|
Apologies aeronautical dudes, forgot myself there. Not racist, just thoughtless 
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 18:51 |
|
|
monkeytennis posted:Bad news - it's the Chinks Lol okay.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
.
hogmartin fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Sep 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:What I expected was that the Chinese were putting up the cash to complete the second, unfinished An-225. Buying the design so they can produce it seems, well, sorta wasteful. I imagine the An-225 would be useful for their space program, but how many of those honkies do you need? Or is this a way to get a Chinese An-124 copy? More 225s in the world is a good thing, though!
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
Inacio posted:More 225s in the world is a good thing, though! Sure, but how much of a civilian market is there for more than, say, two? The existing aircraft isn't exactly busy as it is, and while some of that comes down to the challenges of using a one-off aircraft, most of the outsize freight market can be handled quite adequately as it is by the combination of 747s and the An-124. Also, the An-225's military usefulness is somewhat limited as well; it has no aft loading ramp, for starters, and for it to be really useful, it desperately needs to be re-engined with something better than 1980s Soviet state-of-the-art.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
quote:monkeytennis posted: Hey, they're a good punk band.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Sure, but how much of a civilian market is there for more than, say, two? The existing aircraft isn't exactly busy as it is, and while some of that comes down to the challenges of using a one-off aircraft, most of the outsize freight market can be handled quite adequately as it is by the combination of 747s and the An-124. Also, the An-225's military usefulness is somewhat limited as well; it has no aft loading ramp, for starters, and for it to be really useful, it desperately needs to be re-engined with something better than 1980s Soviet state-of-the-art. An An-124 with modern engines would be unholy awesome. Though the whole "lack of rear loading ramp" makes me wonder, again, why the Chinese would want the An-225 if not for hauling around bulky poo poo related to space
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:An An-124 with modern engines would be unholy awesome. Communist party officials frustrated by limited baggage allowance coming home from policy research trips to Paris, Milan, Modena and Bordeaux.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
If they could figure out how to make them cheaply (ha ha), I could see China Shipping Group cornering the market in ultra-heavy air freight. As it stands, the An-124 and -225 are working overtime *as-is*.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:If they could figure out how to make them cheaply (ha ha), I could see China Shipping Group cornering the market in ultra-heavy air freight. In a couple of years you'll be able to order 50 of them with no manufacturer markings on aliexpress for $7.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
mekilljoydammit posted:Guy in R&D facility for industry that does smallish (up to 20ish kW) generators here - mechanical to electrical efficiency is around 78-80% unless you're throwing assloads of money at rare earth stuff and copper. Meanwhile, according to this NASA paper: quote:Helicopter transmissions are extremely efficient. Efficiency is typically above 95 percent for the complete helicopter transmission I really, really doubt diesel-electric or turbine-electric multirotors are competitive with boring old helicopters. What you might win in mechanical complexity you lose out on in generator weight and size. It gets even worse if you also have to carry around batteries as a backup/extra power source.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:I really, really doubt diesel-electric or turbine-electric multirotors are competitive with boring old helicopters. What you might win in mechanical complexity you lose out on in generator weight and size. It gets even worse if you also have to carry around batteries as a backup/extra power source. Attach rotor to contra-rotating flywheels; the kinetic energy allows a little flight time in an engine failure probably not a good idea
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Sure, but how much of a civilian market is there for more than, say, two? The existing aircraft isn't exactly busy as it is, and while some of that comes down to the challenges of using a one-off aircraft, most of the outsize freight market can be handled quite adequately as it is by the combination of 747s and the An-124. Also, the An-225's military usefulness is somewhat limited as well; it has no aft loading ramp, for starters, and for it to be really useful, it desperately needs to be re-engined with something better than 1980s Soviet state-of-the-art. IIRC they were considering completing the unfinished second airplane with a new tail assembly/rear loading ramp more like that of the An-124, but I have no idea where or when I read that, so take it with a grain of salt.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Sure, but how much of a civilian market is there for more than, say, two? The existing aircraft isn't exactly busy as it is, and while some of that comes down to the challenges of using a one-off aircraft, most of the outsize freight market can be handled quite adequately as it is by the combination of 747s and the An-124. Also, the An-225's military usefulness is somewhat limited as well; it has no aft loading ramp, for starters, and for it to be really useful, it desperately needs to be re-engined with something better than 1980s Soviet state-of-the-art. Doesn't the on-again, off-again second 225 have a conventional tail since it doesn't have to worry about a big old Buran blocking the airflow? I can't find any rear pictures of that airframe, but maybe they tossed a ramp back there? Plus the wing doesn't seem to even have been started, it's not too outlandish that future planes could be redesigned to take modern engines. Comedy option: GE-90-115 trijet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
Enourmo posted:Comedy option: GE-90-115 trijet. It could easily get by as a GE-90-115 quad, and also as a dual. The six engines it has put out 309,600lbf, one -115 puts out 115,300lbf. Four of them would be 461,200lbf, or a 67% increase over stock.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
It would have to be a trijet in that case; remember that engines are sized to provide a safety margin with one engine out. Two GE90s wouldn't be enough to be safe. EDIT: Or four GEnxs. That would work too. Enourmo posted:Doesn't the on-again, off-again second 225 have a conventional tail since it doesn't have to worry about a big old Buran blocking the airflow? I can't find any rear pictures of that airframe, but maybe they tossed a ramp back there? Plus the wing doesn't seem to even have been started, it's not too outlandish that future planes could be redesigned to take modern engines. They never made it that far building the second one; as far as I know the fuselage is mostly complete, as is the wing box extension that constitutes the increase in wing span over the An-124, but the rest of it hasn't been built. The thing's been outside for a long time in its unfinished state (a big red flag for corrosion), and it's been cannibalised for spares for the existing aircraft too, so even just finishing the second An-225 will be a monumental task. MrChips fucked around with this message at 02:32 on Sep 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
Yeah, but now if China's working on a deal to start producing them, my point was the design legwork's already more or less done to correct the first plane's big drawbacks in its modern role.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
Enourmo posted:Doesn't the on-again, off-again second 225 have a conventional tail since it doesn't have to worry about a big old Buran blocking the airflow? I can't find any rear pictures of that airframe, but maybe they tossed a ramp back there? Plus the wing doesn't seem to even have been started, it's not too outlandish that future planes could be redesigned to take modern engines.  
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
So I never knew this thing existed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Skyfox Yes, Virginia, that's a heavily-modified T-33 with A-10-style engines.  
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:So I never knew this thing existed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Skyfox drat, wonder if someone put together a model for that airframe, looks hot as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
R-Type posted:drat, wonder if someone put together a model for that airframe, looks hot as gently caress. It looks like something I would've doodled in a notebook when I was 12 - that it sounds like it was one hell of a plane (based on the Wiki writeup) is just icing on the cake. It's actually even sexier from below:  It's like an Me 262 hosed an A-10 and the result was ~glorious~. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 07:43 on Sep 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
Wait I thought the antonovs flew under a Ukrainian flag...
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 07:33
|
|
|
Some of them do. Antonov Airlines (which owns the An-225) is Ukrainian, since it's a division of the Antonov design bureau. Volga-Dnepr owns the other commercial fleet of An-124's, but is a Russian company. Interestingly, I think both Antonov and Volga-Dnepr operate An-124's into Seattle and Portland fairly often for Boeing, so that has to generate some interesting political issues.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 07:53
|
|
|
A company is planning on using Starfighters to launch cubesats! http://www.bbc.com/future/story/201...k&ICID=ref_fark
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 08:39
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:Some of them do. I don't know about Portland, but they show up occasionally out of Ohio, Columbus IIRC. Presumably transporting 787 parts to Everett. Edit: Oh hey, look at that. Emergency application for a chartered freight flight from LCK to PAE to move 7 GE90's. quote:GE Aviation has requested that Antonov conduct two flights carrying GE90 aircraft engines from Columbus to Everett, on or about June 19 and June 29, 20142 to offset production line work stoppages caused by engine delivery delays. Air transportation of these engines from Rickenbacker Airport, near the GE Aviation facility where the engines are produced, to Everett, where the affected Boeing commercial airplane production line is located, is the best solution to prevent further production line delays. SeaborneClink fucked around with this message at 08:50 on Sep 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 08:45
|
|
|
Well with Hurricane week in Hawaii, I was pretty concerned my Saturday afternoon flight from SEA to KOA was going to be cancelled. Now with the track showing well north of the Big Island and the actual forecast showing only periodic showers and 7-12MPH winds for Saturday I'm feeling like it should almost certainly go ahead now. Thank christ - I've been so looking forward to this trip.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 14:25
|
|
|
Cross posting from the Airpower thread, I just threw up a few photos of some Aussie air museums I visted last weekend if anyone is interested. https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3373768&pagenumber=875#post463830321
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
This weekend I am finally getting a work flight with my mate who is an accomplished bush helicopter pilot. Now we are talking Northern territory pilots here. And this fucker has been all over the media for the past few years on his exploits/antics. I've been in a lot of choppers in my time both inside, and out the door shooting (in one career bullets, and another film), but this one encounter is gonna be terrifying/amazing. I've worked with him on the ground many years ago and its gonna be great! Not him but in the same region: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYmZYdznwMg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWxAbTUk8bw Humphreys fucked around with this message at 15:54 on Sep 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:So I never knew this thing existed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Skyfox Okay so from my (limited) knowledge of aeronautics, at high AoA turbulence is generated behind the wing which eventually results in a stall, would this turbulence have any effect on the engine performance due to how close the intakes are to the backs of the wing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
So um stupid question, but if you check in online for a flight don't you still have to go to the counter at the airport to get your bags tagged and in?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
If you're not checking baggage, you can either print your boarding pass at home or go up to the kiosk and do it there. If you're checking baggage, you have to give them your bags somehow, and pay any extra fees etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
slidebite posted:So um stupid question, but if you check in online for a flight don't you still have to go to the counter at the airport to get your bags tagged and in? If you're checking bags you have to check bags in, yes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
Who prints a boarding pass anymore?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
slidebite posted:So um stupid question, but if you check in online for a flight don't you still have to go to the counter at the airport to get your bags tagged and in? (depending on airline and airport) you print your bag tag at the kiosk, stick it on your bag and go to bag drop to put your bag on the belt. In YYC it's really straightforward, and there shouldn't be much of a line. They save that for security (hope you have Nexus). If your bags are checked through to KOA, you won't have to worry about it in SEA, but if you're changing airlines and have to get your bags and re-check them, all bets are off and good luck (should have got the direct flight).
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:If you're checking bags you have to check bags in, yes. That sort of seems redundant to check in online then if you still need to check in a second time with an agent doesn't it? Linedance posted:(depending on airline and airport) you print your bag tag at the kiosk, stick it on your bag and go to bag drop to put your bag on the belt. In YYC it's really straightforward, and there shouldn't be much of a line. They save that for security (hope you have Nexus). If your bags are checked through to KOA, you won't have to worry about it in SEA, but if you're changing airlines and have to get your bags and re-check them, all bets are off and good luck (should have got the direct flight). Not nexus since the lane is literally never open at Coutts sweetgrass but since it's first class we get skypriority whatever that means.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:Who prints a boarding pass anymore? Me because the reader always fucks up reading off the phone screen, or the assorted people touch something and close the window, it's a pain getting your phone out and bringing up the boarding pass at check in, at the security line, at the x-ray, at the lounge (if applicable), at the gate, at the aircraft door etc etc etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
Seriously. The novelty of the boarding pass being on your phone gets really old after a while. Just print it out fold it in half and keep it with your wallet or in your passport.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
gently caress phone scanning. I just run my ID or credit card. But I swear to god, the next time DTS fucks up and it gives me an error code of "go directly to a human" and the human doubts me, EVEN AFTER I SAY WHAT JUST HAPPENED, I might lose it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:Antonov Airlines (which owns the An-225) is Ukrainian, since it's a division of the Antonov design bureau. Believe it or not Ukrainians and Russians generally get along very well, it's only Putin and his thugs that would like everyone to think otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 18:51 |
|
|
azazello posted:Believe it or not Ukrainians and Russians generally get along very well, it's only Putin and his thugs that would like everyone to think otherwise. Russian spotted.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 00:53
|
|