|
Kilonum posted:Asian domestic. I was thinking about some of those crazy intra-Japan runs that are full of 747s all day, I'm just wondering if the additional time involved loading and unloading the beast would be a benefit over the current capacity. At 2,000 you're getting into cruise ship territory and it takes a while to clean up after that many passengers. Anyway, if in some crazy future world this thing takes off I'm certain that it will be an awesome vector for whatever virus is going to bring about the zombie apocalypse. Cheers!
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 13:07 |
|
|
benito posted:Just out of curiosity, has anyone here been on the baggage claim end of a full, 800-passenger single class trip on an A380 (if such a thing exists)? A 2,000-passenger plane is pretty much going to have to have its own inflight plumber, doctor, garbage collector, etc... I'm also curious as to which routes would justify such a beast. I took a flight from London to Paris on Air France's 380 when they first got them. I think there were a grand total of 3 customs desks open in the customs hall. The customs officers didn't look impressed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
Godholio posted:The US found those planes so valuable we left them behind. I'm pretty sure the USAF legit owns a few copies of both of those airframes. I know there are MiG-21s on display on USAF bases. Not nearly enough of them. There've also been reports of MiG-29s used on target ranges  (I know it makes sense, but if you've got something that rare, just build a wooden dummy to drop bombs on, and put the real things in a museum in every state)
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
Plastic_Gargoyle posted:Not nearly enough of them. There've also been reports of MiG-29s used on target ranges There were a ton made, they're not particularly rare. We're also using F-16s as target drones.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
Speaking of, the system of using F-16s as targets and intentionally missing but knowing whether or not you would have hit if it was the real deal sounds cool. Wish i knew more about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:There were a ton made, they're not particularly rare. We're also using F-16s as target drones. A bunch of the F-16 drones were worn as gently caress jets used in aggressor training and the early block models from what I remember.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
Sure hope they yoinked the APU out of those -16's before they shot them down... I mean, they're not that crazy, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:Sure hope they yoinked the APU out of those -16's before they shot them down... I'd imagine the hydrazine in the power units would dissipate before hitting ground level or be ignited by the primary detonation of the missile warhead or the secondary detonation of the fuel. It's an issue when an intact airframe crashes, but a aircraft at altitude getting popped...not to mention I'm sure they'll be shooting these things down over the Gulf of Mexico or the western test ranges only. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 03:24 on Oct 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
Hydrazine APU's? Am I in the KSP thread or is that a real thing  ?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
Not technically an APU, but an EPU - emergency power unit. Because the F-16 relies on computers to actually fly and because it only has one engine (and one generator IIRC), they gave it an EPU so that in the event of an engine failure you have a fighting chance of getting it restarted, instead of immediately tumbling rear end over tea kettle.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Not technically an APU, but an EPU - emergency power unit. Because the F-16 relies on computers to actually fly and because it only has one engine (and one generator IIRC), they gave it an EPU so that in the event of an engine failure you have a fighting chance of getting it restarted, instead of immediately tumbling rear end over tea kettle. Just to elaborate on why its an EPU and not an APU - The main difference is that an APU is used regularly to start engines on the ground and in the air if you need to restart an engine, or get some more bleed air or whatever. The EPU is only used in the event of an engine failure because it runs on hydrazine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Speaking of, the system of using F-16s as targets and intentionally missing but knowing whether or not you would have hit if it was the real deal sounds cool. Wish i knew more about it. It's just TSPI telemetry (think ACMI stuff) coupled with some algorithms on the processing end.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
Any particular reason it couldn't run on JP-8?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:Any particular reason it couldn't run on JP-8? Because what if the reason your engine died is that you are out of JP-8? Also they probably did it for weight reasons, hydrazine packs a shitload more energy per pound than jet fuel.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
Terrible Robot posted:Because what if the reason your engine died is that you are out of JP-8? Well, if the given purpose was MrChips posted:so that in the event of an engine failure you have a fighting chance of getting it restarted I was thinking mechanical failure more so than low fuel. If your tanks are dry, you're pretty much bailing anyway, and something like a capacitor could probably store enough energy to keep the plane level for long enough to eject safely. The energy density thing makes sense, though. And some cursory googling has people claiming that hydrazine units can start and get power flowing much more quickly than a typical APU, on the order of a couple seconds, so I could see that being an advantage as well. Still, nasty stuff. I'm surprised they use it on a manned atmospheric vehicle (the Shuttle had... other considerations.  )
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:Any particular reason it couldn't run on JP-8? That would require compression and an ignition source and stuff. With the hydrazine just open the bottle and bam you have a ton of hydrogen under pressure to spin something. Fucknag posted:I was thinking mechanical failure more so than low fuel. If your tanks are dry, you're pretty much bailing anyway, and something like a capacitor could probably store enough energy to keep the plane level for long enough to eject safely. If you have altitude you can certainly do a dead stick landing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Puia_yQxir8 hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 04:10 on Oct 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:It's just TSPI telemetry (think ACMI stuff) coupled with some algorithms on the processing end. Ok, cool.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 04:09
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:I was thinking mechanical failure more so than low fuel. If your tanks are dry, you're pretty much bailing anyway, and something like a capacitor could probably store enough energy to keep the plane level for long enough to eject safely. It's more than having enough time to eject, it's to power the computers and flight controls long enough to actually land somewhere if there's an airport within gliding distance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Puia_yQxir8 vessbot fucked around with this message at 04:19 on Oct 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:That would require compression and an ignition source and stuff. With the hydrazine just open the bottle and bam you have a ton of hydrogen under pressure to spin something. Context from wikipedia: quote:27 June 1996
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
Speaking of shutting down engines, Thursday was interesting: We were ferrying the plane back from a det, when lefty there decided it didn't want to be a working engine any more. Luckily a second engine and loads o' rudders makes diverting a lot easier than in an F-16.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I think its actually at least twice that size which makes it all the more ridiculous (those B-36 wheels could only be used at what 3 airports in the world?) Yeah his design is going to sink right through any tarmac in the world. Party Plane Jones posted:A bunch of the F-16 drones were worn as gently caress jets used in aggressor training and the early block models from what I remember. They're pulled from AMARC. So yeah, they're older, retired airframes that would otherwise just keep sitting in the desert donating spare parts. Although in the case of F-16s parts are still available. B-1s, B-52s, 707 family...that's a different story. A bit disconcerting when you're on a jet and you see a part labeled with the tail number of an aircraft that went down. I cant imagine the EPU is still on the QF-16s when they're used for a real shootex. They fly a lot more missions than that, and occasionally have a pilot on board; if I had to guess I'd say they appropriately prep the jets they intend to lose. Godholio fucked around with this message at 07:38 on Oct 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 07:32
|
|
|
When you haven't been able to get a test flight off for two weeks because of weather, the first nice day is sure a good time to pick to drive a lift truck right into one of the rotor blades. After canceling Friday, and canceling Saturday, now sitting around post-brief wondering if we're going to cancel today.  Edit: Yep, canceled. And even better it might require a replacement blade, which means we might sit around for two days while they track and balance it. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 09:31 on Oct 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 09:06
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Yeah his design is going to sink right through any tarmac in the world. The more you look at them the more fractally wrong his designs get. Inacio posted:The problem with Colani is that it's not just pretentious wanking or self-promotion. Gotcha, and I believe the answer is yes. Boeing once did a design study for a truly ginormous aerial bulk cargo tanker; if they thought that was possible to build I don't see why a 2000 passenger aircraft would be out of the question. In practice, it won't ever get built because the real-world practical problems with a passenger aircraft of such size are daunting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 11:19
|
|
|
Just adding an item of ridicule to this concept. I would like to see the Medusa-like array of slides that has explode forth in order to evacuate 2000 people in less than an hour.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 11:47
|
|
|
Ola posted:Just adding an item of ridicule to this concept. I would like to see the Medusa-like array of slides that has explode forth in order to evacuate 2000 people in less than an hour.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 11:51
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:Speaking of shutting down engines, Thursday was interesting: God I love that plane.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 13:45
|
|
|
BobHoward posted:Gotcha, and I believe the answer is yes. Boeing once did a design study for a truly ginormous aerial bulk cargo tanker; if they thought that was possible to build I don't see why a 2000 passenger aircraft would be out of the question. quote:The RC-1 would have been roughly twice the size and mass of the Antonov An-225 Mriya, the largest aircraft built, but would have carried about five times the payload. quote:To lower runway loads, the aircraft used a massive landing gear arrangement with 56 wheels. quote:RC-1 "Brute Lifter" This would've been the best plane. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 14:23
|
|
|
Ola posted:Just adding an item of ridicule to this concept. I would like to see the Medusa-like array of slides that has explode forth in order to evacuate 2000 people in less than an hour. just two big ones per side like you're at the fair
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 14:48
|
|
|
Ola posted:
My wife did that to our last GPS after she found out I was keeping score of the top speeds it was registering.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
Tsuru posted:Comedy option: 2000 individual ejector seats Google "surinam toad"
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
Ola posted:Another sad thing about Concorde being cancelled, you can't take your GPS aboard and watch its cruise performance trigger the ballistic missile fail safe. If I remember correctly, some of the earlier Garmin handheld units coded the check as an "or" not an "and" of the two conditions so they weren't real useful on planes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
fordan posted:If I remember correctly, some of the earlier Garmin handheld units coded the check as an "or" not an "and" of the two conditions so they weren't real useful on planes. Concorde is the only airliner able to reach either condition, let alone both at the same time!
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjgxiXxu3nY
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
That's actually quite cool. Reminds me of the sikorsky sky crane, but in plane form.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
movax posted:Secretly though, I'm sure there are war-boners raging right now to have a F-22 around to club those jets out of the sky as soon as possible.  Its already there, in the UAE.Godholio posted:I got yelled at by a cop for doing that. She didn't care enough to make me delete the pictures or actually step completely out of here little ECP booth, though. Yeah, its funny how....underutilized and overbearing security forces is. Hell, the CSS kid clipped the red line, and there was 5 trucks out of nowhere, each with 4 security forces guys. Probably helps that the KC-135s don't really HAVE a red line to cross....its only JSTARS and RC-135s that have a red line. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 14:19 on Oct 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 14:12
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Not technically an APU, but an EPU - emergency power unit. Because the F-16 relies on computers to actually fly and because it only has one engine (and one generator IIRC), they gave it an EPU so that in the event of an engine failure you have a fighting chance of getting it restarted, instead of immediately tumbling rear end over tea kettle. Whoopsies - had a feeling when i hit post something was slightly off... Turn out it was one letter. Me and vowels don't get along sometimes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 15:09
|
|
|
"Precious Metal" air racer has engine failure, lands deadstick. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2A5ywM8TNk quote:During a practice session this year we had a fuel delivery problem and the engine shut down stone cold around pylon 3. The Griffon propeller is notorious for creating huge drag if the engine quits and the propeller was subsequently feathered after the 5 G pull-up off the course. PM was returned safely to earth thanks to this system installation and flew again two days later after a carburetor change.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:It's an interesting question...I think if you ignore airport facilities the answer is yes (just don't get an Italian Architect to design them.) If you take airport facilities into account, then I imagine for airplanes there is a definite upper limit. Bear in mind that the record for passengers in an airline flight was a emergency evacuation performed by an El Al 747. By removing seats and completely ignoring safety regs, they got over 1,100 Ethiopian Jews from Ethiopia to Jerusalem. Isn't the A380 already above the limit for many airports? And that being one of the reasons why it's not selling well? The commercial failure of the A380 is in itself a good reason why even larger airliners are not a good idea, regardless of their designs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
Is the A380 a failure? Given how long it takes to design the things, you'd think it would take at least as long for success or failure to be declared.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 13:07 |
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:
Um.....what? How is it a failure?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 01:39
|
|