|
PT6A posted:The weirdest thing is there's nothing illegal about that as far as I can tell, provided you follow the applicable laws. But then you're talking aircraft charter with a novel booking method, and that poo poo's still pretty expensive. All the disruption poo poo is about finding the One Weird Trick [that breaks the law, but not enough that you get in serious trouble] in order to save a bunch of money. That poo poo will not work with aircraft. The apps I'm talking aren't trying to operate under the existing framework of part 135 or 91k, which would be legal. Instead, they're wanting to allow anyone with a private airplane to sell rides, which is something the FAA clearly defines as illegal. Since Flytenow got shut down in 2015 (despite at least making an effort to work within the existing rules), there's zero chance any of the "flying Uber" ideas will actually go anywhere, but that doesn't stop someone from issuing a press release claiming they're going to start one every so often.
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2018 20:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 20:27 |
|
|
azflyboy posted:The apps I'm talking aren't trying to operate under the existing framework of part 135 or 91k, which would be legal. Yeah that's clearly illegal and insane. I've flown with some PPL-holders and jesus gently caress I would not trust most of them to act as PIC with me on-board 
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2018 20:40
|
|
|
So glad Uber is taking on the gargantuan job of making the crucial app, any random pleb can put together the flying car bit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2018 20:42
|
|
|
Ola posted:So glad Uber is taking on the gargantuan job of making the crucial app, any random pleb can put together the flying car bit. The engineer they've hired to design this thing for them is probably laughing all the way to the bank, knowing it's impossible but they'll never stop paying him. That's basically a dream job.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2018 20:44
|
|
|
Speaking of crazy, is Boom still a thing?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2018 22:17
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Yeah that's clearly illegal and insane. I've flown with some PPL-holders and jesus gently caress I would not trust most of them to act as PIC with me on-board I can’t even imagine the safety compromises of a PPL with the get-there-itis of flying a rideshare.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2018 22:37
|
|
|
e.pilot posted:I can’t even imagine the safety compromises of a PPL with the get-there-itis of flying a rideshare. I imagine it'd look like this: https://ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/aviation.aspx
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2018 22:38
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Speaking of crazy, is Boom still a thing? Yep. Their CEO was at Farnborough, and is still claiming there's a market for 2,000 of the jets, although he didn't say what the timeline for selling that many airplanes was. The closest comparison I can think of would be high-end corporate jets, where Gulfstream managed to sell somewhere over 900 G-IV variants in about 30 years, on an airplane that didn't involve inventing completely new engines and getting regulations rewritten, so methinks Boom may be delusional.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2018 22:55
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:Yep. Their CEO was at Farnborough, and is still claiming there's a market for 2,000 of the jets, although he didn't say what the timeline for selling that many airplanes was. I remember Major Kong saying the only application he could think of other than "rich people buy/do stupid things to one-up each other" was a very niche market of super-expensive and ultra-time-sensitive cargo/courier applications, or for transport of something like a work of art some billionaire just spent $100m+ on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2018 22:58
|
|
|
Gotta fly my expensive art supersonic so that subsonic art thief airplanes can’t hitch up to my transport plane mid-flight?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2018 23:06
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:Yep. Their CEO was at Farnborough, and is still claiming there's a market for 2,000 of the jets, although he didn't say what the timeline for selling that many airplanes was. They claim its for airline service though. 55 seats in a 1-1 configuration because the fuselage cross section appears to be about the size of a https://boomsupersonic.com/airliner Its supposed to be profitable on "current business class fares". BA operates that 38 seat all business class A318 which probably is whats giving them hope its possible?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2018 23:10
|
|
|
One problem with supersonic airline flight is that, in the age of ridiculous luxury in first class, it's really difficult to make the case that four hours in a cramped CRJ-like cabin is more pleasant than 8-10 hours of sleeping on a lie-flat and having your rear end kissed when you're awake. Having been on a CRJ for 4 hours and in a Club World lie-flat for 9, I would take the latter in a heartbeat. EDIT: And I'd guess the primary benefit of that BA A318 service is not having to gently caress around with Heathrow, which would almost certainly not apply to a supersonic service. PT6A fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Jul 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2018 23:41
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:Yep. Their CEO was at Farnborough, and is still claiming there's a market for 2,000 of the jets, although he didn't say what the timeline for selling that many airplanes was. Let me know when they start cutting metal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2018 23:49
|
|
|
ManifunkDestiny posted:Seriously, it's always kinda mystified me how some planes are glorified/become national symbols of an era while others, in the same class, are completely ignored. Things like how the Lancaster is The British Bomber of WW2 while the Halifax is just completely ignored, or how the B-17 is the iconic American bomber while more Liberators were built. Interesting how our mythmaking happens. I've always been fascinated by the P-40 because it was kinda the reverse - even during WW2 it got laden with a whole lot of negative reputation, from the pilots outwards, that its combat record never really deserved. Mostly because it existed in the same strange limbo as the Hurricane as the 'first of the new gen' fighter. The Hawker used up its development potential by the middle of 1941 and had to be redeployed to ground attack or secondary theatres. The P-40 had enough room to remain a 'first rate second rate' aircraft right through to 1945. A lot of the pilots in the squadrons that took the first P-40s in 1940 found it something of a disappointment - it was faster in a straight line than the P-36 but was heavier for the same power, didn't climb as well and didn't have quite the same viceless handling. Plus it clearly looked like what it was, a 1935-vintage Hawk 75 with an underdeveloped Allison V12 on the front. Even if that did give it a  shark nose. Then the P-40 was the US (and much of the rest of the Allies) primary fighter during the 1940-1942 phase when things weren't going well. The P-40 didn't win any victories and even its most famous exploits with the AVG in China and Burma were really just valiant rearguard actions. And yet the records show that squadrons with the 'obsolete' and 'sluggish' P-40 turned in some of the best kill ratios of any fighter units in history. Even some of the AVG pilots didn't like the P-40 - amazingly many of the ex-USN fliers wanted to use the Brewster Buffalo (as used by the RAF 67 Squadron the Flying Tigers shared an airfield with) that a mock dogfight was organised to prove the point in the Curtiss' favour. But the P-40 was never in the limelight. By the time the war was turning in the Allies' favour it had been displaced by the more impressive, technologically superior and simply sexier P-38, P-47 and P-51. Even the later Kittyhawk variants, still putting in good performances in Italy and C-B-I, were considered obsolete second-rate aircraft. The P-40's lack of high altitude performance is a granted, but it also got landed with a reputation as a slow and ponderous fighter which couldn't dogfight. The reality was that it couldn't dogfight with a Zero or a Hayabusa. But no Allied fighter could match those aircraft in a turning fight. The F4F or the F6F couldn't. The P-38 certainly couldn't and neither could the P-51. All needed to use different high-energy and group fighting tactics, just as the P-40 did to exploit its strengths but none get landed with the same stigma.The P-40's reputation also suffered when the RAF declared it obsolete for European service in 1941 - but in Africa, the Middle East and the Eastern Front, where combat took place at low altitudes the P-40 turned in very good performances against the Bf109 and the Folgore.  It actually seems that some of the narrative that the P-40 was an obsolete junker was semi-encouraged officially because it made the good-but-not-good-enough performances of the forces operating it seem all the more plucky and down to determined grit and skill by the pilots. There's also the related psychological factor of how a squadron's confidence in the aircraft plays a huge part in its combat record, and even the squadron's casualty rates. And that has almost no relation to how objectively good/bad the aircraft is. Some DAF squadrons adored the Hurricane and hated the Tomahawk IIBs that replaced it - they saw their combat records plunge, which only confirmed their feelings. Others loved the idea of getting a tough six-gunned all-metal American fighter with a sexy shark nose and saw their performance leap when they converted. You can track two different squadrons in the same theatre getting the same cycle of replacement aircraft with completely out-of-phase combat records and opinions - one will be convinced that Fighter A is an outmoded deathtrap that is virtually a death sentence and is destroying morale, while the other will adore Fighter A but thinks the same of Fighter B and sees their kill rate drop by 40 per cent and their accident and casualty rate climb by a third when they're forced to operate it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2018 23:51
|
|
|
PT6A posted:One problem with supersonic airline flight is that, in the age of ridiculous luxury in first class, it's really difficult to make the case that four hours in a cramped CRJ-like cabin is more pleasant than 8-10 hours of sleeping on a lie-flat and having your rear end kissed when you're awake. Counterpoint: it's 3-4 hours of being relatively uncomfortable that translates to more time in your hotel suite. Also given the size of the Boom, I'm sure Gatwick or City Airport could land it. It likely/~maybe~ won't have to go into reheat like Concorde did to take off.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 00:11
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Counterpoint: it's 3-4 hours of being relatively uncomfortable that translates to more time in your hotel suite. Also given the size of the Boom, I'm sure Gatwick or City Airport could land it. It likely/~maybe~ won't have to go into reheat like Concorde did to take off. These are the only specs on the website: quote:Aerodynamics London City's runway is only 4948 ft. I suspect approach speed would be much too high as well. Also that maximum design route... I hope they mean no refueling at the destination (which would be a peculiar thing to specify) and not a technical stop or even more stupidly mid air refueling.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 00:18
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:They claim its for airline service though. 55 seats in a 1-1 configuration because the fuselage cross section appears to be about the size of a  Even if Boom were to ever make an actual prototype, that cabin mockup would last about thirty seconds into the meeting before the customer orders it with 2+1 or 2+2 29" pitch seating. Every third row gets a window!
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 00:20
|
|
|
Seems likely the cabin windows wouldn't be that big, either. Concorde had to make them tiny so the thing wouldn't depressurize as fast at 60,000ft.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 00:21
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:
It probably couldn't handle that much weight and tickets would probably cost $8k/ea anyways so it'd probably be a pretty hard sell at 4k/ea.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 00:27
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:These are the only specs on the website: It's probably not that weird a thing for some routes. You're going to be burning a poo poo load of fuel, so say you're based somewhere like Riyadh where you aren't really paying much for it, and need to get people urgently to Zurich, where you're going to be paying a lot for it, it might make sense to double cater your fuel.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 00:31
|
|
|
PT6A posted:One problem with supersonic airline flight is that, in the age of ridiculous luxury in first class, it's really difficult to make the case that four hours in a cramped CRJ-like cabin is more pleasant than 8-10 hours of sleeping on a lie-flat and having your rear end kissed when you're awake. Counterpoint: I have a one-day workshop in Switzerland this week. If I could get back in four hours for the cost of a business class ticket, I'd take the overnight lie flat out, do the workshop, and fly back that evening, rather than spending the evening after dicking around and spending client money in a hotel, and then blowing most of my day getting back the following day. That time has quite a bit of value to me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 01:36
|
|
|
Bastards are fast. Wrong thread. Well, one bastard, anyway. Here's my kid, back in the day, in the cockpit on an AN-2 at Geneseo:  Thing was lacking a jug. It's hard to make out the bucket at the bottom, there, catching oil. 
PainterofCrap fucked around with this message at 02:12 on Jul 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 02:02
|
|
|
Nice plane dude.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 02:03
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Counterpoint: You got some weird ideas about work trips my friend.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 02:11
|
|
|
If you as a startup founder have any plan beyond smashing together enough hot buzzwords to separate venture capitalists from their money which you will then use to pay yourself a lavish salary and build a corporate office that happens to include your 5th grade dream clubhouse, you're loving doing it wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 02:15
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Behold, the AWACS porn version of "yer on guarrrrrrrrrd": https://theaviationgeekclub.com/e-3...n-desert-storm/  Wild Bill is a character, but I completely believe that story (but yeah, they weren't targeting the Hawkeye).
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 02:16
|
|
|
Finger Prince posted:You got some weird ideas about work trips my friend. when you spend 200 nights a year in hotels, not spending another night away from home is extremely attractive
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 02:27
|
|
|
Fair. I think everybody ITT isn't opposed to SSTs returning, but has very large doubts as to the ability of Boom to deliver
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 04:27
|
|
|
I'm also curious where exactly Boom think they're going to get this magical engine that'll do a Mach 2.2 cruise without needing an afterburner. From what I can find online, their prototype is using J85's, and their plan is to somehow talk P&W, GE, Rolls-Royce, or CFM into either agreeing to substantially alter an existing commercial engine design for them, or come up with a "clean sheet" design, all in time for a 2025 entry into service. Given that engine manufacturers run into all kinds of unexpected issues just trying to increase the efficiency of high-bypass turbofan models that have been in service for years, I don't quite see how modifying an existing design (let alone starting from scratch) to work with the complex intake and exhaust system required for sustained supersonic flight has any prayer of being done by 2025, or for anything near what Boom can probably afford to pay.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 07:47
|
|
|
https://i.imgur.com/4A0sOSn.gifv
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 08:40
|
|
|
Crabbing in a boat is usually a nice day out on the water.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 08:48
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:I'm also curious where exactly Boom think they're going to get this magical engine that'll do a Mach 2.2 cruise without needing an afterburner. I want to know where they'll be allowed to make sonic booms over meaningfully populated land, rather than over the ocean/desert and already 20% of the distance to their destination
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 10:42
|
|
|
simplefish posted:I want to know where they'll be allowed to make sonic booms over meaningfully populated land, rather than over the ocean/desert and already 20% of the distance to their destination Supposedly the crop of new SSTs will make use of new research and tech that mitigates the noise and potential damage from sonic booms. Instead of "real Americans" worrying about scared livestock and the potential for occasional broken windows from sonic booms, they'll hear sonic "thumps" instead. Heavy emphasis on those quotation marks, since well, that's yet another thing companies like Boom are betting on. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/new-supersonic-technology-designed-to-reduce-sonic-booms BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 11:20 on Jul 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 11:16
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Supposedly the crop of new SSTs will make use of new research and tech that mitigates the noise and potential damage from sonic booms. Instead of "real Americans" worrying about scared livestock and the potential for occasional broken windows from sonic booms, they'll hear sonic "thumps" instead. Heavy emphasis on those quotation marks, since well, that's yet another thing companies like Boom are betting on. That NASA link was an interesting read, thanks
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 11:21
|
|
|
"Rudder"? What is "rudder"?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 13:02
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:The apps I'm talking aren't trying to operate under the existing framework of part 135 or 91k, which would be legal. Aren’t PPLs allowed to share operating costs with passengers (e.g. going on a trip with friends)? How I understood it was as long as the flight wasn’t turning a profit you wouldn’t need an ATPL. In that case Uber’s/Lyft’s original premise of car pooling would actually work for GA PPLs, just not the modern application of the app where drivers actually make a living off it instead of using it to defray the marginal cos of each journey they would have made anyway
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 14:05
|
|
|
LUBE UP YOUR BUTT posted:Aren’t PPLs allowed to share operating costs with passengers (e.g. going on a trip with friends)? How I understood it was as long as the flight wasn’t turning a profit you wouldn’t need an ATPL. In that case Uber’s/Lyft’s original premise of car pooling would actually work for GA PPLs, just not the modern application of the app where drivers actually make a living off it instead of using it to defray the marginal cos of each journey they would have made anyway I'm not sure about the US, but in Canada PPLs are allowed to split fuel cost with passengers, and even then only if the carriage of the passenger is incidental to the purpose of the flight. I think it'd be a hard sell to argue that, with an app being used to connect pilots with passengers on any kind of regular basis, that the carriage of passengers is incidental to the purpose of the flight. We have commercial licenses and AOCs for a reason, I don't think it's a huge ask to get people to follow those regulations if they're going to be transporting passengers in exchange for money. We have these laws in order to, to the extent possible, guarantee the safe carriage of passengers, both by imposing higher standards of training and experience on pilots, and additional restrictions on maintenance and operations. If you feel you cannot meet those requirements for some reason, I would ask you what the gently caress business you think you have transporting strangers for money.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 14:19
|
|
|
Why does every home-grown ultra-cheap go for water landings? At airplane speeds water isn't more forgiving than the ground. And instead of three fixed wheels (you know, solved problem since the Sumerians), you're adding the complexity of water-proofing your hull, and the added risk of drowning.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 14:22
|
|
|
LUBE UP YOUR BUTT posted:Aren’t PPLs allowed to share operating costs with passengers (e.g. going on a trip with friends)? How I understood it was as long as the flight wasn’t turning a profit you wouldn’t need an ATPL. In that case Uber’s/Lyft’s original premise of car pooling would actually work for GA PPLs, just not the modern application of the app where drivers actually make a living off it instead of using it to defray the marginal cos of each journey they would have made anyway ”14 CFR 61.113” posted:(b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if: Here is the thing you were thinking of, which is separate from the business prohibition on passengers. ”14 CFR 61.113” posted:(c) A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees. standard.deviant fucked around with this message at 14:26 on Jul 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 14:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 20:27 |
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:Why does every home-grown ultra-cheap go for water landings? At airplane speeds water isn't more forgiving than the ground. And instead of three fixed wheels (you know, solved problem since the Sumerians), you're adding the complexity of water-proofing your hull, and the added risk of drowning. The sort of people who would trust their life to a contraption such as that are probably not counted among the ranks of the particularly intelligent to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 14:59
|
|