|
Spruce Goose. I wanna be on it when it does.MrYenko posted:*insert “what’s the slowest you ever flew the SR-71” story here*  
PainterofCrap fucked around with this message at 02:44 on Apr 24, 2019 |
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 02:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 11:39 |
|
|
Phy posted:Ditto Valkyrie Coming along, but not as quick as anyone would hope. http://www.avromuseum.com/
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 02:44
|
|
|
If "keeping in flying condition" just means literally keeping it able to fly the pattern and nothing more, I'm going with the XB-70. Six high-strung prototype turbojet engines, no spares available, blueprints probably destroyed, burning a fuel that's no longer made. If "keeping in flying condition" means returning every system on board the plane to its full operational status, as it was when it was brand new, then my vote goes to the NB-36H and its onboard nuclear reactor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 02:46
|
|
|
 I WANT TO BELIEVE
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 03:09
|
|
|
Can anything compete with the L-19/O-1 Bird Dog for ease to keep flying? e: The L-4 Grasshopper is slightly older and may have greater parts commonality with its civilian relatives, so it’s a contender. Platystemon fucked around with this message at 03:18 on Apr 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 03:11
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:If "keeping in flying condition" means returning every system on board the plane to its full operational status, as it was when it was brand new, then my vote goes to the NB-36H and its onboard nuclear reactor. The flight plan and related paperwork for a single transcontinental journey 
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 03:28
|
|
|
david_a posted:* Jets cost a lot more than ICE to keep flying This is a common fallacy. Comparing engines of roughly equal power, (which is admittedly rough,) jets aren’t just cheaper, they’re a LOT cheaper. They’re comparatively stone-simple, MUCH lighter for comparable power, and just happen to make a whole bunch of hot compressed air, which happens to be fantastic for pressurization and anti/de-icing, which is something that becomes super important in large, long range aircraft. Nebakenezzer posted:B-b-but airliners in the '50 used them Most of those airliners were using much less powerful/complicated engines. R-2800s, R-3350s, etc. Not to say that something like a turbo-compound R-3350 was uncomplicated, but the 4360 only ever saw civilian service in the Boeing 377, which was a pretty significant failure, and not unrelated to the hideous complexity of its powerplants. And the B-36 has six of them. In a unique pusher configuration. Plus four J-47s. Maybe the H-4 could compete, but that’s about it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 03:34
|
|
|
My four and a half mile commute would be a lot more convenient and enjoyable of I could resurrect Project Pluto.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 03:34
|
|
|
Kilonum posted:The flight plan and related paperwork for a single transcontinental journey Not In My Sky!
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 03:38
|
|
|
Be nice if someone found a restorable P-61 in a barn.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 03:41
|
|
|
FuturePastNow posted:Be nice if someone found a restorable P-61 in a barn. Isn't the Midatlantic Air Museum working on one?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 03:52
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:My four and a half mile commute would be a lot more convenient and enjoyable of I could resurrect Project Pluto. Keeping that thing flying would be difficult if only because every member of the UN would say “excuse me but what the gently caress” when they caught wind of it. No one is going to be calmed by your language about “planes were made to fly” and “heritage”.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 03:53
|
|
|
FuturePastNow posted:Be nice if someone found a restorable P-61 in a barn. MAAM’s P-61 is coming along, but faces significant financial issues.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 03:55
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:MAAM’s P-61 is coming along, but faces significant financial issues. You mean the 15$ I gave them in a Kickstarter wasn't enough?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 03:56
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:MAAM’s P-61 is coming along, but faces significant financial issues. Among them having a TERRIBLE webmaster: http://www.maam.org/p61.html
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 04:09
|
|
|
Paingod556 posted:RAAF Bull Creek I Googled for this and all the matches I noticed seemed to be about it being an RAAF retirement village or something, then I finally found on the map that there is a museum there too (which was the impression I got from your post). So instead of building the museum at an air base, they've put it right where all the people that one hopes will volunteer live? Brilliant! e.pilot posted:Our boy Jerry has a new video that’s hilarious as always. Haven't got time to watch it now, but I noticed the top comment was: quote:godholio and I was thinking about how it would probably be in violation of SA policy for me to suggest we all go on there and like it so it stays at the top, but then I noticed it is: quote:Pinned by Jerry Wagner 
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 04:25
|
|
|
You're all missing the best answer. XF-84H
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 04:25
|
|
|
e.pilot posted:You're all missing the best answer. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 04:26
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:If "keeping in flying condition" just means literally keeping it able to fly the pattern and nothing more, I'm going with the XB-70. Six high-strung prototype turbojet engines, no spares available, blueprints probably destroyed, burning a fuel that's no longer made. Related, someone wrote an article a few years ago about what it would take to reactivate the STS system. Interesting read but it wasn't pretty.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 04:27
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:My four and a half mile commute would be a lot more convenient and enjoyable of I could resurrect Project Pluto. [[[ DAHIR INSAAT INTENSIFIES ]]]
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 04:32
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Actually, that sparks a question in me: given magic to give a viable starting point, what airplane would be hardest/most expensive to keep in flying condition? My first guess would be something like the F7U, since they were difficult to fly, not terribly reliable when new, and used engines that were built in small numbers, had short overhaul intervals, and weren't known for being reliable at the time either. My second guess would be an F-111 (assuming you could get one), since there's a ton of complex systems and electrical bits that are essentially unique to the airplane and can't be made by throwing money at a machine shop.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 04:36
|
|
|
I do think that "what is the cheapest aircraft to keep flying" is a more interesting question, though. There are more Cessna 172s in the world than there are any other plane, so there are effectively infinite spare parts available, and anyone can repair an O-320. But 172s still have electronics in them, and vacuum instruments, and other things with delicate little parts. Something like a 120 would be cheaper to run since it can burn mogas and doesn't have an electrical system. But it's also made with doped canvas; that's more prone to damage than an aluminum skin, and takes more skill to repair. what plane has the fewest parts in it to break, and the easiest repair job when they do? And then we get into the question of what even defines an aircraft? Operating one of those parachute fan backpacks is going to be an order of magnitude cheaper than running even a 120. How low can you go?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 04:56
|
|
|
This discussion makes me wonder if there is a plane equivalent to the Saturn I.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 04:58
|
|
|
Guys the answer is a helicopter. I don't know, pick one. Jetranger. Chinook. Sea King. Only because part of the magic of keeping one in flying condition is keeping one flying.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 04:59
|
|
|
Finger Prince posted:Guys the answer is a helicopter. I don't know, pick one. Jetranger. Chinook. Sea King. A million parts rapidly rotating around an oil leak waiting for metal fatigue to set in. Or as my friend likes to say: “there’s a reason you don’t see historical helicopter fly ins”
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 05:15
|
|
|
Nobody said anything about getting the acceories too...maybe an airship, with the little parasite fighters to go with. Or that C-5 that they dropped an ICBM out of.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 05:18
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:I do think that "what is the cheapest aircraft to keep flying" is a more interesting question, though. There are more Cessna 172s in the world than there are any other plane, so there are effectively infinite spare parts available, and anyone can repair an O-320. But 172s still have electronics in them, and vacuum instruments, and other things with delicate little parts. Something like a 120 would be cheaper to run since it can burn mogas and doesn't have an electrical system. But it's also made with doped canvas; that's more prone to damage than an aluminum skin, and takes more skill to repair. what plane has the fewest parts in it to break, and the easiest repair job when they do? You'd need to define aircraft or else you can rules lawyer yourself down to a paper airplane or if it needs to carry humans a kite.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 05:28
|
|
|
Buttcoin purse posted:I Googled for this and all the matches I noticed seemed to be about it being an RAAF retirement village or something, then I finally found on the map that there is a museum there too (which was the impression I got from your post). So instead of building the museum at an air base, they've put it right where all the people that one hopes will volunteer live? Brilliant! The front area has two hangars for the museum, the rest is the retirement village. Pretty decent collection, including the Lanc sharing space with a Vampire, Canberra, Spitfire and Dakota. http://www.aviationwa.org.au/AviationListsInfo/PreservedAC/RAAFA.html Also discovered Gordon died last year. His family funded an update to the Lanc exhibit. I need to go visit it again. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 05:28
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:You'd need to define aircraft or else you can rules lawyer yourself down to a paper airplane or if it needs to carry humans a kite. Observation balloon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 06:24
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:You'd need to define aircraft or else you can rules lawyer yourself down to a paper airplane or if it needs to carry humans a kite. Air-going vehicle capable of maintaining controlled, level flight while carrying one or more humans. Paper airplanes don't carry humans and kites aren't controlled.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 06:32
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:That would take a particularly considerable amount of magic. And spark plugs (336).
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 06:50
|
|
|
My 80s childhood wants the Concord and Space Shuttle back since it was magical seeing them as a kid that didn't understand the reality of the situation. I also got to see Ryanair's first MAX which is a -8200, the 200 standing for the amount of passengers it can be configured for. It has arrangement for 197 seats at 28 inch pitch which is a dark kind of magic given it's on a -8 airframe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 07:50
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:There’s some pretty wild stuff if you’re using magic wishes. Sea Dart, Delta Dart, Hustler.... seeing a pattern here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x13HJJwP62Y
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 07:54
|
|
|
Mechanical complexity and lack of physical spare parts is one thing, but I think you can get some truly magnificient expenses by choosing an aircraft with digital avionics from just around the time period when they first started to really rely on them. You'd need to revive some late 1970's computer system complete with tape decks and all just to be able to talk to the onboard self-test system, and spare parts would require not just a machine shop but also a full semiconductor foundry, as well as a bunch of software engineers for systems that haven't been around for 40 years. This is one of the main reasons the AJ 37 Viggen is still flying but the JA 37 will never fly again - the former does have a computer but it's kinda on the level where you can debug it with a modern oscilloscope, and you can sorta fly without it, while the latter has an actual computer system in the modern sense of the term involved in basically everything in the aircraft. The Viggen is still relatively tame in the mechanical aspects though.
TheFluff fucked around with this message at 08:58 on Apr 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 08:56
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:Mechanical complexity and lack of physical spare parts is one thing, but I think you can get some truly magnificient expenses by choosing an aircraft with digital avionics from just around the time period when they first started to really rely on them. You'd need to revive some late 1970's computer system complete with tape decks and all just to be able to talk to the onboard self-test system, and spare parts would require not just a machine shop but also a full semiconductor foundry, as well as a bunch of software engineers for systems that haven't been around for 40 years. This is one of the main reasons the AJ 37 Viggen is still flying but the JA 37 will never fly again - the former does have a computer but it's kinda on the level where you can debug it with a modern oscilloscope, and you can sorta fly without it, while the latter has an actual computer system in the modern sense of the term involved in basically everything in the aircraft. The Viggen is still relatively tame in the mechanical aspects though. Related question - would it be cheaper to still attempt to maintain all that, or rip it out and put in something new/modern?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 10:01
|
|
|
Brovine posted:Related question - would it be cheaper to still attempt to maintain all that, or rip it out and put in something new/modern? I think what's typically done in some related cases (I seem to remember reading about some AWACS systems) is you rip out one part at a time and either virtualize the old software on a modern host, or write/create something that does the same thing while emulating the old thing's interfaces. If the system is operational long enough you can even get several layers of emulation/virtualization on top of each other. These issues are as old as computerization itself. On the JA 37, they were going to add a new inertial navigation system. Initially this had all analog interfaces, with the actual calculations done in the central computer. Then they bought themselves a new fancy all-digital unit from the US, with its own computer that they'd be able to offload these calculations to. But they couldn't just drop this in, of course, since it wasn't compatible with the existing solution. So to keep the prototype aircraft flying, they did a quick "temporary solution" where they made the new INS unit's computer emulate the old analog interfaces. Of course, in software engineering, no temporary solution is ever as temporary as you'd like, so what ended up happening was that the JA 37 went into series production with this solution, and then it flew that way all the way to its retirement, with all the INS calculations in the central computer and the INS computer doing nothing meaningful at all. TheFluff fucked around with this message at 10:33 on Apr 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 10:24
|
|
|
Brovine posted:Related question - would it be cheaper to still attempt to maintain all that, or rip it out and put in something new/modern? Look at 40s-era Cubs with Garmin 1000 flight decks in them. That plane didn't originally even include an electrical system, and now it's got moving-map and synthetic vision with precision approach IFR capability. That "turn of the electronics era" expense is real, though. There are a bunch of flight decks that used CRTs that are now 30-40 years old. Honeywell Primus systems are offering a deal where you can trade your CRT MFD/PFDs in for a $40,000USD credit against the purchase of LCD screens. That's right, you get a 40grand discount! Per screen! (five or six included in most airframes)! The signal generators, display processors, and data concentrator units are still in manufacture, though. The recent mod numbers are all solid-state, much lighter, and use less power. However, due to certification issues, they've got ballast and load resistors in them so they weigh the same and consume roughly the same amount of electrical power as the old units. You can buy a STC for the new mods for some obscene price, I'm sure, but then you won't be able to use the giant stock of old spares.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 11:37
|
|
|
babyeatingpsychopath posted:Look at 40s-era Cubs with Garmin 1000 flight decks in them. That plane didn't originally even include an electrical system, and now it's got moving-map and synthetic vision with precision approach IFR capability. DO NOT share that information to Silicon Valley Disruptors.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 12:33
|
|
|
e.pilot posted:You're all missing the best answer. Thanks, but I already have bilateral tinnitus
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 12:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 11:39 |
|
|
MrYenko posted:This is a common fallacy. Comparing engines of roughly equal power, (which is admittedly rough,) jets aren’t just cheaper, they’re a LOT cheaper. They’re comparatively stone-simple, MUCH lighter for comparable power, and just happen to make a whole bunch of hot compressed air, which happens to be fantastic for pressurization and anti/de-icing, which is something that becomes super important in large, long range aircraft. That’s why I’m sticking to the Sukhoi T-4 - early 70s bleeding-edge Soviet technology sounds like a nightmare. It’s not like Soviet jet engines were renowned for their longevity either.  I WANT TO BELIEVE
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 13:44
|
|
