|
Wingnut Ninja posted:Man, it's like Star Trek: The Next Generation meets A Van Down By The River. Thats Barclay's shuttle pod, not a van.
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 05:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 20:12 |
|
|
Boomerjinks posted:Rough night for a Delta Airbus flying through a hail storm near northeast Colorado. Oh poo poo, I just flew back from LA to Toronto and I watched those storms with rapt awe from a few hundred miles to the south. I've never seen such lighting!
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 07:05
|
|
|
Boomerjinks posted:Rough night for a Delta Airbus flying through a hail storm near northeast Colorado. All airbuses should have bombardier positions!
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 07:47
|
|
|
Stumbled across on YouTube; this might be the best Hornet demo I've ever seen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eA7izMf-Is That turn rate. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 09:48
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:All airbuses should have bombardier positions! Read this and my first thought was "Does Bombardier have weird seating on their planes or something?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 10:58
|
|
|
ehnus posted:Part of the useful load increase may be because the Seneca has an interior and the Boomerang ... doesn't. Might as well have the whole harness so the passengers can be strapped into their car seats.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 10:58
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LxhLMiRklQ
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 13:48
|
|
|
Previa_fun posted:Stumbled across on YouTube; this might be the best Hornet demo I've ever seen. How to burn 10,000 pounds of fuel in 8 minutes without ever going outside the pattern!  I wonder how much the handling of the jet changes during a demo like that when they are quite literally reducing the weight of the aircraft by tons in a very short period of time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
Ever since I looked at a structural diagram of an F-18, I don't think of it as a plane with fuel tanks. It's a set of fuel tanks with a little bit of plane built around it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 15:21
|
|
|
And it still has fuckall for range.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 15:26
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:And it still has fuckall for range. Well yes thats what happens when you build an interceptor. Er, "lightweight fighter" or whatever the gently caress the navy is calling it these days.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:But mostly it is weird and nobody else has one. Which is why I love the Blohm & Voss BV 141. It looks so drat weird, but the view from inside that thing must have been incredible.    
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
What if you need to look left?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:What if you need to look left? Do a roll.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:What if you need to look left? Yeah holy poo poo taxing must have been terrible. Need to go left? Hold on ground gonna make three rights right quick
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
No, you open the sunroof and stand up. Think 'tank commander'.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:What if you need to look left? prob a periscope
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
Boomerjinks posted:Rough night for a Delta Airbus flying through a hail storm near northeast Colorado. drat, the nose looks bad 
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
Not any worse than it normally looks
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
Inacio posted:drat, the nose looks bad I live the two watermarks by the same guy. Is hot linking ok these days?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 02:12
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:Ever since I looked at a structural diagram of an F-18, I don't think of it as a plane with fuel tanks. It's a set of fuel tanks with a little bit of plane built around it. Most planes are. Most supersonic fighters are around 30% fuel by weight, long-range airliners are closer to half. At MTOW, a 777-200ER is 47% fuel, the other 53% being the structure, passengers, luggage, etc.; Concorde was 55% fuel. And then you get into rockets, which are generally around 90% fuel fraction or more. The Saturn V weighed 130 tonnes empty and 2300 tonnes fueled, and it was pretty beefy as rocket go. A lot of rockets can't even stand upright with empty tanks -- the fuel pressure is structural, the fuselage is just there for aerodynamics. In other news, I'm reading random Straight Dope columns and came across this one. Does Tex Johnston in the -80 still hold the record for biggest plane ever rolled? As Tex explained, it's a 1G maneuver, it's perfectly safe (as long as you're up high enough so the sideslip doesn't put you in the ground, like our favorite B-52 pilot), the airplane doesn't know it's upside-down, but he got called on the proverbial carpet the day after his stunt, and apparently since then nobody's had the balls to try it. Sure, you'd be fired the instant you landed, but I'm amazed some ex-fighter jock cowboy hasn't tried it in a 747/A380/C-5. Or have they, and Boeing/Airbus just kept it out of the news? Pretty sure I read somewhere that the pilot briefing for the guys introducing Boeing jetliners to the media has ever since included "and don't roll it," to which the test pilots reply "Aww, you don't let me have any fun."
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 05:35
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
I guarantee if any AF pilot tried to roll a C-5, he'd never fly again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 05:38
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:Most planes are. Most supersonic fighters are around 30% fuel by weight, long-range airliners are closer to half. At MTOW, a 777-200ER is 47% fuel, the other 53% being the structure, passengers, luggage, etc.; Concorde was 55% fuel. The article/interview with Boeing's chief test pilot that the "no rolls" quote came from also said that they did it in the simulator a few times at least... As for what a 747 can do look no further than China Airlines 006.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:I guarantee if any AF pilot tried to roll a C-5, he'd never fly again. Worth it
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 06:00
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:Most planes are. Most supersonic fighters are around 30% fuel by weight, long-range airliners are closer to half. At MTOW, a 777-200ER is 47% fuel, the other 53% being the structure, passengers, luggage, etc.; Concorde was 55% fuel. It's never a bad time for this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra_khhzuFlE
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 06:08
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:In other news, I'm reading random Straight Dope columns and came across this one. Does Tex Johnston in the -80 still hold the record for biggest plane ever rolled? As Tex explained, it's a 1G maneuver, it's perfectly safe (as long as you're up high enough so the sideslip doesn't put you in the ground, like our favorite B-52 pilot), the airplane doesn't know it's upside-down, but he got called on the proverbial carpet the day after his stunt, and apparently since then nobody's had the balls to try it. Sure, you'd be fired the instant you landed, but I'm amazed some ex-fighter jock cowboy hasn't tried it in a 747/A380/C-5. Or have they, and Boeing/Airbus just kept it out of the news? I know a cargo pilot who claims to have done it over the Pacific in a 747 carrying a load of horses. Edit: To add a 'this isn't some random pilot bullshitting' aspect, the pilot making said claim has 5 Distinguished Flying Crosses for service in Vietnam (where he was shot down 3 times by ground fire). Advent Horizon fucked around with this message at 07:01 on Aug 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 06:53
|
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:I know a cargo pilot who claims to have done it over the Pacific in a 747 carrying a load of horses. How were the horses after that?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 06:54
|
|
|
Done properly the horses wouldn't notice. It's a "1g"maneuver.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 07:00
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:How were the horses after that? Their equulibrium was knackered.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 07:16
|
|
|
They just wanted to go home but the pilot refused to put them into a stall
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 07:17
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Done properly the horses wouldn't notice. It's a "1g"maneuver. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw2qPLEgKdQ I assume a snap aileron roll, like a fighter or medium bomber (the A-6 still counts as medium, right?) evading a missile would be rather more upsetting to the tummy but the physics would still work. Better, even -- less risk of splashing when you're pulling 8Gs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 07:40
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:I guarantee if any AF pilot tried to roll a C-5, he'd never fly again. Advent Horizon posted:I know a cargo pilot who claims to have done it over the Pacific in a 747 carrying a load of horses.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 07:41
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:Most planes are. Most supersonic fighters are around 30% fuel by weight, long-range airliners are closer to half. At MTOW, a 777-200ER is 47% fuel, the other 53% being the structure, passengers, luggage, etc.; Concorde was 55% fuel. *Can be up to half fuel by weight. It is so rare that an airliner the size of a 777 has its fuel tanks filled to their maximum capacity that you can almost get away with saying that it never happens. Here's why:  Full tanks in a 777 result in a very long range, but a very small - in fact, so small as to be almost useless - payload. A 777-200ER has an operational empty weight of about 300,000 lb. (this varies a lot based on the age of the aircraft, options, the interior spec and a whole bunch of other stuff), which corresponds to the minimum value on the y-axis. As you add payload, you move up the y-axis until you reach the maximum zero-fuel weight, which is a structural limit for the aircraft - all weight beyond that limit must be fuel alone, as the fuel in the wing tanks counteracts the bending moment in the wing structure caused by weight added in the fuselage. Adding fuel gives you more range, which moves you along the x-axis; adding fuel only, you will move along the x-axis until you reach either the maximum brake release weight of the aircraft, or the maximum fuel capacity for the aircraft. You will note that at the point where the maximum fuel capacity meets maximum brake release weight, the aircraft is only capable of carrying about 55,000 pounds of payload - assuming standard weights for passengers and an average weight of checked baggage, this means you can only enplane 250-260 passengers, well below the typical 777-200's 3-class capacity of about 315 passengers. Delivery McGee posted:In other news, I'm reading random Straight Dope columns and came across this one. Does Tex Johnston in the -80 still hold the record for biggest plane ever rolled? Concorde was rolled during testing, and it's larger (dimensionally) and heavier than the 367-80 was. Also, I would be willing to bet that at some point a Tu-160 was rolled, and that's quite a bit larger than either aircraft. MrChips fucked around with this message at 11:58 on Aug 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 08:02
|
|
|
Edit: ^^^^ Does having otherwise useless tank space allow the pilots to move fuel around to compensate for CoG issues? Otherwise, why bother with building the tanks that big? It seems like that is weight that could be eliminated if not normally useable. Dead Reckoning posted:Adding that the storyteller is a fighter pilot isn't a great way to convince people he isn't making poo poo up to sound cool. Not everybody in Vietnam was a fighter pilot. He flew rotary wing. I would suspect most fighter pilots would prefer to leave 'shot down three times' off their resume! He doesn't actually talk about his Vietnam days. The only reason I know about the medals is his daughter got copies of them from the DoD for his birthday this year. While he was recuperating in an Army hospital from severe burns over 70% of his body (3rd shoot-down) some asshat stole the originals. None of his closest friends knew how decorated he is before she brought out that box at his birthday dinner this year. Advent Horizon fucked around with this message at 08:14 on Aug 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 08:09
|
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:Edit: ^^^^ Does having otherwise useless tank space allow the pilots to move fuel around to compensate for CoG issues? Otherwise, why bother with building the tanks that big? It seems like that is weight that could be eliminated if not normally useable. The fuel tanks in a 777 are mostly in the wings and center section of the fuselage, so there's not much of a CG shift as fuel burns off. My understanding is that the fuel capacity is there so that the aircraft has the flexibility to fly longer legs if needed. Empty fuel tanks don't cut into passenger capacity and aren't that heavy, but they give airlines the flexibility to use the same airplane for a bunch of different routes, albeit at a reduced passenger capacity for really long trips.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 11:15
|
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:Edit: ^^^^ Does having otherwise useless tank space allow the pilots to move fuel around to compensate for CoG issues? Otherwise, why bother with building the tanks that big? It seems like that is weight that could be eliminated if not normally useable. Normal planes normally empty the center tank first if it is loaded at all, and then the wings to keep the wing bending moment as low as possible. The 747 sequence was always center > wing inner until same as wing outer > tank-to-engine. There is a slight CG aft movement when the center is emptied, but this is minimal compared to the Concorde.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 13:56
|
|
|
Random Concorde fact: on takeoff the elevon trim was set to nose down for two reasons. One was to counter the extreme pitch up moment during rotation and the other was so that they'd droop down and act like flaps at low speeds.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 14:00
|
|
|
Tsuru posted:There are a bunch of bizjets and some types of 747 that have tail tanks to move the CG as far aft as possible during cruise (=less fuel burn). gently caress filling the trunk tank in the Beechjet.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Done properly the horses wouldn't notice. It's a "1g"maneuver. Delivery McGee posted:Seriously, a barrel roll is indistinguishable from straight and level if done properly and you don't look out the window. Common misconception. A barrel roll will always require positive G of more than 1, during the pull-ups in the entry and exit. Over the top, it can be 1, or even less. A barrel roll can be conceptualized as a combined loop and roll. It's one rotation around the longitudinal axis (roll), and one around the lateral (loop), executed simultaneously, resulting in a cork-screw path. If you were flying around in a giant pressurized air chamber without gravity, it becomes obvious that it would take some G to do the looping component of the barrel roll. Let's call that 2 G's. Straight-line flight would be zero G's. Now if we turn gravity on and straight line flight begins to require 1 G, you add that to whatever else you're doing to maintain the same flight path. So that same barrel roll that took 2 G's to get all the way around, now takes 3 G's at the bottom and 1 G at the top. Also, to complicate matters a little more, the terminology is a little blurred between a barrel roll and an aileron roll. You can have different mixtures of "how much" roll vs. loop can make up your barrel roll. You can have a lot of loop and a little roll, ending up with a big fat barrel roll. Or you can have a little loop and a lot of roll, thus ending up with a tight skinny barrel roll, that can get so skinny that the nose only comes a few degrees off the original heading, thus barely distinguishable from an aileron roll. So it's really a blurred distinction between the two maneuvers. Most "aileron rolls" in non-aerobatic airplanes that require some positive G to keep all the fluids at the bottom of their tanks, are really a bit of a barrel roll. And even in a pure aileron roll where the nose doesn't come off heading at all, the nose will drop down toward the ground, which necessitates a pull-up before the entry and a pull-out after the completion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 20:12 |
|
|
I'm pretty sure a Starship just flew over my house in the pattern for KRIC but I don't see it listed on the scheduled IFR arrivals. Impossible right? It was loud as gently caress and appears to be a canard with dual pushers. Did I mention it was loud as gently caress?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:37
|
|
