|
bull3964 posted:The thing is though, most modern planes have no physical linkage between control surfaces and the cockpit anyways. So, I'm not really sure how moving to virtual displays really hurts things. You already have the critical control aspect of the play relying on electrical signals and computers, surely the display aspect could be made just as robust. Until a pitot ices over and your screens go dark.
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 06:43 |
|
|
Geoj posted:I would expect the majority of the airgoing public to have a visceral bad reaction to the pilots not having a window to look out of, not really understanding that they fly by instrument for the majority of the flight anyways. That will probably kill this concept faster than any regulatory agency's refusal to sign off on it. We'll go from "wow our pilot must've flown fighters before!" to "wow our pilot must've flown drones before!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Until a pitot ices over and your screens go dark. Except the screens didn't go dark on AF443.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
So, this may be a stupid question, but what's with those "Engine-Ferry" configurations? If you just need to move an engine from Point A to Point B, why would you go through the trouble of installing it on a special plane, flying it over, and uninstalling it, instead of just boxing the engine up and sticking it in cargo?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
Captain Bravo posted:So, this may be a stupid question, but what's with those "Engine-Ferry" configurations? If you just need to move an engine from Point A to Point B, why would you go through the trouble of installing it on a special plane, flying it over, and uninstalling it, instead of just boxing the engine up and sticking it in cargo? Because it costs tens to hundreds of thousands of $ per day that the aircraft is on the ground waiting for the engine to arrive via the post, and chartering an AN124 is expensive, even by those standards. Or do you mean why mount it instead of carrying it internally? Because they're too big. I'm surprised they don't fit aerodynamic fairings over them though. I would have thought that was lower drag than letting them windmill in the airstream. Captain Postal fucked around with this message at 01:08 on Jul 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:Because it costs tens to hundreds of thousands of $ per day that the aircraft is on the ground waiting for the engine to arrive via the post, and chartering an AN124 is expensive, even by those standards. Or do you mean why mount it instead of carrying it internally? Because they're too big. The concept was more popular when airport infrastructure was significantly less universal and there were fewer cargo planes that could carry a jet engine. If you lost an engine at some obscure corner of your network it might be easiest just to fly one out to it on one of your own planes. IIRC the Vickers VC-10 had a fifth engine pod with a fairing over it when it was in use like you suggest.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
The fans are removed and stored in cargo so they're not really windmilling. According to airliners.net anyways.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
SyHopeful posted:We'll go from "wow our pilot must've flown fighters before!" to "wow our pilot must've flown drones before!" and instead of saying it for aggressive flying, they'll say it when the plane's stuck in a holding pattern
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
To contribute to the thread title, and in honor of July 4th, I'm quite proud of having peed on both the Las Vegas strip and the Grand Canyon from about 15k feet. Mount Rushmore would make a great third landmark if it weren't a little too far away.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 09:10
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:DC-10 can do it too: Alternately, there is one way to load an assembled GE90 on a 747:  
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 09:31
|
|
|
Barnsy posted:Also adds the possibility of looking 'through' the cockpit. That'd be a big safety advantage over traditional cockpits (imagine if QF32's crew could have just looked through the cockpit's walls and seen the damage straight away?).
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 10:00
|
|
|
Why does GE use a Pratt & Whitney powered 747 to test its engines?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 12:20
|
|
|
Because they need something reliable while they're testing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 13:21
|
|
|
0toShifty posted:Why does GE use a Pratt & Whitney powered 747 to test its engines? Serious answer, because it's a -100 (not a -100B) and JT9D or RB211 were the only options, and since PanAm's -100s were JT9D... I mean, they *could* have retrofitted it with CF6 engines, but why waste money? Anyway, their testbed is now a -400 with CF6s that they bought in 2011 from JAL. That's the testbed that will test fly the LEAP
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 15:03
|
|
|
I'd love to see a 747 with four GE90 engines. Takeoffs would own so hard. Especially with the -115 variant. 460,000 lb of thrust. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
Imagine the takeoff roll when empty. - Take off power - 2 secondes elapse - Smell you later!
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:I'd love to see a 747 with four GE90 engines. Takeoffs would own so hard. Agreed. The takeoff roll at LAX on the way to SYD is pretty fun. Seems to take most of the runway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
An empty 744 with 4 GE90s? You could probably do a flex takeoff by just lifting the thrust levers out of the idle gate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:An empty 744 with 4 GE90s? You could probably do a flex takeoff by just lifting the thrust levers out of the idle gate. I want 4 GE90s on an SP.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
I want 6 GE90s on the An-225
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
Serious post: B-52. Why haven't those things been reengined yet?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
Kilonum posted:I want 6 GE90s on the An-225 You would only need 4. Probably 3 would work just fine as long as the rudder(s) worked well. Radiohead71 fucked around with this message at 18:16 on Jul 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Serious post: B-52. Why haven't those things been reengined yet? Probably because the cost incentive isn't quite there or there are serious engineering reasons preventing it such as the wing not being able to cope with the new engine's weight or power.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
I remember this being brought up before, I think the main reason is the Air Force have enough TF33's to last until the heat death of the universe and don't want to front the cost of replacing them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
^^^  holocaust bloopers posted:Probably because the cost incentive isn't quite there or there are serious engineering reasons preventing it such as the wing not being able to cope with the new engine's weight or power. Don't they also have millions of the engines it uses sitting around or something like that too?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
fknlo posted:^^^ Yea. There's so many TF-33 powerplants sitting around. Now the quality of said engines is a different matter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
jammyozzy posted:I remember this being brought up before, I think the main reason is the Air Force have enough TF33's to last until the heat death of the universe and don't want to front the cost of replacing them. That didn't stop them from reengining KC-135s with high bypass turbofans.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:That didn't stop them from reengining KC-135s with high bypass turbofans. The upgrade wasn't really massive for them though. The CFM powerplant puts out about ~1,000 more lb of thrust. It burns roughly 10,000 lb of fuel per hour versus the TF-33 chewing up 12,800 pph. Fuel savings is what drove that re-engining for loiter time and JP-8 cost savings.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:That didn't stop them from reengining KC-135s with high bypass turbofans. To add onto the above, that's also where a lot of the spare TF-33s came from. Edit: Frankly the AF could probably sell all the TF-33s to a scrapyard and reengine the E-3/E-8/B-52 and come ahead after a couple of years if you count fuel savings, flightline/backshop/depot engine maintenance, wasted man-hours waiting for said maintenance, and cancelled missions. Godholio fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Jul 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
A Melted Tarp posted:I want 4 GE90s on an SP. jammyozzy posted:I remember this being brought up before, I think the main reason is the Air Force have enough TF33's to last until the heat death of the universe and don't want to front the cost of replacing them. The B-52 is expected to serve into the 2040s, at which point the type will have 90 years of service and the newest airframe (built in 1962) will be 80+ years old. They must have a LOT of TF33s laying around. Also, given the procurement fuckery, the last B-52s built will probably still be contributing to global warming over a century after they rolled off the line.  Similarly, the replacement for the F-35 will probably be intercepting Tu-95 saber-rattling flights in 2062. Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Jul 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 19:51
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
 That's a flight I was on as we were doing pattern work/loving up nature. TF-33's are so good at destroying the atmosphere.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:I posted about that last year. A 737 with two GE90s (or 747 with 4) would have better power/weight than a fighter, even at MTOW; with just fuel, it'd be over 2:1. Too funny. I wish you did a front view. The GE90 is the same diameter as the 737 fuselage. It would need some tall gear! I recently rode the 77L from ATL-LAX and expected the GE90s to be much louder than they were (on takeoff). It was a really nice flight, though. I'm sure you've seen the pics of the A320NEO. It looks a little like your mock-up, although not as severe. Radiohead71 fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Jul 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Edit: Frankly the AF could probably sell all the TF-33s to a scrapyard and reengine the E-3/E-8/B-52 and come ahead after a couple of years if you count fuel savings, flightline/backshop/depot engine maintenance, wasted man-hours waiting for said maintenance, and cancelled missions. IIRC they'd still have the same problem that was discussed last time this came up - the B52 doesn't have enough clearance for the big turbofans (100-115" diameter), and there's a relative gap in performance between the dinky ~55-60" 737/A320 level fans and the big 100+" fans. Basically, I believe it comes down to using RB211s (like boeing initially proposed for re-engining in the 70s) or IAE V2533 which is right at the lower limit of thrust needed. While the RB211 is a lovely engine, and there's a lot of them around, it's kind of an old design, and not-american, which are probably offputting to the DoD. e: I guess there's also the P&W F117, which would give them the right performance/size, and engine commonality with the C17 too. SybilVimes fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Jul 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
Read first,
evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Jul 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Read first, Yea "cost incentive" kinda covered that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
Radiohead71 posted:The GE90 is the same diameter as the 737 fuselage. Yeah, the 777 looks much smaller than it is because the engines are so big. Here's an approximate size comparison between the 777 and 747:  The twin-engine one is actually a 737, but Matchbox plays fast and loose with scale. But a 777 looks like a scaled-up 737 in real life, so it works.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
Radiohead71 posted:I'm sure you've seen the pics of the A320NEO. It looks a little like your mock-up, although not as severe. For those that haven't, here's one comparing the old A320 (on the right) to the A320neo:  In other news, a train derailed in Montana and sent some 737 fuselages for a swim: 
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
And lo, on that day, the world was spared from a couple more boring 737s.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
MrChips posted:In other news, a train derailed in Montana and sent some 737 fuselages for a swim: Oh. Wow. Are those pretty much done forever or can they be dried out and fully assembled?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 06:43 |
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Oh. Wow. Are those pretty much done forever or can they be dried out and fully assembled? They're almost assuredly done. Even discounting water damage, the physical damage from falling off the train and into the river is probably enough by itself that they can't be saved. Though I'll bet Michael O'Leary is on the phone with Boeing right now, looking for a pair of extra-cheap 737s 
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 22:52
|
|