anger about perceived pressure at the person who signs the paychecks for this crew. I'm seriously not trying to break your balls about this. Doable just does not equate with safe and prudent. The pressure applied is from jack-rear end pilots that successfully land with 20 knot tailwinds in violation of their aircraft limitations whose passengers brag to my rich guy about how their "awesome" pilots got them in, while he had to drive in from Rifle. Throughout my career I've had to constantly defend my use of judgment against the lowest common denominator pilots. I remember having to vigorously defend my decision to not operate a Cessna Conquest (twin turboprop with about 4 inches of prop-strike ground clearance) to a gravel runway that was in sight of the passengers' yacht instead of the concrete runway 50 miles away. The pax were drinking with the gravel runway airport manager who told them that they got Lears in there all the time. Now, I don't know if the Lear comment was true, but I had to expend a lot of professional capital to make the case that loving up $600,000 of props wasn't worth saving an hour in a limo. Sadly, accidents like the recent Challenger 601 and this one from 13 years ago give me the leverage I need to make prudent decisions and have customers accept them. I understand that you benefit from accident and incident data to make flight simulation accurate and realistic, I'm just not going to willingly provide you with data points.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
ausgezeichnet posted:I'm seriously not trying to break your balls about this.  quote:I understand that you benefit from accident and incident data You really don't get it, do you? Tsuru fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Jan 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
ausgezeichnet posted:I understand that you benefit from accident and incident data to make flight simulation accurate and realistic, I'm just not going to willingly provide you with data points.  Very nice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
ausgezeichnet posted:Sadly, accidents like the recent Challenger 601 and this one from 13 years ago give me the leverage I need to make prudent decisions and have customers accept them. I understand that you benefit from accident and incident data to make flight simulation accurate and realistic, I'm just not going to willingly provide you with data points. Booyah.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
Unembeddable video of the Norwegian Air Ambulance, Police, SAR and Air Force helicopters flying a missing man formation at the funeral of the pilot who died in the air ambulance crash two weeks ago. http://www.nrk.no/ostlandssendingen/kollegaer-hedret-bjorn-nergard-1.11489832 Here's a picture of the rotor head, with the power cable twisted around and the broken pitch links (marked with arrows). 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
Sky Whale! Reminds me of something from Star Trek: TNG.  
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
benito posted:Sky Whale! These things come around every few years, and each time they're more ridiculous than the one before.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
Plastic_Gargoyle posted:These things come around every few years, and each time they're more ridiculous than the one before. I thought it was a pretty inspired combination of weird design (the engine tilt takoff assist?) with a bad name made it perfect for sharing here. As much as I love crazy aircraft designs, decades of trial and error show that the basic tube shape with two reliable underwing engines is really efficient.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
Plastic_Gargoyle posted:These things come around every few years, and each time they're more ridiculous than the one before. benito posted:I thought it was a pretty inspired combination of weird design (the engine tilt takoff assist?) with a bad name made it perfect for sharing here. As much as I love crazy aircraft designs, decades of trial and error show that the basic tube shape with two reliable underwing engines is really efficient. If only your opinion was valid. Lifting bodies/blended wing designs offer big advantages over the conventional tube and stick. The lift coefficient and efficiency gains alone are enough reason to produce them instead of just being parasite/surface drag/dirty air factories. engines on wing pylons are huge sources of parasite drag. it's much more efficient to place engines at the back of the airframe where they don't create dirty air for the airframe to sort out and not disturb the boundary layer of airflow on the wings. FullMetalJacket fucked around with this message at 03:24 on Jan 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
Don't lifting bodies have a problem with the forces on the passengers in the window seats?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
^^^You bet they do.FullMetalJacket posted:If only your opinion was valid. Lifting bodies/blended wing designs offer big advantages over the conventional tube and stick. The lift coefficient and efficiency gains alone are enough reason to produce them instead of just being parasite/surface drag/dirty air factories. On the other hand, wing-mounted engines provide nice clean airflow into the engine, plus their weight helps reduce bending and torsion moments on the wing structure, allowing for a comparatively lighter structure. Minor benefits include ease of access for maintenance and less need for deicing. E: The only reason why most business jets still have rear-mounted engines is for reduced cabin noise (which is an important concern in those aircraft). Though if you ask a 20-Series Lear pilot they might disagree (if they could hear you that is), what with its oddly megaphone-shaped fuselage. MrChips fucked around with this message at 03:51 on Jan 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:Don't lifting bodies have a problem with the forces on the passengers in the window seats? What, because they're farther from the roll center? I can't imagine it'd be any worse than pitch oscillations for passengers at the extreme front/rear of current planes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
FullMetalJacket posted:If only your opinion was valid. Lifting bodies/blended wing designs offer big advantages over the conventional tube and stick. The lift coefficient and efficiency gains alone are enough reason to produce them instead of just being parasite/surface drag/dirty air factories. If there was a real competitive benefit to the lifting body design, Airbus or Boeing would have conquered the market with it already. The fact that the relatively traditional four engine designs of the A340/A380 haven't been huge commercial successes (and nobody's rolling out a trijet design) seems to show that the boring old 737-style layout is what sells with our current economy and airport infrastructure. I'm sure there's some sort of electromagnetic launch plus glider design that would be highly efficient from a physics standpoint, but if I'm going to fly from Memphis to Atlanta it's going to be in a crappy little CRJ with two engines in the rear.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
Plastic_Gargoyle posted:These things come around every few years, and each time they're more ridiculous than the one before. That article posted:The concept plane was designed with current and future technologies in mind, including micro-solar panels that could charge the engines, self-healing skin with adaptable opacity, active wings to reduce turbulence, and advanced alloys, ceramic and fiber composite materials. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
MrChips posted:E: The only reason why most business jets still have rear-mounted engines is for reduced cabin noise (which is an important concern in those aircraft). Though if you ask a 20-Series Lear pilot they might disagree (if they could hear you that is), what with its oddly megaphone-shaped fuselage. I would think ground clearance would be pretty important too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:What, because they're farther from the roll center? I can't imagine it'd be any worse than pitch oscillations for passengers at the extreme front/rear of current planes. Wouldn't surprise me if roll vs pitch resilience for the human body was really different.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:Wouldn't surprise me if roll vs pitch resilience for the human body was really different. my tolerance for window versus aisle versus center seats ratios of greater than 2:2:50 is pretty limited as well. Considering how much it costs to build and maintain the simplest tube with wings and engines where you can reach 'em, I think that between the passenger experience, the ground handling issues, and the manufacturing issues like "haven't had 80 years of practice at this", that the demand for such an airframe is going to be very limited. Just like it has been limited every day since McDonnell-Douglas artists painted the first Blended Wing Passenger aircraft concept in 1966.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
The only real aggressive pitch angle (change) is at take-off, where g-forces are already closely aligned with gravity. I suspect the problem would be weightlessness if you're on the inside side of a roll. Rolls also happen more frequently, execute more rapidly, and take on a bigger angle.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
benito posted:If there was a real competitive benefit to the lifting body design, Airbus or Boeing would have conquered the market with it already. The fact that the relatively traditional four engine designs of the A340/A380 haven't been huge commercial successes (and nobody's rolling out a trijet design) seems to show that the boring old 737-style layout is what sells with our current economy and airport infrastructure. They produce the tried and true designs because that's what the customers expect, and they don't want to go through the R&D costs of producing non-ellipsoid/tube fuselages. They've had enough trouble blending different materials for structural construction. plus passengers don't fair well when their poor brains suffer vertigo and puke because they don't have the horizon for reference and are further outside the longitudinal axis of the aircraft. Although, If the interiors have large panel displays connected to outside cameras, I suspect this drawback could be minimized if not eliminated. Blended wing designs are limited in that respect for passenger craft but I can see them being used for other applications such as cargo transport before breaking into the passenger market. With more interior volume, increased lift coeffecient, better slow speed performance, lateral stability and less thirsty engines required to get the aircraft flying they're perfect for the application. That article's concepts of self healing materials and dorsal sky roof are a bit far fetched, but not impossible. Right now they're vaporware and there'd be a considerable roadblock of pressurization and fatigue issues due to the surface area of the window and the stresses placed at its attachment points to the rest of the structure. The more experience we gain with composite structures and the increasing prevalence of 3D printers in manufacturing will plausibly result in translucent if not electronically controlled opacity of the fuselage itself. Doors and windows are big stress points and are some of the first areas to corrode on an airframe. Eliminating windows all-together increases stiffness and durability, so I think that's spectacular. Mr Chips, if you observe the most efficient and fastest airframes ever produced, the engines are at the back or are integrated into the wing. This is not a mistake.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
benito posted:I thought it was a pretty inspired combination of weird design (the engine tilt takoff assist?) with a bad name made it perfect for sharing here. As much as I love crazy aircraft designs, decades of trial and error show that the basic tube shape with two reliable underwing engines is really efficient. I think you've missed the fundamental point: quote:This concept plane is the brainchild of Spanish designer Who-gives-a-gently caress. This is the work of an undergrad industrial design project, not a qualified engineer. You know all those bullshit ideas about new mobile phones or cameras or cars or planes that come out on these weak-rear end non-news news sites which any 4 year old with a learning disability could prove is utter fantasy and could never happen? They're all these useless loving design students who believe that because it looks good their opinion is worthwhile, and their marks (which is all this is about) are based upon their ability to use photoshop and generate viral responses. Please don't feed the trolls. Captain Postal fucked around with this message at 04:33 on Jan 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
Military planes obviously use blended wing designs, embedded engines, etc. Which is fine if things like cost, maintenance time turnaround, etc are way down the priorty totem pole from out-and-out performance. So Lockmart and Boeing at least have blended-wing etc experience, it just hasn't been worth the cost to use it on subsonic jetliners. E: for that matter mil heavy-lift planes may have a different (high-wing) form factor, but they also tend to have roundish cigar fuselages and under-wing engines (except for the STOL ones that get fancier.) Snowdens Secret fucked around with this message at 04:36 on Jan 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
darknrgy posted:The only real aggressive pitch angle (change) is at take-off, where g-forces are already closely aligned with gravity. I suspect the problem would be weightlessness if you're on the inside side of a roll. Rolls also happen more frequently, execute more rapidly, and take on a bigger angle. The micro solar panels powering the engines can so be used to power the inertial dampening system.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
benito posted:Sky Whale! $5.00 says if you threw this into a real simulator it would probably fly like poo poo outside of the most razor-thing envelope. I'm guessing that this Spanish
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
I'm really digging the thin little struts linking the engines and wings to the fuselage. Looks straight out of Kerbal Space Program.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
Blistex posted:Adobe Photoshop lens-flare enthusiast Just noticed the first picture has two lens-flares at completely different angles to each other.  Everything else about that design is equally laughable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
Imagine trying to land that thing, jesus christ where's captain ahab when you need him?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 05:19
|
|
|
rscott posted:Imagine trying to land that thing, jesus christ where's captain ahab when you need him? Landing it seems pretty easy, actually - nose down into terrain and slightly improve the looks. Assuming you could ever get it up in the first place - something makes me think that you won't be getting a lot of thrust from the rear engines when they have zero inlet airspeed and the front engine exhaust appears to be directed straight into an aero ramp that will push the airframe into the ground.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
Note that Norman Bel Geddes pretty much smashed the blended wing bullshit out of the park in 1929. Yet to be exceeded. http://www.fantastic-plastic.com/BelGeddesAirlinerNo4Page.htm 
Slo-Tek fucked around with this message at 05:40 on Jan 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:Note that Norman Bel Geddes pretty much smashed the blended wing bullshit out of the park in 1929. Yet to be exceeded. dear god, the frontal surface area! that thing would stall at ten degrees and then tumble along it's lateral axis.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 05:49
|
|
|
FullMetalJacket posted:dear god, the frontal surface area! that thing would stall at ten degrees and then tumble along it's lateral axis. It would have to take off first
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 06:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 07:17 |
|
|
I HATE PLANES THAT STAY IN ONE PIECE  quote:Viñals has even designed the plane such that it would break apart on an emergency landing to limit damage. Oh, sweet! nevermind
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 06:10
|
|