|
So a Super Galaxy is hanging out on the tarmac in Gander right now, evidently broken in some way. I took pictures of it yesterday but can't find my correct USB to actually get it off the Camera. When I took pictures they had one of those big bucket lifts at max extension and the landing gear in its kneeling position so they could get to the top of the leading edge of the T-tail, where by the sound of things they were doing some metal grinding
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 12:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 23:14 |
|
|
A broken C-5? Never.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 13:09
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:So a Super Galaxy is hanging out on the tarmac in Gander right now, evidently broken in some way. I took pictures of it yesterday but can't find my correct USB to actually get it off the Camera. When I took pictures they had one of those big bucket lifts at max extension and the landing gear in its kneeling position so they could get to the top of the leading edge of the T-tail, where by the sound of things they were doing some metal grinding "I know it sounds weird, but what else could he have meant? Elevator trim. Take. Off! Your hairdresser doesn't trim your hair by adding to it, does he? Now start cutting."
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 13:09
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:So a Super Galaxy is hanging out on the tarmac in Gander right now, evidently broken in some way. I took pictures of it yesterday but can't find my correct USB to actually get it off the Camera. When I took pictures they had one of those big bucket lifts at max extension and the landing gear in its kneeling position so they could get to the top of the leading edge of the T-tail, where by the sound of things they were doing some metal grinding Crew should've declared an emergency over the atlantic and diverted to Keflavik so they could get a free Iceland vacation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 15:20
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AeroimagesChris/status/1150602370104975360
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 17:04
|
|
|
I had noticed some of the parked planes didn't say Max on them when I drove by the other day but I wasn't sure if that still wasn't just a regular 800 waiting for delivery. I thought it said 800, this says 8200?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 17:21
|
|
|
They should just adopt software version style nomenclature and call it the 737 Max 8.1 (or go the android route and call it the 737 Banana Split or something)
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 17:32
|
|
|
Finger Prince posted:They should just adopt software version style nomenclature and call it the 737 Max 8.1 (or go the android route and call it the 737 Banana Split or something) They’re saving “banana split” for Kalitta 747s.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 17:36
|
|
|
Charles posted:I had noticed some of the parked planes didn't say Max on them when I drove by the other day but I wasn't sure if that still wasn't just a regular 800 waiting for delivery. I thought it said 800, this says 8200? Eight hunnert. Either two hunnert. Eight three hunnert. Been named so by Boeing Charleston.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 18:24
|
|
|
Better than 737-8-200
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 18:56
|
|
|
Ola posted:Eight hunnert. Either two hunnert. Eight three hunnert. Been named so by Boeing Charleston. Do the ladders come free?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 19:34
|
|
|
priznat posted:Just checking out Flightradar24 as one does and noticed something interesting: In addition to being expensive to run, they’re also dangerous as poo poo. No civilian owner has survived an ejection from one, for instance. They’re a military plane meant to be run by a military organization with military resources. There’s just not enough of that sort of expertise in the public domain to be able to operate them safely for an individual. And before anybody brings up the patriots, I know several of the guys that work on their planes and basically they’re just banking on good luck lasting a long time. It’s a miracle they haven’t had a serious accident yet. There was an article in AOPA (I think) about the jet trainer school in Florida a while ago, and the line that stuck with me the most was one from the instructor in regards to how serious these planes are. He said, “I want you to imagine throwing a ball up in the air and catching it 100 times, but the first time you miss the catch, somebody walks up and shoots you in the head.” The planes are far beyond the realm of the average PPL holders skills, and things happen at much faster rates than you’re used to. Without a military size budget, nobody could ever maintain proficiency in a plane like that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 19:38
|
|
|
And even with a military budget and training, the loss rate of fighter jets per hour flown is, uh, a little higher than that of general aviation piston singles
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 19:46
|
|
|
charliemonster42 posted:The planes are far beyond the realm of the average PPL holders skills, and things happen at much faster rates than you’re used to. Without a military size budget, nobody could ever maintain proficiency in a plane like that. I really can't stress this enough. Further, many PPL holders are resistant to the idea that they should under any circumstances be any more proficient than they are at that exact moment -- trust me, I've done flight reviews for them, during which they complain about how mean we instructors are by demanding they not suck before we sign off on them -- which doesn't mesh well with learning to fly something a great deal faster and more complex. I should also say many PPL holders are indeed committed to improving their proficiency, but I wouldn't call it a majority by any means. They'll say they want to, but they'll not actually take any actions or put effort toward it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 20:14
|
|
|
Ola posted:Eight hunnert. Either two hunnert. Eight three hunnert. Been named so by Boeing Charleston. “Boing Chawstun”
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 20:20
|
|
|
charliemonster42 posted:In addition to being expensive to run, they’re also dangerous as poo poo. No civilian owner has survived an ejection from one, for instance. Is this because of incorrectly maintained seats or something, or are the L-39 ejection seats just not as good as the ones in modern jet fighters? I was under the impression that modern ejection seats are more or less foolproof so long as you're subsonic and not inverted at low level. Mortabis fucked around with this message at 20:35 on Jul 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 20:32
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Is this because of incorrectly maintained seats or something, or are the L-39 ejection seats just not as good as the ones in modern jet fighters? I was under the impression that modern ejection seats are more or less foolproof so long as you're subsonic and not inverted at low level. Military fighter pilots are usually under 6' and in good shape. Tech millionaires are under no such restriction.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 20:35
|
|
|
One thing I could never figure out was my dad’s cousin flew CF-104s and is 6’3”, how is that even possible. Amazingly he never had to eject from one either
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 21:10
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Military fighter pilots are usually under 6' and in good shape. Tech millionaires are under no such restriction. They felt safe in the plane because they misread the restriction as: Must be under 6″
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 21:11
|
|
|
priznat posted:One thing I could never figure out was my dad’s cousin flew CF-104s and is 6’3”, how is that even possible. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 21:16
|
|
|
Accurate
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 21:23
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Is this because of incorrectly maintained seats or something, or are the L-39 ejection seats just not as good as the ones in modern jet fighters? I was under the impression that modern ejection seats are more or less foolproof so long as you're subsonic and not inverted at low level. Some modern ejection seats can handle inversion or low altitude, though from I understand not both. They can even get you out safely from a parked plane.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 22:13
|
|
|
A zero-zero seat, which can perform a successful ejection at zero altitude and zero airspeed (parked) is the standard for modern military jets. They use explosives and rockets to clear the canopy and launch you to a safe parachute deployment altitude rather than relying on wind blast and the plane's own altitude to get you clear. That doesn't help much if you eject upside down, or if you are too tall for the cockpit and your legs get torn off by the instrument panel as your torso is rocketed free. Ejection is not a peaceful event.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 23:09
|
|
|
Ejection seats: Slightly better than death!™
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 23:17
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:Some modern ejection seats can handle inversion or low altitude, though from I understand not both. slightly sooner than staying aboard the crashing aircraft (Consider that cats need at least 12" of fall distance to right themselves so they can land on their feet)
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 23:18
|
|
|
Put hatches both over and under the seat. Put two sets of rockets on the seat. When the ejection handle is pulled, blow whichever hatch is more upward and fire the appropriate rockets.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 23:25
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Put hatches both over and under the seat. p. sure 25G pulling your body away from your head is gonna kill you a lot faster than rocketing into the ground at least
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 23:31
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Put hatches both over and under the seat. Or both sets ignite and you just start the fireball early with you as the meat in a rocket sandwich.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 23:37
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Put hatches both over and under the seat. There was some cold war bomber that ejected some of the crew positions downward. I want to say B-52 or B-58 and they changed it on later models to eject up. The thing about ejections is that the most likely time to do it is when something goes wrong at low altitudes, usually during takeoff and landing. Downward ejection isn't very useful in those situations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 23:53
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:There was some cold war bomber that ejected some of the crew positions downward. I want to say B-52 or B-58 and they changed it on later models to eject up. On B-52s 2 of 6 crew stations still eject down. They dont have a great reputation. But its still better than the other 1-4 people who don't have a seat and get to try and jump out!
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2019 00:06
|
|
|
quote:Efforts to reduce weight to make the aircraft suitable for carrier operations had led to the deletion of ejection seats during the design process for the Skywarrior, based on the assumption that most flights would be at high altitude. A similar arrangement with an escape tunnel had been used on the F3D Skyknight.[7] Aircrews began joking morbidly that "A3D" stood for "All Three Dead".[8]
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2019 00:22
|
|
|
This is basically how the E-2 is set up, all five crew have to crawl through the forward equipment compartment to jump out the main hatch. Minimum altitude is 1000 feet, and that's when you need to actually be jumping out, not starting to make your way to the door.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2019 00:37
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:There was some cold war bomber that ejected some of the crew positions downward. I want to say B-52 or B-58 and they changed it on later models to eject up. The B-58 was the fighter-looking-bomber that had the cool ejection capsules that look like GLaDOS from the Portal games I don't think they ever ejected downwards though
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2019 01:09
|
|
|
i wanna know who is gonna pick up the Jet Airways liveried maxen
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2019 01:14
|
|
|
simplefish posted:The B-58 was the fighter-looking-bomber that had the cool ejection capsules that look like GLaDOS from the Portal games The Hustler was quite a sexy aircraft. One of my favorites.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2019 01:20
|
|
C-Bangin' it 
|
B-58 ejection capsule fun fact: it was tested with a sedated bear. L-39 most civilian owned ones are flying with the seats disabled. As for their danger, the 2 biggest factors I see for a transitioning GA pilot are the high landing speed, and the long spoolup time of the engine. This requires a stabilized approach where the engine is already spooled. (We operated ours with extended speed brake on approach to further help in this area. Overkill? I dunno.) Both of these things are routinely mitigated by disciplined training and SOP enforcement of 1500 hour flunkies (and until a few years ago, 250 hour flunkies) and entrusting the flying public to them. The thing that did scare me was the prospect of engine failure. And then there's the factor of the temptation of low level acro and aggressive buzz jobs that's ever present in the pretend-military appeal of this type of plane.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2019 02:27
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:This is basically how the E-2 is set up, all five crew have to crawl through the forward equipment compartment to jump out the main hatch. Minimum altitude is 1000 feet, and that's when you need to actually be jumping out, not starting to make your way to the door. E-3 has a downward tunnel and hatch about 2/3 of the way forward. The ASO pulls the handle down to blow the charges on the bottom of the fuselage, lifts open the grate in the deck floor, and some unfortunate soul jumps down the tunnel which is probably about 6 feet before you fall out of the airplane. Ideally the air will not push you into any of the radio antennas on the belly. Oh and there haven't been parachutes since the late 90s. But I did hear the bailout chute is technically not considered operational anymore, so it no longer gets preflighted.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2019 02:38
|
|
|
vessbot posted:B-58 ejection capsule fun fact: it was tested with a sedated bear. Man, imagine drawing the short straw to be the guy who has to open that one up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2019 02:54
|
|
|
I live in Seattle right under the northern approach to SeaTac and the Flightradar24 app is fun A320s are the only “noisy” jets that fly over regularly
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2019 03:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 23:14 |
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:Man, imagine drawing the short straw to be the guy who has to open that one up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulton_surface-to-air_recovery_system quote:After experiments with instrumented dummies, Fulton continued to experiment with live pigs, as pigs have nervous systems close to humans. Lifted off the ground, the pig began to spin as it flew through the air at 125 miles per hour (200 km/h). It arrived on board uninjured but in a disoriented state.[2]
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2019 03:20
|
|