|
MrChips posted:Above: Artist’s impression of Hawker P.1154 in Royal Navy service. Below: Hawker P.1154 diagram. Important side note about the P.1154 (the "real Harrier"): it would have gotten a lot closer to production had the RAF and RN not gone to fisticuffs over requirements for the new plane. Unable to afford two versions, and unable to rationalize the engineering behind making one plane do both jobs, neither service got one. Probably, in hindsight, for the best.
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 21:25 |
|
|
  Saw some baby 737s today.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
Like little green minnows  Does anyone know what the brown enclosures are for? They're on some of the cars but not others. I didn't know they shipped the 777 fuselages by rail too. Pretty cool logistics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
Maker Of Shoes posted:Oh man, I haven't heard that bit in forever. Me neither, and it came rushing back instantly. A++, good reference, would reminisce again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
I came up with a new "theory" for the Malaysian 737 earlier today, which I thought I'd share: Boeing is stealing planes back to resell as-new to cover production shortfalls.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
SeaborneClink posted:Does anyone know what the brown enclosures are for? They're on some of the cars but not others. For shipping parts of MH370, obviously. Horizontal stabs maybe?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Saga posted:
drat, I'd know the back of that plane from anywhere. I've been up and down those stairs thousands of times. (not those exact ones, but same model)
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
SeaborneClink posted:Like little green minnows My cousin is a engineer at boeing and gave me a tour of the assembly plant. He pointed those out to me and mentioned they are actually to protect certain parts while in transit from gunshots. I guess boeing has had a issue with people taking pot shots at trains for fun and they got sick and tired of getting parts with bullet holes in them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
Deverse posted:My cousin is a engineer at boeing and gave me a tour of the assembly plant. He pointed those out to me and mentioned they are actually to protect certain parts while in transit from gunshots. I guess boeing has had a issue with people taking pot shots at trains for fun and they got sick and tired of getting parts with bullet holes in them. loving flyover states 
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:loving flyover states But if that ain't the darnedest middle America thing  Could also be Renton or Kent 
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
hackbunny posted:This designation hurts my head A little bit, but calling it the "Mirage 3V" just doesn't work either. Madurai posted:Important side note about the P.1154 (the "real Harrier"): it would have gotten a lot closer to production had the RAF and RN not gone to fisticuffs over requirements for the new plane. Unable to afford two versions, and unable to rationalize the engineering behind making one plane do both jobs, neither service got one. Probably, in hindsight, for the best. The RAF-RN slapfight over the P.1154 is absolutely one of the big reasons why the project got cancelled (and why it's cancellation remains one of the most contentious cancellations anywhere); I sort of glossed it over partly because my post was running long, and partly because it would take an entire infopost to tell the story of the final implosion of the British aviation industry in the 1960s.  To make paraphrase the P.1154 story, the RAF wanted a supersonic fighter-bomber; basically, a supersonic VTOL follow-up to the Hawker Hunter. The Royal Navy, on the other hand, wanted a jack-of-all-trades aircraft with emphasis on interception; what they wanted was what they got in the end...the F-4 Phantom. As such, the Royal Navy wanted a large, two-seat aircraft with a big radar, while the RAF wanted a single-seater without a lot of complicated avionics. Even though they were initially enthusiastic for the P.1154, the Royal Navy soured on the deal when the saw the proposed aircraft; all along, they secretly wanted a CATOBAR aircraft, which would help them secure funding for the replacement for HMS Ark Royal. Since the P.1154 wasnt CATOBAR capable, it would make funding the new carrier a rather difficult sell. Ironically, the Navy never did get their funding for the new carrier either; my guess was they pissed off too many people by abandoning the P.1154 and selecting the F-4 instead. MrChips fucked around with this message at 00:58 on Mar 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
This was a cool Harrier thing I saw the other month: http://x-plane.org/hawkers/Hawker_Harriers.html The P1214-3 Flying Squirrel design would have been future-awesome. Pretty sure it ended up as a GI-Joe toy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:loving flyover states Just gave my cousin a call to verify. He said it is mostly a issue when the fuselages are going through Kansas.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
Deverse posted:Just gave my cousin a call to verify. He said it is mostly a issue when the fuselages are going through Kansas. What's the matter with Kansas?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
^^^ If you live outside of KC/Larry/Topeka it is so loving boring and awful and soul sucking that you wind up getting drunk and shooting at trains because there's nothing else to do ^^^Deverse posted:Just gave my cousin a call to verify. He said it is mostly a issue when the fuselages are going through Kansas. Does not surprise me in the least.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
Handsome Ralph posted:At least it wasn't broadcasting live like those two helicopters were during that police pursuit in New Mexico years ago. You mean the midair over downtown Phoenix? Or was there another one in NM?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 01:27
|
|
|
Believable, non-terrorism theory on Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/03/mh370-electrical-fire/
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
What's believable about this? The rule of thumb is 20 minutes or so to get down? Swissair 111 had roughly that and plenty of time to communicate anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
Kilonum posted:Believable, non-terrorism theory on Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 Posted yesterday, the G+ link on the previous page. Certainly note plausible than anything the news is trotting out. Except for the lizard people theory.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
The Locator posted:You mean the midair over downtown Phoenix? Or was there another one in NM? Yeah, that's the one. I mixed up my southwestern states again  Deverse posted:My cousin is a engineer at boeing and gave me a tour of the assembly plant. He pointed those out to me and mentioned they are actually to protect certain parts while in transit from gunshots. I guess boeing has had a issue with people taking pot shots at trains for fun and they got sick and tired of getting parts with bullet holes in them. haha 
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
I own that very kit, also with a 1/48 B1 that I've been wanting to build for the past 20 years  Space Gopher posted:An international standard for a supersonic multirole V/STOL aircraft that turned into an expensive pie in the sky project? Good thing we won't make that mistake again! It looks like it's trying to pinch out a loaf.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
slidebite posted:It looks like it's trying to pinch out a loaf. I got a slightly different mental image... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cF_0fQcoOhg
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
Deverse posted:My cousin is a engineer at boeing and gave me a tour of the assembly plant. He pointed those out to me and mentioned they are actually to protect certain parts while in transit from gunshots. I guess boeing has had a issue with people taking pot shots at trains for fun and they got sick and tired of getting parts with bullet holes in them. People also do this poo poo with passenger trains and it's more common everywhere than anyone really wants to know. That's why the FRA requires train glass to be bulletproof. I was in a yard once while they were changing out windows on passenger cars and every last one would have been a headshot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
hackbunny posted:This designation hurts my head Yeah, what is that anyway? 2? 8?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
TheDon01 posted:Yeah, what is that anyway? 2? 8? Mirage III, "V" for vertical. See also, Mirage: IIIC IIID IIIX IIIDL
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:People also do this poo poo with passenger trains and it's more common everywhere than anyone really wants to know. That's why the FRA requires train glass to be bulletproof.  I didn't think I could hate people more than I do already, but here we are.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
Best MH370 theory I've heard yet: David Copperfield.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
Can anyone help me identify the type of plane in this photo of former Congo president Moise Tshombe?  the caption, "1963 Moise Tshombe Kolwezi Private Plane Belgian Secretary Press Photo"
Dejan Bimble fucked around with this message at 10:58 on Mar 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 10:54
|
|
|
WEREWAIF posted:Can anyone help me identify the type of plane in this photo of former Congo president Moise Tshombe? Could be a North-American T-6 Texan. Michael Hoare and his mercenaries had quite a few of them in Congo at the time. Sir Cornelius fucked around with this message at 13:43 on Mar 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 13:40
|
|
|
Sir Cornelius posted:Could be a North-American T-6 Texan. Michael Hoare and his mercenaries had quite a few of them in Congo at the time. T-6s are two seat tandem aircraft. It's not a T-6.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 14:30
|
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:People also do this poo poo with passenger trains and it's more common everywhere than anyone really wants to know. That's why the FRA requires train glass to be bulletproof. What!?! There either needs to be a thread about this or a link to an article about it. I did a google search and couldn't find anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 14:53
|
|
|
WEREWAIF posted:Can anyone help me identify the type of plane in this photo of former Congo president Moise Tshombe? I *think* it's a Miles Messenger, the clues being a gull wing door and hints at a twin/triple vertical stab tail.  The only thing that makes me wonder if it could not be this, is the split plane glazing on the gullwing doors, but that's possibly something that varied.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
 168757 by Powercube, on Flickr Any idea why the raked wingtips would be off so far into the modification/flight test regimen?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
Powercube posted:
That's a strange photo to me. I associate that wing configuration with smaller planes, so seeing them on a jet that size is like seeing a car on bicycle wheels.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
Blistex posted:What!?! There either needs to be a thread about this or a link to an article about it. I did a google search and couldn't find anything. I dunno about a link but I've seen some stories locally to the same effect. Also, IIRC some locomotives have steel bars over the windshield to prevent rock strikes etc etc from going under an overpass. Extremely rural and extremely urban parts of the US can be hilariously nefarious. Though I miss the old days of NYC when the trains were tagged out to all hell, lots of times they ended up being strangely beautiful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
Powercube posted:
I know zilch about raked wingtips in general, and 737s in particular, but the lower winglets on MD-11s are a deferrable item. Find a damaged one? Remove them both and dispatch the airplane. They look funny though. Lots of civvie 737NGs were built without winglets, and flown directly to Commercial Jet in Miami to have them installed, because it was cheaper than paying Boeing for them. Winglets aren't terribly structural. Might be something similar.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:That's a strange photo to me. I associate that wing configuration with smaller planes, so seeing them on a jet that size is like seeing a car on bicycle wheels. P-8s aren't built to cruise at 32k feet. Wouldn't smaller wings make sense if you're flying at 1000 feet all day and don't want to be buffeted to all hell?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Lots of civvie 737NGs were built without winglets, and flown directly to Commercial Jet in Miami to have them installed, because it was cheaper than paying Boeing for them. Winglets aren't terribly structural. While you're right about most of this. Winglets "are" a big deal when it comes to structure. They had a lot of stress to the wing roots. Adding winglets to even a slow plane like a cessna requires a lot of math to ensure you won't get in trouble if the weather gets bad. For flying low, like a P-8. No winglets definitely makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:For flying low, like a P-8. No winglets definitely makes sense. Well, they're technically raked wingtips  168440 by Powercube, on Flickr P-8s have them for cruise endurance. Going to have to disagree with you on this one as P-8s rarely get "low and slow".
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 21:25 |
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:Best MH370 theory I've heard yet: David Copperfield. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 01:49
|
|
