|
Sagebrush posted:This is why all those proposals for giant-size man-carrying multirotors A hex, octo, or twin-quad (actually eight motors/props, but on only four arms) like the one you pictured can sustain one or more motor losses and retain control, but this doesn't mean they're good loving ideas. Large-scale multicoptors very quickly run into aerodynamic (they use hilarious amounts of power for a given operating weight,) and power/thrust issues (instantaneous thrust changes that are required for controlled flight become very difficult to achieve with larger motors,) outside of their failure modes that make them undesirable.
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 08:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 02:06 |
|
|
Yeah I hadn't really thought about that, seems like a death trap. Your good as long as everything is working perfectly at all times.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 08:12
|
|
|
lurklurklurk posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSfHowDgtlQ Jesus christ that was horrifying *slowed down screaming kicks in* Hahahaha this is hilarious
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 08:42
|
|
|
The screaming over the pop track is pretty great.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 09:17
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:This is why all those proposals for giant-size man-carrying multirotors Maybe it depends on the specific helicopter or skill of the pilot, but it's more than just a chance, here is someone doing it on purpose for a demonstration. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTqu9iMiPIU
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 10:43
|
|
|
Drunk Driver Dad posted:Maybe it depends on the specific helicopter or skill of the pilot, but it's more than just a chance, here is someone doing it on purpose for a demonstration. As long as you have a suitably flat site nearby, which is not always the case. If your engine fails when you're at low altitude above an urban area or forest, at night, in heavy winds then safety goes straight out of window and you're lucky if you can walk away from the wreck.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 10:54
|
|
|
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aNEYwYqJ7Fc Paging three-phase to explain why rus is not dead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 12:14
|
|
|
Klaus Kinski posted:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aNEYwYqJ7Fc It's fine they have gloves on
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 12:21
|
|
|
Keiya posted:You guys are really making me want VTOL passenger jets. Bombardier were supposed to be making a civilian tiltrotor that could do vertical takeoff and landing and long range cruise flight. I guess it could autorotate and "glide" as well. *insert joke about the v22 osprey here*
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 12:21
|
|
|
Close calls still osha? http://i.imgur.com/aHxMIOJ.mp4 LifeSunDeath fucked around with this message at 12:33 on Feb 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 12:29
|
|
|
MisterOblivious posted:left approach to the wet end of the runway I hope nobody repaints the roofs of their houses, otherwise someone's gonna get lost.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 14:40
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I hope nobody repaints the roofs of their houses, otherwise someone's gonna get lost. They are idiots for using the house markers for critical decision points. I can understand the hotel as that isn't going to be something colour dependant and is an actual landmark but the rest is nonsense. The first over the road approach is legit dangerous and a local pilot briefing would be advisable. LOL for saying he can't go around in the plane he is flying. His landing is accurate for sure but I don't know why he is landing where a plane 6 times his size would land other than to show off. It is perfectly legal for him to land before the markers assuming there is runway . This comment from the uploader is quality stuff quote:I dont think you can do a night landing at St Barths. If you knew what you were doing all the information you need to know is on the airfield plates. There is also no reason to do such an approach as there are far safer ones to do even if they are somewhat non-standard as they would be safer. That was circuit because we have to have a circuit because we are dumb.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
my favorite plane landing/takeoff was arriving at the big airport in iceland. the runway we landed on is right next to the ocean, so the whole time during descent i looked out my window and slowly started making a more and more serious  expression as the water gets closer and closer..... until finally land appears under us in what seemed like just the nick of time 
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
PHL feels the same way
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
The Osprey has a big driveshaft running through the wing connecting both rotors to both engines. I don't think it can hover on one engine, but it can... descend in a controlled way. Of course if it takes any damage to one of the prop-rotors, it'll probably just spin in. But that never happens to combat assault aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
shame on an IGA posted:PHL feels the same way SFO too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
It's a bit windy here today. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
A friend's workplace is removing a desk on the floor, and apparently demolished the wall behind it by just running a forklift into it before picking the desk up to carry it away.  Sadly he didn't get pictures of them actually using the forklift to demolish anything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
I went to a jobsite today to witness some hydraulic pressure testing of a water line. When I got there the company doing the test had a lovely gas powered pressure pump setup and ready to turn on. This was of course in a small 1500 sqft basement with no windows and only a single stairway that was nice and sealed off. The project coordinator looked at me, and asked "Do you think that might be a bad idea?" Thanks OSHA thread for giving me plenty of stories to immediately share with everyone involved on just how bad an idea that would have been.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:They are idiots for using the house markers for critical decision points. I can understand the hotel as that isn't going to be something colour dependant and is an actual landmark but the rest is nonsense. The first over the road approach is legit dangerous and a local pilot briefing would be advisable. A local pilot briefing isn't advisable, it's mandatory. It takes a couple of hours to perform touch and goes with a local pilot before you can get a permit to land there on your own. It's literally what's happening in those videos. Similar videos with cockpit chatter: http://aeroclubsaintmartin.org/?page_id=72 http://www.comstbarth.fr/iso_album/carte_d_approche_st_barth.pdf
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:You know how some people think that planes fall like bricks if an engine fails and that’s not actually true of airliners? the russians addressed this issue by having the yak-38 automatically eject its pilot the instant anything went even remotely wrong https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uz3S-W0J8ts
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
Another automatic ejection working as intended.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:my favorite plane landing/takeoff was arriving at the big airport in iceland. the runway we landed on is right next to the ocean, so the whole time during descent i looked out my window and slowly started making a more and more serious Kona airport in Hawaii feels similar except at the last second the sea gets replaced by jagged lava flows which is even worse than the sea.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 01:56
|
|
|
LifeSunDeath posted:Close calls still osha? Props to the driver, he was fuckin' on it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 02:47
|
|
|
Sam Hall posted:the russians addressed this issue by having the yak-38 automatically eject its pilot the instant anything went even remotely wrong I'm doing a Let's Read of the Wingman series of awful 80s pulp novels, which are basically Crimson Skies crossed with Ace Combat and a dash of extreme patriotism. The second book hinges on a secret Soviet invasion of the post-WW3 American continent, with the airpower provided by Yak-38s that made repeated jumps from Siberia all the way to the Midwest. Someone in the thread did a long post describing all the ways the Yak-38 was awful, and I kinda wish the book included Hunter taking out someone by taking advantage of the automatic ejection.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 03:05
|
|
|
Sam Hall posted:the russians addressed this issue by having the yak-38 automatically eject its pilot the instant anything went even remotely wrong I've heard an anecdote about this feature that may or may not be true, but makes a great story either way. American aircraft carriers, as you probably know, use a high-powered steam catapult to assist in launching their aircraft. As long as the catapult doesn't fail (which does occasionally happen), this is a relatively safe way of getting planes into the air, since it brings the aircraft well above its stalling speed before it even leaves the deck. For whatever reason, Soviet aircraft carriers don't use catapults. Instead, they have a ski-jump-like ramp at the end of their flight deck:  To launch, the pilot will hold the brakes and bring the engines to maximum afterburner, release the brakes, accelerate down the deck under the plane's own power, and ramp off the ski jump as the airplane reaches flying speed. The acceleration achievable with the plane's engine power alone (and thus the speed achieved when the deck runs out) is much less than a catapult can provide. Depending on the air temperature, the weapons/fuel load, and the local wind, the aircraft may not climb straightaway; sometimes the jet will be flung a few hundred feet into the air, lose altitude as airspeed increases, stabilize, and then climb away from the water again. In an especially unlucky situation, the plane will leave the ramp and just fall into the sea. So, as a safety feature, Soviet/Russian carrier-borne jets have an auto-eject mechanism tied to the radar altimeter and the landing gear. If the gear is down but bearing no load (i.e. the plane's in the air) and the radar altimeter reads under ~5 meters or so (indicating the plane is about to hit the water), the pilot is automatically ejected. This feature is manually enabled with a cockpit switch. Reportedly there has been more than one incident where a student pilot has successfully launched for a training sortie but forgotten to disable the auto-eject feature after takeoff. So when they return to the carrier they slow down, put out their flaps and arresting hook, drop the landing gear, come in low and slow over the fantail...and as soon as the radar altimeter sweeps over the deck, boom, they're blasted out of the cockpit as the plane pancakes into the deck. 
Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 03:08 on Feb 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Reportedly there has been more than one incident where a student pilot has successfully launched for a training sortie but forgotten to disable the auto-eject feature after takeoff. So when they return to the carrier they slow down, put out their flaps and arresting hook, drop the landing gear, come in low and slow over the fantail...and as soon as the radar altimeter sweeps over the deck, boom, they're blasted out of the cockpit as the plane pancakes into the deck. I’d blame this less on pilot error and more on design error. The auto‐eject should auto‐disarm, e.g. after reaching a certain altitude, flying for a certain period of time, or both.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:The auto‐eject should auto‐disarm, e.g. after reaching a certain altitude, flying for a certain period of time, or both. That is a very un- way of thinking!For instance, something to avoid when you're in a plane is cycling the landing gear while you're still on the ground. At best, you'll damage the hydraulics or the gear as the mechanisms strain to pull the gear in under the weight of the plane. At worst, you'll successfully retract the gear and drop the plane on its belly. This would be especially bad if you were flying a combat plane loaded with explosives and fuel tanks hanging underneath. To prevent this happening, American fighters going back to WW2 have had pressure switches on the gear that prevent the gear from retracting while it's weighted, even if the cockpit switch is flipped accidentally. Soviet designs as late as the last models of the MiG-21 (produced in Russia until 1985 and China until 2013) have a little locking mechanism on the landing gear handle that you have to press in order to move it, and the pilots are told "just make sure you don't do that."
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/OfficialDavid7/status/834805830616829953
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
This would have been safer for all involved if everyone was auto-ejected when the wheel didn't come down.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 03:26
|
|
|
So you're next to an exploding engine, do you stay buckled in and get burned and impaled or desperately try to get away from the explody thing and get tossed across the cabin. Guess we'll never know the answer
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 03:26
|
|
|
ethanol posted:So you're next to an exploding engine, do you stay buckled in and get burned and impaled or desperately try to get away from the explody thing and get tossed across the cabin. Guess we'll never know the answer Don’t sit in rows 6–9 (depending on seating configuration) on a Q400. That’s my recommendation.  Is a blade going to hit you if you sit in that row? Probably not, but why not make it a “definitely not” by sitting elsewhere?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
Well, that would have been nice to know a few hours ago. I mean, I survived, but I might have leaned away from the engine more.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 06:18
|
|
|
Canuck-Errant posted:I mean, I survived, Are you sure? What if you're just haunting the forums. This is your hell.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 06:32
|
|
|
Lime Tonics posted:https://twitter.com/NWSBayArea/status/834461941011795969?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw It's a nice drive, but shouldn't they eventually give up on the idea of having a road there?  The first time I tried to drive that way it was blocked by a landslide somewhere further down south, and I've read about all the work they've done somewhere along the coast there in the last few years (or decade now?). When do you just give up and say that this land is all too unstable for roads, and consider alternatives like helicopters or mountain goats?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 09:23
|
|
|
Buttcoin purse posted:It's a nice drive, but shouldn't they eventually give up on the idea of having a road there? California has an area like that. It’s called the Lost Coast. quote:The Lost Coast is a mostly natural and development-free area of the California North Coast in Humboldt and Mendocino Counties, which includes the King Range. It was named the "Lost Coast" after the area experienced depopulation in the 1930s.[1] In addition, the steepness and related geotechnical challenges of the coastal mountains made this stretch of coastline too costly for state highway or county road builders to establish routes through the area, leaving it the most undeveloped and remote portion of the California coast.[2] Without any major highways, communities in the Lost Coast region such as Petrolia, Shelter Cove, and Whitethorn are isolated from the rest of California.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 09:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 02:06 |
|
|
Sagebrush posted:For whatever reason, Soviet aircraft carriers don't use catapults. Instead, they have a ski-jump-like ramp at the end of their flight deck: Maybe it's easier to arrange constant supply of steam on a nuclear carrier? Kuznetsov class is rolling coal. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 10:28
|
|