|
priznat posted:For its day it was pretty impressive, with I believe in the neighbourhood for 350-380hp and I want to say over 400ft-lbs of torque? Edit: Wiki says 390-465hp and 500ft-lbs and it was possibly underrated. So it had oodles of power too but that displacement, holy crap. It'd be a thirsty bugger. Plus, the Wildcat (401, first engines used) and the 454 Chevy (replacements for the 401's when Buick stopped building them) weren't stock. http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/ag330_sr.htm The engineer who designed them (I forget his name atm) had experience with racing, and the internals were warmed over. Also note that they refer to the Buick's as 426's in that article, they are not. They were 401's. The guy is most likely confusing the 425 Wildcat with the 426 Hemi's in dragsters. The nailhead was the torque king of the early 60's. The 454's used weren't the average 454 that was used until the 90's. They were the LS6 (not LS7 as stated in the article) Also Chevy made the Vortec 8100 from 2001-2007 which displaced 496ci and you could get it in trucks and Suburbans 
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 15:45 |
|
|
priznat posted:Have they entertained the possibility that the plane skirted a black hole, thus giving it additional velocity? Now they can tell passengers that they made the LHR run in under twelve parsecs. Serious question though: Are gear pins just physical stoppages to keep the gears from collapsing at inopportune times, or is there some sort of switch they hit as well? I ask because I see them in place and just think that mechanically grinding against a pin would damage the gear (and hydraulics/joints/etc.) pretty severely on its own, wouldn't it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
ctishman posted:Now they can tell passengers that they made the LHR run in under twelve parsecs. Don't know. I oversped some gear today. I'll try to cycle them against pins tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 04:34
|
|
|
ctishman posted:Now they can tell passengers that they made the LHR run in under twelve parsecs. Our gear locks are just big clamps that go on the hinge points, they don't actuate any additional switches (there's already a weight on wheels switch that is supposed to prevent on-deck gear retraction). I'm sure if you took off with them still on and tried to raise the gear it would cause some interesting problems. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've read a HAZREP where they did exactly that - I think the gear mostly retracted, but it caused a lot of damage and busted a hyd line or something. I guess it's enough to keep the gear locked while on deck as long as the hyd system isn't actively trying to retract it. e: to go back to the SR-71 chat, the fun thing about requiring TEB as an engine starter is that they only had a limited amount onboard. They had something like 20 engine start attempts available before their TEB reservoir ran out. There was at least one crew that had a dual flameout up at altitude and blew most of their TEB charges up high before they figured out they had to wait until they got down into thicker air before (successfully) restarting the engines. Wingnut Ninja fucked around with this message at 04:46 on Jan 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
In flight video, F-18's. Not set to "Sail", automatically better than 90% of all military flight videos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxXx0Rio1A4
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 05:37
|
|
|
ITT I finally learned what "the gopro video song" is called.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 05:50
|
|
|
The Locator posted:In flight video, F-18's. @1:24 Does that man have POOP written on the back of his helmet?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 06:01
|
|
|
ctishman posted:Now they can tell passengers that they made the LHR run in under twelve parsecs. On the Q400, the pins for the main gear are about the thickness of a ballpoint pen, but I believe the slots for them are located so that the gear actuators don't have enough leverage to move the gear. Usually, there are various circuit breakers pulled to completely disable the gear when the airplane is ferried with pins installed, so the pins are mostly there to make completely sure the downlocks can't be removed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 06:07
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:@1:24 Does that man have POOP written on the back of his helmet? Yeah another guy has "Fisty" 
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 06:15
|
|
|
ctishman posted:Now they can tell passengers that they made the LHR run in under twelve parsecs. they are literally inanimate steel rods. fake edit - I tried explaining this without a picture and failed horribly so here goes... click for huge...  So you see the red "remove before flight" ribbon? That's attached to the gear pin. The way landing gear works (this is a 787, but they all pretty much work on the same principal), is that after extension, the gear gets locked down by that small linkage the gear pin goes through. It pushes the large diagonal linkage over-center and holds it there by being locked over-center itself by those springs.. Normally, to retract the gear, that small actuator above the springs will overcome the spring force, pulling that linkage so it folds, and in turn pulling the large diagonal linkage under-center so that it can fold, and then the whole gear can fold up (using a much larger actuator). With the gear pin installed though, that little actuator can pull all it wants, it won't be able to pull the linkage back under center, as it is being balked by the gear pin at the pivot. Clear as mud? Good. Yes, there is a potential for wear and tear at the gear pin slot, but it's suitably engineered and greased.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 06:45
|
|
|
Linedance posted:they are literally inanimate steel rods. I don't know about you but if my steel rods got up and started walking around I would get the gently caress out
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 06:49
|
|
|
Psion posted:I don't know about you but if my steel rods got up and started walking around I would get the gently caress out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfTgxrxL9ug
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 06:58
|
|
|
Unpinning the AWACS MLG doors was loving nerve wracking. I always envisioned myself getting bisected by those doors.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 06:59
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Unpinning the AWACS MLG doors was loving nerve wracking. I always envisioned myself getting bisected by those doors. so.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yz3AC93DvDo
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 07:39
|
|
|
The Locator posted:In flight video, F-18's.  yeah nothing says "badass fighter jock" like Lindsay Stirling Prancing Music.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 08:52
|
|
|
This popped up on my feed, got a laugh out of it. (Ansett was liquidated in 2002)
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 10:19
|
|
|
Linedance posted:they are literally inanimate steel rods. That actually makes perfect sense, thanks! So basically it doesn't really exert much force on the pin (or on the edge of the socket) because of its physical placement, relative to the forces exerted on it. I work around the Systems guys a bit with their flap and TR lockout bars and such, but I don't get much of a chance to actually talk to them. On further consideration, my confusion was that I was used to thinking of the system in terms of some electric motor that would grind and shove against it and overheat unless turned off. With a fluid power, a valve just cuts over and the fluid returns to the tank if it can't do what it wants within a given range of pressures.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 10:30
|
|
|
drunkill posted:This popped up on my feed, got a laugh out of it. Funny, but the idea of flying from Australia to Berlin on a 727 sounds like a very real nightmare - even in first class. And then you'd have to come back on the same plane...eventually. Google lists the flight time between SYD and BER as 25h, and that's only with one stop along the way. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 12:12 on Jan 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 12:10
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:
Here you go: http://youtubedoubler.com/ejO2 Mute the lovely dubstep. If it isn't "Sail" there's a 99.95% chance it will be dubstep. I just don't get it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 12:18
|
|
|
drunkill posted:This popped up on my feed, got a laugh out of it. Brashs hasn't been around since the 90s either. EDIT - and looking at it, "brashs" is a really loving weird name.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 14:59
|
|
|
drunkill posted:This popped up on my feed, got a laugh out of it. Australia no longer celebrates Australia Day?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
What kind of airplane has you grease a landing pin never heard of that one before but I have never seen a worn pin hole before. I always laugh a bit when maintenance mishaps happen people freak out and the look on the mechanic's face is priceless.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
Greataval posted:What kind of airplane has you grease a landing pin never heard of that one before but I have never seen a worn pin hole before. I always laugh a bit when maintenance mishaps happen people freak out and the look on the mechanic's face is priceless. Yeah you could stick it in dry, but it's always gonna go smoother with some lube.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
The Locator posted:In flight video, F-18's. They've found something worse than Sail.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
Worthleast posted:Passenger MD-11 in KLM livery hanging out at KSEA. I thought they were all retired. do you or does anyone know if that MD-11 still at Seatac? Where did you see it, anyway? I'm gonna be there tomorrow (AGAIN) and might as well try to take a picture.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
drunkill posted:This popped up on my feed, got a laugh out of it. ...and Germany was reunited in 1990. ...and telexes haven't been in common service since the late 80s. ...and Leisureland Fair closed in 1992. ...and they closed Templehof in 2008. This is a clever thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
And Ceylon is Sri Lanka and Germany uses Euros now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
And nobody flies 727s anymore. Y'know, because somehow it didn't get mentioned. Edit: The 727 couldn't have made CMB from SYD anyhow. It'd be a stretch to hit Darwin! ctishman fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Jan 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
Since we're  that's not exactly true. There's a lot of charter 727s out there still.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
https://gfycat.com/SpicyAptGoral 05 TIME LIMITS/MAINTENANCE CHECKS> 51 CONDITIONAL INSPECTIONS> Hard Landing
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
Psion posted:do you or does anyone know if that MD-11 still at Seatac? Where did you see it, anyway? I'm gonna be there tomorrow (AGAIN) and might as well try to take a picture. It was North of the North Satellite Terminal, but not as far as the Cargo area.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
Worthleast posted:It was North of the North Satellite Terminal, but not as far as the Cargo area. I'll take a look, thanks. At least trijets are easy to identify so it shouldn't be hard to pick out from the lineup 
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
Is there even the slightest chance that the FAA would ever certify a passenger airliner with only a single turbofan engine? I'm imagining something like a 727 with a giant #2 engine in the tail and nothing in the #1/#3 spots. Improved engine reliability allowed for essentially unlimited ETOPS, so it seems like single-engine operation might be safely possible in principle.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Is there even the slightest chance that the FAA would ever certify a passenger airliner with only a single turbofan engine? I'm imagining something like a 727 with a giant #2 engine in the tail and nothing in the #1/#3 spots. Improved engine reliability allowed for essentially unlimited ETOPS, so it seems like single-engine operation might be safely possible in principle. Given the agency's conservative nature, I'm going to give that a solid 'no' unless some miracle engine comes to market with essentially 100% perfect reliability, and a 'gently caress no' for ETOPS, even then.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Is there even the slightest chance that the FAA would ever certify a passenger airliner with only a single turbofan engine? I'm imagining something like a 727 with a giant #2 engine in the tail and nothing in the #1/#3 spots. Improved engine reliability allowed for essentially unlimited ETOPS, so it seems like single-engine operation might be safely possible in principle. Eh, some single engine very light jets got some way down the pipe. Obviously smashing people six CFO's at a time is different than losing 300 over the Atlantic, but I don't think it is unimaginable. Depends on how big you want it. The Cirrus Vision is a single engine 6 seater that is flying conforming prototypes now. Though there are a dozen other similar projects by bigger and smaller outfits that went bankrupt or had the program 'suspended'. I suspect that once you get past the size of a big single engine turboprop, Pilatus or Caravan size, you are going to get twins, both due to innate conservatism, and because probably won't save money having one big engine one over two smaller engines. Suspect that Caravans and Pilatus are the size they are, because that is how much airplane you can haul with one PT-6. Once you get bigger than that, you want two PT-6's, not a PT-100. (or whatever the next bigger turboprop is, I just wiki'd that) Slo-Tek fucked around with this message at 00:00 on Jan 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:Eh, some single engine very light jets got some way down the pipe. Obviously smashing people six CFO's at a time is different than losing 300 over the Atlantic, but I don't think it is unimaginable. Depends on how big you want it. The Cirrus Vision is a single engine 6 seater that is flying conforming prototypes now. Though there are a dozen other similar projects by bigger and smaller outfits that went bankrupt or had the program 'suspended'. There's also this rule in certifying single engine aircraft that they have to stall at a certain airspeed and getting a very large single engine airplane to stall at that speed would be impossible. Now I'm sure that's a leftover from a much earlier age and could be changed but as it is now you'd have to conform to that standard. Edit: it's 61 knots although the pc-12 got okayed for 67. Also all singles have to demonstrate recoverability from a one turn spin. VOR LOC fucked around with this message at 00:13 on Jan 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
VOR LOC posted:There's also this rule in certifying single engine aircraft that they have to stall at a certain airspeed and getting a very large single engine airplane to stall at that speed would be impossible. Now I'm sure that's a leftover from a much earlier age and could be changed but as it is now you'd have to conform to that standard. The PC-12 got an ELOS (equivalent level of safety) exemption from the spin recovery requirement as well, with two angle/of attack sensors and a stick pusher to (theoretically) prevent entry into a stall or spin. Additionally, the stall speed ELOS exemption was allowed following the fitment of stronger seats that are more resistant to the g-forces generated in a crash, as well as other more crashworthy cabin fittings.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
The PC-12 looks like a Super King Air someone kitbashed because they lost one of the engines.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:The PC-12 looks like a Super King Air someone kitbashed because they lost one of the engines. Apparently Beechcraft/Textron/whomever the gently caress owns them now is actually planning on building a single-engine King Air in the next few years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 15:45 |
|
|
ctishman posted:ESOPS fixt
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 01:27
|
|
