|
Snowdens Secret posted:The advantage of the Pred/Reapers isn't that they're more survivable, it's that if one does go down, and aircraft will go down, it's a fairly cheap (possibly less than an S-300 missile) loss and the pilot is safe. I wonder how long B-52s would last in such an environment. B-52s weren't allowed in Rolling Thunder due to the SAM threat for example.
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 23:49 |
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I wonder how long B-52s would last in such an environment. B-52s weren't allowed in Rolling Thunder due to the SAM threat for example. You're talking about two disparate things. A-10s down in the weeds right in the middle of ZSU-23/SA-9/SA-13s on the FEBA != B-52s dealing with SA-2/3/5/10s. That said, forget Rolling Thunder, during Linebacker II the North Vietnamese accomplished something that had never happened before or happened since: they managed to force a US strategic bomber strike to turn back. Of course, they were helped in this by more than a healthy dose of SAC incompetence. In any case, there's a reason that from about 1975 on the BUFFs' role in the SIOP was restricted to being cruise missile carriers that would stay well outside the worst of the Soviet air defenses. Snowdens Secret posted:it's a fairly cheap (possibly less than an S-300 missile) loss Preds cost a couple million for an all up aircraft, so maybe, but Reapers cost roughly $10M a pop. And that's just the basic airframe/engine, when you start strapping on the poo poo that allows them to do their job (MTS ball, pods, weapons, other goodies), the price goes up from there. They aren't as cheap as people think, there's a reason we're going for an all Reaper fleet because they are incredibly more capable than Preds...which is why they cost over five times as much.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
Linedance posted:Not affecting maintenance. Yet. I wouldn't count on the eye or Sauron ignoring us forever though. There's a lot of factors and things in play that I wouldn't really want to comment on, but the writing is pretty clearly on the wall for those paranoid enough to read it. That's sad to hear, I was there on Tuesday before the meeting and you could tell that people felt what was coming kinda.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:No chance the brits would happen to have a bunch of obsolete last generation fighter jets sitting around, never been used, that we could buy for five times the price? Cause that worked out great for the navy. Actually they do! They have a whole pile of (largely useless) limited-capability Tranche 1 Eurofighter Typhoons that'll be retired early as the RAF doesn't have the money to upgrade to them the fully-capable Tranche 3A. Considering our history of military procurement, they sound pretty much perfect for Canada! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
SCOTLAND posted:That's sad to hear, I was there on Tuesday before the meeting and you could tell that people felt what was coming kinda. and their fears were confirmed after his visit. Ramps, airports, all sold to ASIG. Only concierge (premium passenger service), cargo (5 year stay of execution), and maintenance/stores will remain. I can think of plenty of reasons to contract maintenance to BA though, and if I can think of them, you can be sure some bean counter somewhere in the bowels of Montreal has too. Though as some cosmic sign of comeuppance, I hear his flight back was involved in an air turn back...
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:The advantage of the Pred/Reapers isn't that they're more survivable, it's that if one does go down, and aircraft will go down, it's a fairly cheap (possibly less than an S-300 missile) loss and the pilot is safe. At least the US isn't likely to adopt 'dropping fuse-lit propane tanks out of Chinooks' as a tactic anytime soon. A bigger concern (and one that's contributed to the Syrians' headaches as well) is not being able to base your short-legged aircraft far enough away from the ground fighting and leaving them vulnerable to airfield shelling and raids. The Marines have already run into that with their current STVOLs, I can only imagine having to write off brand new $135 mil F-35s instead 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
I know we have a lot of AWOs in this thread- so I've decided to taunt them with this photo of an E-3C.  81-0005 by Powercube, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
WAR CRIME SYNDICAT posted:Some idiots keep tossing out the idea that THE A-10 can't handle the MANPADS THREAT BRO. Which is obviously retarded as LO is designed as a radar threat defense, not IR. Slap some IR absorbant paint on an A-10 and it will handle the situation just as well as any other aircraft currently in the sky. We helicopters are down in the dirty every single day and we handle it - why do people think an A-10 is suddenly such a vulnerable shitheap? Well a helicopter is just a small truck that can fly a little, they're not really as big ticket an item as jets. The US lost like 6,000+ helicopters over Vietnam and it ain't no thang. 
Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 02:16 on Jan 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
Terrifying Effigies posted:I can only imagine having to write off brand new $135 mil F-35s instead I never thought about this, but the Congressional hearings are going to be hi-larious  If every aircraft destroyed in that raid was an F35, they'd have caused over a billion in damages.Throatwarbler posted:Well a helicopter is just a small truck that can fly a little, they're not really as big ticket an item as jets. The US lost like 6,000+ helicopters over Vietnam and it ain't no thang. Yeah but not only did Hueys not cost $135M/each, we also had to contain Communism AT ANY COST HOOAH so losing aircrews was just part of doing business. That attitude doesn't exist anymore unless you're a contractor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 03:49
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
Powercube posted:I know we have a lot of AWOs in this thread- so I've decided to taunt them with this photo of an E-3C. Taunting special needs individuals isn't very nice. DeusExMachinima posted:I never thought about this, but the Congressional hearings are going to be hi-larious Marine_Aviation.txt.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
A bil is like what, 12 hours of war funding at current rates?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 10:33
|
|
|
Powercube posted:I know we have a lot of AWOs in this thread- so I've decided to taunt them with this photo of an E-3C. That's actually the best look I've had at the Iridium antennae (the two little ones halfway down the fuselage). Where was that taken?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
Godholio posted:That's actually the best look I've had at the Iridium antennae (the two little ones halfway down the fuselage). From a helicopter over the Boeing IDS ramp at KBFI.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
Powercube posted:From a helicopter over the Boeing IDS ramp at KBFI. Interesting. I keep checking google maps to see if the E-3 testbed shows up in the boneyard yet, but no luck. They do, however, have a slew of retired civilian 707s. In the southeast there's actually a row of vertical stabilizers laying down so you can see the extremely faded logos. Pan-Am was about all I could recognize, but I'm pretty terrible at airline livery.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Interesting. They were 707s retired in the 1980s, most of the logos are probably either superseded, or belonging to airlines that don't exist anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
Yeah, there was a Turkish one I looked up, looks like it left service in '85, so that jives.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:They were 707s retired in the 1980s, most of the logos are probably either superseded, or belonging to airlines that don't exist anymore. Why does Davis-Monthan have retired civilian aircraft? Were they purchased as sources of spare parts for the 707 based airforce planes? Secondary question, why did they remove all the vertical stabilizers and then leave them either laying next to the aircraft, or in that big pile/row of vert stabs in the upper right of that area? The big pile has recognizable Pan-Am logo tails, and at least a couple of the fuselages that are oriented so you can see them have the old TWA striping on them it looks like.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
The Locator posted:Why does Davis-Monthan have retired civilian aircraft? Were they purchased as sources of spare parts for the 707 based airforce planes? The civilian aircraft are all 707s - they donated their engines decades ago for the KC-135E program and presumably other KC-135-spec parts as well. edit: actually, I think the engine removal fucks with the weight distribution of what's left, so taking the tailfin off keeps them from sitting on their tails. StandardVC10 fucked around with this message at 01:54 on Jan 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Interesting. My favorite one down there is from Hang Kong Viet Nam- I'll see if I can find my photo of it. That was trippy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
One thing I find odd is that the Air Force used to have plain-jane 707s used for pilot-only sorties for the AWACS guys to practice on. The idea was to save the wear and tear on the actual E-3 and avoid using a larger crew than necessary just to give the pilots their low-approaches for the year. But they were retired years ago (pre-2006, probably much further back), yet I don't see them anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
Godholio posted:One thing I find odd is that the Air Force used to have plain-jane 707s used for pilot-only sorties for the AWACS guys to practice on. The idea was to save the wear and tear on the actual E-3 and avoid using a larger crew than necessary just to give the pilots their low-approaches for the year. But they were retired years ago (pre-2006, probably much further back), yet I don't see them anywhere. I'm pretty sure you mean plane Jane 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
  I'm a ball of confused emotions right now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 04:50
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Flying wing and/or lifting body chat is never complete without: Fly-by-wire chat is never complete without: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447 How a poor UI and leaky abstractions killed 228 people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 13:15
|
|
|
I got directed here through another thread, although I'm not a pilot I'm a huge aviation nerd and had no idea this gem of a thread existed. Thanks Mr. Chips, I've spent a stack of hours reading through your great posts on technology. edit: on Air France 447, that Airbus sidestick configuration seems problematic. It's possible that pilot was pulling back on the stick the whole time and nobody but he knew it (and perhaps he wasn't doing it consciously). Tony Montana fucked around with this message at 13:45 on Jan 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 13:25
|
|
|
Ola posted:Fly-by-wire chat is never complete without: That accident could have happened in any type of aircraft. Bad situational awareness plus nonexistant CRM = dead. Hell, look at this, linked in the "see also" at the bottom: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Airlines_Flight_6231 hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 15:21 on Jan 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
Does the cockpit indicate GPS ground speed anywhere? Maybe it should be more integrated to check airspeed readings are correct and provide a backup for pilots? What about radio altimeters too? I remember some where there was a failure of the altimeter and the pilots crashed into the ocean.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
CharlesM posted:Does the cockpit indicate GPS ground speed anywhere? Maybe it should be more integrated to check airspeed readings are correct and provide a backup for pilots? What about radio altimeters too? I remember some where there was a failure of the altimeter and the pilots crashed into the ocean. Yeah they would definitely be reading their indicated but cross checking it with ground speed simply because thats the only thing thats going to tell them when they are going to get there. That ground speed would be on every navigation tabbed MFD and would probably be on their primary flight display as well. With this incident though it seems like the copilot (then the captain) just had no idea they were stalling other than from the loss of altitude. They didn't have reliable airpseed or altitude data. They probably shouldn't have trimmed the thing 30 degrees nose up... Most planes have a GPWS (ground proximity warning system) that will give you aural warnings (PULL UP/DON'T SINK/SINK RATE) but their normal operation is only down below a certain measured altitude-- I'm not sure whether radio or barometric. Radio altimeters usually only measure to 2.5-5k feet at most, and barometric would have been no good anyway because of the icing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
Ola posted:Fly-by-wire chat is never complete without: Wiki posted:On 27 May 2011, the BEA released an update on its investigation describing the history of the flight as recorded by the flight data recorder. This confirmed what had previously been concluded from post-mortem examination of the bodies and debris recovered from the ocean surface: the aircraft had not broken up at altitude but had fallen into the ocean intact.[1][147] The flight recorders also revealed that the aircraft's descent into the sea was not due to mechanical failure or the aircraft being overwhelmed by the weather, but because the flight crew had raised the aircraft's nose, reducing its speed until it entered an aerodynamic stall.[30][170] Nothing can overcome pilot error.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
One thing I've never really understood is in that situation, why can't the pilot look at his artificial horizon, look at his throttle settings and realize that he's flying level at ~ cruise thrust setting so whilst there's definitely something screwy going on, if he keeps his cool they'll probably get through it. edit: I mean, how many crashes have there been due to FADEC failures compared to pitot failures?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:One thing I've never really understood is in that situation, why can't the pilot look at his artificial horizon, look at his throttle settings and realize that he's flying level at ~ cruise thrust setting so whilst there's definitely something screwy going on, if he keeps his cool they'll probably get through it. A common issue when designing aircraft is over-information. There's actually been a push to reduce the amount of information brought to the pilot, because it becomes more difficult for the pilot to understand everything that's presented to him. Imagine yourself in the pilots' place: the air speed is dropping even though your engines are at the same rpm. Have your engines lost efficiency? Is there a faulty sensor? What do to? All it takes is one wrong conclusion for something horrible to happen. In this case since there is a redundant system for the pitots, they probably figured the airspeed was correct? Barnsy fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Jan 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
Yeah, but pitots are known to fail from time to time without the pilot directly knowing about it, whilst I seriously can't think of an instance of FADEC failing ever, let alone failing without the pilot being aware of a problem (except the Qantas A388 which had its entire front spar destroyed cutting the control links to the engines so it was pretty loving obvious there was something wrong). The only case I can think of is flying through volcanic ash or a flock of geese and destroying an engine quietly, but that's much rarer at FL400. And even if FADEC does fail (like that BA 742 that flew through a volcano), it fails off and doesn't give conflicting reports. So if the engine says it's normal, the throttles are at cruise, surely you can rely on that system working as advertised, unlike a pitot one Captain Postal fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Jan 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
 747-200s don't have FADEC.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:I seriously can't think of an instance of FADEC failing ever, let alone failing without the pilot being aware of a problem (except the Qantas A388 which had its entire front spar destroyed cutting the control links to the engines so it was pretty loving obvious there was something wrong). I can, and of course it involves the biggest joke aircraft this side of the F-35 - the Eclipse 500! quote:An Eclipse EA500 airplane, N612KB, sustained no damage when its flight crew encountered a loss of thrust control with both engines at maximum power thrust during an approach to land on runway 22L at the Chicago Midway International Airport (MDW). A go-around was performed and the crew shut down the right engine on base leg. The left engine went to flight idle and the crew encountered a total loss of thrust and continued loss of thrust control. The crew declared an emergency and performed a forced landing on runway 22R. The two airline transport rated pilots and two passengers were uninjured. Not so much a FADEC failure but a software glitch causing the FADECs to flip the gently caress out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
Isn't there a sort of condition where because the pilot receives conflicting info they stop trusting their instruments entirely and run off 'instinct'?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Not so much a FADEC failure but a software glitch causing the FADECs to flip the gently caress out. Barnsy posted:Isn't there a sort of condition where because the pilot receives conflicting info they stop trusting their instruments entirely and run off 'instinct'? Absolutely, instinct over instruments is a no-no. But if you've got one instrument that is known to possibly go wrong and another that never goes wrong disagreeing, why do they look at the one that is known to fail from time to time? But my original question was, when can you have an engine sensor wig-out and tell you the engine is broken when it isn't really? Compare that to when can you have an airframe sensor wig-out and tell you the aircraft is broken but it isn't really (i.e, like AF447 et al)? Like I'm seriously asking any pilots here why they don't do this and trust the throttle settings if they are flying straight-and-level and the engines are reporting normal operation. Could the pilots reasonably have done that in AF447 without the benefit of hindsight? Captain Postal fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Jan 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:
Engine sensors (tach generators, thermocouples, etc etc) wig out occasionally but they never all go at once unless of course something bad has happened to the engine. But because there are so many sensors measuring many different things in the engine for normal operation, deductive reasoning can usually figure out what gauge if any are lying. For example, if your torque reading is fluctuating on the engine, but you cross check your ITT and N1/N2 and they are all stable, your torque reading may be off. A plane as advanced as that airbus however-- its engine management software would most likely sense a faulty reading, do the deductive reasoning itself, and display an error code or a large red ex over the engines reading showing that there is a fault in the information its receiving. Yeah, the pilots in AF447 probably could've done that, but the time they had to trouble shoot was minimal (The article said they struck the water at something like -11k fpm). The rush of trouble shooting the problem combined with the lack of stall warning that they were used to probably meant they didn't realize they had the nose up so far. Not to mention it was trimmed up in that position so they may not have felt the control pressure (or whatever artificial system it uses) to keep it there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 04:09
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:One thing I've never really understood is in that situation, why can't the pilot look at his artificial horizon, look at his throttle settings and realize that he's flying level at ~ cruise thrust setting so whilst there's definitely something screwy going on, if he keeps his cool they'll probably get through it. That's pretty much what the procedure for a complete loss of airspeed/altitude information is, since a given power setting and pitch would have put the aircraft into something pretty close to level flight until the problem could be nailed down.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
I know that airline pilots are trained to trust their instruments over their senses, but if you're flying at night at FL400, aren't you above clouds? Can't you loving see that you have the nose pointed way up?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
Bob A Feet posted:Engine sensors (tach generators, thermocouples, etc etc) wig out occasionally but they never all go at once unless of course something bad has happened to the engine. But because there are so many sensors measuring many different things in the engine for normal operation, deductive reasoning can usually figure out what gauge if any are lying. For example, if your torque reading is fluctuating on the engine, but you cross check your ITT and N1/N2 and they are all stable, your torque reading may be off. A plane as advanced as that airbus however-- its engine management software would most likely sense a faulty reading, do the deductive reasoning itself, and display an error code or a large red ex over the engines reading showing that there is a fault in the information its receiving. Reminder: A USAF C-5 went down after the crew shut off the wrong engine. A C-5 has two flight engineers. A confused 2 man crew doesn't stand a chance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 23:49 |
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Reminder: A USAF C-5 went down after the crew shut off the wrong engine. A C-5 has two flight engineers. A confused 2 man crew doesn't stand a chance. Guys, I'm concerned
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 06:06
|
|