|
The F-104 may have been both horrible and responsible for some of the most intense procurement bribery scandals of all time, but god drat does it look loving rad.
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 04:49 |
|
|
I hear the C-130 did alright, too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
The P-3 seems fairly competent and popular. The S-3 seemed to be okay despite never having a well-fitting role.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:The P-3 seems fairly competent and popular. The S-3 seemed to be okay despite never having a well-fitting role. The P-3 came out of a horrible, no good very bad commercial airliner program so I don't think you can really give it a pass.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
They weren't so bad once they figured what made the wings fall off. Besides, almost 800 P-3's were made.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
[ASK] me about the time I was ground handler for a P-3 starting up and, when they went to turn over #2, a cloud of sparks shot out of the cowling and I drat near poo poo myself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
ehnus posted:They weren't so bad once they figured what made the wings fall off Is this still happening with C-130s or has the wing box issue been sorted by now?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
Previa_fun posted:Is this still happening with C-130s or has the wing box issue been sorted by now? It's been sorted, although I'm not certain if all the international buyers have had them installed. The last US C-130 crash due to wing boxen was in 2002, thanks wiki: quote:June 17, 2002 : C-130A N130HP of Hawkins & Powers Aviation crashed while fighting a fire in northern California, the starboard wing of the aircraft came off as the centre wing box failed during a pull-out from a drop near Walker, California, followed less than a second later by the port wing. It rolled inverted and crashed into the forest, killing all three crew. This second C-130A fire fighting crash, coupled with the loss of a PB4Y-2 at Estes Park, Colorado on July 18, 2002, resulted in the U.S. Department of the Interior canceling its contract for all heavy tankers.[31][32][33] (See 2002 airtanker crashes) Note C-130A. We're up to C-130J.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 07:59
|
|
|
So what's wrong with the C-5?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 09:32
|
|
|
Total loving pig, or so I've heard.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 12:38
|
|
|
They break. A LOT.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
Mokotow posted:So what's wrong with the C-5? Guys, I'm concerned.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
Was the C-141 as much of a pain in the rear end?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 15:58
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Guys, I'm concerned. C5.txt right there. What a classic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 16:59
|
|
|
For reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI5xTmmPbsY The "Guys I'm concerned" is around 2:01. Also found this in the related videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKCl3lfAx1Q Crash footage of the test C-130 that was supposed to land in that Iranian soccer stadium, it's pretty 
FrozenVent fucked around with this message at 17:14 on Mar 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
Argo and the rocket propelled C-130 make me realize that the DoD just makes poo poo up as they go along like 90% of the time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
A Melted Tarp posted:Argo and the rocket propelled C-130 make me realize that Seriously, if you're not winging it, something's about to go wrong (And you'd better be able to wing it).
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:For reference: I've seen that C-5 video a million times, who the hell is that just blabbering about the flaps and a checkerboard in the back? Is that an engineer/observer? "I don't even know where we are."
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:The S-3 seemed to be okay despite never having a well-fitting role. As someone who spent nine years of their life working on S-3s, I sometimes still have an overwhelming urge to find the engineer who thought putting 54 lovely proximity switches (13 of which were in the lovely wing fold system) throughout the airframe was a good idea, and then kick him in the balls repeatedly until he vomits them up. (edit - apparently forgot a word) Acid Reflux fucked around with this message at 22:49 on Mar 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
Acid Reflux posted:As someone who spent nine years of their life working on S-3s, I sometimes still have an overwhelming urge to find the engineer who thought putting 54 lovely proximity switches (13 of which were in the lovely wing fold system) throughout the airframe was a good idea, and then kick him in the balls repeatedly until vomits them up. Aeronautical Insanity: Lockheed is the EA of aerospace firms
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Aeronautical Insanity: Lockheed is the EA of aerospace firms What's Boeing then, Square|Enix? Bombardier is definitely UbiSoft.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
Linedance posted:What's Boeing then, Square|Enix? Bombardier has made a bunch of lovely products, but occasionally produce great ones? Now I want to know what the Bombardier equivalent of Beyond Good and Evil is
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
would that make airbus Blizzard-Activision then?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
I wonder what Saab and Ilyushin (and the rest of the Russian ones) would be in the aircraft makers -> video game publishers analogy? Mitsubishi might be Nintendo or something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Ilyushin would probably be either wargaming.net or 1C Games, if I am not mistaken.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Now I want to know what the Bombardier equivalent of Beyond Good and Evil is A game(/plane) people loved but didn't have any success in the market? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:I wonder what Saab and Ilyushin (and the rest of the Russian ones) would be in the aircraft makers -> video game publishers analogy? Mitsubishi might be Nintendo or something. Saab would be Paradox Interactive. Swedish and loving proud of it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
Mokotow posted:So what's wrong with the C-5? Initially, the Boeing CX-HLS had better performance, more cargo capacity/volume (not much, but more nonetheless) and better engines; Boeing heavily favoured what eventually became the Pratt & Whitney JT9D for their design, which in spite of all its problems was still a better engine than the GE TF39 that was ultimately selected for the C-5. All of this unfortunately made the Boeing proposal more expensive than the Lockheed proposal, but the paper performance was good enough that the Boeing aircraft was the frontrunner...that is, until Lockheed deliberately underbid Boeing for the contract. Later, Lockheed ran into huge problems with the design and construction of the aircaft; in fairness, the C-5 was so large and so complicated that problems were inevitable, but because Lockheed had underbid so much, the problems cost so much to solve that it drove Lockheed-Georgia (the semi-independent arm of Lockheed responsible for the C-5) into bankruptcy, which necessitated a hasty bailout from Lockheed-California (the arm of Lockheed we usually think about) and the Pentagon. Schedules slipped and cost continued to rise as the program progressed; originally supposed to fly in early 1967, the C-5A didn't take to the skys until June of 1968. Testing showed more problems with the aircraft; it produced far more drag than expected, which reduced the aircraft's top speed and range considerably. It was also found that the wing was not built strong enough - initial load testing found that the wing would fail at 128 percent of limit load, rather than the 150 percent specified. More fixes were needed (including a primitive aerodynamic load alleviation system using the ailerons), but the fixes added weight to the aircraft...enough that the aircraft soon exceeded the guaranteed weight specified in the contract. Additionally, Lockheed limited the maximum payload of the C-5 to 190,000 pounds, rather than the 225,000 pounds set forth in the contract, in an effort to help with the wing strength problem. As production began in 1970, Lockheed found themselves in even more trouble; the L1011 airliner program was spiraling out of control, and combined with the financial boat anchor that was the C-5, just about drove the entire company into bankruptcy in 1971. Cue more loans from both state and federal governments to get the company back on its feet. The net result of this was that the C-5 had the dubious honour of being the first defense project to experience a billion-dollar cost overrun. As the aircraft entered service, more problems began to crop up. The TF39 engines were, for lack of a better way of putting it, total garbage (not that early models of the JT9D Boeing favoured were any better). The highly complex landing gear of the C-5, designed to allow the aircraft to land on unimproved runways (a feature that to my knowledge has never been used outside of training) and "kneel" to the height of a flatbed truck, was needlessly complicated and as a result was extremely unreliable - over the ensuing years, most of the C-5's reliability problems stemmed from the landing gear. As time went on, the biggest problem with the C-5 was once again the underspecced wing; by the early 1980s, serious cracks started to develop in the wing spars of many C-5As, which led to serious limitations being put on the fleet. Ultimately it was decided to rewing the C-5A with a new, properly designed wing, plus restart production with an improved version designated the C-5B. In spite of the vast improvement that the new wing provided (it was finally strong enough to allow the intended payload capacity), the aircraft was still saddled with most of its troublesome systems; specifically, the engines, hydraulics and landing gear. It wasn't until the ongoing C-5M program that these were finally addressed, with incredible effect - it was found that during testing, one C-5M could do the work of four C-5As or-Bs. MrChips fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Mar 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
A Melted Tarp posted:Argo and the rocket propelled C-130 make me realize that the DoD just makes poo poo up as they go along like 90% of the time. To drive that point further, the field where they tested and crashed Credible Sport (Wagner Field, an Eglin Aux.) is where the Doolittle Raiders trained.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
MrChips posted:initial load testing found that the wing would fail at 128 percent of limit load, rather than the 150 percent specified. Looks like McDonnell Douglas should've talked to them during the C-17's development: wiki posted:A static test of the C-17 wing in October 1992 resulted in the wing failing at 128% of design limit load, which was below the 150% requirement. Is that a bizarre coincidence or what?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
Not really Aeronautical, but definitely insanity Have some footage of a Russian SPAAAG that's apparently decided to go "gently caress everything" (Wait until the end) http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bec_1393876436
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
McDeth posted:Not really Aeronautical, but definitely insanity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEgdSZ5979Y View from inside the Tunguska. I love russians: the only comment at the end is "well that was something". Hard to translate the meaning, but that's close enough. No freakouts, just "oh wow".
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenertransport/10667081/Worlds-largest-aircraft-unveiled-and-hailed-game-changer.html It's a game changer! It's going to revolutionize the world! The lead singer of Iron Maiden said so! It will also reach altitudes of 20,000 feet and cruise at about 100 mph so I guess in the winter it's one-way trips only?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 08:53
|
|
|
Prop Wash posted:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenertransport/10667081/Worlds-largest-aircraft-unveiled-and-hailed-game-changer.html I've never understood why these companies claim that giant blimps are going to be "game changers". I'm sure they'll be useful for some niche applications that require lots of endurance or range beyond the capabilities of a helicopter, but given the blimps size and lack of speed, fixed wing aircraft are almost always going to be a more practical option for carrying heavy stuff long distances.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 10:08
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:I've never understood why these companies claim that giant blimps are going to be "game changers". They combine the luxury of a cruise ship with the speed of a slightly faster ship.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 13:09
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:They combine the luxury of a cruise ship with the speed of a slightly faster ship. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kq-N3_plNq8
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:They combine the luxury of a cruise ship with the speed of a slightly faster ship. Fun fact: Cruise ships usually putz around at about 40-60% of their maximum speed. Sometimes they'll even shut down the engines and drift for a few hours. The only time you'd go up to cruising speed is when you're repositioning the ship, or you left the last port really, really late. This is entirely relevant to the discussion of the economic viability of blimps because
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Fun fact: Cruise ships usually putz around at about 40-60% of their maximum speed. Sometimes they'll even shut down the engines and drift for a few hours. The only time you'd go up to cruising speed is when you're repositioning the ship, or you left the last port really, really late. They also typically burn two types of fuel. Nice clean stuff when going in and out of ports, and lovely bunker crap the rest of the time to save money.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
Blistex posted:They also typically burn two types of fuel. Nice clean stuff when going in and out of ports, and lovely bunker crap the rest of the time to save money.  It's not just cruise ships, pretty much every large ship does that. It used to be because the engines had a hard time throttling up and down on IFO (Not bunker, nobody burns Bunker-C except steamships), nowadays it's done to comply with emission regulations. They switch back to IFO once they're out of the zone because low-sulfur diesel costs 50-70% more than IFO.Lots of companies are fitting scrubbers nowadays though, so they should be able to burn IFO while complying with the emission standards. In other news, an USCG Dolphin made an emergency landing on an island in Lake Michigan.  Then they got it out by ferry.  
FrozenVent fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Mar 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 16:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 04:49 |
|
|
Prop Wash posted:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenertransport/10667081/Worlds-largest-aircraft-unveiled-and-hailed-game-changer.html In the winter they'll go wherever the wind takes them!
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 16:26
|
|