|
Okay... I live in the North of England & I swear I just saw an OV-10 fly over, the gently caress?
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 16:18 |
|
|
cowboy elvis posted:Well there goes my shot at being a Scientology flight engineer. Wherein you must monitor both EGT and Thetan levels throughout all phases of flight.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
I guess the Scientology thing explains why he went 707 instead of DC-8 
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
inkjet_lakes posted:Okay... I live in the North of England & I swear I just saw an OV-10 fly over, the gently caress? The US had been operating OV-10s (again) on a pretty grey basis for awhile now.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
inkjet_lakes posted:Okay... I live in the North of England & I swear I just saw an OV-10 fly over, the gently caress? Yes, you did. 
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
I found this YouTube channel a couple of months ago. Basically a bunch of cool old people who are way into airplanes get these industry guys to come in and talk. They're all fantastic watches. Here's one of a Northrop Grumman engineer discussing the design evolution of the Tomcat. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsUCixAeZ0A
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Yes, you did. Out of curiosity, this is a screen shot of what app/internet site?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
savex posted:Out of curiosity, this is a screen shot of what app/internet site? https://www.flightradar24.com/ I realized after posting that shot that you can also direct link to an aircraft from the website so people can just click it and see the flight in real time.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:Does, say, an F-15 have the same problems when truckin' along at about the speed of your average .30-caliber rifle bullet (for much shorter time and distance, obviously)? I've read that the F-15C can exceed its structural speed limit when pulled 90 degrees nose-up as soon as Vr is achieved; the air's too thick down here, and can tear the wings off from frontal drag if they just firewall the throttles off the strip. I.e. most models of F-15 can the thing can hit Vne in a vertical climb, riding to Valhalla on twin pillars of fire. I'm guessing you read about that F-15 fact from my earlier big post about the Streak Eagle. That's a different phenomenon from what I wrote about the Concorde here. There's nothing exceptional about most jets being able to overspeed themselves in level flight, or even in a shallow climb, even at typical working loads. What was exceptional about the Streak Eagle was its ability to overspeed straight up, but even that's kind of a half-truth or a theoretical awesome fact, if you will. That ability is a function of its incredible excess thrust at sea level, which quickly falls off with altitude; and the very low speed limit (based on dynamic pressure, or "Q") also at sea level, which goes up quickly with altitude. So the window opens up quickly based on both of those fronts, and by the time the plane was pointed straight up, it was in conditions in which the fun fact is no longer true. Putting it another way, if you could sci-fi-rig some sort of giant air chamber with uniform air density (sea level conditions all the way up) and normal gravity, most planes would fly more or less normally in it, but the Streak Eagle would have to throttle back going straight up, and that is awesome! slidebite posted:Do British people tend to gloss over the French involvement in Concorde and basically claim it as their own? I don't know about that, but there were certainly at least a few posts about apalling French mechanical neglect of their Concordes, and procedural neglect in flight ops leading to compressor stalls and engine damage. And the 2000 crash. MrChips posted:That Concorde thread is an incredible read from start to finish, and with voices that we don't often hear from, like mechanics and flight attendants.  Finger Prince posted:Thanks for that post last page, vessbot! Adding to OP. Thanks! I noticed that my stuff there is split up into separate sections now, the other stuff being the Streak Eagle posts. Mind putting them in one place? Oh and thanks for including MrChips' P-42 addendum in there, that was good stuff.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
How do I search by a plane type on search radar? A B-25 flew over my house on its way to LAX last wednesday and I am curious which one.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 01:43
|
|
|
.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 03:46
|
|
|
cowboy elvis posted:I found this YouTube channel a couple of months ago. Basically a bunch of cool old people who are way into airplanes get these industry guys to come in and talk. They're all fantastic watches. I hope he's being sarcastic here, but there's a fantastic shot of an absolutely terrible landing (in-flight engagement) at the 48:23 mark. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsUCixAeZ0A&t=2900s Very neat video, I'll have to check out the other ones when I get a chance.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 04:10
|
|
|
drunkill posted:John Travolta is donating his 707 to the Historical Aircraft Restoration Society in NSW Australia. Too bad for me; I'm going there next week which is presumably too soon to see it.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 05:28
|
|
|
https://m.imgur.com/r/nononono/Vweg5Uu at hospital, lost fingat
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 07:04
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Yes, you did. Thanks, had no idea there were any in civil hands- the glazed rear & orange panels confused me, turns out it was the target tug variant. Another one for the 'aircraft I thought I'd never see' list!
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 08:15
|
|
|
vessbot posted:
Wasn't the 2000 crash caused by a piece of metal on the runway that puncture the fuel tank after rolling over it? Even if the mechanic didn't neglect anything, the crash still would have happened...
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 13:08
|
|
|
Crossposting from AIRPOWER thread https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5qEhY3XD6Q  
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 15:35
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:I hope he's being sarcastic here, but there's a fantastic shot of an absolutely terrible landing (in-flight engagement) at the 48:23 mark. The lecture from the test pilot of the yf-23 is exactly as good as it should be, because it's awesome.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
 Google founder building an airship yacht Size e: durr a bit of a crossed wire there, the article compares 'size' with the Hindenburg and the Macon but doesn't talk displacement. Lifting gas: Helium (they wanted to use hydrogen but that is illegal under US law as a prop to BIG HELIUM) Expect it to have: hover skirts/suction skirts like the British/Lockheed design, dynamic gas ballasting to adjust lift, likely a significant dynamic lift component Price: estimated 100-150 million In addition to being a yacht for Brin and friends, it will also be designed for airlifting humanitarian supplies to disaster zones, making this a very socially responsible superyacht Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 20:46 on May 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
savex posted:Wasn't the 2000 crash caused by a piece of metal on the runway that puncture the fuel tank after rolling over it? Even if the mechanic didn't neglect anything, the crash still would have happened... Yes, but on the other hand there's the opinion of french people held by the average english white male.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AP/status/868863456275034117
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
I saw we mull a ban on Homeland Security.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:I saw we mull a ban on Homeland Security. I have been for years and it isn't doing a goddamned thing
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
Mull wine, not bans.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
savex posted:Wasn't the 2000 crash caused by a piece of metal on the runway that puncture the fuel tank after rolling over it? Even if the mechanic didn't neglect anything, the crash still would have happened... In that Concorde thread it was explained that tire failures puncturing fuel tanks was pretty common for Concorde, the piece of metal that fell off the MD plane was just a convenient way to shift the blame.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 04:47
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
Yeah I'm sure the FOD ingestion was also convenient. JFC
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 08:25
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Yeah I'm sure the FOD ingestion was also convenient. JFC Why not both? There's a reason it's always failure chains that result in disasters.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 08:32
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Why not both? There's a reason it's always failure chains that result in disasters. evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 09:09 on May 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 09:04
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:FOD Ingestion on takeoff resulting in engine damage isn't exactly that common. I'm no engineer, but I note that the engine placement on Concorde is much more inline compared to a normal jet engine which might suggest its more inclined to be in the line of fire for FOD ingestion, and maybe the engine is a bit more fragile than a bog standard GE or RR engine of the era? Wouldn't it be more fair to compare it to the Bone?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 09:09
|
|
|
There's been a pretty well documented history of takeoff gear failures on Concorde (from both AF and BA). NTSB issued repeated warnings (going as far as to mention potential catastrophically failure modes). The AF boys were unlucky that theirs resulted in a fire which ultimately doomed them. Blaming AF-specific maintenance practices is a bit rich.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 10:41
|
|
|
inkjet_lakes posted:Thanks, had no idea there were any in civil hands- the glazed rear & orange panels confused me, turns out it was the target tug variant. Another one for the 'aircraft I thought I'd never see' list! I saw the Bronco at the Duxford Air Festival yesterday; it was the first plane to display, it topped up with fuel and once the RAF Typhoon had cleared off it flew straight to a display it had been booked for in Belgium. First time I've seen a Bronco and I was really surprised how big they are; more like a B-25. I didn't know they had paratroop capability or that they could be chucked around the sky like that! Pretty cool
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 11:34
|
|
|
The concorde was rapidly getting less economical, and wasn't economical to start with; the crash just pushed it over.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 13:55
|
|
|
The AF and BA didn't want to pay the costs to have new tires designed and tested for safety because that'd cost a lot of money. Meanwhile they hadn't lost a plane and they didn't have to fix the problem so why treat it like a problem? I'm reasonably sure that the cost of the crash would have been more than double the cost BA and AF would have incurred fixing the issue in the first place.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 14:32
|
|
|
That monster Concorde thread basically said they were able to use the type of tires which were being developed for the A380 and it solved having to go nuts developing new rubber for Concrode. The thing that killed the Concorde was that apparently Airbus wanted to wash their hands of it so badly they made the support costs so astronomically high they knew BA and AF would finally retire it.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Two hours of Maverick shuffling papers at a desk in the Pentagon, while Iceman flies a 777 for Emirates, having been screwed on seniority when the American airline that hired him out of the Navy was bought up by a rival. I'm thinking Maverick's story line is more that he's bitter that he's been transferred to an E-6 squadron, culminating in Viper asking to ride right seat during an airshow demonstration which results in a too-steep, too-low bank taking the Mercury straight into the ground and crashing into the rest of Goose's family. The whole sequence is set to Sail ensuring that no one ever uses that drat song for an aviation video ever again.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Two hours of Maverick shuffling papers at a desk in the Pentagon, while Iceman flies a 777 for Emirates, having been screwed on seniority when the American airline that hired him out of the Navy was bought up by a rival. At this point he'd on the board at Grumman or Boeing, or as a contractor reading EO/IR/SAR/MTI/FMV data. People who watched Top Gun in elementary school are retiring from the military at this point.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 04:41
|
|
|
Godholio posted:People who watched Top Gun in elementary school are retiring from the military at this point. Kinda premature on that. I'm pretty sure I was in the first grade in '86 and I'm 36 now. Any JO retiring at 36 is probably someone who got passed over for O-4 twice or something.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 05:58
|
|
|
I know a few prior-Es that have punched at 20 that were in the elementary school age range.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 06:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 16:18 |
|
|
ehnus posted:I'm thinking Maverick's story line is more that he's bitter that he's been transferred to an E-6 squadron, culminating in Viper asking to ride right seat during an airshow demonstration which results in a too-steep, too-low bank taking the Mercury straight into the ground and crashing into the rest of Goose's family. The whole sequence is set to Sail ensuring that no one ever uses that drat song for an aviation video ever again. Something something North Korea, something something General Trump, something something pass it down to Maverick's kids with daddy's issue.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 07:43
|
|