|
holocaust bloopers posted:Tells you quite a bit about the culture back then. If an aerospace firm ran an ad like this today, they'd get slammed. Car companies do it all the time, with even more tenuous links, and not that Boeing or Airbus really run ads outside of trade mags, but those trade mags definitely cover the "whole of market", so to speak.
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 07:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 16:07 |
|
|
This seems like as good a time as any to repost the proposed B-58 passenger variant.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 07:22
|
|
|
Previa_fun posted:I love the Convair 880. Such a sleek, futuristic-as-seen-from-the-50s airliner. An -880 was the first aircraft I did restoration work on  . Cockpit of that thing is really snazzy, and the first class seats are a great place to run to to take a quick nap on the job (allegedly)
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 08:00
|
|
|
Previa_fun posted:I love the Convair 880. Such a sleek, futuristic-as-seen-from-the-50s airliner. I absolutely LOVE the -880/-990's. One of the first airline flights I can remember taking was on a TWA CV-880 from Seattle to O'Hare. Got to go up in the cockpit all Airplane!-style, but sadly the Captain didn't ask me if I liked movies about gladiators.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 12:29
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Tells you quite a bit about the culture back then. If an aerospace firm ran an ad like this today, they'd get slammed. Eh, I dunno about "slammed". It might not be as universally well received as it was back then, but there are certainly some market segments that would go for "you're flying in something made from jet bomber parts".
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:Eh, I dunno about "slammed". It might not be as universally well received as it was back then, but there are certainly some market segments that would go for "you're flying in something made from jet bomber parts". Well yea. I think the ad is loving dope. The selling idea is sound: our expertise carries over no matter what the aircraft. Nowadays that probably wouldn't make it in a magazine like NatGeo or Wired. The execution of the idea would have to be re-tooled into something less like, "you're flying in the same stuff that drops nukes!" Because, you know, millennials don't like nuclear bombers. edit: So this got me interested to see what aerospace firms do now with their advertising. Lockheed has this one that came from a big agency in the industry, DDB. http://www.advertolog.com/lockheed-martin/print-outdoor/anti-war-plane-1312555/ Boeing (agency unknown): http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2011/march/March11_ad03.pdf bloops fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Jan 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Well yea. I think the ad is loving dope. The selling idea is sound: our expertise carries over no matter what the aircraft. Nowadays that probably wouldn't make it in a magazine like NatGeo or Wired. The execution of the idea would have to be re-tooled into something less like, "you're flying in the same stuff that drops nukes!" Now that National Geographic is owned by the Murdoch group, you never know! Also what loving "millennials" read national geographic??
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Linedance posted:Now that National Geographic is owned by the Murdoch group, you never know! Nat Geo has significant reach across multiple demographics. I found this thread with a bunch of dope ads. http://www.elgrancapitan.org/foro/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=19965&start=180
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:I can't find the exact video, but there's been a thing floating around on Facebook. Here's what I dug up on Youtube: Lmao at this point why not just jettison the wingbox and empennage and leave the cockpit attached
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
I thought millenials came after generation y but apparently they're the same thing so I'm just going to drop the whole stupid thing. Forget I mentioned it. Anyway, this ad was on the Flightglobal.com website, apologies for the garbage capture, screen capturing as an animated gif is way more trouble than it's worth (on Windows, anyway). 
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
LUBE UP YOUR BUTT posted:Lmao at this point why not just jettison the wingbox and empennage and leave the cockpit attached Motivation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
The park I played in as a kid had a mockup of one of these as part of the playground equipment. Also the Apollo module.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
ausgezeichnet posted:I absolutely LOVE the -880/-990's. One of the first airline flights I can remember taking was on a TWA CV-880 from Seattle to O'Hare. Got to go up in the cockpit all Airplane!-style, but sadly the Captain didn't ask me if I liked movies about gladiators. Im so glad I was able to hang out in the cockpit and talk poo poo to the pilots when I was young. Its such an archaic idea now, i feel sorry for the kids these days in that regard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
haha, even I'm not this crazy about airships:
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:The park I played in as a kid had a mockup of one of these as part of the playground equipment. Also the Apollo module. My grade school had an actual helicopter (don't remember what type, but Vietnam era, not a Huey) with seats, controls, wiring, pretty much everything except the gear/wheels (they mounted it to the ground with concrete pedestals) and rotors. There were so many loving sharp edges and dangerous parts on that thing (and old oil and fuel residue), and it was the best loving playground toy ever made in the history of the earth. Poor kids today (at least in the US) could never experience something like that. Hell, I'm pretty sure that there is not a single piece of playground equipment that we had that would be allowed today. Giant concrete pipes, monkey-bars and other 'bar things' that were just bare metal with nothing but the gound under them (gently caress those things got hot in the AZ sun), metal slides that were 10' or so high at the top without any sort of sides to keep dumb kids from falling off, super tall swings with chains to the seats that we did our best to go all the way around on (and often fell out of breaking various bones), round steel platforms that spun (which of course we would get going so fast that kids would rocket off of them tumbling for dozens of feet).
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:haha, even I'm not this crazy about airships: Looks like a giant flying 
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Linedance posted:I thought millenials came after generation y but apparently they're the same thing so I'm just going to drop the whole stupid thing. Forget I mentioned it. Try clicking it, add a few Hornets to the shopping basket and see if the referral code is still in the URL. Perhaps Flightglobal.com gets a million bucks per clickthrough that leads to a military acquisition program.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:haha, even I'm not this crazy about airships: Its only weakness: Power lines.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Its only weakness: Power lines. Pfft, those things weren't omnipotent priznat posted:Looks like a giant flying "Good news! It's a suppository!" 
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
It seems the PLAAF has also been experimenting with flying platforms. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hb1NCr9PbHQ
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
Flagrant Abuse posted:This seems like as good a time as any to repost the proposed B-58 passenger variant. Would.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
Midjack posted:Would. I think the last time it came up I calculated the cabin height and seat width to be less than that of a CRJ.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I think the last time it came up I calculated the cabin height and seat width to be less than that of a CRJ.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I think the last time it came up I calculated the cabin height and seat width to be less than that of a CRJ. Still would.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I think the last time it came up I calculated the cabin height and seat width to be less than that of a CRJ. CRJ's don't go supersonic more than once, comparison invalid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
It's not like you'd have to be squished in there for long, cruising at Mach 2.4.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
priznat posted:It's not like you'd have to be squished in there for long, cruising at Mach 2.4. It's not like you'd be squished in there long before it crashed, you mean. The B-58 had more than 20% operational attrition.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:It's not like you'd be squished in there long before it crashed, you mean. The B-58 had more than 20% operational attrition. Would everyone get the sweet ejector pods? (without bears)
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
While looking up B-58 videos just because hey why not I ran across this and... While I highly doubt I'd ever do the Stand-Behind-a-Commercial-Airliner thing like folks love to do at that St Maarten airport I sure as gently caress wouldn't do this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhf6LyMCYeI Bonus hot hot roll action at the end.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 06:57
|
|
|
^As soon as the last one started, my thought was "That's an old video, he's going to do something even cooler." Yep.priznat posted:Looks like a giant flying In celebration of the 25th anniversary of NG's best-hung aircraft: 
Godholio fucked around with this message at 07:13 on Jan 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 07:07
|
|
|
Why arn't old bombers sold to private individuals like old fighters are? Is it because they require more maintenance, cause they're larger and thus harder to ship and store, national security reasons, require a bigger crew, what? You'd think there'd at least be a few Il-28s bucketing around in private hands.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 10:39
|
|
|
Apparently KLM is training dogs to sniff peoples lost phones, find them in the airport and return them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK-T_t166TY
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I think the last time it came up I calculated the cabin height and seat width to be less than that of a CRJ. So you're saying it'd be nice and tight inside?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Why arn't old bombers sold to private individuals like old fighters are? Is it because they require more maintenance, cause they're larger and thus harder to ship and store, national security reasons, require a bigger crew, what? In the late '90s there was a privately owned Electric Canberra that would show up at Oshkosh. Many of the surviving A-26/B-25s went through an executive transport make-over in the late '50s and early '60s. I would dearly love to see an IL-28 on the airshow circuit, however.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Why arn't old bombers sold to private individuals like old fighters are? Is it because they require more maintenance, cause they're larger and thus harder to ship and store, national security reasons, require a bigger crew, what? There was an interesting article that popped up on Ars about restoring and flying Vietnam-era fighter jets, specifically the work the Collings Foundation is doing: http://arstechnica.com/the-multiverse/2016/01/the-slowly-fading-art-of-flying-and-maintaining-cold-war-fighter-jets/ The gist is that it's really expensive to get an old fighter going, really expensive to do the required maintenance to keep it flying (not to mention parts availability is scarce), really expensive to fly, and really expensive to get new people to fly. If you can even find type-rated instructors who can train new pilots. Bombers would even be more expensive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
A B-52 corporate jet would own so hard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:A B-52 corporate jet would own so hard. B-1 for some mega rich CEO would be simultaneously awesome and an utterly disgusting display of wealth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:B-1 for some mega rich CEO would be simultaneously awesome and an utterly disgusting display of wealth. Can the B-1 supercruise? I want something that can go mach 2 + across the Atlantic/Pacific. The Russians were all "we don't have the parts for the Tu-144, sorry" and the quote for a Tu-160 was just retarded. Like I might have more wealth than the bottom 50% of the world's population, but even I found it unreasonable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
The concept of a corporate jet B-1 is thoroughly absurd but it would be kind of interesting to see what one would look like with a bizjet-style paint scheme.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 16:07 |
|
|
A bizjet variant of the B-1 would end up looking kinda like that:
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 18:11
|
|