|
Godholio posted:Short answer: metallurgy, insane tolerances, and quality control, all of which are difficult to replicate without a long time of trial and error. Basically China started down this path decades after everyone else, and just stealing blueprints doesn't give you the full leg up to make up that gap.
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 10:25 |
|
|
Speaking of airplanes and skydivers... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBemWsiZAck 
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
I wanna see a sky diver hop out of a plane and while falling have the plane get under him and the sky diver enter the plane again while still in free fall.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
FAT CURES MUSCLES posted:I wanna see a sky diver hop out of a plane and while falling have the plane get under him and the sky diver enter the plane again while still in free fall. As you wish http://youtu.be/GGphGbJool4
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:I mean from the pilot's perspective, the only complicated thing about it in this situation was that it was still on. Apparently for some crews it gets very very confusing when they only ever do autolands and suddenly they are stuck without a G/S.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:I mean from the pilot's perspective, the only complicated thing about it in this situation was that it was still on. Why do you think it's not complicated from the pilot's perspective?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
Spaced God posted:Speaking of airplanes and skydivers... Hadn't seen that before. Looks like maybe a Piper Malibu/Meridian? It wouldn't surprise me. Worst. pilots. ever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
http://youtu.be/omHAE9yPg58 Helicopter launching a jet suit skydiver guy gets a warning horn and the passenger (wearing a chute) is like "gently caress this!" at about 4:15.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
Nice example of keeping your head and flying the plane (helicopter).
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
Yea I like to see examples where a commercial pilot has a doubt and takes the most conservative response to keep the aircraft safe. It's easy on the .mil side since the taxpayers are not as involved as shareholders, I hate to think about the airline pilots who have to think "if I turn around and I'm wrong I might be fired."
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Pretty much this. Hell even Russia lags behind the West as well. And even with "the West," the only people who can make engines worth a drat are P&W (lol), GE, R-R, and Snecma. There's a reason that other countries that build fighters (Sweden) or airliners (Brazil) license, buy, or otherwise utilize engines from one of those manufacturers (or a consortium where one or more of those companies has the lead). vessbot posted:As you wish http://youtu.be/GGphGbJool4 Alternatively: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHl6yPL0800
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nm8iV_uiBsI This was in the related videos to the one I just posted. My god that guy's voice at 2:06 is the most pilot thing I have ever heard. Odd trivia: The AH-64 aircrew training manual actually has a maneuver designed to show off that these semi-rigid rotor limits don't exist in a fully articulated rotor head by forcing you to cyclic climb at 2+ Gs then nose it over at about 0G. Anything to make your traffic pattern a little more spicy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
Ambihelical Hexnut posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nm8iV_uiBsI that was like watching a cricket match
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
Rotor separation must be avoided at all costs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:And even with "the West," the only people who can make engines worth a drat are P&W (lol), GE, R-R, and Snecma. There's a reason that other countries that build fighters (Sweden) or airliners (Brazil) license, buy, or otherwise utilize engines from one of those manufacturers (or a consortium where one or more of those companies has the lead). Yeah. Back in the 40's and 50's there were some efforts to develop an indigenous Swedish jet engine business, though. The company working on it, STAL (Svenska Turbinfabriks AB Ljungström; these days the remnants of the business is a company called Siemens Industrial Turbomachinery) had a pretty long history in the power generation business and - among other things - built turbines for a number of power plants, both in Sweden and elsewhere. They had a working engine that they test flew on a surplus Lancaster in the early 50's, but it was too small for the Draken and the air force decided they couldn't wait for an indigenous engine and went to Rolls-Royce instead. I remember reading in some book about the Draken that the planned engine would've been better than the Rolls-Royce Avon if it had been built, but who knows, paper projects are very unreliable creatures and considering they had no real previous experience... Either way, since the air force had been the main financier of the jet engine experiments STAL got out of that business and that was that. Even if they had succeeded, though, they would probably have been swallowed up by one of the big players pretty quickly. TheFluff fucked around with this message at 04:12 on Feb 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 04:08
|
|
|
vessbot posted:Rotor separation must be avoided at all costs. This seems like sound advice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
vessbot posted:As you wish http://youtu.be/GGphGbJool4 That's not the same plane though. I was trying to think of the conflicting design requirements for a plane that could both execute that kind of maneuver and also have a big door to egress/board skydivers. I hadn't thought about drogue chutes though, that's pretty clever. The Locator posted:This seems like sound advice. One of my favorite parts of the Wright-Patterson Air Force Museum is the 1910's poster describing how to deal with an engine failure: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 05:33
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:One of my favorite parts of the Wright-Patterson Air Force Museum is the 1910's poster describing how to deal with an engine failure: This is still pretty much true, sadly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ri66ZBObnM
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 07:02
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:That's not the same plane though. I was trying to think of the conflicting design requirements for a plane that could both execute that kind of maneuver and also have a big door to egress/board skydivers. I hadn't thought about drogue chutes though, that's pretty clever. Good point, I didn't think of that the video is slightly different than the challenge posted. But the way I see it, same plane should be easier and not harder than one plane to another. The video showed the ability to rendezvous and fly formation with a plane to such an accuracy as to be able to get in the door. Given that, I don't see any increased challenge then getting out, flying formation, and getting back in. Unless you're talking about dropping the jumper from level flight, and then picking him back up after establishing the dive. Then yeah, that looks to be harder without a second plane pre-positioned exactly where they know the easiest maneuvering will happen from. quote:One of my favorite parts of the Wright-Patterson Air Force Museum is the 1910's poster describing how to deal with an engine failure: What do the smaller text boxes say? vessbot fucked around with this message at 07:06 on Feb 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 07:03
|
|
|
Totally random but are any of you guys friends with the user " A Melted Tarp"
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 07:54
|
|
|
charliemonster42 posted:This is still pretty much true, sadly. Dude is Anders in the cockpit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 08:02
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0I75OZmA-0 Found this while cruising around in the related videos. e: also, fighter pilots don't have a monopoly on stupidly low passes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wo4LlpFs-5M&t=34s TheFluff fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Feb 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
Having recently visited Germany and being presented with the infamous 'inspection shelf' in every toilet I used, I'm wondering whether on German airlines like Lufthansa the in-flight toilet has this as a special extra as well ?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
Baconroll posted:Having recently visited Germany and being presented with the infamous 'inspection shelf' in every toilet I used, I'm wondering whether on German airlines like Lufthansa the in-flight toilet has this as a special extra as well ? While I've never witnessed the proverbial "poop shelf" on a Lufthansa aircraft, pretty much every aircraft toilet lets you take a close look at your issue.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Just look at those crumple zones at work! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:Yeah. Back in the 40's and 50's there were some efforts to develop an indigenous Swedish jet engine business, though. The company working on it, STAL (Svenska Turbinfabriks AB Ljungström; these days the remnants of the business is a company called Siemens Industrial Turbomachinery) had a pretty long history in the power generation business and - among other things - built turbines for a number of power plants, both in Sweden and elsewhere. They had a working engine that they test flew on a surplus Lancaster in the early 50's, but it was too small for the Draken and the air force decided they couldn't wait for an indigenous engine and went to Rolls-Royce instead. I remember reading in some book about the Draken that the planned engine would've been better than the Rolls-Royce Avon if it had been built, but who knows, paper projects are very unreliable creatures and considering they had no real previous experience... Either way, since the air force had been the main financier of the jet engine experiments STAL got out of that business and that was that. Even if they had succeeded, though, they would probably have been swallowed up by one of the big players pretty quickly. What contributed to the demise, was how the British suddenly allowed export of the Avon, thus preventing another European engine manufacturer establishing. I was told that the maintenace hatches on the SAAB Lansen are all slightly misplaced, since the fuselage was originally designed with the STAL "Dovern" in mind.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:
This reminds me of the times when I was in the adirondack mtns and military pilots would buzz 13th lake to the point of leaving wakes. (Can't remember the type of planes)
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
Ambihelical Hexnut posted:Dude is Anders in the cockpit. Isn't he though? Fully torqued, bro.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 06:35
|
|
|
 Wheeeeeeee
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
Thank you for thisfreelop posted:
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
glorious gif.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
Good job to the U.S. Airways flight crew for safely managing this landing gear failure. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRsocl8zH7M http://abc13.com/news/us-airways-flight-makes-emergency-landing-without-nose-gear-at-iah/511101/
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:Good job to the U.S. Airways flight crew for safely managing this landing gear failure. Kudos especially for flying and landing the airplane instead of getting caught up in trying to fix the problem then flying into the ground.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
Or shutting down the engines for "reasons." Here's a brief report on a situation where a FedEx flight crew was injured during a laser illumination event on approach: http://avherald.com/h?article=48189254&opt=1 quote:A Fedex Federal Express Airbus A300-600, registration N691FE performing flight FX-386 from Memphis,TN to Albuquerque,NM (USA), was on approach to Albuquerque's runway 03 when a laser beam illuminated the cockpit causing eye injuries to both of the pilots. The crew managed a safe landing on runway 03 nonetheless. Tell your friends! Shining lasers at aircraft is a felony. They find people who do this, occasionally, and the prison times are not lenient. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtKSdy2KAW4 The Ferret King fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Feb 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:Tell your friends! Shining lasers at aircraft is a felony. They find people who do this, occasionally, and the prison times are not lenient. They find those guys a lot actually, any time a pilot calls out that they got lazed whichever PD is closest almost always buzzes their chopper over there to catch them if they have one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
I would not want to take a ride on that rear slide. I imagine people had a good amount of speed vs the front door.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
freelop posted:
What always amazes me about this is how little distance is covered after the contact.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:Or shutting down the engines for "reasons."
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
pik_d posted:What always amazes me about this is how little distance is covered after the contact. I'm not a plane guy, but the article says Cessna so I think that's a 170 based on a bit of searching. Assuming wiki's right and I'm interpreting gross weight properly that's up to 2200 lbs, but since they were doing touch and goes it's probably not exactly running heavy. The article says it happened right as they were going back up, so they were presumably accelerating. I have no idea what the takeoff speed is in such a plane, but stall speed is 52 MPH so maybe 60-65 MPH? If we assume 2000 lbs and 60 MPH, when the plane nosed in to the ground it was roughly comparable to running a first-gen Miata in to a deep ditch and flipping over at back road speeds. I've put a small pickup in to a ditch in a kind of similar way and it came to a stop in about the same distance from impact.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 10:25 |
|
|
Alereon posted:Have there ever been cases where pilots were actually injured by consumer laser devices, versus being dazzled and seeking medical attention just in case? In theory it should be very difficult to cause yourself an eye injury from a consumer laser held in your own hand, much less to an aircraft in flight, though of course military and industrial lasers make this easy. There are vendors selling lasers that are illegally powerful and consumers modifying their lasers to illegal power levels, but the idea that <5mw lasers (even green) can cause eye injuries to pilots (versus just being unsafe because they can interfere and distract at a critical phase of flight) seems like an urban legend.  I am imagining taking an eyeball full of laser into a fully dilated pupil probably feels something like welders flash, not that I'm eager to experience it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 21:29
|
|
