Aeronautical Insanity: switching to secondary tolerances

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Automotive Insanity > Aeronautical Insanity: switching to secondary tolerances

«‹›2244 »

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

Sagebrush posted:

The opposite of deicing is icing. What is the opposite of "deplane"?

Enplane.

The real question is why Webster has "enplane" as coming from 1941 and "deplane" as from 1926. So you had those 15 years to make this complaint!

# ? Nov 24, 2014 05:27

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 7, 2024 15:29

blugu64: Jul 17, 2006; Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face?

I'm really looking for an airline that offers a good anteplane experience.

# ? Nov 24, 2014 05:28

Finger Prince: Jan 5, 2007

blugu64 posted:

I'm really looking for an airline that offers a good anteplane experience.

Most are too focused on the intraplane experience.

# ? Nov 24, 2014 05:34

West SAAB Story: Mar 13, 2014; by Athanatos
(and can't post for 208 days!)

GET ON THE PLANE? gently caress YOU I AM GETTING IN THE PLANE!

Thanks, George.

Can I have an extra bag of peanuts, please? Honey roasted? Thanks.

# ? Nov 24, 2014 05:50

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

Viggen posted:

GET ON THE PLANE? gently caress YOU I AM GETTING IN THE PLANE!

Thanks, George.

Can I have an extra bag of peanuts, please? Honey roasted? Thanks.

Sorry we only have one snack on these flights now. Would you like some pretzels?

# ? Nov 24, 2014 05:55

simplefish: Mar 28, 2011; So long, and thanks for all the ~~fish~~ gallbladdΣrs!

The fun thing is:

For a Cessna 152, you are "in" the plane
For a 747-800, you are "on" the plane

# ? Nov 24, 2014 07:24

Finger Prince: Jan 5, 2007

simplefish posted:

The fun thing is:

For a Cessna 152, you are "in" the plane
For a 747-800, you are "on" the plane

Just like you're in the car but on the bus.
(or in the carriage and on the train, or in the boat and on the ferry)

Finger Prince fucked around with this message at 07:34 on Nov 24, 2014

# ? Nov 24, 2014 07:30

Sagebrush: Feb 26, 2012; ERM... Actually I have stellar scores on the surveys, and every year students tell me that my classes are the best ones they’ve ever taken.

Yet I don't think it's entirely the size of the vehicle, because I'd say you fly in a B-52, not on it.

I guess it's a mass transit thing.

# ? Nov 24, 2014 07:36

Godholio: Aug 28, 2002; Does a bear split in the woods near Zheleznogorsk?

In AWACS we'd say "on the jet" so yeah that still fits. :v:

# ? Nov 24, 2014 07:54

Advent Horizon: Jan 17, 2003; I�m back, and for that I am sorry

hobbesmaster posted:

Sorry we only have one snack on these flights now. Would you like some pretzels?

Are they gluten free?

I buy and bring aboard the largest jar of honey roasted peanuts I can find, every flight.

# ? Nov 24, 2014 09:14

simplefish: Mar 28, 2011; So long, and thanks for all the ~~fish~~ gallbladdΣrs!

Basically (but not exclusively) if you can generally realistically stand/walk inside of it, people generally say on.
If you can't, you say in.

Motorbikes get an exception because you are literally on top of it, much like wingwalkers are indeed "on" biplanes that the pilots are "in" (and people are "on foot" because you are literally on top of your feet). Big ships are "on", rowboats are "in", because you shouldn't stand up in a canoe.

"In the carriage" is from when it was a horse and carriage and you sit your arse down. Alternatively, it could be argued to be a preposition of place rather than ...preposition of method* (since a carriage can't go anywhere if it is not part of a train with an engine at the front)

"In a B52" is an interesting one. I'm picturing someone who is not a crew member catching a ride - someone strapped into their seat and not allowed to wander about willy-nilly (so basically treating him like cargo - and although you might load a box onto a plane, you certainly keep it *in* the hold, because the place matters). Or a pilot, perhaps? But even so I'd go with "He's a pilot on the B-52" not "He's a pilot in the B-52"; similarly but conversely, "He's a co-driver in Malcolm's rally car" not "He's a co-driver on Malcolm's rally car".

Actually, "He flew in a B-52" would maybe be okay - "He flew in a B-52 as a navigator in Vietnam", because he has a station to sit at. "He flew in a B-52 at the airshow! He entered the raffle and won a ride in that aeroplane!" is also okay, for the reasons stated above (being kept in place) or perhaps because the cool thing isn't that you went up in the air, it's that you did so on a freakin' BUFF. In that case, "in" would be the first choice, because it's where you are, not how you're getting from A to B, that is the focus of the conversation.

If this sounds like it's far to complex to be thought about or be rational or whatever, just consider that we all know how to use "by". Despite it being equally valid in formal grammar, it just doesn't fit some situations as well, yet fits others better.

"He came by car"; "He came by boat"; "He came, for some obscure reason, by F-22 - perhaps because he's in a Tom Clancy book".
We make an unconscious choice of which fits the situation best: "by", "in", and "on".

I'm just going to leave you with this:
"Today, a train crashed after a railway line bucked. The impact of the force ripped it wide open, igniting fuel.. After the flames were extinguished, firefighters found 12 charred bodies [in? on?] the train."

Anyway back to planes, no need to linger on prepositions.

simplefish fucked around with this message at 09:30 on Nov 24, 2014

# ? Nov 24, 2014 09:25

Wooper: Oct 16, 2006; Champion draGoon horse slayer. Making Lancers weep for their horsies since 2011. Viva Dickbutt.

Lets get back to talking about planes by going back to the post that started it all.

Sagebrush posted:

The I-16 was apparently much less prone to spins than its predecessors, the I-15 and I-153, so there's that

The I-15 biplane is not a predecessor to the I-16. They were developed simultaneously, as far as having their first flight within a couple of months in 1933.
They fought together as a agile and fast fighter combo. In the Spanish civil war the Soviets would use the I-16 to engage escort fighters until the I-15 would catch up and enter the fighting. The I-16 would then disengage to chase down bombers.
The whole agile/fast fighter doctrine they had reminds me of the Cold War heavy/light fighter doctrine that led to the F-15 and F-16.

The I-153 was a development of the I-15, improving pretty much everything without sacrificing agility. One notable upgrade was the retractable landing gear. It first flew in 1938, much later than the I-16 and missed the war in Spain completely.

As for the spinning; the I-15(3) were certainly not more prone to spinning than the I-16. They did however have worse spin characteristics.

I-153 wikipedia posted:

While the Polikarpov I-16 had gained notoriety for entering spins, pilots found it easy to recover from a spin. In contrast, while the I-153 was difficult to spin, once it lost control, recovery was difficult to the point where intentional spinning was forbidden for some time.

Wooper fucked around with this message at 12:06 on Nov 24, 2014

# ? Nov 24, 2014 12:00

Seizure Meat: Jul 23, 2008; by Smythe

Viggen posted:

GET ON THE PLANE? gently caress YOU I AM GETTING IN THE PLANE!

Thanks, George.

Can I have an extra bag of peanuts, please? Honey roasted? Thanks.

Serious question, but who among us is old enough to remember actual cooked food and ashtrays on(in) planes?

I remember a DC-10 flight with both as a kid. It was terrifying.

e- was it a Pan-Am flight too? I forget

# ? Nov 24, 2014 13:09

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

B-52 discussion is dumb. It has to be "in the buff"

# ? Nov 24, 2014 14:18

PhotoKirk: Jul 2, 2007; insert witty text here

Sagebrush posted:

The I-16 was apparently much less prone to spins than its predecessors, the I-15 and I-153, so there's that

This is not a loving word

Herve Villechaize taught me otherwise.

# ? Nov 24, 2014 14:33

beep-beep car is go: Apr 11, 2005; I can just eyeball this, right?

simplefish posted:

"He flew in a B-52 at the airshow! He entered the raffle and won a ride in that aeroplane!" is also okay, for the reasons stated above (being kept in place) or perhaps because the cool thing isn't that you went up in the air, it's that you did so on a freakin' BUFF. In that case, "in" would be the first choice, because it's where you are, not how you're getting from A to B, that is the focus of the conversation.

They don't actually do that, do they? I would LOVE to get to ride on a BUFF at an airshow. I wouldn't even care that the airframe is probably older than my Dad and smells like it too.

# ? Nov 24, 2014 15:11

simplefish: Mar 28, 2011; So long, and thanks for all the ~~fish~~ gallbladdΣrs!

I don't believe they do, sadly.

Closest I've been was a tour around a Vulcan (and perhaps geographically closer, a tour around a B17)

# ? Nov 24, 2014 15:20

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

Shampoo posted:

They don't actually do that, do they? I would LOVE to get to ride on a BUFF at an airshow. I wouldn't even care that the airframe is probably older than my Dad and smells like it too.

Riding a BUFF at an air show seems like it'd be tempting fate too much.

# ? Nov 24, 2014 15:42

Nebakenezzer: Sep 13, 2005; The Mote in God's Eye

"Riding in an airship!" is always said with the exclamation point.

# ? Nov 24, 2014 16:38

SyHopeful: Jun 24, 2007; May an IDF soldier mistakenly gun down my own parents and face no repercussions i'd totally be cool with it cuz accidents are unavoidable in a low-intensity conflict, man

hobbesmaster posted:

Riding a BUFF at an air show seems like it'd be tempting fate too much.

"...and here's your pilot, Colonel Holland!"

# ? Nov 24, 2014 16:47

Finger Prince: Jan 5, 2007

VikingSkull posted:

Serious question, but who among us is old enough to remember actual cooked food and ashtrays on(in) planes?

I remember a DC-10 flight with both as a kid. It was terrifying.

e- was it a Pan-Am flight too? I forget

I think I flew on an Air Canada DC-8 when they still had a smoking section as a kid, but I don't really remember. By cooked food, do you mean food that started out raw and then cooked in the ovens on board, or reheated stuff? I guess either way, fairly recently. I've definitely had not cooked /undercooked steak and lamb so the ovens definitely finish the cooking process that may have been started in the catering company's kitchens.

# ? Nov 24, 2014 17:04

Tremblay: Oct 8, 2002; More dog whistles than a Petco

SyHopeful posted:

"...and here's your pilot, Colonel Holland!"

Man that GIF of the laughing skeleton pilot just got even more relevant.

# ? Nov 24, 2014 17:04

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Ola posted:

Hints:

One of them is the most successful of its kind with an unprecedented victory ratio, the other is a clunker which has only served as an instrument of provocation from a nation run by jerks and assholes.

The Tu-95 is just as successful and valid as the B-52, and can even lift more and keep up with other strategic bombers.

Its an excellent plane.

# ? Nov 24, 2014 19:20

meltie: Nov 9, 2003; Not a sodding fridge.

Linedance posted:

It is an industry accepted, universally and internationally understood word, and has been for nearly as long as there have been planes from which to deplane. I mean, hell, do you take issue with deicing too?

When one deices, one removed the ice. When one deplanes, one removes... the plane?

# ? Nov 24, 2014 19:42

Sagebrush: Feb 26, 2012; ERM... Actually I have stellar scores on the surveys, and every year students tell me that my classes are the best ones they’ve ever taken.

If you want a reasonable linguistic comparison, take a look at "embark". This comes from various romance languages where the word for a boat is barc, barca, etc. The opposite of embark is disembark, so getting off a plane should be disenplaning.

# ? Nov 24, 2014 20:43

Sagebrush: Feb 26, 2012; ERM... Actually I have stellar scores on the surveys, and every year students tell me that my classes are the best ones they’ve ever taken.

Sagebrush posted:

If you want a reasonable linguistic comparison, take a look at "embark" for getting on a boat. This comes from various romance languages where the word for a boat is barc, barca, etc. The opposite of embark is disembark, so getting off a plane should be disenplaning.

# ? Nov 24, 2014 20:43