|
Tsuru posted:Air France is actually looking to offload some of theirs. They are difficult to make money with on a lot of routes chiefly because they have so little excess cargo volume remaining after you have loaded all of the bags. At this point the program is doing so poorly I'm not even sure we will ever see a proper 80x80m A380-900. If I don't fly in one before the inevitable retirement of A380s in 10 years I'll be so mad. I really like the A380 despite all its flaws.
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2019 13:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 12:18 |
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Official reason: being so far away from the runway can lead to ground handling problems like speeding Putting the flight deck on the bottom makes a lot of sense for the A380F that they had a bunch of orders for and decided not to build.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2019 14:09
|
|
|
Rolls Royce is now German! Well, sorta.quote:Britain's Rolls-Royce has effectively moved the home for its best-known jet engine designs to Germany to avoid regulatory delays or sales disruption after Brexit: "Rolls-Royce has become in terms of conception a German organisation" Churchill rolling in his grave. Luftwaffe finally won. drunkill fucked around with this message at 15:48 on Feb 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2019 15:44
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Putting the flight deck on the bottom makes a lot of sense for the A380F that they had a bunch of orders for and decided not to build. I'd ask why they didn't build it, but I'm afraid of the answer
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2019 16:05
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I'd ask why they didn't build it, but I'm afraid of the answer Same reason they’re losing their rear end on what is otherwise a great airplane: They wildly misjudged the global market for such a large aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2019 16:25
|
|
|
drat sure I've posted this before but I'm a bit wrecked emotionally so have some nice archival footage from USAF/NASA (guest staring SR71): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky2rtCpbn7k
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2019 16:35
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Same reason they’re losing their rear end on what is otherwise a great airplane: They wildly misjudged the global market for such a large aircraft. I think it was also an issue of seeing where the market was, instead of where it was going. The A380 made a fair bit of sense in a hub-and-spoke network, but with a few exceptions (where the A380 is arguably serving its intended role very well) the industry has moved toward point-to-point networks that are much better served with widebody twins like the A330 and the 787. When the A380 was originally conceived, who would've guessed we'd have routes like LHR-AUS or YYC-PEK?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2019 16:56
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I think it was also an issue of seeing where the market was, instead of where it was going. The A380 made a fair bit of sense in a hub-and-spoke network, but with a few exceptions (where the A380 is arguably serving its intended role very well) the industry has moved toward point-to-point networks that are much better served with widebody twins like the A330 and the 787. Hub and spoke isn't going anywhere, and won't go anywhere either. Hubs are busy airports because they are (by and large) places people want to go in the first place. The biggest reason why the A380 died (and for that matter, the 747) was the 777-300ER. Here you have an airplane that's 90 percent as capable as an A380 but with something like 75 percent of the total operating cost. Yeah, you'll give up a bit on your slot if you're flying to a busy airport, but a 777 is a much more versatile aircraft than the A380 could ever be because of its smaller size. I mean, Air Canada uses them on the Toronto-Montreal route for god's sake (or at least has fairly frequently), just the same as they use them on Vancouver-Sydney. The A350 and the 777X are two more (and probably the final) nails in the A380's coffin.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2019 17:44
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I think it was also an issue of seeing where the market was, instead of where it was going. The A380 made a fair bit of sense in a hub-and-spoke network, but with a few exceptions (where the A380 is arguably serving its intended role very well) the industry has moved toward point-to-point networks that are much better served with widebody twins like the A330 and the 787. LHR and JFK are really the only airports I can think if that are so slot restricted you actually need an A380's seat capacity to meet the demand. In terms of cost per passenger mile the A350 or 777-300ER are extremely capable and competitive if not plainly better than the A380, with the added advantage of making even more money by being able to carry shitloads of freight in the belly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2019 17:55
|
|
|
Open seats on a flight is a pretty silly metric to bring up, even if acknowledged as anecdotal. My last flight to the Maldives had 28 people on it and it was a 773-er. Obviously doesn’t reflect the aircraft. emirates.txt
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2019 18:21
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Hub and spoke isn't going anywhere, and won't go anywhere either. Hubs are busy airports because they are (by and large) places people want to go in the first place. That's certainly true, and those airports will continue to be massive and busy, but if you cut down the number of passengers simply using those airports as connection points, that still accounts for a large amount of traffic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2019 18:36
|
|
|
PT6A posted:That's certainly true, and those airports will continue to be massive and busy, but if you cut down the number of passengers simply using those airports as connection points, that still accounts for a large amount of traffic. And that’s why a lot of American airlines liked the 757 and the 737-900er isn’t really a replacement. One curious thing I saw last time I looked at the A220 is that it’s ETOPS rated and actually has a pretty solid range. I wonder if there’s any transatlantic routes that could use it for long and very skinny routes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2019 19:15
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:One curious thing I saw last time I looked at the A220 is that it’s ETOPS rated and actually has a pretty solid range. I wonder if there’s any transatlantic routes that could use it for long and very skinny routes. There are a few routes it can do, but not as many as you might expect; New York-London is about the longest that the A220-300 can do both ways. Granted, this opens up a lot of interesting options for JetBlue if they're inclined to do so, same with Air Canada, who could make a bunch of routes out of Halifax to Europe work all of a sudden, just the same as they're going to open up routes from Calgary to east coast destinations in the US (Air Canada has already said they're going to do YYC-JFK, IAD and I think BOS as well with the A220). Same thing with Delta, but for them the interesting routes go to Latin America.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2019 20:40
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I'd ask why they didn't build it, but I'm afraid of the answer Most of it was because the A380 program was hit by a substantial delay in the mid 2000's (something to do with wiring IIRC), and the delay was enough for FedEx to cancel their freighter order (10 airplanes, plus 10 options) in favor of 777's, which lead to UPS cancelling their order for another 10 airplanes few months later. That meant that Airbus only had 5 firm orders, so they decided to cancel the A380F to divert those engineering resources to the passenger version, which was two years behind schedule at that point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2019 20:47
|
|
|
MrChips posted:There are a few routes it can do, but not as many as you might expect; New York-London is about the longest that the A220-300 can do both ways. Granted, this opens up a lot of interesting options for JetBlue if they're inclined to do so, same with Air Canada, who could make a bunch of routes out of Halifax to Europe work all of a sudden, just the same as they're going to open up routes from Calgary to east coast destinations in the US (Air Canada has already said they're going to do YYC-JFK, IAD and I think BOS as well with the A220). Should help Jet Blue and Air Canada a lot. And Delta flies a lot of regional jets to latin america which is a pretty cruel joke tbh.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2019 21:09
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Should help Jet Blue and Air Canada a lot. And Delta flies a lot of regional jets to latin america which is a pretty cruel joke tbh. Regional jets to Latin America? Like CRJ-700s?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2019 22:28
|
|
|
OO flies CRJs to Mexico, as do other regional carriers, it’s not unheard of.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 00:17
|
|
|
God drat. https://twitter.com/JoshuaRNelson/status/1092181990017622016 https://twitter.com/JoshuaRNelson/status/1092190340952387586 C.M. Kruger fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Feb 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 23:38
|
|
|
Pilot lands overheating plane on I-35 exit ramp, taxis to Kwik Trip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2UiaAzZNeo There's footage of both the landing and takeoff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 23:44
|
|
|
I thought some of the people I met in LaCrosse seemed weirdly enthusiastic about KwikTrip, but this is a new level.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 00:23
|
|
|
Don't think I saw this posted here yet, but that XP-82 project had first flight the other day. https://youtu.be/wEJwLcj6qEU Some of the video looks like it was taken with a digital camera from the 90s, but nevertheless it's cool that one of these is back in the air.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 06:47
|
|
|
It made an “accidental” flight at the end of December in what was supposed to be a high‐speed run‐up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 06:55
|
|
|
 Someone on Reddit found a weird structure in nowhere, Utah. Someone else identified it as part of a Waco CG-4A Combat Glider. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 07:14
|
|
|
Impressive ID!
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 07:49
|
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:God drat. 5 dead :/ 4 of them in the house.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 08:05
|
|
|
 quote:Oblique aerial photograph of part of 6th Airborne Division's Drop Zone 'N' between Ranville and Amfreville, east of the Orne River, 6 June 1944. Airspeed Horsa gliders can be seen on the DZ, many with their fuselages separated for ease of unloading. The villages of Amfreville and Breville can be seen in the top left of the photograph.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 12:21
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Don't think I saw this posted here yet, but that XP-82 project had first flight the other day.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 14:33
|
|
|
david_a posted:I thought it was fairly uncommon for dual-engine prop aircraft to have the propellers spin in opposite directions. It’s more common than you’d think. The stumbling point is generally whether the engine chosen is capable of being configured for opposite rotation or not. Allison and RR/Packard Merlins were both relatively straightforward to configure that way, while the Germans built a few V-12 engine series with handed pairs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 14:50
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:It’s more common than you’d think. The stumbling point is generally whether the engine chosen is capable of being configured for opposite rotation or not. Allison and RR/Packard Merlins were both relatively straightforward to configure that way, while the Germans built a few V-12 engine series with handed pairs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 14:54
|
|
|
david_a posted:Was that something they could switch over in the field if they had to replace an engine, or did they get boxes of left & right engines? Sometimes contrarotating engine designs use gearboxes to reverse rotation, but the Packard V-1650 Merlin came in unique lefthand and righthand versions. This plane has a pristine lefthand engine of unknown provenance that was found in Mexico City.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 14:59
|
|
|
Depends on the particular engine. Allisons were very specifically designed to be installed in any rotation or facing direction while using the same power section. These features weren’t really designed to be field options, more so the airframe manufacturer had the largest amount of freedom possible in picking and choosing the installation. The process to reverse a 1710 rotation could be done in the field if you REALLY HAD TO I guess, but it was more of an overhaul shop kind of job, since you essentially have to rebuild the engine to swap it.Platystemon posted:Sometimes contrarotating engine designs use gearboxes to reverse rotation, but the Packard V-1650 Merlin came in unique lefthand and righthand versions. Also what he said. (All of the F-82 production airplanes after the first 22 prototypes and very early production airframes used Allison V-1710s instead of Packard V-1650s. The freshly restored airplane is one of the first two XP-82s.) MrYenko fucked around with this message at 15:08 on Feb 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 15:05
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:The process to reverse a 1710 rotation could be done in the field if you REALLY HAD TO I guess, but it was more of an overhaul shop kind of job, since you essentially have to rebuild the engine to swap it. I thought it was a gearbox on it. Did the merlin have the gearbox and both engines turned the same way?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 15:40
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:So the V1710 doesn't have offset bores? ... No wonder they wear out. Humph. Both the Merlin and the V-1710 have reduction gearboxes to step down the RPM of the engine to something that allows a practically-sized and -pitched propeller. Merlins used a simple spur gear for the reduction (a small cog on the end of the engine crank and a big cog on the propeller shaft) and those built for 'reverse rotation' had an intermediate reduction gear cog so the prop turned the other way while the engine itself turned the usual way and everything else was identical. The Allison had a more unusual design because it was designed from scratch as a 'universal' engine and when it was first mooted it seemed that its main application would be as a power unit for USN rigid airships. So the basic 'power core' of the V-1710 could be coupled to almost all the pick-n-mix variants of direct drive or reduction gearing (via spur gear or epicyclic) or with drive going to remote-placed propeller(s), as it would in an Akron/Macon-style airship or even with one fuselage-mounted engine driving two props via geared shafts, one each in a wing of a medium bomber. There were also modular fittings for induction (naturally-aspirated, supercharger, turbocharger, turbocharger and supercharger or turbo-compound), engine-driven gun synchronisation and other ancillaries. With the engine's airship role in mind there was also provision for the engine to be directly reversible by physically altering the camshaft timing. When it came to building up V-1710s for reverse rotation, all that needed to happen was that the crankshaft was installed 'backwards', replace one of the reduction gears with a 'blank' so the camshaft turned the correct way and add an extra gear into a blank bossing to drive the neccessary ancillary parts in the correct direction. You had to swap over a few of the ignition leads on one of the cylinder banks but not the other - the timing still worked out fine.The oil and coolant pumps worked perfectly happily running 'backwards'. All V-1710s could be adapted to run in either direction assuming you had a stock of the two gears you needed to add for reverse rotation. Of course since this was something that required getting the crank out of the engine this wasn't something you could easily do in the field (although it would be possible) but it was more of a means of standardising the parts needed across the variants of the engine and speeding production. If you go to http://www.enginehistory.org/Piston/Allison/V-1710Details/index.html you can see the different gear arrangements for LH and RH rotation - the key pair of gears are the two labelled 'H' and 'K' - H has to be swapped for one with a blank centre and K has to be moved. BalloonFish fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Feb 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 16:06
|
|
|
BalloonFish posted:Both the Merlin and the V-1710 have reduction gearboxes to step down the RPM of the engine to something that allows a practically-sized and -pitched propeller. Merlines used a simply spur gear for the reduction (a small cog on the end of the engine crank and a big cog on the propeller shaft) and those built for 'reverse rotation' had an intermediate reduction gear cog so the prop turned the other way while the engine itself turned the usual way and everything else was identical. This guy and his ability to articulate his thoughts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 16:17
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdvXbkTZwyY
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2019 20:18
|
|
|
The sound that thing made on its way down is incredible. https://video.nest.com/clip/64a943efd2854b6bbabf56d7b337d5ab.mp4
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2019 20:31
|
|
|
e.pilot posted:The sound that thing made on its way down is incredible. Not sure if it loads embedded for everyone else, but it doesn't for me so here's an un-url'd url to copy paste. Definitely the sound of an engine running away. Not sure if that's the cause of the crash or the effect of whatever caused the crash. In the dash cam video it looks like something blows up while diving, before it's near any cables or other stuff on the ground. Perhaps it was diving out of control and one of the oversped engines blew up before it hit the ground.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2019 20:39
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:
One hopes whoever found it notified a museum, given how rare these are any bit is worth saving.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2019 21:13
|
|
|
Ola posted:Not sure if it loads embedded for everyone else, but it doesn't for me so here's an un-url'd url to copy paste. Yeah in the doorbell footage you can definitely see something fly through the tree a few seconds ahead of the main bulk
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2019 21:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 12:18 |
|
|
shame on an IGA posted:Yeah in the doorbell footage you can definitely see something fly through the tree a few seconds ahead of the main bulk Yep, and in the dashcam video it looks like it bursts into flames while airborne, and comes down like a meteor. Maybe the prop governor failed and it overspeeded and blew up? Compare the sound to this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLLG2_ErvJs&t=26s
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2019 22:48
|
|
