|
Is there a news article about this? What happened to the helicopter crew.
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 10:51 |
|
|
English referencing local news account Local news (Spanish) Pilot in critical condition; offloaded a paramedic before getting clipped.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
The rotor can spin down all it likes, but that fuselage was being spun up, so unless they actually have a brake for the main rotor that means the engine(s) were still driving the rotor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:The rotor can spin down all it likes, but that fuselage was being spun up, so unless they actually have a brake for the main rotor that means the engine(s) were still driving the rotor. Frankly there aren't any failsafes for stupid human beings.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:If you look at their pricing and profitability now, they are much more in line with a traditional full service carrier. It's sort of disingenuous to call them "low cost" In line with, yes, but almost always at the bottom end of that range. I think that's fair to call "low cost" given the minimum price floor of providing an airplane to actually go from A to B without crashing (usually) As a comparison, I looked up a flight from Seattle to the DC area, a flight I've done before / will do again, went for lowest fares: United: $414 (1 stop) Frontier: $373 total (1 stop) Alaska: $310 (to BWI, nonstop) or $436 (to DCA, nonstop) - I can't find a 1-stop to compare 1:1 American: $270 (1 stop) Southwest: $269 total (1 stop) If anything, it shows the "ULCC" model is disingenuous naming - it's more like they're an "everything a la carte" airline, not necessarily 'low cost.' Southwest though? Low cost is a lot closer to an actual description of their model.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
babyeatingpsychopath posted:Why didn't the pilot shut down the engine after the hit? Pull a fire handle? I would imagine the helicopter turned into a mini-g simulator the second it started to spin.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
Didn't think it was possible for the B-17 to get any sexier. I was wrong
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:Didn't think it was possible for the B-17 to get any sexier. I was wrong Allisons had pretty cowls, but the P-38 drivers had enough trouble keeping two of them running. quote:Then, on June 16, 1943, only the aircraft's ninth flight, a fire erupted on the XB-38's number three engine. The test crew ran through every checklist available to extinguish the fire, but nothing worked. They decided to bail out of the fuel-laden bomber before the fire could spread to its main fuel tanks. The XB-38 was a total loss, and the project was cancelled as another set of V-1710 engines were needed for more pressing test projects. Was sort of inevitable, really.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:Didn't think it was possible for the B-17 to get any sexier. I was wrong That wasn't a bad enough idea. They also re-engined a B-29 with Allison 3420 W-24 engines. Two V-12 1710's sharing a common crankcase. Ruined a couple late-war projects with them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_XB-39_Superfortress 
Slo-Tek fucked around with this message at 00:55 on Dec 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
Psion posted:In line with, yes, but almost always at the bottom end of that range. I think that's fair to call "low cost" given the minimum price floor of providing an airplane to actually go from A to B without crashing (usually) Just this summer, I flew from Pittsburgh to Las Vegas and Southwest beat the nearest competitor by over $200 round trip on top of not having to fly extremely early in the morning or late at night. I was meeting a friend there and he flew Frontier out of DC. His prices for the flight were pretty similar, but he got got dinged on checking his bag and wasn't given anything but water for free on the flight (Southwest gave snacks and soda both of the legs I was on.) Beyond that though, both of our flights were a clusterfuck of delays. My flight was nearly an hour late leaving Pittsburgh that afternoon, his was 40 minutes late leaving DC. We both had a layover in Denver around the same time and we were both over two hours late leaving that airport. Some thunderstorms rolled in right after I touched down and basically shut everything down. I kind of like the way southwest does seating, but that's probably because I managed to get into the early boarding groups on all my legs. I did choose poorly on the way home though. The flight from Las Vegas to Phoenix was fine. But I chose a bad seat in Phoenix that didn't give me enough shoulder room and someone huge sat next to me. I think that was the most miserable 4 hours of my entire life. I'm glad we weren't delayed taking off because until the cabin cooled off at altitude, I think I was the closest I've ever been to having a panic attack.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
I'm seeing a trend with Allison engines and lovely performance... P-51, XB-38/9... Hm.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:The rotor can spin down all it likes, but that fuselage was being spun up, so unless they actually have a brake for the main rotor that means the engine(s) were still driving the rotor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
Tsuru posted:What would happen to the rest of the helicopter minus tail boom if you were to try to rotor brake your way out of this? Detached retinas and giant, vomitous spin art? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:That wasn't a bad enough idea. They also re-engined a B-29 with Allison 3420 W-24 engines. Two V-12 1710's sharing a common crankcase. Ruined a couple late-war projects with them. As if B-29's didn't have enough engine fires...
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:That wasn't a bad enough idea. They also re-engined a B-29 with Allison 3420 W-24 engines. Two V-12 1710's sharing a common crankcase. Ruined a couple late-war projects with them. "Let's see if we can weld two engines together" is not a concept that has ever worked well in aviation, as Mr Heinkel would relate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
Plastic_Gargoyle posted:"Let's see if we can weld two engines together" is not a concept that has ever worked well in aviation, as Mr Heinkel would relate. "Why has this silly engine suddenly turned up, which is so idiotically welded together? They told me then, there would be two engines connected behind each other, and suddenly there appears this misbegotten monster of welded-together engines one cannot get at!"--Hermann Goering
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
Spaced God posted:I'm seeing a trend with Allison engines and lovely performance... P-51, XB-38/9... Hm. It was fine at low altitudes - basically designed for the Eastern Front. Unfortunately, little of the air-to-air combat the Western Allies participated in was at low altitudes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
Plastic_Gargoyle posted:"Let's see if we can weld two engines together" is not a concept that has ever worked well in aviation, as Mr Heinkel would relate. I've read that the problem with the DB 606s on the He 177 was to do with the comical design requirements, not the engine itself. Making a heavy bomber that also could dive-bomb was incredibly difficult, mainly because engine cowels had to be really tight for speed and stability reasons, and that didn't let enough air in to cool the engines properly. Then it becomes one of those spinning, insoluble engineering problems: get more airflow, make the He 177 much slower and unable to dive bomb. Try to pull it back, engine fires. Heinkel had the He 119 (of a sperg-post from awhile ago) running very well with the same engine. It is good to learn though somebody else tried the dual-engine thing and it was nightmarish.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
Plastic_Gargoyle posted:"Let's see if we can weld two engines together" is not a concept that has ever worked well in aviation, as Mr Heinkel would relate. Ahem. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
e: bugatti 100p my favourite twin
Colonel K fucked around with this message at 02:59 on Dec 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
Colonel K posted:Hawaii fun http://vimeo.com/103777875 The Champ looks like such a fun little plane.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
While we're on the subject of bad engine ideas and needless complexity, might as well bring up the Ki-64.wiki posted:It had two Kawasaki Ha-40 engines in tandem; one in the aircraft nose, the other behind the cockpit, both being connected by a drive shaft. This combination (called the Kawasaki Ha-201) drove two, three-bladed, contra-rotating propellors...During the fifth flight, the rear engine caught fire... 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
I dunno, it's a P39 with a front engine and a bonus prop, what's not to love? It seems like it would be easier to have a geared second driveshaft and hub for the 2nd prop rather than trying to connect the things via a driveshaft but I don't know gently caress all about aircraft powerplant design.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:
I wouldn't stop either. At least I hope I'd have the presence of mind to keep moving away from the spinning mass of whirly death instead of stopping to stare at it in slack-jawed horror.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
No Pfeil? Shame! edit: Actually, it was an effective fighter? Oh. Jonny Nox fucked around with this message at 05:52 on Dec 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 05:49
|
|
|
Tsuru posted:What would happen to the rest of the helicopter minus tail boom if you were to try to rotor brake your way out of this? It would spin, but in the same direction as rotor rotation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 06:01
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:I dunno, it's a P39 with a front engine and a bonus prop, what's not to love? Similar, but less drastic, reasons as you would for the Osprey: if one engine quits both sets of props are still powered, rather than one hub feathering in front of or behind the other, which kinda fucks up airflow. Two props powered by one engine with half the power works better to get you out of the fight to limp home than two props where one isn't turning at all (or windmilling).
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
helno posted:The Champ looks like such a fun little plane. They really are. Not very fast at all - 75-80mph cruise is about all you'll get out of 65hp - but just a total joy to hang out and watch the world go by beneath you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 07:07
|
|
|
Psion posted:In line with, yes, but almost always at the bottom end of that range. I think that's fair to call "low cost" given the minimum price floor of providing an airplane to actually go from A to B without crashing (usually) Low Cost is actually a very deceptive moniker in the airline world. To the customer, you see "low cost" and you assume they're talking about you, low cost to you. What Low Cost Carrier actually means is it's a lower cost for the airline to operate. It means lower cost in wages, airport fees, fuel, catering, etc. etc. etc., and that may result in a lower price delivered to the customer. But not always. It's always going to cost as much as it can to fill a percentage of the aircraft and turn profit. That profit is just easier to come by because of the lower operating cost model. Essentially, Low Cost is to airlines what Ikea is to furniture. Finger Prince fucked around with this message at 07:26 on Dec 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 07:24
|
|
|
I always wonder how it can possibly be economical for delta to operate its fleet of misfit planes while southwest is all 737s.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 07:47
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I always wonder how it can possibly be economical for delta to operate its fleet of misfit planes while southwest is all 737s. I'm sure they've modeled the hell out of it. Still shake my head evertime I step onto a 757. I bet they'll keep the mad dogs for quite some time too. Tremblay fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Dec 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 07:51
|
|
|
Delta bought a ton of 717s just a couple years ago and has been upgrading the interiors of the maddogs so yes they'll be around for some time. I last flew on a DC-9-50 in 2012 I think it was?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 07:56
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I always wonder how it can possibly be economical for delta to operate its fleet of misfit planes while southwest is all 737s. The benefits of a one-type fleet are far overstated, usually by the armchair CEOs over at Airliners.net (who also conveniently ignore the enormous drawbacks of said fleet). After all, I wonder how well Southwest would weather a hypothetical 737 grounding...
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 08:00
|
|
|
MrChips posted:The benefits of a one-type fleet are far overstated, usually by the armchair CEOs over at Airliners.net (who also conveniently ignore the enormous drawbacks of said fleet). The hypothetical grounding gets brought up all the time in this scenario. Really though, single fleet type is just one way of reflecting cost control. It saves money using the same thing that everyone else uses, because spares availability and training are a big cost. It also saves money if you got the all inclusive training and spare parts package from the manufacturer, which they probably only offered if you promised to only fly their aircraft. But you can realize those savings in different ways if those things I just listed aren't necessarily a big factor for your operation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 08:09
|
|
|
Linedance posted:The hypothetical grounding gets brought up all the time in this scenario. Really though, single fleet type is just one way of reflecting cost control. It saves money using the same thing that everyone else uses, because spares availability and training are a big cost. It also saves money if you got the all inclusive training and spare parts package from the manufacturer, which they probably only offered if you promised to only fly their aircraft. But you can realize those savings in different ways if those things I just listed aren't necessarily a big factor for your operation. OK, I will admit that the grounding scenario is pretty outrageous, but it is far from implausible at the same time. The big deal in the airlines today (as you probably know) is very rigorous capacity management; something that you really can't do easily with a one-type fleet. If you're racing around with a fleet of aircraft that seat 136 passengers, the only way you can manage capacity is through frequency...it's doable, but it also means you'll either need more airframes or you'll need to push your utilisation a lot higher; one of which is expensive and the other is hard on employee morale (and might end up being very expensive in the end anyway). Beyond that, airframe manufacturers are realising the benefits of commonality among a family of aircraft, which can produce almost the same savings from a training and spares perspective, all while allowing you to maintain the ability to carefully tailor capacity to your needs. Airbus has made it a central tenet of their aircraft family, and Boeing is very rapidly (well, as rapidly as you can go with 20-year product cycles) in that area as well. As you mentioned, the manufacturers these days are giving airlines enormous financial incentives to buy only their family of aircraft; the savings from these wide-ranging support programs can far outstrip the benefits of rigorously sticking to the one-type doctrine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 08:56
|
|
|
MrChips posted:After all, I wonder how well Southwest would weather a hypothetical 737 grounding... Ryanair now has over three hundred 737-800s. None of them are particularly old, because they ordered so many at once and at the right times that they got something like seven year warranty agreements out of Boeing. And there's the answer - fly 'em til they're out of warranty, then flog them and get some more. They also have so many that every potential grounding issue that I've known of would only have affected a certain subsection of the fleet - twenty were grounded for rudder actuator rebuilds a while back, for example. It's still not impossible to have a fleet grounding issue but it's reasonably unlikely for such a mature design. In the mean time, they have one large set of spares in the entire company, rather than a mixed set where you have less of each item. At least, it seemed to work from where I was sitting in a warehouse full of parts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 11:03
|
|
|
MrChips posted:The benefits of a one-type fleet are far overstated, usually by the armchair CEOs over at Airliners.net (who also conveniently ignore the enormous drawbacks of said fleet). Given the number of different versions of 737 that Southwest uses, it'd be hard to guess at one fault that would affect all of them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 11:56
|
|
|
Colonel K posted:e: bugatti 100p my favourite twin It's probably the sexiest plane, imo (Blackbird isn't even worth mentioning, good luck ever making a plane that beautiful). Really wish I could afford a replica  e: maybe I can afford this one day: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shHWrTDWtY0 marumaru fucked around with this message at 13:11 on Dec 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 13:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 10:51 |
|
|
Madurai posted:Given the number of different versions of 737 that Southwest uses, it'd be hard to guess at one fault that would affect all of them. They have 499 NGs and 135 Classics. If there was ever a grounding of the NG, they would be properly hosed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 13:51
|
|