|
0toShifty posted:What's the AUTO BLAT FAIL light for? AUTO SLAT FAIL
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 04:51 |
|
|
Craptacular posted:AUTO SLAT FAIL well that makes a LOT more sense!
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
A340s - good looking? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
Ehhhhhhhh. Bit 'Pencil' looking if you know what i mean. Just long thin tubes with wings slapped on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
Deptfordx posted:Ehhhhhhhh. Ditto. Not ugly, but a bit disproportionate. And Qatar livery makes any plane look good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 18:44
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
If you don't like them thin...
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:If you don't like them thin... not thicc enough 
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
[me, looking at any four-engined airliner]: well, it's no Convair 990.   hnnnnghhhhhh Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Oct 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:[me, looking at any four-engined airliner]: well, it's no Convair 990. I feel like you could start a 'disruptive' aircraft company for 'fast, subsonic' airliners and secretly just copy the Convair 990, and if you stocked the management with enough finance bros you'd have a company at least as respected as boom Also WTF: what airline painted what city it flew to on its side?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Also WTF: what airline painted what city it flew to on its side? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denver_Ports_of_Call
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
Fun fact;The CJ805-23 on the CV990 was one of very few aft-fan turbofans ever built, and I’m reasonably sure it is the only one to ever be produced in any real quantity. Due to the design of the fan, it required a new name for the last-stage turbine blades (which had to protrude through the turbine case, and were also the fan blades,) which is also one of my favorite aviation words: Blucket. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
Il-62 chat - there’s a freight version due in at the airport I live next door to (Doncaster, UK) tomorrow. EW-450TR of Rada Airlines coming from Cameroon and going out to Libya. I love the odd little tail wheel thing it has.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Fun fact;The CJ805-23 on the CV990 was one of very few aft-fan turbofans ever built, and I’m reasonably sure it is the only one to ever be produced in any real quantity. Prop fans are weirder.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
The Convair 990 is better looking but I always loved the fact that 880 used four loving J79s
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
It’s unreal how loud old airports must’ve been.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
Previa_fun posted:The Convair 990 is better looking but I always loved the fact that 880 used four loving J79s Needs a picture of a crying B-58 with the burners lit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
This is only a few increments better than the photoshop of the V-22 refueling the F-35B.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:The smithsonian aerospace magazine has a good article on the Tu-4. It turns out even that was a fairly impressive achievement in aerospace. This article? https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/made-in-the-ussr-38442437/
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Prop fans are weirder. I don't know whether you mean "people who prefer turboprops" or "turbofans without a shroud" there. And I'm not sure I want to know which.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:I don't know whether you mean "people who prefer turboprops" or "turbofans without a shroud" there. And I'm not sure I want to know which. Autocorrect doesn’t understand the majesty that would’ve been the MD-94x 
hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 20:53 on Oct 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
ehnus posted:This article? https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/made-in-the-ussr-38442437/ That be it! Also, since Big Headline mentioned Major Kong, here are two of his latest airplane articles: Basics of telling airliners apart. He hates the CRJ, likes the RJ 45, clearly he is of this thread Mirage! A thing on the Dassault series of fighter jets.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:A340s - good looking? I like the A340. I think it's cool because it's the last vestige of the era when it was normal to have 4 engine airplanes -- not super famous ones like the 747 or SUPER XXTREME A380's... just, it was normal and routine. Plane's big? Needs 4 engines.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:
That doesn't narrow it down much, it basically means "does not work for Bombardier."
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
He forgot a few. The F2 and the G4 and G8. Another thing to note is that a beefed-up Mirage F1 was planned. It was meant to get fly-by-wire and the then-new M53 engine, offering it more power and capabilities. Alas, its potential customers opted for the F-16 instead. As a result, the improved F1 was killed before it was born. However, the efforts were not completely wasted since they gave birth to the Mirage 2000. The old Mirage F1 are now very popular as aggressor aircraft. Between Textron and Draken International, 83 Mirage F1 have been procured from France and Spain to play Red Air. Also I'm not sure where he got the number for "around 300 Mirage 2000 in French service". AFAIK the real number is around 60. Cat Mattress fucked around with this message at 22:24 on Oct 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:
 
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
I saved that image when I saw it
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
e: whoops, there's a new page! never mind
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:That be it! Surprised he didn’t mention the tailcone on the 777 - that+6 wheel bogeys make it easy to tell apart. Those A350s have a goofy looking nose.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
Regardless of certification and range etc, would something like that (but real) be flyable?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 23:55
|
|
|
bennyfactor posted:Regardless of certification and range etc, would something like that (but real) be flyable? Seeing as the center of gravity would be somewhere around the tip of the "A" on the tail, I'm thinking "no."
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
bennyfactor posted:Regardless of certification and range etc, would something like that (but real) be flyable? Zero way you’d maintain yaw control with an engine out, or be able to keep the nose down at 100% thrust
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
bennyfactor posted:Regardless of certification and range etc, would something like that (but real) be flyable? I don't know what your definition of "flyable" is, but I've seen radio-controlled airplanes with a similar design that manage to stay in the air. They're made of foam and have a power-to-weight ratio probably 5 times what even that little guy would have, but they're aerodynamically...not gonna say "sound," but maybe "valid."
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
bennyfactor posted:Regardless of certification and range etc, would something like that (but real) be flyable? I tested it in  approves.It needed a lot of trim to fly level and didn't really like to maneuver.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
bennyfactor posted:Regardless of certification and range etc, would something like that (but real) be flyable? maybe; put a little deployable airbrake on the top of the tailfin for pitch control and you've basically got a modern version of Charles de Rougé's elytroplan.   
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2017 02:09
|
|
|
Some cool Convair 990 history. NASA used it for Space Shuttle approach and landing profile testing in a high drag configuration. But not for aerodynamics/control/etc. testing. That was taken care of by all the better-known lifting body designs they dropped from Balls 8. (M2 series, X-24, and HL-10). This was to test not the aircraft, but the pilots. More specifically, how easily pilots of various backgrounds took to learning and flying the Shuttle landing profile, i.e., how easily they could train an operational cadre for the upcoming spaceplane. So they took everyone they could find, ranging from Joe Blow airline pilots, to test pilots with low L/D experience in the aforementioned X-planes, and everyone in between; and ran them through a couple of Shuttle approaches and landings. They found that people took to it successfully and landed accurately enough with little trouble. That plane is a gate guard at Mojave now. vessbot fucked around with this message at 06:35 on Oct 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2017 02:42
|
|
|
vessbot posted:That plane is a gate guard at Mojave now. Yeah, I've got a trip scheduled to the Flight Test Museum in February - I'm going to see how feasible it'd be to hit Palmdale (both Airparks), Edwards, Mojave, and Planes of Fame in Chino in *one day*. Planning on driving the poo poo out of a one day rental. The day before I'm planning to hit up the CA Science Museum and see the two-seater A-12 trainer. Mojave is definitely the one that would get cut if timing's a factor, though. As it stands I can make a nice 'loop' out of Palmdale > Edwards > Chino > LA to return the car before 5:30pm. I've got to be *at* Edwards @ 9am. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 03:45 on Oct 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2017 03:41
|
|
|
Check the hours on the Palmdale airpark, they're weird.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2017 04:05
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Seeing as the center of gravity would be somewhere around the tip of the "A" on the tail, I'm thinking "no." It's like a turbine Questair Venture!  (which is like my favorite plane ever)
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2017 04:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 04:51 |
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Check the hours on the Palmdale airpark, they're weird. Ah - thanks. I was planning on stopping there on the *way* to Edwards, but I see they *open* at 11am. Seems I'll have to do Edwards > Mojave (?) > Palmdale > Chino. It's definitely worth seeing simply because there are no survivors on this coast (and I'm not going to Spain or Switzerland): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_990_Coronado#Surviving_aircraft
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2017 04:30
|
|