|
Party Plane Jones posted:A Newark bound Dash 8 had to divert to Philadelphia because one of its engines caught fire. http://avherald.com/h?article=48571dfc&opt=0, Not a good month for Republic lately
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 09:03 |
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:A Newark bound Dash 8 had to divert to Philadelphia because one of its engines caught fire. Dash 8 operating normally, continue to destination.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
The BBC just posted a blurb about Airbus filing a complaint regarding US based industrial espionage. This should be interesting. EDIT: Here's some more info. quote:Aviation giant Airbus is to file a criminal complaint over alleged US industrial espionage, following German media reports, AFP news agency says. Solkanar512 fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Apr 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:The BBC just posted a blurb about Airbus filing a complaint regarding US based industrial espionage. This should be interesting. quote:Leaks from a secret BND document suggest that its monitoring station at Bad Aibling checked whether European companies were breaking trade embargos after a request from the NSA.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
If any of you have ever been to Port Columbus, you may have seen the 94th Aero Squadron Restaurant located next to the fire station. I'd been passing it for years, even photographed the P-51 replica outside a few times, but I hadn't been inside until recently. There are a number of artifacts also displayed inside, including many, many photos, but of much interest to me were parts of a number of different, unidentifiable aircraft. So it's time for an edition of What Kind Of Airplane Did You Come From, because my attempts on another forum fell short on that mark.  The P-51 replica out front could use some work    My only guess at these is AA-1 Yankee parts.  This looks like it might have come off something slightly more exciting than your garden-variety GA bird.   Beech Bonanza Bits?  Not a clue on this; the markings and the fabric look fake, but the structure of it looks authentic.  The only identifiable piece, the right wing off of an Aeronca L-3 (O-58), helpfully labeled. Plastic_Gargoyle fucked around with this message at 02:41 on May 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 02:36
|
|
|
Plastic_Gargoyle posted:
I can't recall ever seeing a picture or a illustration of a German plane from World War 2 where the Balkenkreuz was on the empennage.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:SR-71? I know this is a few days old, but fuuuuck that. I wouldn't let an unmanned aerial vehicle get anywhere near me, unless they wired up a "breakaway" button in the boom pod.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 05:07
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I know this is a few days old, but fuuuuck that. I wouldn't let an unmanned aerial vehicle get anywhere near me, unless they wired up a "breakaway" button in the boom pod. Airman, this drone program is vital to the future of Air Force combat and we can't risk the loss of such a valuable asset. Now fly straight and level and let the nice killer robot plane dock with you.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 05:21
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:Airman, this drone program is vital to the future of Air Force combat and we can't risk the loss of such a valuable asset. (it's a Navy project)
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 05:25
|
|
|
pfft who cares about details about airplanes in the airplane thread (replace airman with sailor i guess)
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 05:32
|
|
|
Apparently Top Gun 2 is going to be Maverick versus a bunch of drones. If Iceman represents Mav's struggle with his own homosexuality, what do the drones represent?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:(it's a Navy project) Forums Terrorist posted:Apparently Top Gun 2 is going to be Maverick versus a bunch of drones. If Iceman represents Mav's struggle with his own homosexuality, what do the drones represent?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:How phallic are these drones?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 06:50
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:(it's a Navy project)
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 09:35
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:But the tanker probably isn't. Would a hypothetical KC-2 variant of the Greyhound, when fully loaded with fuel for tanker duties, be too heavy for a catapult take-off?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 13:19
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Would a hypothetical KC-2 variant of the Greyhound, when fully loaded with fuel for tanker duties, be too heavy for a catapult take-off? Fully loaded, it would weigh the same as it does when loaded with A pound of feathers weighs the same as a pound of JP-5.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 13:51
|
|
|
But a Greyhound-volume of porn does not weigh the same as a Greyhound-volume of JP Which I think was more the gist of the question
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 13:52
|
|
|
simplefish posted:But a Greyhound-volume of porn does not weigh the same as a Greyhound-volume of JP Tankers are not volumetrically full of fuel. The KC-10 and KC-135 both contain all of their additional tankage in the lower cargo deck, leaving the main deck empty. It's extremely hard to fill an aircraft's internal volume with basically anything before you start to hit maximum gross weight.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Tankers are not volumetrically full of fuel. The KC-10 and KC-135 both contain all of their additional tankage in the lower cargo deck, leaving the main deck empty. Then the question - and bearing in mind that it wasn't my question, so I am guessing - would seem to be along the lines of whether a useful amount of fuel could be carried in a Greyhound, if it is limited not by catapult launch weight limits but rather by maximum gross weight limits (I don't mean to sound snippy, I'm not, in fact I'm learning - having never seen a tanker plane in person before - but I'm just trying to be clear. Thank you for taking the time to answer!)
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
Just flew on a Dash 8 300. Felt stupid for booking a seat right in the prop plane of rotation, considering the gear collapse history. Felt stupid for feeling stupid for that. Then suddenly a knocking sound started. Haven't heard it before. Sounds like a gremlin that wants to be let in. Any idea what it is? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUGRA46Gj2w It seemed to vary with power setting, some sort of resonance or something. It was there all through the takeoff for instance, but only now and then in cruise. The gremlin doesn't like it when the engines are working hard I guess.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
simplefish posted:Then the question - and bearing in mind that it wasn't my question, so I am guessing - would seem to be along the lines of whether a useful amount of fuel could be carried in a Greyhound, if it is limited not by catapult launch weight limits but rather by maximum gross weight limits The C-2 doesn't carry much in the way of weight. This was discussed in the TFR cold war/airpower thread; there's probably enough gas for two Hornets. The Marines have developed a tanker system for V-22s that rolls in and out of the cargo door. The Navy is switching to the V-22 for COD by 2022. Perhaps those will be used for refueling. V-22s can carry about as much weight as a C-2, 10 tons or so.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
Ola posted:Just flew on a Dash 8 300. Felt stupid for booking a seat right in the prop plane of rotation, considering the gear collapse history. Felt stupid for feeling stupid for that. Then suddenly a knocking sound started. Haven't heard it before. Sounds like a gremlin that wants to be let in. Any idea what it is? That sounds more like some idiot that fell asleep in the cargo hold
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
simplefish posted:Then the question - and bearing in mind that it wasn't my question, so I am guessing - would seem to be along the lines of whether a useful amount of fuel could be carried in a Greyhound, if it is limited not by catapult launch weight limits but rather by maximum gross weight limits My bet is on maximum take off weight being the limiter, not the catapult.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
Remember to reboot your 787 daily! http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/05/01/boeing-787-dreamliners-contain-a-potentially-catastrophic-software-bug/ quote:"This AD was prompted by the determination that a Model 787 airplane that has been powered continuously for 248 days can lose all alternating current (AC) electrical power due to the generator control units (GCUs) simultaneously going into failsafe mode," the memo stated. "This condition is caused by a software counter internal to the GCUs that will overflow after 248 days of continuous power. We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of all AC electrical power, which could result in loss of control of the airplane."
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Whoops! Software bug can cause 787 Dreamliners to completely lose all AC electrical power.quote:The memo went on to say that Dreamliners have four main GCUs associated with the engine mounted generators. If all of them were powered up at the same time, "after 248 days of continuous power, all four GCUs will go into failsafe mode at the same time, resulting in a loss of all AC electrical power regardless of flight phase." Everything is okay if the GCUs aren't left on for 8 months at a time so don't forget to restart your aircraft before you go home at night. Edit: motherfucker!
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
What's amusing is it's the exact same type of bug that affected our Equallogic SAN. Int overflow after 248 days of continuous operation.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
Probably has to do with max (signed) int of 2,147,483,647 ~= 2,142,720,000 (ms in 284 days) which gives you about 4,763,647 ms or ~13.23 hours before an overflow. Of course assuming the LSB is ms since boot.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:Probably has to do with max (signed) int of 2,147,483,647 ~= 2,142,720,000 (ms in 284 days) which gives you about 4,763,647 ms or ~13.23 hours before an overflow. I guess I should have done the math, milliseconds per day in an unsigned 32 bit overflows at around 49.7 days, not 248. E2: It's hundredths of a second in a signed 32. 248*24*60*60*100 ~= 2^31. goatsestretchgoals fucked around with this message at 20:44 on May 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
bitcoin bastard posted:
It's probably one of those things that's never considered because the thinking would be 'who in the hell would leave the GCU on for > 3/4 of a year straight. I'll just use an int and be done with it.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:Probably has to do with max (signed) int of 2,147,483,647 ~= 2,142,720,000 (ms in 284 days) which gives you about 4,763,647 ms or ~13.23 hours before an overflow. Yeah, in the case of our SAN, the bug was specifically with the uptime counter that counted in ms.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:It's probably one of those things that's never considered because the thinking would be 'who in the hell would leave the GCU on for > 3/4 of a year straight. I'll just use an int and be done with it. "It's ok though, well written and specified C++ is just as type safe as Ada" I hope someone points at all those 'we don't NEED Ada' claims Boeing made when they announced they were using C++ for the Dreamliner...
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
Ada is an awful language and anyone who uses it should be shot. No-one should be encouraging the use of Ada for anything. Also greater type safety won't save you from overflows. Also an unsigned int would get typically get you to either 2^16-1 or 2^32-1 (it's implementation dependent) so someone was possibly using an 8 bit field. Which is odd. Might as well just use enough memory to get it word-aligned anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:type safety won't save you from overflows.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:They should brand that poo poo on nerds who keep making the mistake. Its not a mistake its a feature limitation.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
just force 128 bit numbers for everything, memory is cheap
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
Nah, the issue with 128 bits is whether it will fit in one register.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
Make them bigger then.  Or failing that just do it anyway, 4 cycles per word isn't that bad
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:just force 128 bit numbers for everything, memory is cheap *some time in the distant future, in a bunker far beneath the earth, the remnants of humanity hover about a turbine-powered electrical generator that has been the only thing keeping them alive for as long as anyone can remember* [Zarblax]: Oh no! The Holy Dreamliner's generator has ceased to function! What do we dooooooo? [Gazonks]: We die, in the dark, alone. [Zarblax]: Hold me, my friend. Hold me and remember a time before the great 128-bit Buffer Overflow.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:It's probably one of those things that's never considered because the thinking would be 'who in the hell would leave the GCU on for > 3/4 of a year straight. I'll just use an int and be done with it. And yet operators are given the very strong impression, direct from Boeing, that these aircraft Do Not Like being unpowered, and if you don't want to risk delay causing problems, keep them powered up at all times.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 09:03 |
|
|
ctishman posted:*some time in the distant future, in a bunker far beneath the earth, the remnants of humanity hover about a turbine-powered electrical generator that has been the only thing keeping them alive for as long as anyone can remember* Known issues: Proton decay may cause the failure of the unit after 1034 years. Linedance posted:And yet operators are given the very strong impression, direct from Boeing, that these aircraft Do Not Like being unpowered, and if you don't want to risk delay causing problems, keep them powered up at all times. But it says that the generators would have to be running for that time, not the rest of the aircraft. So if the engines were off this wouldn't be an issue, right?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 22:07
|
|