|
MrYenko posted:
drat, that's loving beautiful. Looks like Deus Ex Human Revolution stuff.
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 09:07 |
|
|
     
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
What's the story here?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
Inacio posted:What's the story here? Gimli Glider! Some of the most incredible flying ever in the history of man is the story. Look it up. Helluva read.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 04:00
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Gimli Glider! Some of the most incredible flying ever in the history of man is the story. Look it up. Helluva read. And one hell of a way to gently caress up math. Stupid imperial system.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cBuh6MnTyI
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 04:12
|
|
|
  
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
jaegerx posted:And one hell of a way to gently caress up math. Stupid imperial system. I wish they saved the Navigators notebook with his math.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
The Locator posted:Why is a fire truck following them after they landed?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
 
Luneshot fucked around with this message at 05:10 on May 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 05:07
|
|
|
EpicPhoton posted:Here's the planes arriving this morning. I'm tempted to just swing down and check them out in the parking lot. That sure is a gorgeous plane.  Thanks for the video of the Super Connie! Not sure why you kept cutting away from her, but there are enough good frames for me.  (PS the F-22s are beautiful too, nice work getting them in the Super Constellation video!)
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 05:48
|
|
|
I'm blanking on this.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 06:17
|
|
|
buttcrackmenace posted:I'm blanking on this. Shoe bomber?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 06:34
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:They mistook them for F-35's  SeaborneClink posted:They're F-22's, it's a standard MX attachment for a TDY deployment. Ok. Why? And what's an MX attachment? The Locator fucked around with this message at 07:07 on May 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 07:04
|
|
|
Oh man, a four-engined 767. 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 07:24
|
|
|
The Locator posted:
First, in order for an F22 to catch on fire, it actually has to be airborne before it can fly into the end of the runway. Second, the other F22 is only along to be a flying spare parts bin for the first.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 07:27
|
|
|
Awesome post. Pretty much the best combination of all of my interests in one video: Cars, Racing, Airplanes, Airplane Crashes, and Military Action. Also possibly the only video in which you'll see both Nikki Lauda and an M1 Abrams.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 07:29
|
|
|
The Locator posted:
MX = Maintenance.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 07:36
|
|
|
MX = Maintenance WX = Weather PAX = Passengers FX = Flying DSX = Doing Something AX = Abbreviations X makes things look cool
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 08:44
|
|
|
buttcrackmenace posted:I'm blanking on this.  Richard "The Reason We All Gotta Take Off Our Goddamn Shoes In The US" Reid's flight was, if you haven't guessed already, a 767Ed: SeaborneClink posted:for a TDY deployment. I suck at acronyms - what's TDY stand for in this instance? Duke Chin fucked around with this message at 08:54 on May 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 08:51
|
|
|
TDX = Asking questions about TDY.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 08:54
|
|
|
I don't think I've ever been on a 767.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 11:17
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:
Temporary Duty. I preferred the acronym TAD for Temporary Additional Duty, or Traveling Around Drunk.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 11:50
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 13:14
|
|
|
The rising sun insignia makes any plane look cool.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 13:35
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE2Yn0cipTY
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
Are these hypothetical 767 variants in order to meet ETOPS?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:
Really? For some reason I really thought it was an A330.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
Piper PA-32 crashes on i-285 in Atlanta http://www.11alive.com/story/news/local/doraville/2015/05/08/plane-crash-i285-dekalb/26974275/
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 15:45
|
|
|
I didn't know this was happening until just now. Shitload of warbirds flying over DC today, starts in about 25 minutes. http://www.networkworld.com/article/2920332/education/faa-big-tech-challenges-for-massive-washington-dc-warbirds-flyover.html Here's a livestream: http://events.dacast.com/?webcast_id=9
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:One of the few flying Lancasters made an emergency landing after the #4 engine malfunctioned and had a small fire. All safe. This is one of two flyable Lancasters, it's the other one that had something similar happen last year during it's visit to the UK. They had to borrow an engine from the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight to complete the tour and get back home. Proving that Packard Merlins and Rolls Royce Merlins will interchange if you really need them to. 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Gimli Glider! Some of the most incredible flying ever in the history of man is the story. Look it up. Helluva read. Wikipedia posted:The Aviation Safety Board of Canada (predecessor of the modern Transportation Safety Board of Canada) found the airline at fault, while the Air Canada investigation concluded that the pilots and mechanics were at fault. surprise = 0
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:Piper PA-32 crashes on i-285 in Atlanta God drat there wasn't much left of that.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:
To show you how long it's been in use, it originally was an abbreviation for "Temporary Duty Yonder."
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
~Coxy posted:Are these hypothetical 767 variants in order to meet ETOPS? Not really. The executive summary version is that the 767 had a very long and torturous development; the 7X7 program (which ultimately became the 767 program) has roots as far back as 1973, not long after the 2707 was cancelled and the 747 program had begun to pay itself off. Basically, three things were going on at the time; first, airlines were shopping around for a 727 replacement - they wanted a versatile, narrowbody airliner capable of flights up to transcontinental in length, with similar or better runway performance, much less noise and, since the oil embargo was in full swing, considerable fuel savings at the same time. Second, the airlines, specifically United, were looking for a much larger aircraft - larger than a 727 but smaller than the the DC-10/L-1011/747 and in largely in line with the 707/DC-8 - for short to medium-haul interhub flights and to large "spoke" destinations. The third and final thing that happened was that the Europeans banded together and built an aircraft that basically met the second requirement, in the form of the Airbus A300. Ultimately, the aircraft that was to meet the first requirement grew into the 7N7 program, which ultimately became the 757. The second aircraft, on the other hand, became the 7X7, and went through a number of revisions before it reached its ultimate form. Initially, noise production and the desire for good runway performance made Boeing consider some pretty radical designs, with overslung engines:   The idea here is that the wing would shield most of the noise from observers on the ground, and that the exhaust flowing over the top of the wing would boost takeoff performance. As the program continued, fuel economy became more and more important; remember that during the 7X7 program, the American airline industry deregulated, meaning the airlines all of a sudden had to compete with one another and as a result, operating cost was number one. This meant that the number of engines had to drop to a minimum (engines are by far and away the most expensive parts of an aircraft and require the lion's share of the maintenance budget) and the aerodynamics of the aircraft had to be optimised for economy first and foremost. Then, that's when we see the concepts I posted above, as well as this one, emerge:  You've probably noticed that all of these are a joint-venture between Boeing and Aeritalia; at the time, Boeing was still in kind of rough shape financially from the huge costs incurred by the 747 and 2707 program, plus the 7N7 program was taking up an increasingly large amount of resources as well, so Boeing sought a partner for the program...a European one, ideally one they could keep out of the Airbus consortium. Thus, Aeritalia was chosen to work with Boeing on this new aircraft; ultimately, Aeritalia gave up their position as partner in the 7X7, but since then they have been one of Boeing's largest subcontractors in every airliner they've built since (for better or worse). Anyway, the three-engine 7X7 concept pictured above had its roots in the desire to replace the 707-320s and DC-8 Series 60s on long, less-popular intercontinental flights. At the time, twin-engine aircraft could not fly further than an hour's flight from the nearest airport; not a problem over land, but over the oceans, it becomes problematic. Therefore, a third engine, as well as larger fuel tanks and many other changes, would be added to the 7X7, with that aircraft ultimately to be branded as the 777 (not having anything to do with the 767X program fifteen years later, which ultimately became the 777 we know today). In the late 1970s, towards the end of the 7X7 program, Boeing had enough data from 747 operations to prove that it might just be safe to allow extended-range flights of twin-engine airliners, and decided to axe the long-range, three-engine concept and instead, build an extended range version of the twin-engine aircraft. This proved to be a hit with the airlines, and thus the 767 program was launched. Still, much work lay ahead, trying to prove the safety and viability of the 767 to the regulators. You have to remember that at the time, the 767 was a revolutionary aircraft; it was the first airliner to have a two-man flight deck (though an option did exist for a three-man flight deck, taken up only by Ansett Airlines of Australia), it was the first airliner to share a common cockpit and common type rating with another aircraft (the 757), and of course it was the first twin-engine airliner designed to operate on what ultimately became ETOPS flights...needless to say, Boeing had a LOT to prove to the regulators of the day.  The 767's optional flight engineer station. So there, in a nutshell, is how the 767 came to be and also why it was numbered out of sequence with the 757 in terms of first flight and entry into service - the program started before the 757 program, but wasn't given the go ahead until after the 757 program was "numbered", for lack of a better way of putting it.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Really? For some reason I really thought it was an A330. Nope, it was the star of this page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_shoe_bomb_plot  This post is a great post and these two concepts are, as holly blops put it: -worthy
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
Oh my gosh that long body tri jet variant.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 09:07 |
|
|
F-18 with the Jolly Roger tail just landed at KGEG. How lost is he?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 00:11
|
|
