|
SeaborneClink posted:How do you turn a picture into the thread title, because that is some It "only" needs to get up to 86 mph. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f.html Normal take off run is 715 ft with no wind; though a carrier should be moving so use the 335 ft number for 25 knots. I assume the hangar deck catapults were the same as used on the battleships.
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 18:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 16:58 |
|
|
sandoz posted:they did not use catapults on ww2 carriers At 44:13 you can straight up see the cat track and even the bridle wires if you pause the vid, and a crewman runs out to fish the bridle out just after the plane has taken off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 18:32
|
|
|
tactlessbastard posted:Could a Super Hornet make it off the deck of a carrier without the catapult? Not a chance in hell. Edit: That's a 325 foot takeoff roll. Better bring your water wings. Godholio fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Nov 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 18:47
|
|
|
Apparently Boeing never informed anyone of the new anti-stall measures or how to recover from them. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...l-idUSKCN1NH103 quote:Dennis Tajer, a 737 captain and spokesman for Allied Pilots Association (APA), which represents American Airlines Group Inc pilots, said his union was informed after the crash about a new system Boeing had installed on 737 MAX jets that could command the plane’s nose down in certain situations to prevent a stall.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 18:57
|
|
|
Lawsuit time 
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 19:02
|
|
|
Separate from the stick puller? That’s some airbus poo poo right there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 19:05
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Not a chance in hell. If you use ALL the deck on a Nimitz instead of just the launch section you might actually make it. Given a thrust of 195kn static at full afterburner and a 'figther' configuration weight of 47000 pounds (I'm guessing that's the 2 sidewinders and Bingo fuel while waiting for takeoff loadout) , you'd end up at 78m/s by the end of the deck. This https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=3489&context=utk_gradthes (page 27) gives the minimum airspeed for takeoff as 135 knots, so 69.5m/s. So in a very rough calc it seems plausible, if tight.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 19:09
|
|
|
e.pilot posted:Lawsuit time There's a bit more information at the Aviation Herald. Boeing basically states that the emergency procedures should be covered under existing procedures for a runaway stablizer in the existing flight manual. I assume that Emergency Procedures are all under the regulated portion of the flight manual, so FAA should have approved them already. So the questions are: are the flight manual procedures inaccurate or misleading? If so, did Boeing have reason to believe that they were? And why did FAA approve them anyway? Anyway, I wouldn't be so quick to take the pilot's union's side of the story; I'm sure it's true that Boeing could have done better in informing aircrews of the changes with the MAX, but I don't think it's so clear that they were negligent. Writing the approved parts of the flight manual is a huge deal, and Boeing more than anyone knows to be careful in doing so. It's hard to believe they completely missed something that was required to be there, and that the FAA's pilots and engineers missed it, too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 19:25
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:It "only" needs to get up to 86 mph. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f.html Yeah, but the deck catapults are firing at a ~90-deg angle to the direction of the ship, right? So you may not get the entire benefit of the carrier's relative wind.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 21:46
|
|
|
Kafouille posted:If you use ALL the deck on a Nimitz instead of just the launch section you might actually make it. Given a thrust of 195kn static at full afterburner and a 'figther' configuration weight of 47000 pounds (I'm guessing that's the 2 sidewinders and Bingo fuel while waiting for takeoff loadout) , you'd end up at 78m/s by the end of the deck. That's in zero wind, it's usually steaming nuke speed into a headwind. Add 25 knots and it'll make it easy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 22:08
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Yeah, but the deck catapults are firing at a ~90-deg angle to the direction of the ship, right? So you may not get the entire benefit of the carrier's relative wind. Way less than 90 degrees
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 22:13
|
|
|
By the end of the war, the US Navy had much bigger and heavier aircraft in development, so I'm sure catapult development was a priority for them. Planes like the one that eventually became the A-1 Skyraider, and its competitor, the Martin AM-1 Mauler, which gave us this famous photo of a Mauler toting three torpedoes:  Both of those planes had max take-off weights 8,000-10,000 pounds heavier than the TBF Avenger. Even heavier planes were probably still on paper. The Navy knew jets were coming, too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 22:27
|
|
|
I want to say goons got F/A-18 Cs off the Stennis sans cats in DCS, but that's a video game, so take it as you will.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 23:02
|
|
|
Minto Took posted:I want to say goons got F/A-18 Cs off the Stennis sans cats in DCS, but that's a video game, so take it as you will. It also flies just fine with the wings folded up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 23:05
|
|
|
More than one F8 pilot has found that out IRL.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 23:09
|
|
|
So catapult chat Here's a TBF catapulting from the hangar of USS Yorktown (CV-10) in 1943. Pepperoneedy fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Nov 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 00:00
|
|
|
Ola posted:The Russians didn't use cats on the Kuznetsov, they just had these vertical chocks that retract. The ski jump helped of course. Fixed that for you, at least until Russia recovers the PD-50 floating drydock from the bottom of Murmansk harbor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 01:31
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I think British convoys had some Q ships that launched spitfires using similar setups, but they had to be in range of shore to land. You’re thinking of CAM ships - Catapult Armed Merchant; a cargo ship with a Hurricane sitting on an explosive-driven catapult on deck. Being within range of land wasn’t required because the pilot was expected to ditch - if you were within range of land you’d have land based air cover. IIRC they were used eight times; in one case the pilot made it back to land. The rest of the time they’d try and ditch close to a ship.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 03:16
|
|
|
vessbot posted:Hey paging MrChips, did you ever get that T-28 checkout? (I stumbled on an old post.) I did! And yeah, it was a while ago. I got qualified in the aircraft, but due to a bunch of things happening (like, one of the two T-28s I had access to being lost in an accident) I didn't get to do much flying in it until this year, where we took it to a bunch of airshows in and around the area. It's great fun to fly; I've found the aircraft to be forgiving enough that it isn't complete chore to fly, but still very manual in every way, which is kind of refreshing from "pres butan to align, pres butan to start, away we go". It also beats the hell out of the Stearman I flew and still fly; being out in the elements like that is fun, but not exactly conducive to flying in anything less than perfect summer weather, plus for what it was, the thing is a right handful. Every time I get into the Stearman, especially when it's cool out, I have to remind myself that our forefathers flew these loving things in -30 Celsius back in the day, and didn't complain one lick. tactlessbastard posted:Could a Super Hornet make it off the deck of a carrier without the catapult? Apparently Boeing did a bunch of simulation work with the Super Hornet when they were trying to sell it to India, and apparently it is perfectly capable of using a ski jump to take off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 05:10
|
|
|
I have it on good authority that they cursed like sailors, but nobody but God and the poor sod freezing in the other seat could hear it due to lack of radios.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 05:34
|
|
|
1:04:10 into 'The Predator' and holy poo poo is it a bag of poo poo! To paraphrase: "What is that?" "It's an AC130, it's not civilian"  HMMMM Nope.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 12:32
|
|
|
Bright lights over Ireland. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pv7x4dRye3U&t=303s How common is this sort of thing?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 14:33
|
|
|
InAndOutBrennan posted:Bright lights over Ireland. Daily, constantly, but perhaps not all incidents seen by humans let alone discussed over radio. This explanation from the comments summarizes it well: quote:Meteorite skimming the atmosphere then continuing on back into space. The fact there was more than one light supports this, as they often split into multiple chunks as they contact the atmosphere and heat up. The apparent change in direction can be explained because such a bright light is visible over great distances and it's particularly hard to judge separation distance, so as it approaches then continues (in a straight line), the perspective of a relatively stationary observer is that the direction changed. It's a perception problem, not a flying saucer changing course.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 15:02
|
|
|
The leonid meteor shower is also going on right now, well the start of it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 17:09
|
|
|
There's also an Antares rocket launch scheduled for very early Friday morning from Wallops on the VA Eastern Shore that should be visible to a pretty wide range of the Eastern seaboard. https://m.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/set-your-alarm-rocket-launch-to-be-visible-over-east-coast-before-dawn-thursday/70006601
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 18:51
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:
Things that look like a photoshop but actually aren’t dot jay peg 
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 01:02
|
|
|
Is that better or worse than how they tested the first ever ejection seats? I'm kind of afraid to look it up
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 01:09
|
|
|
Doesn't look like that's a bear, so...
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 02:32
|
|
|
FBS posted:Is that better or worse than how they tested the first ever ejection seats? I'm kind of afraid to look it up How about what looks like an A-26?  I think they used the rocket sled for a lot of these tests, too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 02:51
|
|
|
Hey guys I don’t think we’re ETOPS r u sure this is ok
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 03:30
|
|
|
Uh CLE is the other way, bud.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 04:12
|
|
|
Huhhhhh, that’s not some weird ADS-B glitch?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 04:36
|
|
|
no, i'm fairly sure that an embraer 170 is capable of flying from new york to bermuda to cleveland in a single shot while averaging something like 1300 knots
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 04:57
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:no, i'm fairly sure that an embraer 170 is capable of flying from new york to bermuda to cleveland in a single shot while averaging something like 1300 knots Well, maybe it's just squawking that ID 
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 05:38
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Uh CLE is the other way, bud. I didn't know that "Wrong-Way" Corrigan flew for a regional airline.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 05:52
|
|
|
It was some kind of bug, as the time in flight was similar to other times its flown that route. I've seen it before on other flights on Flightaware and on the Flightradar app on my phone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 06:04
|
|
|
I did flight training in Southern Utah and frequently went over the old Hurricane Supersonic Research Site. I wanted to go look at it but never did while living in St. George, UT. http://www.airfields-freeman.com/UT/Airfields_UT_SW.htm quote:Testing at the site typically involved hurling a rocket sled, carrying a seat with a dummy known as "Hurricane Sam" strapped to it, along the track at a speed of 1,050 mph (Mach 1.3). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWpAVLjFsc4&t=297s
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 09:34
|
|
|
Ola posted:Daily, constantly, but perhaps not all incidents seen by humans let alone discussed over radio. This explanation from the comments summarizes it well: Figured something like that. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2018 09:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 16:58 |
|
|
quote:In one series of tests "Hurricane Sam" was replaced by apes to determine the effects of ejection on live beings.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2018 00:21
|
|