|
hobbesmaster posted:The 737 wouldn't make it obvious that hes special everytime he takes off and lands. And let the impure sully the lords blessed chariot? Or, heaven forbid, haul freight? The lord weeps with mercy but even he has limits.
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 17:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 07:58 |
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:On the other hand a combi 737 might actually legitimately be useful for humanitarian work. You've failed to grasp the subtlties of the Prosperity Gospel, I see.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 01:20
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:You've failed to grasp the subtlties of the Prosperity Gospel, I see. It’s a great humanitarian act to give a preacher a kick rear end airplane
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 01:48
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:They are restoring a F-82 Twin Mustang: Welp, I’m hard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 01:53
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:They are restoring a F-82 Twin Mustang: Running those engines with the tow bar attached is making me very nervous.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 01:58
|
|
|
simble posted:Running those engines with the tow bar attached is making me very nervous. I'm the cargo strap holding the right side tire to the tie-down point. E: Have I told you yet today how much I appreciate your esoteric contributions to this thread?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 05:42
|
|
|
Minimum flight regulations? pfft. balloons don't give a poo poo, they buzz all the houses every morning.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 14:00
|
|
|
drunkill posted:Minimum flight regulations? pfft. balloons don't give a poo poo, they buzz all the houses every morning. The regulations for balloons are the same, but a little more liberty is taken with the "except for the purposes of takeoff and landing" because any maneuvering effects where we'll land. I've had days where I had to drag the basket through 10+ trees in order to get back to the right side of a river to be picked up (of course that was in the middle of nowhere in Kenya, people in cities get upset if you come through their trees.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 14:11
|
|
|
St_Ides posted:The regulations for balloons are the same, but a little more liberty is taken with the "except for the purposes of takeoff and landing" because any maneuvering effects where we'll land. I feel like if there's anyone in this thread with amazing stories, it's the commercial balloon pilot who worked/works in Africa. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 14:50
|
|
|
I almost got hit by a balloon once (newspaper photographer, so allowed inside the safety zone at the balloon race, which is more of a "drop a sandbag as close to the X as you can" sort of contest, and they get real low to ensure accuracy, which has the side effect of making them real fast when skimming the grass and pouring on the propane to pull up.) As for the preacher's private jet, if I had people willing to literally throw money at me and the conviction that a deity wanted me to be able to travel nonstop anywhere in the world, I'm sure some ... okay, I was going to make a joke about buying a 747SP used and getting a lot more bang for your buck, but a) this guy is the type that has to have the newest hottest poo poo even if it's bad value for the money, and b) pretty sure all the surviving SPs are owned by dirty [insert slur for Muslims here]. As for the 737 BBJ, unless the -9 tripled the gas mileage, pretty sure it can't do what he wants, I looked at the BBJ sales site once. The 777 BBJ with optional extra fuel tanks can get you anywhere except maybe Pitcairn Island from anywhere in CONUS, the 737 is extremely short-legged by comparison, and I have a hard time believing a bizjet is much better than a 737. To Wikipedia! Yeah the second line of the Falcon 7x article is that the 8 has more fuel and a range of 6,450 nmi, the longest-legged 737 (600 series) is just over half that (okay, that is surprising, do the French have the jet equivalent of the mythical 100mpg carburetor?), the 747SP can go almost as far as the ridiculously long-legged French bizjet (5,830 nmi) but is a flying loving palace, and the 777 BBJ -- yes, they sell it if you have the money, hooray capitalism, if you have to ask you can't afford it -- can just about actually go anywhere from anywhere else -- 8,555 nmi, again in a widebody palace. Circumference of the earth is 21,639 nautical miles. Yeah, the heavies burn a lot more fuel in absolute terms, but do you even care about the fuel bill at that point? Tell your followers God told you to ask them for gas money. So not only is the preacher a scamming rear end in a top hat, he's lying about the capabilities of the jet he's asking his followers to buy for him. There is a very small area around the Antipodes (the point exactly opposite your starting location on the globe) that a 777LR can't reach on one load of gas, and that alone deserves mention in this thread. From anywhere in the US, the places you can't get to in a 777-200LR include the literal middle of nowhere and maybe the southern-hemishpere equivalent of West Virginia but even more inbred and a LOT more rapey (it's been awhile since I've seen the range charts, but either way, even if you did want to go to Pitcairn you'd have to get a Edit: I would've edited in screencaps of the places you can't get to from DFW in a 777-200LR and 747-8, but they don't have 'em on the BBJ site anymore. Like I said, it's been awhile. (also apparently the 737-8 BBJ doubled the mileage of the stock version, I guess if you're just carrying a VIP and entourage instead of a full cattle-car load, you will get more MPG/carry more fuel. But still, even that is barely more than the magical French bizjet, or maybe the same -- 7000 miles is the number on Boeing's website selling the things, so probably using statute miles to pad the number.) Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 16:31 on Jun 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 16:10
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
Just a friendly reminder to the Danish and Scandinavian goons that the Danish Air Show is next Sunday - and also to check out the Robin Olds-looking dude in the video on the homepage: https://danishairshow.dk/ e: Ooh, Patrouille Suisse are coming, are they any good? Last time, the Turkish show team was there in their F-5s and they were excellent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 16:23
|
|
|
Chillbro Baggins posted:To Wikipedia! Yeah the second line of the Falcon 7x article is that the 8 has more fuel and a range of 6,450 nmi, the longest-legged 737 (600 series) is just over half that (okay, that is surprising, do the French have the jet equivalent of the mythical 100mpg carburetor?) It would be the Canadians who have it, since the engines are from P&W Canada. Safran has troubles getting into the bizjet engine niche, with the Silvercrest running into trouble after trouble.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 17:14
|
|
|
Dannywilson posted:Have I told you yet today how much I appreciate your esoteric contributions to this thread? Thank you, friend. I do what I must because I can In the insanely awesome dangerous chemistry thread I did a post on hydrogen airships to try and contribute. One little detail I found out about World War 1 balloons is that they were very hard targets; to the point that until incendiary bullets were developed, only the very best pilots would try to shoot them down. quote:Every side also used hydrogen balloons for observation on the western front. These were tethered one-man observation platforms, and in something of an irony, were probably the safest aircraft of World War 1. Balloons carried wireless telegraphs, binoculars, and cameras, and could not only observe but correct artillery fire. They were very important, and thus heavily defended. They typically were suspended about a kilometer above the ground, and were guarded by: a heavy anti-aircraft gun presence, other guys in balloons with machine guns, stringing cables in the air with a web of barrage balloons, standing air patrols over the balloons, decoy observer balloons booby-trapped with explosives detonated from the ground, and the explosive nature of a hydrogen balloon itself, especially considering that without incendiary ammo, attacks were only effective at extremely close range. While the war produced ‘balloon-aces’, only the best dared attack. Getting back to safety for a moment, the balloon observer was the only WW1 aviator who had a parachute. WW1 parachutes were bulky, but the balloon could be rigged to assist parachute deployment. I’ve also read that entire baskets were rigged to be detachable, so in the event of an attack, the basket would drop and deploy its own chute.   
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 22:08
|
|
|
N O P E
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 22:21
|
|
|
Chillbro Baggins posted:So not only is the preacher a scamming rear end in a top hat, he's lying about the capabilities of the jet he's asking his followers to buy for him. He's not lying if you read into his statement. "Anywhere in the world with a single stop." I interpret that as allotting for a single stop to refuel. And I was using the stats for the new 737 MAX 7 BBJ.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 23:15
|
|
|
Chillbro Baggins posted:As for the preacher's private jet, if I had people willing to literally throw money at me and the conviction that a deity wanted me to be able to travel nonstop anywhere in the world, I'm sure some ... okay, I was going to make a joke about buying a 747SP used and getting a lot more bang for your buck, but a) this guy is the type that has to have the newest hottest poo poo even if it's bad value for the money, and b) pretty sure all the surviving SPs are owned by dirty [insert slur for Muslims here]. Ernest Angley already beat this rear end in a top hat to the 747SP punch.  You seem to be using standard 737 range numbers instead of BBJ figures. All true BBJ's have a number of aux fuel tanks installed to get significant range increases and the old-school BBJ's had up to 11 aux tanks. I flew a couple of different tails that had 7 and 9 tanks. I once did a Moscow Vnukovo to Mauritius leg in the 7-tank model which is 5370nm and did it in a little more than 12 hours (and this was not a max range flight). The 9-tank model had maybe another 500nm in range. I'm not sure an 11-tank model was ever produced, since that took up 100% of the underfloor space and left zero space for bags and cargo. The 7-tank BBJ I flew: 
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 23:16
|
|
|
God should will him to restore a B-58 back to flying condition.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 23:43
|
|
|
ausgezeichnet posted:Ernest Angley already beat this rear end in a top hat to the 747SP punch. Seeing that thing at CAK is always weird.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 00:01
|
|
|
ausgezeichnet posted:Ernest Angley already beat this rear end in a top hat to the 747SP punch. Can we talk for a sec about the text on the side of that 747? I mean... 
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 01:49
|
|
|
ausgezeichnet posted:Ernest Angley already beat this rear end in a top hat to the 747SP punch. Coulda sworn I edited before posting after looking up the BBJ-model 737, but hey, you flew 'em, I'm just making jokes from what the internet tells me, maybe I accidentally left in the cattle-car range number or maybe my source was wrong. Either way, thanks for the correction.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 04:07
|
|
|
I'm not terribly optimistic about this https://twitter.com/TomCruise/status/1002062865971499008
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 04:44
|
|
|
In a realistic setting, most of the Top Gun sequel would be Super Hornets queuing up to tankers. "Okay, everybody. We've only got ten minutes to bingo. Let's show these assholes how it's done!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 04:49
|
|
|
I think it would be best if they were Super Hornets fueling other Super Hornets, with Maverick flying the gas station.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 04:52
|
|
|
If Maverick doesn't bitch about the Tomcat being retired I want no part of that film.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 04:56
|
|
|
Uhhhh. I first saw that on ATC memes and thought it was a joke. Well at least it's better than drones.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 05:04
|
|
|
ausgezeichnet posted:Ernest Angley already beat this rear end in a top hat to the 747SP punch. Is that the one that's grounded because it's a complete death-trap that is literally being held together by sheet metal off-cuts and prayer?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 05:34
|
|
|
No, that K.A Pauls "Global Peace Ambassadors" 747. It's parked up at Tijuana international.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 13:07
|
|
|
Dr_Strangelove posted:N O P E Speaking of, have I posted this before: 
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 15:00
|
|
|
Is that a fuselage repurposed as a gondola? I hope? (you should post this in the OSHA thread, along with the motor gondola jack-in-the-box pic) RE: shooting down balloons: was it you that posted the great article that detailed how the pilots/armourers in WWI finally figured out the proper mix of standard ammo & incendiary rounds in a belt to light up a balloon/semirigid reliably?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 16:05
|
|
|
PainterofCrap posted:Is that a fuselage repurposed as a gondola? I hope? No, that wasn't me. Sounds interesting through! Small SS class blimps used aircraft fuselages without wings as a economy/time saving measure and they worked reasonably well Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 16:37 on Jun 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 16:34
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:No, that wasn't me. Sounds interesting through! I can't find the article, but a quick search reveals that the problem was that a standard incediary round would light & go out before it could create a big enough hole in the envelope to admit enough air (oxygen) to permit the hydrogen to burn. It was solved by engineer John Buckingham, who invented an incendiary .303 round that would trail phosphorus throughout its trajectory. https://forum.cartridgecollectors.org/t/303-buckingham-cartridge/12186
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 16:49
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Speaking of, have I posted this before: What's that tube?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 17:11
|
|
|
simplefish posted:What's that tube? The opening for the ballonet. Blimps get their shape through the shape of the envelope and pressure, so to keep the shape optimal, at the center of a blimp is a balloonet, which is a air chamber that can expand or contract to keep the lifting gas at the proper pressure to keep the envelope shape. PS> where the hell is the OSHA thread
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 17:21
|
|
|
simplefish posted:What's that tube? Propwash recovery duct.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 17:55
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:PS> where the hell is the OSHA thread https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3763899
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 18:17
|
|
|
slidebite posted:I'm not terribly optimistic about this I find it hilarious that they're using the f18 and not the f35
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 22:15
|
|
|
If you want it to be navy and feature real world shots, it really can’t be the F-35C. It’s farthest behind all the F-35 models in getting into operational status and isn’t available for significant filming time/maneuvers. At the time of Top Gun first being released, the F-18 was the newest naval fighter plane, and IIRC the F-14 was closer then to retirement than the Super Hornets are now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 22:20
|
|
|
jaegerx posted:I find it hilarious that they're using the f18 and not the f35 LockMart probably can't spare the resources, and my guess is they want to use the real thing as much as possible, like the last film. It'd also make sense to have "Mav" in a Hornet, since even if he's an O-6 (bird on his shoulder), I doubt they could justify transition training for a guy that close to retirement when he's already qualified on an operational airframe. The F-35 just...isn't a sexy plane, either. There are only a few photogenic angles. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 23:59 on Jun 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 23:57
|
|
|
They could have used it as a propaganda tool to get people to like the Jerkoff poo poo Fighter a little better, maybe.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2018 00:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 07:58 |
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:The F-35 just...isn't a sexy plane, either. There are only a few photogenic angles. Particularly the -C model. The -A is okay looking but the -C just has really bad proportions. F-35A  F-35C  But more importantly, Top Gun is all about two guys bantering in a plane. The F/A-18 still has a two-seat model. The F-35 does not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2018 00:12
|
|
