|
reddeathdrinker posted:
 I don't know what it is about the Super Etendard, I think it's one of the coolest looking jets around.
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:13 |
|
|
Another Beech Bonanza went down... on Saturday... and a girl walked out of it and was just found: http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Officials-Missing-plane-disappeared-in-states-toughest-terrain-314716801.html ed: previously http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Search-on-for-private-plane-overdue-to-Lynden-314437581.html Duke Chin fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Jul 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:I think "number of patents/year" is a metric used in some dick measuring contests, which is why you get things like patenting nuclear fusion jet engines or rectangles with beveled corners. Yeah, it's pretty common in an industry like that. I've never worked commercial aerospace but on the defense side if you even submit and patent and it makes it through the first pass you get something like $250. If it actually gets patented I think it's around $1k so there's no reason not to take the hour and fill out the paperwork. This was almost the same pay scale when I worked in the Ag Industry, but They patent loving everything just incase someone else tries to build it so they can sue the poo poo out of them or sell the patent. The company I worked for got sued/cease and desist or whatever because they had a button that you pushed and did two actions in a certain order, turns out a competitor literally patented that for their harvester, even though it's obvoius...so we had to install two button, and tie them together mechanically which I'm sure was then patented 
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:Yeah, it's pretty common in an industry like that. I've never worked commercial aerospace but on the defense side if you even submit and patent and it makes it through the first pass you get something like $250. If it actually gets patented I think it's around $1k so there's no reason not to take the hour and fill out the paperwork. This was almost the same pay scale when I worked in the Ag Industry, but They patent loving everything just incase someone else tries to build it so they can sue the poo poo out of them or sell the patent. The company I worked for got sued/cease and desist or whatever because they had a button that you pushed and did two actions in a certain order, turns out a competitor literally patented that for their harvester, even though it's obvoius...so we had to install two button, and tie them together mechanically which I'm sure was then patented It seems like whoever is at the Patent Office these days just doesn't have the technical know-how to catch what appears to be "obvious inventions" and companies big and small are willing to exploit that. Heck, there are companies whose sole existence is to buy up defunct companies that patented obvious technologies before they were obvious and then sue anyone who utilizes similar technology. In this day in age of fast paced technological advancement and more and more people and companies working on the same ideas at the same time, it would seem obvious there needs to be some sort of guard against frivolous lawsuits against co-current developed technologies. Otherwise it just stifles development because "wait, what if someone else already had this idea" and that's not cool. Heck, wasn't it something like three people who all invented the television, independently at the same time? And that was 100 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
I think the basic problem is that technology has advanced to the point that spotting what would constitute "obvious" among the 500,000 patents filed every year requires a specialist in the field versed in the state of the art, and the Patent Office is probably never going to be able to pay its inspectors more than Apple and Samsung pay their IP lawyers. Plus, it suffers from the same dysfunction as any large bureaucracy. In my ideal world, we would re-introduce a culture that valued civil service over making money at a start-up, or at least funded the government enough to pay competitive wages for skilled employees, but I understand why that isn't exactly realistic. Oh hey, speaking of novel and terrible patents: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/07/09/421558674/the-plane-seating-arrangement-thats-being-called-a-nightmare 
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 01:44
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:It seems like whoever is at the Patent Office these days just doesn't have the technical know-how to catch what appears to be "obvious inventions" and companies big and small are willing to exploit that. Heck, there are companies whose sole existence is to buy up defunct companies that patented obvious technologies before they were obvious and then sue anyone who utilizes similar technology. In this day in age of fast paced technological advancement and more and more people and companies working on the same ideas at the same time, it would seem obvious there needs to be some sort of guard against frivolous lawsuits against co-current developed technologies. Otherwise it just stifles development because "wait, what if someone else already had this idea" and that's not cool. Heck, wasn't it something like three people who all invented the television, independently at the same time? And that was 100 years ago. Fun fact: Boeing owns a trademark on the production of model kits of the P-51 Mustang. But only on model kits, because gently caress man, we don't want the liability of the actual airplane! (the actual type certificate is with some guy in California now). So now, every time you buy a plastic model of a P-51 Mustang, even a model that was originally tooled in 1975, before Boeing gave a poo poo, or actually owned the company that was once NAA, you can rest easy knowing it's an Officially Licensed Boeing Product (TM). I cannot find sufficient words for how ludicrous this is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
Psion posted:I have no idea why Boeing felt they really needed some paper on this one, inasmuch as the patent will expire before this is a plausible reality. If they don't, Apple will.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
Plastic_Gargoyle posted:Fun fact: Boeing owns a trademark on the production of model kits of the P-51 Mustang. But only on model kits, because gently caress man, we don't want the liability of the actual airplane! (the actual type certificate is with some guy in California now). So now, every time you buy a plastic model of a P-51 Mustang, even a model that was originally tooled in 1975, before Boeing gave a poo poo, or actually owned the company that was once NAA, you can rest easy knowing it's an Officially Licensed Boeing Product (TM). Boeing TV commercials regularly have more products in them from companies they purchased and assumed the support contracts for, than actual Boeing-designed products. The first five seconds of this one is particularly amusing. The voiceover line is "Ours was the first modern airliner, revolutionary by every standard." It starts with a Boeing 247, which, yes, was probably the first modern airliner. It almost immediately cuts to footage of a DC-2, the aircraft that destroyed the sales of the 247, and then interior footage of what I honestly think is a DC-4. (It could be a Boeing 377, about half of them had round windows on the main deck, but the cabin images I've been able to find don't look very much like that.) Boeing: Shamelessly promoting Douglas products as our own since 1997 
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Oh hey, speaking of novel and terrible patents: There’s no way that would pass evacuation tests, right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:There’s no way that would pass evacuation tests, right? The reason it didn't get past the concept phase is that one guy has got waaay too much legroom.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Oh hey, speaking of novel and terrible patents: That looks like something out of one of those jokes that has the engineer saying "assume that the passengers are frictionless spheres..."
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:That looks like something out of one of those jokes that has the engineer saying "assume that the passengers are rational, non-obese friction-less spheres, who enjoy 4-6 hours of eye contact with strangers..."
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I think the basic problem is that technology has advanced to the point that spotting what would constitute "obvious" among the 500,000 patents filed every year requires a specialist in the field versed in the state of the art, and the Patent Office is probably never going to be able to pay its inspectors more than Apple and Samsung pay their IP lawyers. Plus, it suffers from the same dysfunction as any large bureaucracy. In my ideal world, we would re-introduce a culture that valued civil service over making money at a start-up, or at least funded the government enough to pay competitive wages for skilled employees, but I understand why that isn't exactly realistic. One of my coworkers used to work for the patent office. They actually pay pretty reasonably for government work; it's just a grueling slog with insane hours.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Oh hey, speaking of novel and terrible patents: Look on the bright side, the middle guy could give hand-jobs to both his seat-mates at once, while maintaining good eye contact! I mean really, where else are his hands going to rest?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
The Locator posted:Look on the bright side, the middle guy could give hand-jobs to both his seat-mates at once, while maintaining good eye contact! I mean really, where else are his hands going to rest? They could partner with TSA, who would require everyone who wanted to wear clothes on the flight to pay the airline "enhanced security check-in" fees.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:They actually pay pretty reasonably for government work; it's just a grueling slog with insane hours.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
The main problem with "obvious" patents is that everything is obvious after it is invented. I bet airlines that run 3-4-3 economy on 777s would just love that hexagonal configuration. More space for economy plus, business and first!
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 05:32
|
|
|
reddeathdrinker posted:
Fuuck that is nice
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 08:21
|
|
|
freelop posted:Fuuck that is nice And probably just about the last time they'll all be together, RIP XH558
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 12:41
|
|
|
Whoops http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/13/tired-technicians-plane-mixup-engine-fire quote:A British Airways plane was forced into an emergency return to Heathrow, flying on one damaged engine with the other ablaze, because tired technicians had been working on the wrong aircraft, investigators have found. Full report is here if that's your bag
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 13:38
|
|
|
reddeathdrinker posted:So I saw some things at a place at the weekend. And something I've never seen before...   Early helicopters are so derpy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
Itzena posted:
Cutest H-34 I've ever seen 
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
quote:No one was injured, although the report found one passenger dropped his wheelie suitcase from the top of the emergency chute, What a horse's rear end.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
So, let's play a little game. Pretend you're an air marshal. You haven't been on the job long enough to become entirely jaded and just enjoy the fact that you're [probably] the only other person on the aircraft carrying a loaded weapon, and you're the Guardian of the People. You've literally been on hundreds of domestic and international flights, and the worst situation you've ever experienced is people breathing stale air calling the flight attendants cunts and yelling racial slurs when they're told they can't get a second can of Coke. Then on one flight, at cruising altitude, you see someone using one of these: http://www.hammacher.com/Product/87348 What do you do? (for people who don't know, that thing looks so much like an improvised shaped charge it's not funny)
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:So, let's play a little game. If you had that quantity of HE on a plane you sure wouldn't need to stick it against the window. And actually, that'd be dumb, because you're going to vent most of the force right outside and the cabin pressurization system can handle the loss of a window. Just leave the drat thing in your carryon and stick it in the overhead bin, it'll do way more damage there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:If you had that quantity of HE on a plane you sure wouldn't need to stick it against the window. And actually, that'd be dumb, because you're going to vent most of the force right outside and the cabin pressurization system can handle the loss of a window. Just leave the drat thing in your carryon and stick it in the overhead bin, it'll do way more damage there. this assumes someone isn't basing their criminal career off Goldfinger and can you really assume that? also while FL360 usually puts you above the cloud layer it feels like that kind of thing is of limited utility in that particular role. You have to be on the one side of the airplane getting the sun, you have to be flying during the day, and if you aren't a total poo poo you have to be in the window seat. I wouldn't expect to see many/any of those in use ever. Maybe business travelers who do regular routes and always know which side of the plane catches the sun, but then I would hope said travelers would know to charge their drat phones. I dunno. IED is not my first guess on that thing regardless, so I'd be a bad air marshal. Psion fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Jul 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Psion posted:IED is not my first guess on that thing regardless, so I'd be a bad air marshal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
Logic aside, I still think sticking a puck shaped device with wires coming out of it on an airliner window is probably not a very intelligent thing to do. Even if the Air Marshal or cabin crew doesn't give a poo poo, you run the risk of some 'heroic' passenger thinking they can thwart the next shoe bomber.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:So, let's play a little game. I shoot the WIED with my .45 magnum, thereby neutralizing the threat and saving the plane. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:So, let's play a little game. If you're an air martial, you're sitting up front where your fellow passengers have inseat power (and on anything half modern, so do the punters in the back), so really this kind of thing is completely redundant for air travel (hence being sold in the hammacher catalog).
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:If you had that quantity of HE on a plane you sure wouldn't need to stick it against the window. And actually, that'd be dumb, because you're going to vent most of the force right outside and the cabin pressurization system can handle the loss of a window. Just leave the drat thing in your carryon and stick it in the overhead bin, it'll do way more damage there. I highly doubt any pressurization system can cope with that giant of a hole suddenly forming.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
Screw being an air marshal, if I'm the passenger in the next seat over I'm going to slap that dude in the mouth for blocking the window. Insensitive prick!
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/f-16-and-cessna-crash-near-south-carolina-highway/ I just read about this and this seems like a good place to ask. How the gently caress does an F-16 collide with a Cessna 150? Don't those things cruise around at speeds lower than the F-16's stall speed? Did the fighter jock somehow manage to miss the Cessna and mow him down in an extremely unlucky coincidence? I'm not well informed on the mechanics of in-flight navigation, especially when military and civil aviation get mixed up together, but there must have been a HUGE list of things that went wrong for this to happen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
So this looks safe.... NWS possible for ads liveleak style. starting and flying a 40 year old helicopter. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d64_1436098209
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
Spaced God posted:Cutest H-34 I've ever seen
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
Fredrick posted:http://www.cbsnews.com/news/f-16-and-cessna-crash-near-south-carolina-highway/ F-16 flying a controlled/directed route (showing up on ATC radar and being given a course by a Controller), with own radar possibly set to tune out poo poo that's flying as slow as a climbing cessna. Cessna taking off from an uncontrolled airfield without talking to ATC or having a transponder. Cessna flies in the path of the F-16, kablam. Neither party was doing anything wrong *by current rules* but it's pretty much a problem with current regs on private/uncontrolled airports and GA. E: Also, relative cruising speeds of cessna vs fighter means dick-all if one flies into the path of the other. Naturally Selected fucked around with this message at 01:52 on Jul 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 01:46
|
|
|
Fredrick posted:http://www.cbsnews.com/news/f-16-and-cessna-crash-near-south-carolina-highway/ Closure rates in excess of 350kts leaves little room to identify a conflict and maneuver to avoid. There will be plenty of investigating to determine the sequence of events leading to this collision, but it was probably just an unfortunate accident. The relatively slow speed of the Cessna doesn't mean much. In fact it wouldn't surprise me to find that the pilots of the two planes, and ATC, did nothing procedurally wrong. Sometimes the big sky just isn't big enough. The Ferret King fucked around with this message at 02:12 on Jul 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:Logic aside, I still think sticking a puck shaped device with wires coming out of it on an airliner window is probably not a very intelligent thing to do. Even if the Air Marshal or cabin crew doesn't give a poo poo, you run the risk of some 'heroic' passenger thinking they can thwart the next shoe bomber. Or a dude on the ground crew seeing someone stick it onto the window and calling out security.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
Itzena posted:
A drawing of a early version of what would eventually become the Su-9.  I've discovered that the publisher of those "experimental aircraft of the Luftwaffe" has done several other books in the same vein, including one on Japanese expernmental projects, a book on flying wings of all types, and two books on experimental projects of the cold war soviet era. Because these things are like catnip to me and I just gotta share, here are some photos from them. (Apologies in advance to people who actually have substantive knowledge about Soviet aircraft, like Mr. Chips and Powercube. I'm not trying to snhoor in on your territory, I'm just posting pictures and saying "can you believe this poo poo?" over and over again.) The two books are "Soviet Fighter Projects" and (effectively) "Soviet Bomber projects and a bunch of other stuff." The fighter project book is by far the more sedate of the two. Most of you have seen early jet fighter design before, and aside from some novel shapes, there's nothing here that risks a comedy spit take. The Soviets made very liberal use of German research, to the point they were continuing projects in Germany with the same German engineers that the Nazis had started. This never built design study shows off some of that influence.  These things are especially good looking; they were done by a obviously talented engineer named Boris I. Cheranovsky who was screwing around with jet powered blended wing designs before World War 2 ended (!) None of his jet designs were ever built, but their performance on paper was very impressive. The first two are different takes on the (dangerously close to comedy here) BICh-26; the second is an unnamed design. We know about him now thanks to the rather excellent archives the Soviets kept about aviation research.  A Lavochkin jet fighter with a radar dome in front of its air intake, making it look like a fighter with a spinning prop. I'd be always shoving my arm in the arc of the nonexistent prop blade to try and horrify onlookers  This morphed into "takes air in via three small intakes, making it look even more like a prop fighter."  There are also some sketches of jet fighter flying boats. Boring! These were done by TsAGI and yes, were also hydrofoils   This is a sketch of the Tupolev "Object 138", around the early 1960s. Big-rear end missiles nessessiary for fast interceptors made the end of wing pylon popular:  Revisions made it kinda sorta F-14 like:  The book also has a bit on two recent tech demonstrators the Russians made: the MiG I-44 (which I'd never heard of) and the S-37 Berkoot. Things get a little more, ah, interesting in the other book....
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:13 |
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:There are also some sketches of jet fighter flying boats. Boring! These were done by TsAGI and yes, were also hydrofoils In the history of Things That Should Be Made At Least Once Just Because: this is one (well two) of those thing(s). 
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 04:42
|
|