|
To continue the bathroom analogies, I'd say that an RNP approach is like walking into a pitch-black house, then following a little glowing strip around various bits of furniture into the bathroom without bumping into anything, and a hand flown CAT III done with a HUD is like being able to pee off the roof of your house into a soda can without missing at all. On the topic of approaches, does anyone know if Allegiant has the ability to do GPS approaches with their MD80 fleet? On my last leg today, the airport was using a basic RNAV approach, and an Allegiant MD-80 ahead of us had to do a VOR approach instead, but I wasn't sure if that was because they had inop equipment or if it was a case of Allegiant being too cheap to fit that equipment to begin with. azflyboy fucked around with this message at 03:31 on Dec 25, 2014 |
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 11:27 |
|
|
Googling for allegiant's md-80s leads to articles about their terrible, incorrect procedures so I guess it could go either way? They're getting rid of them. I like to imagine they are just abandoning them at ATL in the middle of the night.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
Peeing in the dark and flying IMC are way too comparable I've found out today
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Googling for allegiant's md-80s leads to articles about their terrible, incorrect procedures so I guess it could go either way? And by morning they are sporting a fresh set of Delta colors.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Googling for allegiant's md-80s leads to articles about their terrible, incorrect procedures so I guess it could go either way? From the horror stories I've heard about Allegiant, I wouldn't be surprised if their management isn't planning on hiring someone to set the airplanes on fire as part of a scam to collect insurance payouts. I end up walking past Allegiant gates pretty often, and I've noticed that there's a distinct (and pretty hilarious) "people of Walmart" vibe to a lot of their clientele (especially to/from Vegas) that seems to be unique to that airline.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Ya, its the best photo I could find, and matches the images in the radiological safety pdf I was able to find on the system. It might be more prevalent than just the -53 and -3, but I've never personally encountered the things, anyway. Chatting with my dad about this, he worked on the -3's and -53's as a crew chief, and more or less says the same thing: quote:It is called the IBIS system. On the doghouse cowling at 12 o'clock in the center was the indicator. The blades had an indicator at the root of the blade which was white as long as the blades were pressurized. When the pressure drops the white starts to disappear. One of the first things we did prior to climbing up was make sure that white was fully visible on the blades. We had covers we put on the IBIS when it landed. Yes, it was radioactive. Regarding this Ambihelical Hexnut posted:I wonder what advantage that design offers over a simple switch; I'm guessing "wireless"? Those look like the ones on 60s, which I think are visual only but I'm not a 60 guy so who knows. Best answer I got from my dad was that the blades on Hueys and Pavehawks are solid. I don't know if that's true for Blackhawks or Seahawks, my dad obviously didn't work on those birds.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 05:11
|
|
|
Just a reminder that this goon is a racecar driver sponsored by Allegient.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 05:18
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:Chatting with my dad about this, he worked on the -3's and -53's as a crew chief, and more or less says the same thing: I worked on Navy -53s and -60s. Both have pressurized blades. -53s use IBIS (inflight blade inspection system) with the canister of radioactive stuff. I never had to put covers on. -60s have BIMS (blade inspection and monitoring system) that's the same thing, but no radioactive canister. We just checked on turnaround (or maybe daily, I don't have my deck). That picture of the H-53 head brings back memories. Blade fold is a JOY on those. Semi-automatic relay-logic electro-hydraulic fold system on six of seven blades. The lockpin cylinders are copper-beryllium, too, so no sanding!
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Additional content: Sikorsky rolled this dorfy looking thing out: That's actually significantly less dorfy-looking than the original concept art. It used to be a hell of a lot boxier in the front and very clearly looked 'bus-ish.' I'm sure some retired Marine General said "ROUND THAT NOSE OUT, IT LOOKS lovely SQUARE." For some reason this won't upload to imgur, so here, have an image link: EDIT: See below: 
BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 07:28 on Dec 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 07:00
|
|
|
It won't load because it won't let us dirty outsiders view it. Save as and upload it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 07:15
|
|
|
Random question - does anyone know what refrigerant is used on Airbus A340-300s? Specifically Lufthansa D-AIGI if that matters. Reading a really crotchety old man posting comments on avherald and I want to sniff-test his post, pun probably intended.Godholio posted:It won't load because it won't let us dirty outsiders view it. Save as and upload it. it's just a referral block, if you copy/paste it into a new tab it works fine. But to save you the trouble: 
Psion fucked around with this message at 07:22 on Dec 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
What's the ugly thing even for? Next gen troop carrier or something?
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 07:30
|
|
|
Kitfox88 posted:What's the ugly thing even for? Next gen troop carrier or something? It's been widened enough to fit a Humvee (which the military is starting to phase out, oldest first) or a standard-sized cargo pallet. Before, the cargo had to be packed to fit the -53E, then repacked onto a cargo pallet. Now it can be packed, rolled off, and immediately rolled onto a long-range cargo plane. The engines, all three of them, also share a lot of parts commonality with the Osprey's engine. I think the original plan was for the engines to be different only in how they turned the rotor, but I think someone had a brainstorm and decided to develop something newer and slightly more proprietary. If you look at the Wiki page for the engine, you'll see it was planned for the P-7 prop-driven ASW replacement to the P-3. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 07:39 on Dec 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 07:34
|
|
|
Yet we still don't have our loving Cyclone!
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 09:19
|
|
|
Dear US Navy, This is what I'd have in mind if someone asked me to design a jet-powered ASW aircraft: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_P-1 Not the twin-engined P-8. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 09:37 on Dec 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 09:26
|
|
|
Psion posted:Random question - does anyone know what refrigerant is used on Airbus A340-300s? Air. I don't care what the old guy thinks he smelled. Other than the galley refrigerators, there is no freon refrigerant on the aircraft, unless it's being carried as cargo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 12:54
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Dear US Navy, Are the Japanese bad at a jet engine design? The 4 engines together on the P-1 create less thrust than the 2 engines on the P-8, despite being about the same size (or larger, hard to tell by pictures.). Or is it just a matter of wanting more redundancy and less asymmetric thrust in case of failure during long over-water patrols?
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 13:13
|
|
|
ApathyGifted posted:Are the Japanese bad at a jet engine design? The 4 engines together on the P-1 create less thrust than the 2 engines on the P-8, despite being about the same size (or larger, hard to tell by pictures.). Or is it just a matter of wanting more redundancy and less asymmetric thrust in case of failure during long over-water patrols? The engines on the P-1 each weigh just a little less than half what a CFM56 weighs, but put out more than half as much power.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 13:23
|
|
|
I find that extremely hard to believe. Not to detract from Japanese engineering, but a new engine from a new manufacturer is not going to be better than one with 40 years worth of improvements by a company with over half a century of experience. Some quick googling around yielded 27klbf at 2385kg for the CFM56-7B27, and 13klbf at 1240kg for the F7-10. So very close, but not better. And this doesn't include the cowlings, the mounts, and all the extra wiring, plumbing and ducting to make them work, not to mention the extra drag from two additional pods. It might be a better idea for an MPA to have four engines, but it's not going to be more efficient. The only area where I can imagine they might have saved something is in the wing structure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 14:15
|
|
|
Tsuru posted:I find that extremely hard to believe. Not to detract from Japanese engineering, but a new engine from a new manufacturer is not going to be better than one with 40 years worth of improvements by a company with over half a century of experience. Quoting for posterity. Look, a 40 year old engine design is just that - a 40 year old engine. There are all sorts of design philosophies that go into play when designing an aircraft. Perhaps the Japanese SDF wanted a four engined bird, but didn't need 54,000 lbs of thrust. Also, the engine in the P-1 was specially built for it, using materials that have a higher resistance to corrosion because of it's maritime mission. Not sure if the same was done with the Boeing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Dear US Navy, Why? Serious question - as someone who doesn't know much about what makes these two planes better/worse at the mission, why is the P-1 with it's 4 engines better than the P-8 with it's two engines at ASW work? I'm assuming that the P-8, like all modern twins, can fly just fine on a single engine. E: typo. The Locator fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Dec 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
A twin doesn't fly as well with two engines inoperative, though. (I don't think it's a big deal, but then, my rear end isn't in the thing for long patrols at low altitudes, over water, in bad weather.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
Psion posted:Random question - does anyone know what refrigerant is used on Airbus A340-300s? Specifically Lufthansa D-AIGI if that matters. Reading a really crotchety old man posting comments on avherald and I want to sniff-test his post, pun probably intended. MrYenko posted:Air. The galley chillers on some wide body airbusses use a liquid refrigerant and pump based heat exchanger system. I can't remember what the exact refrigerant medium is, but it isn't freon. It isn't a very reliable system, but I've never heard of it stinking up the galley. Probably more likely someone left the buns in the plastic bag when they put it in the bun warmer and it melted. Plastic in ovens is usually the most common source of smoke etc in the galleys. That and food splatter on the elements.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
Tsuru posted:I find that extremely hard to believe. Not to detract from Japanese engineering, but a new engine from a new manufacturer is not going to be better than one with 40 years worth of improvements by a company with over half a century of experience. Fuel efficiency factors in greatly. A four-engined a340 with cfm56's is slow as balls but has notably more range than a 330 with 2 Trent 700s because it actually has less drag. And a new engine design is going to be more efficient than a refined old design. It's just very expensive to develop, so ultimately it's just cheaper to keep iterating the old one until you've reached a point of diminishing returns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
The Locator posted:Why? Serious question - as someone who doesn't know much about what makes these two planes better/worse at the mission, why is the P-1 with it's 4 engines better than the P-8 with it's two engines at ASW work? I'm assuming that the P-8, like all modern twins, can fly just fine on a single engine. The P8 is apparently some flavor of B737-800, so yes, it can do "okay" on one engine. However, when you're over the ponds, it's better to be at 75% power when you lose an engine than 50% power. 75% is "let's get her home" and 50% is "any pavement long enough for us to stop." The latter isn't so good if you're flying in international waters where the nearest airstrip might not be a friendly one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
DOD already has infrastructure to support the CFM-56 without relying on a foreign government/industry for parts and support.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
Godholio posted:DOD already has infrastructure to support the CFM-56 without relying on a foreign government/industry for parts and support. Umm...the CFM56 is half-made in France. Not that they would ever cut off support for anyone ever. Also comparing an early CFM56 to a modern CFM56-7 is like comparing a Porsche 911 from the 1970s to a brand new one. Sure it has the same name but they are completely different mechanically.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Umm... This pretty much sums up what I'm thinking coming back to this thread after making a post in which, based on mostly aesthetic reasons, I said I preferred the look and functionality of the Japanese plane to the P-8. Well, "umm" and probably a bit of  .The P-8 was obviously designed to be pretty much whatever the Navy wants it to be on any given day, while the P-1 seems to be just a decent maritime patrol aircraft designed from the ground up with some pretty interesting features.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
On the topic of Japanese ASW/maritime patrol aircraft, I'd just like to take a moment to mention how fantastically awesome the Shin Meiwa PS-1 and US-2 look on paper low altitude ASW patrol work (provided you're patrolling close to home or you can hit a tanker). But then, I'm prejudiced in favour of squat, ugly turboprops.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Umm...the CFM56 is half-made in France. Not that they would ever cut off support for anyone ever. Half made in France but as far as post-manufacture depot support, DoD is pretty much completely self sufficient, which is what Godholio was referring to.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
Fun P-8 fact: It uses a 777 IDG (Integrated Drive Generator) to power all whatsits and doodads inside. You can see the bulge on the left side of the engines where the cowling was modified to fit it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:Yet we still don't have our loving Cyclone! Dear god don't let that be a hunk of crap when it finally gets delivered. Ugh ugh ugh. Already seems questionable as hell with the DND fudging requirements to allow it (30 minute run dry main gearbox requirement nixed, etc) I went to high school with a girl whose father was on one of the Sea Kings that crashed in the early 90s (he survived), they were considered ancient at that time. What a hosed up mess of a procurement. Christ.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 08:08
|
|
|
priznat posted:Dear god don't let that be a hunk of crap when it finally gets delivered. Ugh ugh ugh. The F-35B is going to be in the process of being phased out of service by the time that stupid thing is delivered. It's the Duke Nukem Forever of aircraft. (The F-35 is Daikatana)
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 08:21
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:The F-35B is going to be in the process of being phased out of service by the time that stupid thing is delivered. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 11:46
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:Quoting for posterity. *crickets* Linedance posted:Fuel efficiency factors in greatly. A four-engined a340 with cfm56's is slow as balls but has notably more range than a 330 with 2 Trent 700s because it actually has less drag.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 11:51
|
|
|
Four engined aircraft just plain look better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 13:44
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Four engined aircraft just plain look better. Four engine twin fuselage pusher/puller prop configuration someone make my nightmare dream happen. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 14:25
|
|
|
Kitfox88 posted:Four engine twin fuselage pusher/puller prop configuration someone make my nightmare dream happen. Paging Burt Rutan to this thread....
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
Kitfox88 posted:Four engine twin fuselage pusher/puller prop configuration someone make my nightmare dream happen. Colonial Air Force posted:Paging Burt Rutan to this thread....  http://www.scaled.com/projects/bipod So close to all your requirements...
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 11:27 |
|
|
Tsuru posted:Of course, which is why the big three are making GBS threads themselves because of the following up and coming new engine manufacturers with their revolutionary new design philosophies that nobody in the west has ever thought of: drat I think you got me there. I think I was thinking of the stats for the -200, which does have pretty considerable range, but there just wasn't a market for it I guess. Anyway, for airlines, all quad jets have been dead for years, barring the odd a380 which nobody is buying anymore and the occasional 747-8 that nobody was buying in the first place. The point is, why Japan went for a quad Kawasaki powered maritime patrol jet over a twin cfm powered one probably has almost nothing to do with the relative output of the engines (which can be boosted or derated depending on application anyway).
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 15:36
|
|