|
MrChips posted: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. They might make decent training mockups though - Ryanair can't be the only airline that uses the fuselages from scrapped aircraft for cabin crew training (and lately for a pretty fancy engineer training rig that I had some involvement in before I left there).
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 03:52 |
|
|
Back on GE90 chat, the article I pulled that image from has some good discussion from the pilots on what it's like flying with a ~70,000 lbf thrust asymmetry: http://www.flugrevue.de/flugzeugbau/ge-aviations-high-flying-laboratory/477338quote:The initial phase of take-off is particularly tricky. "As only seven percent of the airplane weight is on the nose gear the steering is very ineffective. If the aircraft starts to go off course and you try to correct it with the nosewheel tiller, it will just skid the tires. The rudder is not fully effective until you get to about 80 knots." This means that all three crew members have to assist with the take-off. "The pilot has his hand on throttle number one using that thrust to steer the airplane. He sets it up to some nominal level, if the airplane is goeing right he will reduce the thrust. The flight engineer is controlling engines number 3 and 4, while the copilot is handling the test engine. When the rudder comes effective, number one is set to full thrust. We usually do our take-offs at full thrust. So pretty close to early jet fighters already (F-86 is listed as ~9k feet per minute.) And remember that's just one GE90, 36% more thrust than a standard -100, vs a 147% increse with all 4. Fighter jet, indeed. Fender Anarchist fucked around with this message at 23:20 on Jul 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:It's funny because it's what the camera array on the f-35 is supposed to do, and guess how well it works! Hint: it's made by lockheed. Hey now, DAS is made by NG, not LockMart.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
Oh hey, look! http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/calgary/runway+spurs+flood+noise+complaints+northeast/10001970/story.html Although I do like that I can see planes turn in to approach from both my front and back doors now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
At this point would it be better to scrap the helmet part of the Distributed Aperture System and just put some Oculus Rift mounts in the existing flight helmets? I mean, is the plucky startup (until recently) company actually further along than Northrup Grumman? I'm going to assume that they aren't stuck on the 'put a bunch of outward facing cameras in the plane' aspect of this system since that doesn't seem like anything revolutionary, correct me if I'm wrong here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:Oh hey, look! I was at an Airport Authority meeting yesterday, and it came up that the first noise complaint regarding 17L/35R (the new runway) was lodged just over two hours after it officially activated at 10am on the 28th. That's got to be some horrible new record. Also between then and Thursday morning, about 100 noise complaints were filed. I don't really have any sympathy for those people; the airport had that land set aside expressly for building a new runway ever since the airport opened in 1975, so it isn't like this was a great big loving surprise or anything. MrChips fucked around with this message at 04:01 on Jul 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
bitcoin bastard posted:At this point would it be better to scrap the helmet part of the Distributed Aperture System and just put some Oculus Rift mounts in the existing flight helmets? I mean, is the plucky startup (until recently) company actually further along than Northrup Grumman? Apache's been doing the helmet tracking/display thing effectively since the 70s/80s with 60s tech, and has working (as of yet unpurchased) integrated i2/flir image processing so what issues is DAS having? I flew one of the f35 sims in pre production several years ago and in fake computer land it worked pretty sweet. That seems like an odd thing to not have running yet since it's been done for so long in other places, unless I'm uninformed about some ambitious new capability it is supposed to have.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
Well, existing technology may work perfectly and be the ideal solution to the problem. However, you see, it isn't ~*~fifth generation~*~ enough. Also NIH syndrome, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 06:11
|
|
|
Found another picture of the mass-abortion of 737s (click for large): 5039 (5030?) in the foreground looks like it'll end up as beer cans, what with that big tear. The one in the middle just *might* be OK.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 06:20
|
|
|
MrChips posted:5039 (5030?) in the foreground looks like it'll end up as beer cans, what with that big tear. The one in the middle just *might* be OK. All of those airframes will be lucky to even end up as something as useful as beer cans. I can't see from a liability standpoint Boeing finishing out and selling a fuselage that's taken an unplanned trip down a hillside, even if it's not received any apparent damage. This is an industry that requires documentation and provenance on individual fasteners in order to ensure airworthiness, after all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 06:35
|
|
|
bennyfactor posted:All of those airframes will be lucky to even end up as something as useful as beer cans. I can't see from a liability standpoint Boeing finishing out and selling a fuselage that's taken an unplanned trip down a hillside, even if it's not received any apparent damage. This is an industry that requires documentation and provenance on individual fasteners in order to ensure airworthiness, after all. Oh I'm definitely aware of that... Boeing is likely to have all the damaged fuselages rerailed, at which point they'll be inspected. If their inspection teams feel the damage is repairable, you bet that particular fuselage will be repaired and put into service - the amount of damage they can and will repair in new or nearly new aircraft is frankly astonishing; there is no reason to think they won't go to the same effort for an aircraft that hasn't been built either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
There's probably an insurance payout waiting to happen though, right? Small comfort for falling behind on delivery though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 09:17
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Found another picture of the mass-abortion of 737s (click for large): Boeing? More like...Rowing. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 09:56
|
|
|
Planes, trains and.. Well, that's it, really. Those aren't two pillows!!
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 10:01
|
|
|
Wasn't it boeing who had to start ferrying their planes in armored trains because the rednecks kept shooting them up?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 10:19
|
|
|
The more sensitive small parts are enclosed. The fuselage however is exposed and they just repair it on delivery.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 11:15
|
|
|
Ambihelical Hexnut posted:Apache's been doing the helmet tracking/display thing effectively since the 70s/80s with 60s tech, and has working (as of yet unpurchased) integrated i2/flir image processing so what issues is DAS having? I flew one of the f35 sims in pre production several years ago and in fake computer land it worked pretty sweet. That seems like an odd thing to not have running yet since it's been done for so long in other places, unless I'm uninformed about some ambitious new capability it is supposed to have. I think in the Apache you're slewing the camera and directly feeding that to the one eye display. In the simulator you flew it was probably a simulated (hurr) DAS fed from a graphics card in some PC. In the real deal you have to do image processing from multiple cameras to render the final image. IIRC this process was taking 150ms, so the feedback loop from your head movement to your vision updating was 150ms, or around 14 beers, leading to pilot nausea. See: all the discussions about the new VR gaming gizmos and the importance of very low latency from head gyros to the display updating to avoid a lovely experience.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 12:18
|
|
|
karoshi posted:I think in the Apache you're slewing the camera and directly feeding that to the one eye display. In the simulator you flew it was probably a simulated (hurr) DAS fed from a graphics card in some PC. In the real deal you have to do image processing from multiple cameras to render the final image. IIRC this process was taking 150ms, so the feedback loop from your head movement to your vision updating was 150ms, or around 14 beers, leading to pilot nausea. See: all the discussions about the new VR gaming gizmos and the importance of very low latency from head gyros to the display updating to avoid a lovely experience. I figured as much, but flying with the tads as the night vision sensor (instead of the pnvs) the slew rate is wayyy behind your actual head motion unless you exercise some neck discipline and we still manage. Sounds like their pilots need more heart!  I just didn't think the stitching of video would be such a technical challenge for a "hookers and blow every night" airframe cost, but it's also not my field so I guess I'm wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
MrChips posted:I was at an Airport Authority meeting yesterday, and it came up that the first noise complaint regarding 17L/35R (the new runway) was lodged just over two hours after it officially activated at 10am on the 28th. That's got to be some horrible new record. Reminder that people regularly build houses around race tracks, then file noise complaints and get them shut down.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
Stealth Like posted:Reminder that people regularly build houses around race tracks, then file noise complaints and get them shut down. Same with building around (100+ year old) gun ranges and then freaking out at the sound of distant gunfire. "The real estate agent didn't warn me" is a terribly overpowered excuse, particularly in today's era of Google Maps.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
Wait, so if you don't pay for a survey and your house starts to suffer subsidence, can you say "the estate agent didn't warn me" and get your money back?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
There is no joke a gun range I used to go to that has been around since the 1850s here in Washington. Cue a bunch of fuckheads building as many houses as they can directly up against the property line of this place and everyone throwing a shitfit and trying to get it shut down all the time. gently caress NIMBYs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Same with building around (100+ year old) gun ranges and then freaking out at the sound of distant gunfire. "The real estate agent didn't warn me" is a terribly overpowered excuse, particularly in today's era of Google Maps. Even if the agent doesn't warn them, there is a separate document that you must sign when purchasing a house that has all of the potential noise/dust/hazardous materials plant/etc. that exist within a fairly large radius of the house, and you acknowledge the prior existence of these things (said things include flight paths of nearby* airports) and accept them. The fact that anyone that signs these documents ever manage to get places closed is a continual source of amazement to me, and makes me wonder why the gently caress we even bother with legal documents when everyone just ignores them anyway. *nearby is variable - my house came with a warning about aircraft from Luke AFB because the planes fly to/from a bombing range over this area. The base is about 17 miles away as the crow flies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
Man the 787-10 is long*: *if it ends up actually existing
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
Mike-o posted:There is no joke a gun range I used to go to that has been around since the 1850s here in Washington. Cue a bunch of fuckheads building as many houses as they can directly up against the property line of this place and everyone throwing a shitfit and trying to get it shut down all the time. gently caress NIMBYs. So it goes
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Man the 787-10 is long*: Here's one that does exist: 
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
Everyone here loves the 787, I know, but... I'm not a fan (looks-wise).
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
They must be pissed that Boeing won't allow anyone to paint the nacelles.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
Is Tg high enough with the structure of the 787 that black paint won't cause structural issues?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:They must be pissed that Boeing won't allow anyone to paint the nacelles. Air Canada's 787 engine cowls are painted the same pleasing bass-boat glitter baby blue as the rest of the aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
Linedance posted:Air Canada's 787 engine cowls are painted the same pleasing bass-boat glitter baby blue as the rest of the aircraft. Likewise British Airways did manage to get their 787 cowls in dark blue.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:They must be pissed that Boeing won't allow anyone to paint the nacelles. Why don't they allow it again? Can't easily see fluid leaks, obvious damage, etc?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:They must be pissed that Boeing won't allow anyone to paint the nacelles. I've heard that not painting the nacelles on NZE was a conscious decision. It'd be interesting to see the black engines against the white wings, I'll give you that- but there must have been some reason. I know NZ's been super pedantic about the aircraft in general. Edit: From what I remember, the nacelles were only allowed to be one of two colors (originally) because they were the only two colors that could be painted thinly enough to not affect the nacelle's drag bucket.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 00:49
|
|
|
The little Air NZ Airbus's have the nacelles painted black - it's just the Boeing's that don't for whatever reason.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Found another picture of the mass-abortion of 737s (click for large): It's totally stripped though. Literally no avionics or furnishings in them, right? What would get soaked in an aluminum-polymer frame?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 03:42
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
DeusExMachinima posted:It's totally stripped though. Literally no avionics or furnishings in them, right? What would get soaked in an aluminum-polymer frame? As I understand it, the fuselage barrels are shipped completely empty; not only are there obviously no cabin fittings, but I understand there isn't any wiring, control runs, hydraulics or pneumatics installed either. Essentially, they're just a glorified beer can. Powercube can shed more light on this; I've never seen the Renton line and what goes on there. Also according to the banana-brains at Airliners.net, a Section 41 (the nose section) for a 767/KC-46/777 was also damaged in the derailment. E: Thinking further on this, the biggest reason why this derailment causes a problem for Boeing is because they are already running the 737 line at essentially maximum capacity. Spirit Aerosystems, the subcontractor for the 737's fuselage, has basically said they can't build much more than 42 barrels per month, and are honestly struggling to keep up with the 40 per month they are currently tasked with. Building three additional fuselages, then integrating them into the production sequence is going to cause a lot of people in Seattle, Wichita and Chicago an awful lot of headaches. MrChips fucked around with this message at 05:56 on Jul 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
MrChips posted:As I understand it, the fuselage barrels are shipped completely empty; not only are there obviously no cabin fittings, but I understand there isn't any wiring, control runs, hydraulics or pneumatics installed either. Essentially, they're just a glorified beer can. They're as empty as the day is long, they're just tubes- all the fun stuff goes in on the rolling lines. Regardless, the word on the street is three write-offs. I agree with them, there are too many known unknowns, over-stresses, tears, gashes, to make them insurable. The banana-brains are not wrong on the section 41 being damaged, I am just surprised that's newsworthy. If it's for a KC-46, that program's already so hosed it hurts and a delayed section 41 wont kill the timelines. I'll do some digging, because if it's a 777 section 41- someone's going to be pissed. Edit: Yeah, Spirit can't handle that kind of damage or catastrophic situation - which makes me think that there are a lot of hair brained schemes going on. Everyone joking about overtime shifts and the lot are forgetting that there'd be no space for Spirit to build an extra three barrels. What surprises me the most is that this is an entirely novel occurrence. Edit II: Boeing originally considered the Dreamlifters high-risk in terms of merchandise damage, they still do- their must be some serious heads exploding in Chicago if their safe method can do that much damage. Powercube fucked around with this message at 04:15 on Jul 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, glad this didn't become another Tenerife. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1N5THRSp4hM
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
Was just about to post that. Scary poo poo, loving hell. Imagine if it had been foggy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 03:52 |
|
|
Some of the youtube commenters are claiming the A340 pilots should've looked before crossing the runway. Would they actually have visibility out of the cockpit in that direction? Seems possible that they wouldn't.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 21:44
|
|
