|
I was reading Vessbot's time to climb infoposts and was reminded of a super cool fact: The F8F Bearcat held the TTC record for ten years and it did it after only a 150 foot takeoff roll. The Bearcat might be winning out over the Corsair as my favorite WW2 carrier fighter.
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 19:40 |
|
|
The FAA opened their off-the-street Air Traffic Controller hiring announcement today. Thread here: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3608176 Job announcement here: https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/398409000 Closes 3/27.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
$22-28K per year? Is that just for while you're in Academy? e: quote:Upon successful completion of the Academy initial training program & other employment requirements, newly hired ATCS's will be offered a permanent appointment at an FAA facility with a basic salary of $37,815, plus applicable locality pay based on facility assignment. Applicants with prior ATC experience will have their salary set in accordance with the ATCS Collective Bargaining Agreement, upon conversion. Answered my own question if I read a bit further. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
Yes
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
ctishman posted:Airbus would like a word over your flagrant abuse of the word "long", which it asserts is the sole property of the A340-600. Longer than a 747-400. First time I flew in one of Virgin's I was right in the back. I looked forward after sitting down and did a double take - the aisle goes a long, long way. Next thing I noticed was the extremely long take off roll. I became increasingly convinced we were about to roll off the end of the runway and end up in Hounslow.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:I stopped by the air park outside the Palmdale, CA airport yesterday and took some photos. They have a small collection of a lot of weird planes that were designed there or used there in some capacity. Also a bunch of century-series fighters. I'm on a laptop and a lovely connection at the moment, so I can't do a full run down right now. But here's one of the coolest: a shuttle carrier 747. It's not roped off or anything, you can walk right up to it (and underneath it!). Very impressive. Right next to a B-52, as well. Is it the perspective/camera lens or is the engine closer to the camera significantly fatter than the inboard one?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
I was watching Charlie Victor Romeo on Netflix (highly recommended) and one of the incidents was the 1995 crash of the Boeing E-3 Sentry Yukla 27 in Alaska. The aircraft struck geese on takeoff and lost the #1 and #2 engine, then lost altitude and crashed after reaching a peak altitude of 250 feet. I'm wondering, could this aircraft have potentially been saved? There is at least one documented case of a 707 losing the #1 and #2 engines on takeoff and still successfully returning, does the additional weight and drag of the Sentry's radar equipment make this more difficult? It sounds like the Yukla 27 crew was basically letting the plane drift to the left like it wanted to with the left two engines out while attempting to dump fuel, and that seems like that would result in the least drag and best chance of gaining speed and altitude. Is the E-3 Sentry just hosed if it loses two engines on takeoff?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
Eej posted:Is it the perspective/camera lens or is the engine closer to the camera significantly fatter than the inboard one? perspective/camera lens 
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
Eej posted:Is it the perspective/camera lens or is the engine closer to the camera significantly fatter than the inboard one? Hah my eyes were doing the same thing - it's definitely perspective shenanigans: 
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
joat mon posted:perspective/camera lens Even NASA is keeping the blacks down.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:In before our resident osprey pilot one ups everyone by going 200kias over the fence and hover taxiing over the piano keys or something equally ridiculous. There are two of us now! That would be a pretty crazy slowdown, even for V-22. Corn Burst fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Mar 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
Combo Historical and Aeronautical Insanity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfMJYwu5bM0 Guy's grandpa visited Seattle in 1955 and brought along his 16mm. Grandson scanned and digitized the film, resulting in a ridiculously high quality color video of grandpa's tour around Seattle. Oh, also, grandpa was in the Naval Air Reseve, and filmed his aerial tour of Western WA in a PB4Y-2. There's aerial footage of the floating bridge up on Hood Canal, the second Tacoma Narrows bridge, Deception Pass, great low level flying along the Pacific coast, and then close-ups of Rainier and I think a pre-eruption Helens(?). There's some footage of another PB4Y-2 flying with them, and some bonus ball-turret action near the end. No music, so you'll have to BYO Sail.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
Pre-eruption Mt. St. Helens pictures always creep me out. There's just so much mountain that just isn't there anymore.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
Wow that guy did a great job scanning that film in as well.  That was a good watch. It's always fun to see how much this city has changed as well. And yeah, Pre-Splode St. Helens is always an interesting site. She was a big, big mountain before she popped her top.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
Inacio posted:• The lighting on that Blackbird is loving awesome Surely everyone's rich fantasy chariot is the Starship?     If you can find one before they're all gone  
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
Is that last picture from when it was cast back into the fires of Mt. Doom?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
    Just bombing the Philippines and flying in some low altitude formations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:Is that last picture from when it was cast back into the fires of Mt. Doom? Seriously, what the gently caress is happening here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:Seriously, what the gently caress is happening here. Looks like the airplane equivalent of the nice, old car that had a lot of fancy gadgets for its time, but then it got old and broke and somebody tried to fix it but only managed to get it apart before realizing it was far beyond their abilities, so they chucked all the parts willynilly into the interior and listed it on CraigsList as a "mechanics special" and "ran when parked, only needs minor work".
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
Terrible Robot posted:Looks like the airplane equivalent of the nice, old car that had a lot of fancy gadgets for its time, but then it got old and broke and somebody tried to fix it but only managed to get it apart before realizing it was far beyond their abilities, so they chucked all the parts willynilly into the interior and listed it on CraigsList as a "mechanics special" and "ran when parked, only needs minor work". This, I think. I'm pretty sure it was from an auction site where one went for the grand total of $16,600. Good luck getting them flying. They were an early example of a full-composite aircraft and as such cost a mint to make - development costs were around $300 million in the 80s. This meant that a single plane was about $5,000,000, which was substantially more than the similar sized king air with a ~20year air frame history (and you could by a small biz jet for that much). Combined with a bunch of other factors this meant uptake was poor, and hence the plane bombed. The poor Starships had a pretty abrupt and horrid end. Out of the 53 built, only 11 sold so Beechcraft decided to lease the remainder. A few years later Beechcraft decided that support for the fleet was too expensive and recalled the ones it still held for destruction. The majority survived, though, and there's still 9 airworthy ones supported by ~24 frames in various states of stripping or restoration. e: There's a good write up on Air&Space for the interested. Pidgin Englishman fucked around with this message at 02:53 on Mar 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 02:49
|
|
|
After reading the wikipedia entry for the Starship, they said a few were stored at Marana Regional Airport. Well, I fired up google maps to take a look. https://goo.gl/maps/TkOEq
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 02:52
|
|
|
smackfu posted:These are the kind of planes I was thinking of: My guess would be that those were flown much more, and much harder. AND/OR Jet engines were new and progressing so much faster, and less flameout deadlier.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
Can't a lot of that be attributed to the cold war and the Soviets? As the USSR iterated and improved the MiG, the US had to iterate fighters as well with each generation getting more complex and trying to one up the rival.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
I always thought the F-11 Tiger was a drat good looking fighter. Shame it never really worked out in service.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
Previa_fun posted:I always thought the F-11 Tiger was a drat good looking fighter. Shame it never really worked out in service. The Super Tiger was even better. Grumman engineered it so well that it ended up hitting Mach 2 and hitting a record ceiling of ~76k, neither of which they didn't expect to happen. I have to admit, though - I wouldn't want to be a crew chief for the Tigers back in the day - I don't know what they were thinking, developing a plane for carrier landings that had a 'low-rider' rear end end. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 04:45 on Mar 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
Spaced God posted:I was reading Vessbot's time to climb infoposts and was reminded of a super cool fact: The F8F Bearcat held the TTC record for ten years and it did it after only a 150 foot takeoff roll. If you really need something to push it over the edge, then know that early bearcats had explosive mounted wing tips that would blow off if the G limit was exceeded.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:After reading the wikipedia entry for the Starship, they said a few were stored at Marana Regional Airport. Huh, I wonder what's up with the pile of A-4s at the other end of the airport. *edit* Ooh, And a pair of connies. Ardeem fucked around with this message at 05:10 on Mar 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:After reading the wikipedia entry for the Starship, they said a few were stored at Marana Regional Airport. The next time that part of google maps updates, you won't see those anymore, they are gone now. That's the lot that the Border Region SCCA autocrosses on, and it's completely empty of aircraft now. They were completely non-flight worthy (no engines and pretty run down), so not sure if they were moved into a hanger, or finally just stripped down and scrapped. Edit: Screenshot from my GoPro from an event back in 2011 -  You can see that they don't have vertical stabilizers, and there are 6 of them back then. If you are really bored, you can watch the video for a few different angles of them during my run. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53VVjSmQxZs The Locator fucked around with this message at 05:01 on Mar 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:To be fair, the reason poo poo got done more quickly back then is because 1) the D-I base was still working out how to horse-gently caress the government out of every cent possible through red tape and loopholes, and 2) even though the car factories stopped making tanks, all the engineers who were given carte blanche to pretty much try and develop anything that'll shorten the war were still alive and very talented. The gun thing was always the way the system was supposed to be procured (spiral development), it wasn't a software bug. It was always supposed to be included in the 3F software release, which was always* supposed to release in 2017. The no gun/IOC thing isn't the Program Office's fault, it's the fault of the Marine Aviation for being morons (also the fault of the AF too, but at least we're declaring IOC with the 3i OFP only a year ahead of 3F's scheduled release, not 2B like the Marines declaring IOC in a couple months). * Always being with the current baseline that was established several years back...I'm sure you could find some slides from the early '00s or whatever that talk about FOC in 2010 or something ludicrous.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 05:04
|
|
|
The Locator posted:The next time that part of google maps updates, you won't see those anymore, they are gone now. That's the lot that the Border Region SCCA autocrosses on, and it's completely empty of aircraft now. They were completely non-flight worthy (no engines and pretty run down), so not sure if they were moved into a hanger, or finally just stripped down and scrapped. Only on SA can you post a Google maps sat view of some random airport and have someone post ground level pictures a few posts later.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
CroatianAlzheimers posted:
That's a Mallard. The Locator posted:
Starships never had a vertical tail. The wingtips served as vertical stabilizers. That's a large part of the reason they's so good looking!
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:Starships never had a vertical tail. The wingtips served as vertical stabilizers. That's a large part of the reason they's so good looking! Yea, fairly dumb of me considering there are a bunch of magnificent pictures of them flying just a few posts up. In any case, all 6 of the airframes at Marana were clearly being used for spare parts, so I really doubt that they left the airport under their own power.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 05:21
|
|
|
zzuupp posted:My guess would be that those were flown much more, and much harder. Most of the turnover was driven by the simple fact that aircraft design was advancing very rapidly during the 1950's (of the three aircraft listed, only the F-11 started design work after 1950), since high speed aerodynamics were only beginning to be understood, and technologies like jet engines and radar were making enormous leaps in capability that rendered designs obsolete within a very short timeframe. By the late 1950's/early 1960's, supersonic aerodynamics were much better understood and jet engines and radar had both matured substantially (not to mention guided missiles), which meant that aircraft designed during the later 1950's (the F-4 for instance) often stayed in service much longer than aircraft designed only a couple of years earlier, due to the basic airframes being designed with an understanding of high speed flight and maneuvering, as well as being built to incorporate things like radar and guided missiles. In the case of the Phantom, since the core airframe was designed around supersonic flight, missiles, and radar, it was possible to keep the aircraft updated by just installing improved engines, electronics, or missiles as technology advanced, instead of having to completely redesign the aircraft every few years. Another thing to keep in mind is that aircraft that didn't incorporate computers (not to mention stealth) as part of their design were far cheaper to design and build than their modern counterparts, so replacing them every decade or so wasn't as costly as it would be now. As an example, adjusted for inflation, a late production F-4 cost about $18 million, whereas a new F/A-18 Super Hornet runs about $57 million. Once you start incorporating stealth, things get even more costly. When production finished in 1997, each B-2 cost about $737 million out the door (not counting development costs), whereas the less-stealthy B-1B only ran about $283 million each in 1998. For shits and giggles, I ran the cost of a B-52H (built in 1962) through an inflation calculator, which said that the inflation adjusted cost in 1997-98 dollars would have been about $71 million. azflyboy fucked around with this message at 05:52 on Mar 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
I want those seats.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 05:38
|
|
|
A Handed Missus posted:
I wonder what's written on the glass. I presume that's what I see in the sky? I want one of the seats too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 06:29
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I love pusher designs, but I love tractor push/pull designs even more It's so cute how you made a scale air museum to display your model planes in.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 06:34
|
|
|
A Handed Missus posted:
Forgive my ignorance, but when did the Phils need bombing and by whom? WWII and the bombs were actually for the Japanese?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 08:56
|
|
|
bolind posted:Forgive my ignorance, but when did the Phils need bombing and by whom? WWII and the bombs were actually for the Japanese? Yes. Kinda like "bombing France" actually meant "bombing Germans who happen to be in France".
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 10:07
|
|
|
poo poo. Germanwings A-320 from Barcelona to Düsseldorf with 148 passengers and crew down in the Alps. e: Flightradar 24 shows it maintaining 38000 feet over the Med, started a 3000+ ft/min descent after making landfall which it maintained until contact was lost.  http://www.flightradar24.com/data/airplanes/d-aipx/#5d42675 Ola fucked around with this message at 12:03 on Mar 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 11:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 19:40 |
|
|
Ola posted:Yes. Kinda like "bombing France" actually meant "bombing Germans who happen to be in France". They didn't care much about collateral damage back then, what with not having precision munitions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 12:00
|
|
