|
Yeah if I wasn't being clear, that photo and my statement are unrelated.
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2018 04:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 23:41 |
|
|
Speaking of B-52s, I'm really looking forward to seeing Balls 8 this coming Friday.  I'm also hoping to get up to Mojave Air & Space Port to see their Convair 990 gate guardian and *hopefully* the Stratolaunch outside the hangar. Might have to sacrifice that to make it to Chino for Planes of Fame, though. The tour ends at 1pm, and nearest I can figure, it's two hours from Edwards to Chino, and both PoF and Yanks close at 4pm.  Thankfully I'm a brisk walker.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2018 04:20
|
|
|
Good news, Planes of Fame should be open until 5.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2018 04:54
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:i liked the little animation they made showing the uber flying taxi saving you tons of time by flying a quick direct path from san francisco to san jose!!! right through the center of SFO's class B approach paths That's easy! Stay below 400-ft all the way!
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2018 04:54
|
|
|
Similar rudder damage occurred several times over the years. loving crazy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2018 05:31
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Good news, Planes of Fame should be open until 5. Oh, sweet. I thought it was 4pm, but it turns out that's Yank's. So I could do a quick walk around Yank's and then hop over to PoF. I know I'm not giving myself enough time, but it can't be helped. I'm flying out the next day at 7am.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2018 05:32
|
|
|
Chillbro Baggins posted:The BUFF is kinda like the B-17 in that regard. They just refuse to die. The entire loving vertical stabilizer fell off of one of the prototype B-52s, and it landed safely. One weird trick to lower the side aspect RCS of your B-52
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2018 05:34
|
|
|
PainterofCrap posted:That's easy! Stay below 400-ft all the way! It is prohibited to operate an aircraft closer than 500 feet vertically above the nearest obstacle, except during takeoff or landing 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2018 05:38
|
|
|
That's OK because the entire flight regime is parabolic to disrupt that rule.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2018 08:21
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:It is prohibited to operate an aircraft closer than 500 feet vertically above the nearest obstacle, except during takeoff or landing 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2018 15:13
|
|
|
First 737MAX crash it appears - https://flightaware.com/live/flight/LNI610/history/20181028/2310ZZ/WIII/WIKK https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/28/asia/lion-air-plane-crash-intl/index.html Some footage popping up on twitter from fishing boats finding debris, seems like a total loss of life.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 04:06
|
|
|
BurgerQuest posted:First 737MAX crash it appears - https://flightaware.com/live/flight/LNI610/history/20181028/2310ZZ/WIII/WIKK Well, I'm shocked. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_Air#Incidents_and_accidents Oh wait, no I'm not. PT6A fucked around with this message at 05:17 on Oct 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 05:14
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Well, I'm shocked. Yeah it's not surprising it was Lion Air, but still a tragedy. "Wikipeedia' posted:On 6 August 2013, Lion Air Flight 892, a Boeing 737-800 (registration PK-LKH; c/n 37297) from Makassar to Gorontalo with 117 passengers and crew on board, hit a cow while landing at Jalaluddin Airport and veered off the runway. There were no injuries.[34]
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 05:18
|
|
|
Yeah, it wasn't a MAX, since its delivery date was September 2012. Still a pretty damned young airplane: https://www.jetphotos.com/info/737-37297
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 05:24
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/1056734335775268864
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 05:32
|
|
|
345 knots at 3650 feet. This shouldn't have happened.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 07:15
|
|
|
I did a lot of work on it earlier this year before it delivered. This is quite sobering.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 12:26
|
|
|
People over at Pprune are speculating over installed pitot covers or other unreliable airspeed data. Blowing through 250 under 10,000 (which I assume is the rule there as well) would indicate that. Maybe Airbus now aren't alone at having confused computers crash airplanes.BIG HEADLINE posted:Yeah, it wasn't a MAX, since its delivery date was September 2012. Still a pretty damned young airplane: https://www.jetphotos.com/info/737-37297 And just so there's no confusion, this was from the list of previous Lion Air accidents (of which there have been many). It was indeed a MAX, could be something related to it being brand new that is the root cause.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 13:16
|
|
|
Possibly related: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birgenair_Flight_301
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 13:55
|
|
|
Ola posted:People over at Pprune are speculating over installed pitot covers or other unreliable airspeed data. Blowing through 250 under 10,000 (which I assume is the rule there as well) would indicate that. Maybe Airbus now aren't alone at having confused computers crash airplanes. Isn’t that ground speed? And the 250 knot rule is a US thing; the rest of the world often clears departing aircraft to higher speeds immediately.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 14:41
|
|
|
Chillbro Baggins posted:, and there are multiple anecdotes of radial-engine fighters making it back to base with entire cylinders shot off the engine, a conrod or two just flapping in the breeze. Having a big enough sump that you can just operate on a total-loss lube system for a while helps. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 14:45
|
|
|
Ola posted:And just so there's no confusion, this was from the list of previous Lion Air accidents (of which there have been many). It was indeed a MAX, could be something related to it being brand new that is the root cause. Yeah, I stand corrected - it is/was a MAX.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 15:29
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Isn’t that ground speed? And the 250 knot rule is a US thing; Yes, GPS derived ground speed, but since it's at low altitude and the weather is ok, it's pretty close. hobbesmaster posted:the rest of the world often clears departing aircraft to higher speeds immediately. Isn't that a bit of a wide blanket statement? It seems to be very common to me, but I don't know for sure. On the same flight the day before, they obeyed 250 under 10: https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/jt610#1e5d6c34 The earlier ones seem to be the same. Certainly nobody above 300 half way to 10k.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 15:33
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Having a big enough sump that you can just operate on a total-loss lube system for a while helps. I once read an A-1 Skyraider pilot's combat journal/memoirs. (Edit: here it is. ) The Spad was famous and beloved by infantry/shot-down aircrews for its long loiter time. The guy said that the limiting factor on sortie length was engine oil, not fuel. Radials are/were notoriously leaky. To the point that part of the starting procedure is to kick it over slowly a few turns with the magnetos off either by hand or by blipping the starter on the bigger ones, to pump out the oil that's leaked past the rings into the lowest cylinders so it wouldn't bend a rod when you turned the spark on. Here's a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1F23RciUwDE I seem to remember the above memoir saying something along the lines of "Count sixteen blades, then turn on the fuel pumps and magnetos," but it's been long enough that I need to reread it. Edit 2: Aircraft starters in general are a fun tangent. Before electric motors advanced to be small enough to put on airplanes, poo poo was insane. Originally they turned the prop by hand to start the engines. Pros: The lightest-weight way, nothing to break down, can be done by the pilot as long as he chocks the wheels or sets the parking brake. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOE2sZpnNe8 Cons: You'd better have catlike reflexes and make sure the parking brake is set if you like continuing to have hands. Then engines got bigger, and the compression got to be enough that turning them over by hand became unfeasible. See Richard Hammond bouncing off the kickstarter of a Vincent Black Shadow, at a certain displacement/compression it becomes too much for human effort to overcome the compression stroke to get it turning, so they invented inertial starters. Use a hand crank and a system of gears to get a flywheel spinning really fast, then drop the clutch, dump all that energy in the flywheel into the crank, and you're good. Pros: Safer, more reliable, stronger than doing it by hand, sounds cool. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zXkVQnVmuo Cons: the flywheel and gearing to get it up to speed is heavy. But if the plane (or tank, it was also a backup option for cold-weather starting on tanks in WWII, because batteries at the time didn't work so well during the Russian winter) engine is powerful enough to carry the bits in addition to everything else it has to carry, it's worth it. Then there's cartridge start, where you turn the engine over with an oversized blank shotgun cartridge firing into one cylinder. It's exactly as badass as it sounds. Pros: lightweight compared to the inertial starter, so much that it continued to be fitted to piston engines with electric starters and jets well into the jet age as an emergency starting method for when they had to get in the air ASAP and didn't have time for the complicated ground-based starting mechanisms to be attached/detached or in case the batteries died. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65qrzgbTTcQ Cons: You only have as many starts as you can carry in that little box under the wing, but it's refilled every time you land, so ... I can't think of any downsides unless you're an air pirate like in Crimson Skies? In jet application: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPOCl1ufjlE fweeeEEEEEeeeeeeee! Edit: not as audible, but apparently it's still an option: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anFdf5aYtIA Of course, I wasn't wrong, the B-52 counts as an early jet, it's just stuck around. Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Oct 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 17:28
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
Check out 100% accurate documentary film Flight of the Phoenix for the downside of a Coffman starter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 18:50
|
|
|
Intertial starters are neat, see this Tiger Tank engine start for a good example: https://youtu.be/d-CldHDb8aQ
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 19:06
|
|
|
What’s the 250 under 10 rule about?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 19:08
|
|
|
Mazz posted:What’s the 250 under 10 rule about? 250kia (knots indicated airspeed) under 10,000ft quote:FAR 91.1, 91.117, 91.703, AIM 4-4-12): SeaborneClink fucked around with this message at 19:13 on Oct 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 19:11
|
|
|
I meant more the specifics of why, I assume some sort of safety related stuff but just curious about the specifics if there are any.
Mazz fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Oct 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 19:16
|
|
|
EvenWorseOpinions posted:Today I learned a lesson regarding troubleshooting with people you don't normally work with; if someone says the pitot heat is off, make sure they touch the pitot before you On a mildly entertaining note though, a shorting spring will pretty much completely vaporize when installed (brief as that may be) on a charged battery. I'm kind of surprised that I don't still have a scar.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 19:26
|
|
|
Mazz posted:I meant more the specifics of why, I assume some sort of safety related stuff but just curious about the specifics if there are any. Roads where you have pedestrians or bicycles around usually have a low speed limit. In this case the pedestrians and bicycles are balloons and cessna 172s. Europe gives no fucks about VFR and general aviation so they let you go fast.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 19:29
|
|
|
Chillbro Baggins posted:Originally they turned the prop by hand to start the engines. Pros: The lightest-weight way, nothing to break down, can be done by the pilot as long as he chocks the wheels or sets the parking brake. Not only no, but gently caress no, as far as the reliability of the parking brake is concerned of anything small/old enough to require hand propping. And chocks can be jumped, if you set the throttle too much open. Tie that thing down!! (In addition to chocks)
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 19:58
|
|
|
vessbot posted:Not only no, but gently caress no, as far as the reliability of the parking brake is concerned of anything small/old enough to require hand propping. And chocks can be jumped, if you set the throttle too much open. Tie that thing down!! (In addition to chocks) That is best practices of course. I never said it was a good idea (I mean, the video I linked was subtitled "DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME"), just that back in the early days of aviation when safety was up to the people involved with no regulatory oversight and the people doing it were being shot at on the regular, it was considered an acceptable risk. "Well, Corporal So-and-so got a prop through the head, terrible accident, but he got Flying Officer Whatsit's aeroplane up in time to stop the Boche from killing us all. He'll be missed." And people are still idiots, if the youtube autocomplete result for "hand pr" is any indication. It's hand-propping accident. Old FAA film stating your point, the only one from the aforementioned autocomplete result I've watched: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDIiMJn9xuo
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 20:33
|
|
|
Here's a good one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KpOg9Ci284
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 20:48
|
|
|
Lightbulb Out posted:Here's a good one. He forgot to pull the chute
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 21:29
|
|
|
Chillbro Baggins posted:That is best practices of course. I never said it was a good idea (I mean, the video I linked was subtitled "DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME"), just that back in the early days of aviation when safety was up to the people involved with no regulatory oversight and the people doing it were being shot at on the regular, it was considered an acceptable risk. "Well, Corporal So-and-so got a prop through the head, terrible accident, but he got Flying Officer Whatsit's aeroplane up in time to stop the Boche from killing us all. He'll be missed." And people are still idiots, if the youtube autocomplete result for "hand pr" is any indication. It's hand-propping accident. I got a sense you were just posting what hand propping is, and not giving exhaustive details and/or instruction. And without being too verbose myself, I made a point that I feel needs to be made with gusto. But yeah we agree. Another thing I hate seeing in hand propping is people standing too far from the prop (because it's a scary prop!), such that their unbalanced body at the end of the pull tends to tip over forward, into the prop. This is exacerbated by the cliched leg kick which destabilizes you, and is completely unnecessary for the small low compression engines in Cubs, etc. You should stand as close to the prop as you can without putting any of your body (fingers excepted) in the prop arc. With that you have an upright, stable posture, and even at the end of your pull stroke (which is accompanied by a stable, upright step backward, not the kick) you're not leaning forward. vessbot fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Oct 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 21:34
|
|
|
Lightbulb Out posted:Here's a good one. "Don't worry, man - that'll buff right out."
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 21:36
|
|
|
Chillbro Baggins posted:
also used as the source audio for the Millenium Falcons hyperdrive cuting out 
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 22:13
|
|
|
Chillbro Baggins posted:Then there's cartridge start, where you turn the engine over with an oversized blank shotgun cartridge firing into one cylinder. It's exactly as badass as it sounds. Pros: lightweight compared to the inertial starter, so much that it continued to be fitted to piston engines with electric starters and jets well into the jet age as an emergency starting method for when they had to get in the air ASAP and didn't have time for the complicated ground-based starting mechanisms to be attached/detached or in case the batteries died. Another old timer doing the ol' cartridge fart start (or so I was told): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9l_NnvsB-g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF2Mk_zSUzA Bonus F-4, because it's always a good time for a bonus F-4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rodPPrpAqVQ
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 22:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 23:41 |
|
|
If I'm not mistaken, this is an electrical inertia starter, which was also common when radials got big: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFXn5JzGljc
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 23:12
|
|
