|
Xenoborg posted:They carry more now than originally, mostly due to in the 1940s when they were first being designed our modeling was a lot more basic and we know the true limits now. The maintenance and operating costs are actually pretty comparative to other bombers since a lot of the high failure stuff has been replaced with modern equivalents, but there is still the occasional thing where no only does no one make that particular part, but the entire industry that made and used them went extinct 30 years ago, like vacuum tubes for example.
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2018 20:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 07:29 |
|
|
The B-52s that are still in service, the H models, spent most of the 60s-90s sitting on the alert pad, while the Ds dropped bombs on Vietnam and G dropped bombs in desert storm, so they actually have pretty low flight hours on them. A 10 year old 737 probably has more flight time and a lot more takeoffs/landings than most remaining B-52Hs.
Xenoborg fucked around with this message at 21:18 on Sep 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2018 21:15
|
|
|
yeah but a 737 is flown like fourteen hours a day on relatively short hops, it would naturally have a lot more hours than a strategic bomber even if it's a very old one
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2018 22:47
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:Yeah, I'm going to guess in this case the life of the AN-225 will be 1 fewer landings than takeoffs. The Chinese association that has contracted Antonov to finish the second An-225 has apparently also bought the rights to build a domestic version starting sometime in the 2020s. If they actually pull it off, and if any of the airplanes are available for private contract like the current Mriya instead of just going straight to PLAAF strategic airlift, I could imagine that the first An-225 might actually get retired and put in a museum before it crashes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2018 22:54
|
|
|
Finger Prince posted:That's not the right question to be asking. What you should be asking is "is the An-225 still operating?". The answer is another question: "are there still operationally ready B-52s?" I don't understand this post at all. david_a posted:Yes, but the B-52s can’t carry as much payload as when they were new due to fatigue, right? They’re also part of a military supply chain that can practically ignore maintenance/running costs. And this one is just wrong. The B-52s' current service life is almost 40,000 hours. They've got plenty of time left. The airframe with the highest hours still has 40% remaining or more, and most of the fleet still has more than half. Godholio fucked around with this message at 03:27 on Sep 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 03:22
|
|
|
Theres a good reason they'll be going into the 2050s.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 03:37
|
|
|
The B52 is an interesting article to look at in terms of military attitude. When it was first built it was made with enough parts with the understanding that they would lose aircraft due to accidents or god forbid all out war and built the engine spare reserve accordingly. As the aircraft aged, the overall attitude of the military changed in that these losses we're no longer tolerable. That if a B52 goes down there is something wrong. So the infrastructure was built up to support it and suddenly there is a massive TF33 shortage. Pratt is in the middle of remanufacturing tooling to make new parts for it to secure aftermarket support for the remaining future of the aircraft as a result. They're literally reverse engineering paper drawings and making sure everything is up to modern aviation standards or better.
um excuse me fucked around with this message at 03:43 on Sep 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 03:40
|
|
|
I thought engines were the one part of the b52 they'll never run out of.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 03:43
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:The Chinese association that has contracted Antonov to finish the second An-225 has apparently also bought the rights to build a domestic version starting sometime in the 2020s. If they actually pull it off, and if any of the airplanes are available for private contract like the current Mriya instead of just going straight to PLAAF strategic airlift, I could imagine that the first An-225 might actually get retired and put in a museum before it crashes. Dear god I hope they build a whole new hangar for it at Udvar-Hazy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 03:44
|
|
|
There may be plenty of engines, but they're maturing faster than anticipated. The past failures of TF33s you've seen in the past few years are all related and it's an issue neither Pratt or the Air Force can ignore.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 03:46
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Dear god I hope they build a whole new hangar for it at Udvar-Hazy. I'd be shocked if one of the crowning achievements of Soviet aerospace wound up in an American museum.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 04:35
|
|
|
Fender Anarchist posted:I'd be shocked if one of the crowning achievements of Soviet aerospace wound up in an American museum. Does Arlington National Cemetery count as a museum?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 04:46
|
|
|
Fender Anarchist posted:I'd be shocked if one of the crowning achievements of Soviet aerospace wound up in an American museum. If nobody in the former USSR can afford upkeep on it post retirement, they'd probably sell it off.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 04:53
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Does Arlington National Cemetery count as a museum? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 05:02
|
|
|
Fender Anarchist posted:I'd be shocked if one of the crowning achievements of Soviet aerospace wound up in an American museum. It's Ukrainian-owned and giving it to an American museum would be an amazing troll.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 05:11
|
|
|
um excuse me posted:There may be plenty of engines, but they're maturing faster than anticipated. The past failures of TF33s you've seen in the past few years are all related and it's an issue neither Pratt or the Air Force can ignore. It isn't just the past few years, and it's an issue that has effectively been ignored while every spare dollar (and some that weren't spare) was thrown at fighter development.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 05:52
|
|
|
Yuri Gagarin’s space suit is at Smithsonian from Vostok training missions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 10:05
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:It's Ukrainian-owned and giving it to an American museum would be an amazing troll. At the very least I wouldn't put a high chance of it ending up in a Russian museum.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 13:03
|
|
|
If the AN-225 isn't crazy enough, supposedly there were plans for a single-stage-to-orbit spaceplane which would be carried by conjoined AN-225 airframes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_OOS  Just look at all those engines!  
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 14:50
|
|
|
I refuse to believe they had any accurate idea of what the near-centerline airflow was going to be like.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 15:32
|
|
|
https://boston.cbslocal.com/2018/09/10/beverly-airport-emergency-landing/
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 16:08
|
|
|
Here's the ATC from the event, I feel so bad for the girl when she first responds after she gets the news. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B229-KLudTo
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 17:10
|
|
|
http://www.ozzyman.com/dude-builds-flying-drone-car-after-getting-the-shts-with-traffic/ There are more than just a couple of issues with this concept
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 17:42
|
|
|
Good job Maggie! 
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 19:47
|
|
|
drunkill posted:Good job Maggie! Yeah no doubt.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 20:24
|
|
|
ManifunkDestiny posted:Here's the ATC from the event, I feel so bad for the girl when she first responds after she gets the news. Oh that's just awesome!
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 21:15
|
|
|
There's an access road right alongside YYC that goes past a parking area for miscellaneous cargo aircraft. I've seen an RAF transport (maybe a tanker?) there a few times, and the smaller Antonov; a couple days ago there was a Korean cargo 747-8 parked next to what I think must have been an A340 with a green stripe down the side. e: would anyone want to see pictures of that stuff when I remember to actually stop and take 'em? Phy fucked around with this message at 21:22 on Sep 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2018 21:18
|
|
|
ManifunkDestiny posted:Here's the ATC from the event, I feel so bad for the girl when she first responds after she gets the news. Poor girl sounds petrified. Glad she was okay.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 00:37
|
|
|
Elon Musk posted:Planes? Well one idea would be... electronic VTOL supersonic something or other.... I've thought about this quite a lot
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 01:43
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Poor girl sounds petrified. Glad she was okay. By the time they had her doing left turns she was already starting to copy instructions back to ATC. By the time she was setting up for landing she was absolutely in control of herself.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 02:45
|
|
|
Well if you've got an engine and wings you can get it on the runway. Once you touch down it's in the lap of the gods so why worry about it? Easier said than done of course.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 03:03
|
|
|
Carth Dookie posted:Well if you've got an engine and wings you can get it on the runway. Once you touch down it's the insurance company’s problem
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 03:05
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Poor girl sounds petrified. Glad she was okay. I was watching something like this yesterday, a very experienced pilot describing the psychology of having to do a forced landing in a P-51 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBpqvPujZgM), and the biggest problem is, as he put it, "putting the monkey back in the cage", that is, moving past your instinctual fight-or-flight mechanisms that can get you killed out of panic by using your training to evaluate the situation and act. It was very difficult in his situation because the engine problems were intermittent, and he made some mistakes but fortunately he made enough right ones. It's good that the student pilot had help to get over that monkey and she was able to land safely, though! ewe2 fucked around with this message at 07:07 on Sep 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 04:12
|
|
|
And always remember: there's very rarely a problem that's so bad you can't make it better by doing the right things, or make it worse by doing the wrong things.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 04:30
|
|
|
Engine(s) are optional.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 05:09
|
|
|
True however your first single engine solo turning into your first glider lesson would be even scarier
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 05:22
|
|
|
True; but after walking away from that, it's a hell of a confidence boost, and kills a number of lingering student-pilot demons.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 13:08
|
|
|
PT6A posted:And always remember: there's very rarely a problem that's so bad you can't make it better by doing the right things, or make it worse by doing the wrong things. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPNldku605Q&t=2102s 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 13:31
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:True however your first single engine solo turning into your first glider lesson would be even scarier Well, yes and no. At least at the school I work at, our pre-solo engine failure training regime is currently pretty goddamn robust. By the time we send you solo, you've done engine failures in the sim at every point in the circuit, and a number of simulated engine failures in the actual plane both during initial climbout and from circuit altitude. I'm not sending someone solo unless I think they will handle an engine failure correctly, and they will have already experienced me being a prick and giving them an engine failure scenario from a variety of different points On the other hand, at no point in our training do we prepare for a wheel falling off, except theoretically (keep the weight on the good wheel as long as possible!). Maggie kicked rear end, being able to land safely after that. And like I said in the A/T pilot thread, this is going to be a wonderful story for all my students who are whinging about wanting to go solo right now. No, you get to go solo after you've been landing really well under normal conditions, because I need to know you have a fighting chance of handling a situation like this. If your rear end is 20 ft. off the centreline and landing long now, under normal conditions, you do not have the margin for error in reserve that you need to deal with a situation like this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 14:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 07:29 |
|
|
In the video I quoted, the guy flies 747s for a living, yet he still regularly gets up in a GA and practices spins and failures because he wants to reinforce the good habits and react better when there's trouble. I would feel a lot safer with that guy than most.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2018 22:45
|
|