|
 My office for the afternoon, spent the morning removing access panels. triwing, jobolt fasteners or any kind of hardened steel can gently caress right off. I spend most of my time fixing previous peoples laziness and lack of attention to details. If there's anything I've learned so far its that as soon as an airframe reaches 20 years of commercial service they're haggard as gently caress. FullMetalJacket fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Feb 6, 2014 |
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:28 |
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:This is what I assumed. If you *do* have to stop a loud angry drunk from boarding, it's nice to know there's a simple, unequivocal rule backing you up. When I worked catering at JFK for BA I was standing on the jet bridge as the lead flight attendant and captain were talking to a drunk passenger. The guy was being a total dick but everyone just wanted to get out of there, so they agreed to let the guy one. As he was stepping back onto the plane he made some comment that I couldn't hear. The FA looked at the captain and gave him the "gently caress this" look and they booted the guy off and told him he couldn't fly until he sobered up. I was really surprised they didn't call the cops on him. I was also there when they pulled the guy off the Iceland Air flight that was duct taped to his seat by the other passengers. I don't miss that job.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:ID Fun time. Someone tell me what the hell this is? I have an inkling, but it can't possibly be what I'm thinking of. Holy crap, googling "Reynolds Airpark" took me down some really  tracks really loving quickly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:ID Fun time. Someone tell me what the hell this is? I have an inkling, but it can't possibly be what I'm thinking of. It looks like a Lancair IV/P had a bastard child with a U2.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
blugu64 posted:Holy crap, googling "Reynolds Airpark" took me down some really You aren't kidding  As utterly ridiculous as it all is, if you come in with the expectation that it's a total cover unCiaNsaUNATCObrandenburg hub, their website and the business name is just delightfully bland, like something out of a CIA novel.  (Also they attribute it to CERBERUS who are totally the bad CIA guys. Not a private equity firm based out of NYC. Also the bad guys in Mass Effect.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:ID Fun time. Someone tell me what the hell this is? I have an inkling, but it can't possibly be what I'm thinking of. Looks like a homebuilt moter glider. Might be one of these?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
Ardeem posted:Looks like a homebuilt moter glider. Might be one of these? Problem with that theory is that almost every motorglider and sailplane I know of is built of composites. You can't paint composites black, because the sun will delaminate the poo poo out of them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
It almost looks like it's a TA-152 but there's no loving way. That's, uh, interesting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
Ardeem posted:Looks like a homebuilt moter glider. Might be one of these? YO-3? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YO-3
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Problem with that theory is that almost every motorglider and sailplane I know of is built of composites. You can't paint composites black, because the sun will delaminate the poo poo out of them. Isn't that more a function of the resin used for construction? I know it's recommended that the Rutan homebuilts use non-white colors for trim and only on non-structurally critical areas, but there are a number of people who have dark colored Lancairs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
ehnus posted:Isn't that more a function of the resin used for construction? I know it's recommended that the Rutan homebuilts use non-white colors for trim and only on non-structurally critical areas, but there are a number of people who have dark colored Lancairs. The resins get weak. Epoxy really doesn't. Morei mporantly, the heat on a black airframe can cause foam to melt and shrink. If your core material fails, your airframe is not much more than a fiberglass baggie ready to collapse. If you use other core materials, nomex honeycomb, balsa, etc.. you get away from a lot of the temperature restrictions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:The resins get weak. Epoxy really doesn't. Morei mporantly, the heat on a black airframe can cause foam to melt and shrink. If your core material fails, your airframe is not much more than a fiberglass baggie ready to collapse. Correct! I can verify this from training and experience. It's why so many composite aircraft are painted white. UV rays break down resin like nobody's business and cause micro cracks/ crazing. Same deal as with yellowed headlight lenses.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
That was my first thought, that I mentioned in my first post, but the YO-3 was built in extremely limited numbers, it doesn't have winglets, and I think the only one still in anything close to flyable condition is owned by NASA, and painted white.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
FullMetalJacket posted:
DHC-8? That looks as old as the ones I used to fly at Allegheny. Did you find any good cockpit porn? Real edit: gently caress Clay Lacy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 05:48
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:ID Fun time. Someone tell me what the hell this is? I have an inkling, but it can't possibly be what I'm thinking of. "The Babylon Project was our last, best hope for peace. It failed. But in the year of the Shadow War, it became something greater: our last, best hope…for victory."
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 10:28
|
|
|
Dunno if this was posted yet, I didn't see it. Apologies if it has. Dude built an incredibly detailed 1/60th scale Air India 777 out of manila folders. This dude and the Ferrari guy Clarkson interviewed are the best kind of spergs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
Okay my fellow airplane nerds, a question. How often in WW2 did powers use initial aircraft prototypes in combat roles? Because if you are the Third Reich, the answer is "a lot." I'm just wondering if this is a WW2 thing generally.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Okay my fellow airplane nerds, a question. How often in WW2 did powers use initial aircraft prototypes in combat roles? Because if you are the Third Reich, the answer is "a lot." I'm just wondering if this is a WW2 thing generally. The US put 4 YP-80's in the European theatre. But that was pretty much a publicity stunt. Looks to be a pretty solid article here: http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/project-extraversion-p-80-shooting-stars-in-world-war-ii/ There are a lot of very good reasons not to fly experimental/prototype aircraft in combat. They tend to crash a lot, you need civilian/military test pilots, and civilian company-trained maintenance crews, and in world war II, you had to ship stuff by boat, which was two weeks where you weren't getting experimental test data on a product that is probably already deep into preproduction. Slo-Tek fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Feb 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Okay my fellow airplane nerds, a question. How often in WW2 did powers use initial aircraft prototypes in combat roles? Because if you are the Third Reich, the answer is "a lot." I'm just wondering if this is a WW2 thing generally. I believe it's more of a "we're so desperate and will try anything" thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
This was cool. Singapore's Black Knights demo team is reformed with new paint.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:The US put 4 YP-80's in the European theatre. But that was pretty much a publicity stunt. It also makes a lot more sense to use prototypes if its your country thats being invaded at the time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:The US put 4 YP-80's in the European theatre. But that was pretty much a publicity stunt. I figured as much, as it always struck me as weird that initial prototypes were being used by Germany for the reasons you stated. Interestingly, this was *not* a late war phenomenon. The Arado Ar 240 was this very advanced (for the time) twin engine fighter/bomber that never went past the prototype stage, with only about 15 being produced. All the prototypes that remained were used as recon planes, some flying over Britain as late as 1942. The Ju 290 had even the initial prototype used operationally, and the He 219 was shooting down bombers by pre-production prototype 7 and 8.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
ausgezeichnet posted:DHC-8? That looks as old as the ones I used to fly at Allegheny. Did you find any good cockpit porn? Its a Piedmont air (US airways) dhc 8-300. it just came in 3 days ago and has over 50,000 cycles on it. There's 5 dhc 8's of various variants and a Saab 340 in our hangar at the moment. Two challenger 600's, a q400 and a q100 with no power plants are parked outside. FullMetalJacket fucked around with this message at 23:38 on Feb 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
Zhanism posted:The drone is cool. Anyone know what the 2 rectangles are on the top and bottom of each wing? Are they control surfaces? This is from a way but but those control surfaces looks like duckerons mounted inboard from the trailing edge. They open top and bottom to act as drag brakes to control yaw. The name duckerons comes from the fact that when they open they look like a ducks mouth. Here is a good video showing how they operate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWW_ng31E-g
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
helno posted:This is from a way but but those control surfaces looks like duckerons mounted inboard from the trailing edge. Interesting. They dont look too stealthy though. Seems like they would break up the smooth curvature of the entire body.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
Reminder that Joe Kennedy Jr. was killed flying an experimental PB4Y-1 being used in its first test in a combat role.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Reminder that Joe Kennedy Jr. was killed flying an experimental PB4Y-1 being used in its first test in a combat role. Wasn't that a b17 in remote control or am I thinking of someone else?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
jaegerx posted:Wasn't that a b17 in remote control or am I thinking of someone else? B-24. PB4Y-1 was the Navy operating the B-24 as a naval patrol bomber, before they got their own single tail variant the PB4Y-2 Privateer. But yes, Joe Kennedy Junior got blowed up real good piloting a Navy-operated B-24 packed full of bombs and remote control rigs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
jaegerx posted:Wasn't that a b17 in remote control or am I thinking of someone else? Slo-Tek posted:B-24. PB4Y-1 was the Navy operating the B-24 as a naval patrol bomber, before they got their own single tail PB4Y-2. There was a Kennedy, I believe, killed when trying to bail out/arm what was suppose to be a remote control/drone bomber during WWII. I think it was a B17, but I'll have to look it up, give me a sec. edit: I'm an idiot, that's the one you were talking about. (nice stealth edit, btw.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
Zhanism posted:Interesting. They dont look too stealthy though. Seems like they would break up the smooth curvature of the entire body. In the position they are in they could simply be made completely of radar transparent materials and the shape would not matter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 05:46
|
|
|
helno posted:In the position they are in they could simply be made completely of radar transparent materials and the shape would not matter. Like what kind of material?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 08:00
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:Like what kind of material? CHINESE OSINT SPOTTED
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 11:26
|
|
|
Just finished plowing through Sled Driver. Man, what a crazy, crazy aircraft. I'm surprised most of the pictures were taken by the author, in the cockpit. I would've imagined that wouldn't be allowed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 12:12
|
|
|
bolind posted:Just finished plowing through Sled Driver. Man, what a crazy, crazy aircraft. I'm surprised most of the pictures were taken by the author, in the cockpit. I would've imagined that wouldn't be allowed. You're not supposed to, mainly because they'd like you to focus on flying the plane rather than taking cool pictures of yourself, but as long as you make sure nothing sensitive is in the frame it's generally tolerated.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 13:36
|
|
|
The RAAF did a flyby of Melbourne on Friday morning to promote an airshow coming up soon for the centenary of military aviation next month. Some great shots of the city and while the linked video is shaky there is a killer view of the skyscrapers going past the pilots window at around 1:45 in. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCPn-REdzi0 Flying over the Tennis Centre (lower left)  Flying over the Melbourne Cricket Ground  Flying over Albert Park and the F1 circuit.  Olympic Park sports precinct in the background to the right   Across the bay  They also flew over the hull of the Canberra class HMAS Adelaide, which arrived in Melbourne on friday for completion and fitouts after a journey from Spain. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
Nice, last year's F1 I took a chopper ride while it was on and it was a clear day and sunny and Melbourne was just loving beautiful from the air. Best couple of hundred bucks I've spent at a GP.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
Two serious, and seriously stupid questions: Are, or were, Commonwealth aircraft with side-by-side flight decks configured like their cars for right-hand drive? Obviously not airliners, but maybe GA or early aircraft, or even more recent military? Second, why does the CF-18 exist? Wouldn't the design compromises of an aircraft that was born for CATOBAR reduce its utility to some degree for a country that doesn't have a carrier? Or was it a middle ground between the (serious and possibly wrong assumptions here) cheap but less capable F-16 and highly capable but expensive F-15?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
Those Aussie photos look like promo shots for the sequel to Olympus Has Fallen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
hogmartin posted:Two serious, and seriously stupid questions: First question: The UK actually was the source of the captain/commander/PIC in the left seat and the first officer in the right seat. I'm not 100% sure of the origin of this, but my understanding is it had to do partly with the position of crew stations on conventional ships carrying over to flying boats, which then carried over to land-based aircraft. Edit: The oft-quoted reason of "traffic patterns are generally to the left" and "rules have aircraft passing with the other aircraft off the left side" is more of an effect than a cause, though by now it has become as much of a reason as anything else. Second question: The CF-18 was chosen because it offered the best capability for the best price. The F-16 at the time was not terribly capable in the first few blocks of -A models, which was all there was at the time. Also, the single engine was a source of anxiety, considering the hostile terrain of northern Canada. The F-15 was way too expensive, plus it had virtually no air-to-ground capability (which we needed just as much as an interceptor). The F/A-18 was the only aircraft that offered the capabilities we needed/wanted at the price we were willing to pay. Being a carrier aircraft didn't hamper the CF-18 at all; if anything, its durability was a net plus more than anything. The only changes we specified were the substitution of a conventional Instrument Landing System set, plus the spotlight in the forward left fuselage. We almost bought Iran's F-14s, but after they found out our role in the Hostage Crisis, that deal fell apart. MrChips fucked around with this message at 20:20 on Feb 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:28 |
|
|
The procurement of the F-18 is some convoluted and crazy poo poo. So, the USAF was good and freaked out about the projected costs of the F-15, and realized that if they were going to keep bases full, and generals with air wings to oversee, they needed a much less expensive aircraft, and they needed it soon. This was also a result of pressure from John Boyd, and his Fighter Mafia. Hence the Light Weight Fighter competition. General Dynamics and Northrop both made it into the final round of the competition with aircraft that were literally half the size of the F-15. GD with the single engine YF-16, and Northrop with the twin engine YF-17. The F-16 was interesting in that it was the first production aircraft with a pitch-unstable wing. Without computer assistance, the aircraft wants to tumble rear end over teakettle. However, with a computer to keep track of the pitch, it makes it considerably more maneuverable than an aircraft that doesn't inherently want to fall out of the sky. There were actually two F-16 wings designed, the pitch unstable wing, and a conventional stable wing if they couldn't get the automation to work out. The YF-17 was an evolution of the aerodynamics of the reasonably successful (and awesome looking) F-5 Freedom Fighter. At some point some bright boys at the Pentagon also compelled the Navy to take part in the LWF competition, with an eye toward yet another joint-service purchase. So there were designs for an F-16N. So, the F-16 won the LWF competition, showing better cost, and better performance across most of the test points. The Navy developed a sudden allergy to single engine aircraft, that allowed them to duck out of the joint aircraft, and commissioned Northrop to redesign and embiggen the F-17 into the F-18....which was then built by McDonnell-Douglas. The deal was that McAir would built the Navy aircraft, and that Northrop would pursue foreign sales for a land-based F-18L. Then McDonnell proceeded to ink deals with noted naval powers like Switzerland. Northrop sued, and after a decade and change lost, and had to relinquish all rights to the F-18 design for 50 million dollars. The F-18 had a number of shortcomings for the Navy, and McDonnell re-re-designed it as the F-18(EFG) which has pretty much no parts in common with the previous F-18, but congress was more apt to let go of the purse strings for an upgrade than for a new model. Pretty much the opposite of what happened with the B-50, where a design upgrade got a whole separate designation to sell to congress.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 20:40
|
|