Aeronautical Insanity: switching to secondary tolerances

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Automotive Insanity > Aeronautical Insanity: switching to secondary tolerances

«‹›2240 »

Spaced God: Feb 8, 2014; All torment, trouble, wonder and amazement
Inhabits here: some heavenly power guide us
Out of this fearful country!

CroatianAlzheimers posted:

Out of curiosity, is there an Aeronautical Insanity channel in synirc?

I've searched but couldn't find one. I didn't think there was going to be enough of a demand to start one either. I'll let Linedace get the first chance to start it because he's OP.

# ? Mar 28, 2015 21:30

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 24, 2024 17:47

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

Flight sim covers it

# ? Mar 28, 2015 21:33

StandardVC10: Feb 6, 2007; This avatar now 50% more dark mode compliant

CroatianAlzheimers posted:

I'll give the Connie honorable mention. Speaking of, here's a pretty cool video about restoring a Connie. It's auf Deutsch, though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMcH0BFNSek

These guys (LH Technik) are at the airport in Lewiston, Maine, I've been inside the hangar they use (though it was a while ago now, Summer 2010.) They seemed pretty cool about explaining what they were doing, at least at the time.

# ? Mar 28, 2015 21:33

The Ferret King: Nov 23, 2003; cluck cluck

hobbesmaster posted:

Flight sim covers it

It covers a type of AI-style sperg, but I don't think we've completely addressed all spectrums.

# ? Mar 28, 2015 21:35

CroatianAlzheimers: Jun 15, 2009; I can't remember why I'm mad at you...

StandardVC10 posted:

These guys (LH Technik) are at the airport in Lewiston, Maine, I've been inside the hangar they use (though it was a while ago now, Summer 2010.) They seemed pretty cool about explaining what they were doing, at least at the time.

That's awesome. I don't speak a word of German, though. I wish I could find that doc in English.

# ? Mar 28, 2015 21:36

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

The Ferret King posted:

It covers a type of AI-style sperg, but I don't think we've completely addressed all spectrums.

I haven't logged in for some time but I recalled more real plane talk than fake plane.

# ? Mar 28, 2015 21:43

SyHopeful: Jun 24, 2007; May an IDF soldier mistakenly gun down my own parents and face no repercussions i'd totally be cool with it cuz accidents are unavoidable in a low-intensity conflict, man

MrChips posted:

Sure it's pretty but the Tu-144 was so heinously bad that even the Soviets thought it was too dangerous to put into passenger service. Let that sink in for a moment.

...except they did put it in passenger service?

# ? Mar 28, 2015 22:10

slidebite: Nov 6, 2005; Good egg

Tu-144 chat

wiki posted:

Tu-144 pilot Aleksandr Larin remembers a troublesome flight around 25 January 1978. The flight with passengers suffered the failure of 22 to 24 on-board systems. Seven to eight systems failed before takeoff but given the large number of foreign TV and radio journalists and also other foreign notables aboard the flight, it was decided to proceed with the flight to avoid the embarrassment of cancellation.

After takeoff, failures continued to multiply. While the aircraft was supersonic en route to the destination airport, Tupolev bureau's crisis center predicted that front and left landing gear would not extend and that the aircraft would have to land on right gear alone, at a landing speed of over 300 kilometres per hour (190 mph; 160 kn). Due to expected political fallout, Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev was personally notified of what was going on in the air.

With the accumulated failures, an alarm siren went off immediately after the takeoff, with sound and volume similar to that of a civil defense warning. The crew could not figure a way to switch it off so the siren stayed on throughout the remaining 75 minutes of the flight. Eventually, the captain ordered the navigator to borrow a pillow from the passengers and stuff it inside the siren's horn. In the event, all landing gear extended and the aircraft was able to land.[24]

The final passenger flight of Tu-144 on around 30 May 1978 involved valve failure on one of the fuel tanks

# ? Mar 28, 2015 22:28

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

SyHopeful posted:

...except they did put it in passenger service?

For 7 months and 55 flights.

# ? Mar 28, 2015 22:29

MrChips: Jun 10, 2005; FLIGHT SAFETY TIP: Fatties out first

SyHopeful posted:

...except they did put it in passenger service?

The Tu-144 fleet flew a grand total of 55 passenger and 53 cargo flights over the nine-odd months of its combined passenger and freighter career. I would hardly call that anything more than an operational evaluation. The aircraft was considered so risky that every time a Tu-144 flew, old man Tupolev himself had to authorise the flight, presumably so that the authorities had a convenient scapegoat if it all went wrong.

The biggest problem the Tu-144 faced was that it was constructed almost exclusively from large sections of machined aluminum (which is somewhat common nowadays, but it was revolutionary back then). This had the effect of making fatigue cracks propagate rapidly across a skin panel, and had the added "benefit" of stressing surrounding panels too, which could fail them as well. Additionally, it was found that not only was the aircraft incapable of meeting its intended structural load factor, but the heat cycling of its flight profile further exacerbated the cracking tendency; it was found that irreparable cracking could occur after just a single flight! :stonklol:

Bear in mind that this is only the most serious of the Tu-144's many defects; there are others in that aircraft, such as the poor wing design, the series of unsuitable engines, the useless environmental control system (the list goes on and on really...), combined with the enormous propaganda hype (and subsequent fall from grace in Paris) that make me quite confident in saying that the Tu-144 is probably the biggest failure in aviation history.

MrChips fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Mar 28, 2015

# ? Mar 28, 2015 22:37

CroatianAlzheimers: Jun 15, 2009; I can't remember why I'm mad at you...

MrChips posted:

the Tu-144 is probably the biggest failure in aviation history.

Even more than the Spruce Goose?

# ? Mar 28, 2015 22:53

Mao Zedong Thot: Oct 16, 2008

SyHopeful posted:

Nope, Lockheed Constellation.

Best super connie video: :flame:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dExlu488bM4 :flame:

# ? Mar 28, 2015 23:04

MrChips: Jun 10, 2005; FLIGHT SAFETY TIP: Fatties out first

CroatianAlzheimers posted:

Even more than the Spruce Goose?

See, I don't know if you could call the Spruce Goose a failure in and of itself. The end of the war, combined with Howard Hughes' obsession with perfection meant that the need for the aircraft was gone by the time the first one was finished.

Plus, it wasn't built up to be the crowning achievement of the American aviation industry, nor did it suffer the ignomy of crashing at the world's biggest and most important air show either.

# ? Mar 28, 2015 23:13

dietcokefiend: Apr 28, 2004; HEY ILL HAV 2 TXT U L8TR I JUST DROVE IN 2 A DAYCARE AND SCRATCHED MY RAZR

Geoj posted:

It's been a while but IIRC there's an F-4 & F-16 you can sit in plus a WWII bomber (can't remember which one) that you can walk through.

They also have a handful of aircraft with a viewing platform built next to the cockpit (some fighter from the late 50s/early 60s and an A-10, maybe others) that you can get a close look at.

e: I forgot (mainly because the bus that takes you to the on-base section wasn't running last time I was there thanks to the government shutdown) they also have four presidential aircraft that are open to the public.

Future pilot in the making after today. Surprisingly didn't get upset the entire time. Sat at the little snack stand on the backside of the SR71 to share a Snickers before we took off.

Only registered members can see post attachments!

# ? Mar 28, 2015 23:15

3 Action Economist: May 22, 2002; Educate. Agitate. Liberate.

D.A.R.Y.L. 2.0

# ? Mar 28, 2015 23:29

bloops: Dec 31, 2010; Thanks Ape Pussy!

slidebite posted:

Tu-144 chat

Yea, I'd would've gone ahead and taken the canx

Also, gently caress the Connie. What a horrifying abomination.

# ? Mar 29, 2015 00:29

dietcokefiend: Apr 28, 2004; HEY ILL HAV 2 TXT U L8TR I JUST DROVE IN 2 A DAYCARE AND SCRATCHED MY RAZR

Colonial Air Force posted:

D.A.R.Y.L. 2.0

With that movie logic we could have hopped into the cockpit, fired it up and flew it out of the display hanger to go home :v:

# ? Mar 29, 2015 00:31

Spaced God: Feb 8, 2014; All torment, trouble, wonder and amazement
Inhabits here: some heavenly power guide us
Out of this fearful country!

Reminder that the Tu-144 was one of the only commercial airliners to use a drag chute. Because :ussr:

e: Most Tupulevs used drouges, but I still like the idea of some poor Ruskie having to run onto the runway to recover the chute before the next aircraft lands :v:

Spaced God fucked around with this message at 00:40 on Mar 29, 2015

# ? Mar 29, 2015 00:38

Finger Prince: Jan 5, 2007

Spaced God posted:

I've searched but couldn't find one. I didn't think there was going to be enough of a demand to start one either. I'll let Linedace get the first chance to start it because he's OP.

I don't use IRC, so fill yer boots

# ? Mar 29, 2015 00:49

CroatianAlzheimers: Jun 15, 2009; I can't remember why I'm mad at you...

dietcokefiend posted:

Future pilot in the making after today. Surprisingly didn't get upset the entire time. Sat at the little snack stand on the backside of the SR71 to share a Snickers before we took off.

It's been a good week for pictures of kids and blackbirds.

holocaust bloopers posted:

Also, gently caress the Connie. What a horrifying abomination.

The wrongest opinion.

# ? Mar 29, 2015 00:50

Finger Prince: Jan 5, 2007

CroatianAlzheimers posted:

The wrongest opinion.

It is the marmite airplane

# ? Mar 29, 2015 01:00

StandardVC10: Feb 6, 2007; This avatar now 50% more dark mode compliant

Spaced God posted:

Reminder that the Tu-144 was one of the only commercial airliners to use a drag chute. Because

Some Sud Caravelles had one, IIRC, as they lacked thrust reversers.

# ? Mar 29, 2015 01:04

Spaced God: Feb 8, 2014; All torment, trouble, wonder and amazement
Inhabits here: some heavenly power guide us
Out of this fearful country!

Linedance posted:

I don't use IRC, so fill yer boots

I tried to make this work. Join #aeroinsanity on synirc.net
...maybe...

# ? Mar 29, 2015 01:13

SyHopeful: Jun 24, 2007; May an IDF soldier mistakenly gun down my own parents and face no repercussions i'd totally be cool with it cuz accidents are unavoidable in a low-intensity conflict, man

MrChips posted:

The Tu-144 fleet flew a grand total of 55 passenger and 53 cargo flights over the nine-odd months of its combined passenger and freighter career. I would hardly call that anything more than an operational evaluation. The aircraft was considered so risky that every time a Tu-144 flew, old man Tupolev himself had to authorise the flight, presumably so that the authorities had a convenient scapegoat if it all went wrong.

The biggest problem the Tu-144 faced was that it was constructed almost exclusively from large sections of machined aluminum (which is somewhat common nowadays, but it was revolutionary back then). This had the effect of making fatigue cracks propagate rapidly across a skin panel, and had the added "benefit" of stressing surrounding panels too, which could fail them as well. Additionally, it was found that not only was the aircraft incapable of meeting its intended structural load factor, but the heat cycling of its flight profile further exacerbated the cracking tendency; it was found that irreparable cracking could occur after just a single flight! Bear in mind that this is only the most serious of the Tu-144's many defects; there are others in that aircraft, such as the poor wing design, the series of unsuitable engines, the useless environmental control system (the list goes on and on really...), combined with the enormous propaganda hype (and subsequent fall from grace in Paris) that make me quite confident in saying that the Tu-144 is probably the biggest failure in aviation history.

I've read all about the saga of the Tu-144, I was merely taking exception to you stating that it wasn't put in passenger service; by your own admission it was, just not for very long.

polpotpotpotpotpot posted:

Best super connie video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dExlu488bM4

Seen it but always worth a rewatch

# ? Mar 29, 2015 01:24

HandlingByJebus: Jun 21, 2009; All of a sudden, I found myself in love with the world, so there was only one thing I could do:
was ding a ding dang, my dang a long racecar.

It's a love affair. Mainly jebus, and my racecar.

polpotpotpotpotpot posted:

Best super connie video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dExlu488bM4

I love the Super Connies so much. And that video is so :black101:

# ? Mar 29, 2015 02:11

bloops: Dec 31, 2010; Thanks Ape Pussy!

The last F-104 rolled off the assembly line in 1983. :psyboom:

# ? Mar 29, 2015 02:48

Spaced God: Feb 8, 2014; All torment, trouble, wonder and amazement
Inhabits here: some heavenly power guide us
Out of this fearful country!

holocaust bloopers posted:

The last F-104 rolled off the assembly line in 1983.

If we're posting facts like that, the B-29 design program costed more than the Manhattan Project.

# ? Mar 29, 2015 02:50

StandardVC10: Feb 6, 2007; This avatar now 50% more dark mode compliant

holocaust bloopers posted:

The last F-104 rolled off the assembly line in 1983.

And the last military example was retired in 2004! (I think.)

# ? Mar 29, 2015 02:53

Platystemon: Feb 13, 2012; BREADS

Spaced God posted:

If we're posting facts like that, the B-29 design program costed more than the Manhattan Project.

At least the B-29 was a good plane. It�s a shame the V‒2 wasn�t technically an aviation program, because it also cost more than the Manhattan Project.

I�d like to know how much the He 176 and Me 163 cost, but not enough to go digging for a good source.

# ? Mar 29, 2015 03:13

StandardVC10: Feb 6, 2007; This avatar now 50% more dark mode compliant

Platystemon posted:

At least the B-29 was a good plane. It�s a shame the V‒2 wasn�t technically an aviation program, because it also cost more than the Manhattan Project.

I�d like to know how much the He 176 and Me 163 cost, but not enough to go digging for a good source.

The cost of the Me 163 was most of the pilots who flew it.

# ? Mar 29, 2015 03:19

Fender Anarchist: May 20, 2009; Fender Anarchist

Last page, but I think we can agree the best looking plane is every delta wing ever built.

Now someone post an ugly delta and prove me wrong.

# ? Mar 29, 2015 03:24

Nebakenezzer: Sep 13, 2005; The Mote in God's Eye

Similarly, it's quite possible more German aircrews were killed by He 177 malfunctioning than Allied Air crews by working He 177s.

Fun fact - of the thousand or so He 177s produced, only 1/3rd were ever used operationally.

# ? Mar 29, 2015 03:25

Spaced God: Feb 8, 2014; All torment, trouble, wonder and amazement
Inhabits here: some heavenly power guide us
Out of this fearful country!

Fucknag posted:

Last page, but I think we can agree the best looking plane is every delta wing ever built.

Now someone post an ugly delta and prove me wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_XFY_Pogo

# ? Mar 29, 2015 03:27

jaegerx: Sep 10, 2012; Maybe this post will get me on your ignore list!

Spaced God posted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_XFY_Pogo

# ? Mar 29, 2015 03:29

Slo-Tek: Jun 8, 2001; WINDOWS 98 BEAT HIS FRIEND WITH A SHOVEL

Spaced God posted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_XFY_Pogo

Sure, but it is still better looking than the non-delta equivalent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_XFV

I was thinking the Dyke Delta wasn't terribly attractive, but it is still a shitlot better than 99% of other homebuilts.

See also the Facetmobile: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wainfan_Facetmobile

# ? Mar 29, 2015 03:29

bloops: Dec 31, 2010; Thanks Ape Pussy!

Fucknag posted:

Last page, but I think we can agree the best looking plane is every delta wing ever built.

Now someone post an ugly delta and prove me wrong.

That's a funny way of spelling SR-71.

# ? Mar 29, 2015 03:31

Party Plane Jones: Jul 1, 2007; by Reene; Fun Shoe

Fucknag posted:

Last page, but I think we can agree the best looking plane is every delta wing ever built.

Now someone post an ugly delta and prove me wrong.

XFY Pogo or Short SC.1. :colbert:

_{_{_{a face only a drunk mother engineer could love}}}

edit

Fairey Delta 2 looks like a dog dragging its rear end on the carpet

Party Plane Jones fucked around with this message at 03:38 on Mar 29, 2015

# ? Mar 29, 2015 03:33

Wingnut Ninja: Jan 11, 2003; Mostly Harmless

I just noticed that Flight Simulator X is on sale on Steam for $5 this weekend, if anybody is looking to grab it for cheap.

# ? Mar 29, 2015 03:35

Groda: Mar 17, 2005; Hair Elf

Wingnut Ninja posted:

I just noticed that Flight Simulator X is on sale on Steam for $5 this weekend, if anybody is looking to grab it for cheap.

GAH it won't install but it only cost $5

# ? Mar 29, 2015 03:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 24, 2024 17:47

Ardeem: Sep 16, 2010; There is no problem that cannot be solved through sufficient application of lasers and friendship.

Ugly deltas? How far along in development does something need to have been to count?

# ? Mar 29, 2015 03:43

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Automotive Insanity > Aeronautical Insanity: switching to secondary tolerances

«‹›2240 »