|
MrChips posted:Stellar navigation really isn't all that hard either, actually. If anyone's interested, I happen to own a (mostly complete but functional) Mark IXA bubble sextant, and I know how to use it; next time I'm home on a clear evening, I will take some measurements and write up an effortpost on how the sextant works and how to determine your position with it. Holding you to this with pics preferred.
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 05:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 16:13 |
|
|
MrChips posted:Stellar navigation really isn't all that hard either, actually. If anyone's interested, I happen to own a (mostly complete but functional) Mark IXA bubble sextant, and I know how to use it; next time I'm home on a clear evening, I will take some measurements and write up an effortpost on how the sextant works and how to determine your position with it. Do it. This is one of those things that I always forget I was curious about until someone references it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 05:58
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Watchin' this: 22:36: "Up front, the pace may relax a bit, but the crew's attention never leaves the controls. *shows FE's attention leaving the controls*
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 06:02
|
|
|
FSX plus https://a2asimulations.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1&products_id=25 plus http://www.a2asimulations.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=9&products_id=45 is some of the best sim flying I have ever done.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 06:56
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Stellar navigation really isn't all that hard either, actually. If anyone's interested, I happen to own a (mostly complete but functional) Mark IXA bubble sextant, and I know how to use it; next time I'm home on a clear evening, I will take some measurements and write up an effortpost on how the sextant works and how to determine your position with it. I would very much enjoy this. For what it's worth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 06:57
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:I used to drive Palmdale to Vegas/Tonopah. It was a really relaxing and scenic drive to Tonopah, the drive to Vegas was boring as poo poo. Although look out for loving cattle in the road. A coworker hit one at night going like 45 by the time he jammed his brakes. Totaled his F250 killed the cow. One of our contractors totaled his car couple months back after hitting a wild donkey on 95 driving back from Indian Springs. I almost hit one of the drat things earlier last year on the same drive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 07:58
|
|
|
Puzzlingly, the FAA navigator's handbook (FAA-H-8083-18) was updated most recently in 2011 as a brand new PDF with actual text and snazzy graphics, and not what I expected, which would be some abandoned 5th generation scan with crooked pages and shadows under the corners and coffee stains and paper clips. One time I gave some thought to pursuing a Navigator certificate for the novelty of it (also Flight Engineer-recip), but some googling turned up some thread with someone asking the same thing and the answer was that there was no one able to give the checkride and was basically impossible. The topic also came up of doing some sort of conversion from a military nav certificate, which is still a real thing. Also when poking around info for old airman certificates, it turned out there used to be a Link Trainer Operator certificate. Not a "Sim Instructor" with a Link Trainer rating or something like that, but that's what it was called... Link Trainer Operator. (Link Trainers were the ubiquitous IFR sims of the WWII era, and were apparently the only game in town. They were cute little things that were a fully enclosed (and extremely tiny) box, with motion, and little stub wings and stabilizers, I guess, to quell any questions that this was really supposed to be like an airplane) vessbot fucked around with this message at 08:05 on Jan 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 08:00
|
|
|
Kilonum posted:FSX I haven't clicked the links yet, but I know what they are. A2A's 377 plus captain of the ship? It's actually where I started to get to the clip I posted. edit: yup!
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 08:29
|
|
|
Hey remember that Thai rocket wheel thing I posted a couple weeks back? Well someone made a megacut complete with one that was... very  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXGkpwMm8ac
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 09:12
|
|
|
vessbot posted:Puzzlingly, the FAA navigator's handbook (FAA-H-8083-18) was updated most recently in 2011 as a brand new PDF with actual text and snazzy graphics, and not what I expected, which would be some abandoned 5th generation scan with crooked pages and shadows under the corners and coffee stains and paper clips. One time I gave some thought to pursuing a Navigator certificate for the novelty of it (also Flight Engineer-recip), but some googling turned up some thread with someone asking the same thing and the answer was that there was no one able to give the checkride and was basically impossible. The topic also came up of doing some sort of conversion from a military nav certificate, which is still a real thing. About twenty years ago, there was a guy with most of a PT-22 in his hanger that had two of those, one of which mostly still worked. I used to go over to his hanger and beg to sit in them and pretend to fly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 09:23
|
|
|
vessbot posted:Puzzlingly, the FAA navigator's handbook (FAA-H-8083-18) was updated most recently in 2011 as a brand new PDF with actual text and snazzy graphics, and not what I expected, which would be some abandoned 5th generation scan with crooked pages and shadows under the corners and coffee stains and paper clips. One time I gave some thought to pursuing a Navigator certificate for the novelty of it (also Flight Engineer-recip), but some googling turned up some thread with someone asking the same thing and the answer was that there was no one able to give the checkride and was basically impossible. The topic also came up of doing some sort of conversion from a military nav certificate, which is still a real thing. Struggle through the nav certificate, become the only checkride/trainer guy in town, monopolise that market. e: re the link trainer, have this:  I saw one at the Boeing museum in Seattle I'm pretty sure the wings and stabilisers were so the guy outside could look at what you were doing with the control surfaces simplefish fucked around with this message at 09:46 on Jan 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 09:41
|
|
|
My old Squadron had a link trainer in full working order back when I was in the Air Training Corps (25 years now!) Fond memories of the smell!
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
reddeathdrinker posted:My old Squadron had a link trainer in full working order back when I was in the Air Training Corps (25 years now!) Fond memories of the smell! You mean in operational training usage or as a museum piece?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
simplefish posted:e: re the link trainer, have this: It looks like a biggie size version of those coin-operated rides you see at shopping malls. Is there something up with the perspective of that picture, or is it really that size?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:It looks like a biggie size version of those coin-operated rides you see at shopping malls. Is there something up with the perspective of that picture, or is it really that size? They seriously are that small https://www.google.com/search?q=lin...ved=0CAcQ_AUoAg
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:Is there something up with the perspective of that picture, or is it really that size? No, it's a very accurate illustration: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:It looks like a biggie size version of those coin-operated rides you see at shopping malls. Is there something up with the perspective of that picture, or is it really that size? Beaten, but here's the display in the Museum of Flight in Seattle. They're for training instrument and radio, specifically. Edit: And yes, you can tour most of the museum in Google streetview.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
Tough sleddin' for this Blinder crew: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
Geoj posted:No, it's a very accurate illustration: Holy poo poo, that's what was in the lobby of the training building at Boeing? I though it was one of those grocery store rides, just an old timey one...
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 05:38
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 12:02
|
|
|
Nazi Concorde, from New York to San Francisco in two hours. From the pilot episode of amazons Man in the High Castle adaptation, pro watch: http://www.amazon.com/pilotseason
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
MrChips posted:It all comes down to cost. If Beechcraft wanted to develop an all-new King Air, utilising the latest techniques and materials, it would probably cost a billion dollars. A billion dollars to build an aircraft that might be 10% better than the original King Air design fitted with modern engines and avionics. Nobody is willing to absorb that cost considering they sell in the low hundreds per year (emphasis on low). The other thing is that unlike the airlines, corporate clients are somewhat less sensitive to operating cost, and small improvements in performance don't have anywhere near the same effect in corporate aircraft. In an airline, you live and die by single percentage points, but what does a single percentage point get you in a King Air? Half a gallon of fuel per flying hour, three additional miles per hour or 40ish pounds of useful load. Oh I absolutely agree. But I like to wonder what if and then make ranting posts on the internet about it. Still a carbon fiber super critical wing and a fadec controlled turbine engine spinning a 6-8 blade composite prop are cool things to think about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
VOR LOC posted:Oh I absolutely agree. But I like to wonder what if and then make ranting posts on the internet about it. Still a carbon fiber super critical wing and a fadec controlled turbine engine spinning a 6-8 blade composite prop are cool things to think about. Diamond Aircraft has been building newly designed small/light aircraft for a while now. All new designs, fairly successful from what I understand. Companies like Beech and Cessna aren't going to create something from scratch because a) if it ain't broke, and b) the cost of tooling and engineering is already paid for. If you're a new(er) company like Diamond, you're starting from scratch, so you might as well start modern.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Watching people fly the DA20 and DA40 makes them look super uncomfortable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
drunkill posted:Nazi Concorde, from New York to San Francisco in two hours. You sold me on that show incredibly easily. I had never heard of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
drunkill posted:Nazi Concorde, from New York to San Francisco in two hours. Holy gently caress that's a hell of a visual. I'm down for this show now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
Inacio posted:You sold me on that show incredibly easily. I had never heard of it. Hirohito International Airport. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
Linedance posted:Diamond Aircraft has been building newly designed small/light aircraft for a while now. All new designs, fairly successful from what I understand. Companies like Beech and Cessna aren't going to create something from scratch because a) if it ain't broke, and b) the cost of tooling and engineering is already paid for. If you're a new(er) company like Diamond, you're starting from scratch, so you might as well start modern. c) it passed certification in the '60's and it's FAR easier to grandfather in changes to an existing certified design than to pass certification again. That's why the latest Boeing mid-sized jet that's 140' long, 112' wingspan, 85,000kg MTOW with 220 seats and digital everything is called a "737", when the 737 that passed certification is a regional jet that's 94' long, 93' wingspan 50,300kg MTOW with 120 seats and basically ran on steam. But yeah, if you HAVE to do it from scratch, you might as well do it with modern technologies Captain Postal fucked around with this message at 23:02 on Jan 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Holy gently caress that's a hell of a visual. I'm down for this show now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
 Saturn 1B first stage. Falcon 9 crash from the attempted landing of the 1st stage after launching ISS supply mission. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Falcon 9 crash from the attempted landing of the 1st stage after launching ISS supply mission. The video: https://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
wolrah posted:The video: https://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK Is there a reason they don't just parachute it into the water and then pick it up? Seems less demanding than getting it to land on a tiny platform using rockets. If they rinse it off quickly corrosion shouldn't be a problem.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
wolrah posted:The video: https://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK Lessons were learned that day... expensive lessons. Also I kind of like the thought of someone just leaving his iphone/android with vine running down on the landing pad. Barnsy posted:Is there a reason they don't just parachute it into the water and then pick it up? Seems less demanding than getting it to land on a tiny platform using rockets. If they rinse it off quickly corrosion shouldn't be a problem. Uhhh it's not as loving cool. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
Barnsy posted:Is there a reason they don't just parachute it into the water and then pick it up? Seems less demanding than getting it to land on a tiny platform using rockets. If they rinse it off quickly corrosion shouldn't be a problem. Because coming down at any speed into the water can risk damage they are trying to avoid with this style of landing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
Barnsy posted:Is there a reason they don't just parachute it into the water and then pick it up? Seems less demanding than getting it to land on a tiny platform using rockets. If they rinse it off quickly corrosion shouldn't be a problem. Saltwater corrosion would definitely still be a problem. And "rinse it off quickly" is now an entirely new engineering problem, because who's doing the rinsing?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
Barnsy posted:Is there a reason they don't just parachute it into the water and then pick it up? Seems less demanding than getting it to land on a tiny platform using rockets. If they rinse it off quickly corrosion shouldn't be a problem. Recovery, refurbishing and inspection of a rocket stage after saltwater incursion is time-consuming and expensive; we learned that with the shuttle SRBs. Plus splashing an empty tube without damage is one thing, doing it with a complex liquid-fueled engine is a lot more difficult and requires much bigger parachutes. The ultimate goal is to land the stage back on... land. It'll fly all the way back to Canaveral and land there on rocket power. Their goal is to have it ready for re-use in under a day; just truck it back to the launchpad, re-fuel and go again. The barge landing is just an intermediate step.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
Barnsy posted:Is there a reason they don't just parachute it into the water and then pick it up? Seems less demanding than getting it to land on a tiny platform using rockets. If they rinse it off quickly corrosion shouldn't be a problem. Because boats and people to drive the boats, and the cranes to haul stuff up are all expensive as hell, they are also slow. The boat is a test article. In the future, the plan is to fly the rocket back to Texas, and land it on the pad next to the refurb facility. Save a lot of man hours and days in transit. Also, rockets are hot, and tend to explode when you put them in cold water. Plus, this is way cooler.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
Linedance posted:Diamond Aircraft has been building newly designed small/light aircraft for a while now. All new designs, fairly successful from what I understand. Companies like Beech and Cessna aren't going to create something from scratch because a) if it ain't broke, and b) the cost of tooling and engineering is already paid for. If you're a new(er) company like Diamond, you're starting from scratch, so you might as well start modern. Diamond is pretty much dead as a company these days. After the disaster of the DJet program bankrupting the company (and a failed sale to a Middle East wealth fund) they've said that they will attempt to fulfill their order backlog and that's it, and there is quite a bit of doubt that they will even be able to do that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 16:13 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Because coming down at any speed into the water can risk damage they are trying to avoid with this style of landing. Surely having all that weight land on the engines is just going to smash them up?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 23:38
|
|