|
CommieGIR posted:Most Fighters do have VOR, etc. I thought that they don't? Source: 90's flight sim manuals. Interesting. (Not counting VORTAC's)
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 01:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 18:35 |
|
|
I’m pretty sure a lot of military aircraft (H-60, for example) have no VOR, just TACANs. V-22 had VOR and TACAN, no ADF though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 03:19
|
|
|
Bob A Feet posted:I’m pretty sure a lot of military aircraft (H-60, for example) have no VOR, just TACANs. V-22 had VOR and TACAN, no ADF though. Yeeaah 60's world here, we have ARN-123 VOR and have since the early 1990's, the certified preowned ones we've picked up in the last year have ARN-153 digital TACAN (whole system weighs like 100lb), and the older birds have ARN-118 TACAN (like 300lb). The only thing deleted off our stuff was the old school HF with the towel-rack antennas, and the ADF (we actually had an exclusion from that delete due to the only NAVAIDS in the western part of the state were ADF until a couple years ago). We actually had 1991 block IIIA GPS receivers until about a year ago (if you know what I'm talking about, that might elicit a little gasp (army, think MAGR and E: guys like Gabreski Field never touch TACAN (because no local's to them), so they'd send them to us in the sandbox with TACAN completely inop and never realize it, but the ARN-123 working like a champ. spookykid fucked around with this message at 05:34 on Oct 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 05:23
|
|
|
Apparently Cathay Pacific gave a huge "gently caress you" to some social media "influencer" https://www.gatechecked.com/influencer-banned-for-life-from-cathay-pacific-after-trying-to-demand-business-class-upgrade-1877
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 14:58
|
|
|
Switzerland posted:Comanche 2.0! Comanche indeed. Without looking at old RAH-66 pics, that looks almost exactly like it from what I remember. I always liked the Comanche. Need to fire up Enemy Engaged - Comanche Vs Hokum again. I think I have it on GOG.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 18:02
|
|
|
dexter6 posted:I flew into BDL last night and flying out tomorrow, should be interesting to see what’s going on when I get there tomorrow. Crossposting a relevant post from the A/T thread yesterday: KodiakRS posted:So I had what was probably the most somber overnight (overmorning, gently caress redeyes) today. We were at BDL and could see the b-17 crash site from out hotel. The lobby of the hotel had a bunch of news crews, people in NTSB wind breakers, and a presentation by the state police where they announced the names of the victims. It felt so strange to be walking through the hotel in uniform amongst all that like "yep, just gonna go fly where a bunch of people died in a plane a few hours ago." There were also a few other WWII era aircraft parked on the other side of the field with a b-17 sized vacant spot on the ramp. It must be gutwrenching for the crews on those other aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 18:28
|
|
|
The NTSB youtube channel uploaded some footage and a brief. I haven't had a chance to listen to it yet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO8HdzYa6f4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoLU-I6C4Uo
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 20:44
|
|
|
KodiakRS posted:Crossposting a relevant post from the A/T thread yesterday: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 00:23
|
|
|
Not quite the same, but I flew from San Francisco the day after the Asiana 777 crash. Feels bad man.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 00:29
|
|
|
I saw a B-25 landing at Camarillo today and got really nervous. It must be here for an event but the crash was still weighing on the back of my mind...
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 01:38
|
|
|
I wonder what kinds of stresses are added to those old warbird airframes to add a second seat (presumably one that meets FAA guidelines  ) for a passenger. A P-51 or Spitfire (both airframes that have been altered to enable for-profit passenger flights) was never designed to carry two people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 04:33
|
|
|
Surely even the gooniest goon can't outweigh whatever wartime payload rating they had?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 04:57
|
|
|
In a P-51D I believe the seat is usually installed where a fuel tank used to be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 05:01
|
|
|
If I wasn't on mobile, there would be a picture of a TP-38L here. There have been two-seater versions from the factory.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 05:20
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:I wonder what kinds of stresses are added to those old warbird airframes to add a second seat (presumably one that meets FAA guidelines The second seat on P-51's is installed in place of the 85 gallon fuselage tank, so anyone in that seat is probably going to weigh less than the 570lbs of fuel that originally went back there. After WW2, F-51's in service were limited to 65 gallons in the fuselage tank (since the full tank moved the CG so far aft that stability was seriously compromised), so even that limitation still gives you around 450lbs to play with, so slightly less than an average 'Murrican.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 05:56
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:I wonder what kinds of stresses are added to those old warbird airframes to add a second seat (presumably one that meets FAA guidelines If not fuel as mentioned, then armor or heavy radios. The modifications to carry two are peanuts. But the attrition rate isn't. There's a limited number of them and some crash every year. Warbirds are an endangered species.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 05:58
|
|
|
Ola posted:If not fuel as mentioned, then armor or heavy radios. The modifications to carry two are peanuts. But the attrition rate isn't. There's a limited number of them and some crash every year. Warbirds are an endangered species. There are already enough static displays, I'd rather some go out in style than put on a plinth.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 06:05
|
|
|
I also have to wonder if having a couple of pilots in their 70's didn't contribute to the accident somehow. Since there aren't exactly B-17 simulators, it's not like the pilots can go practice V1/V2 cuts in a worst case scenario, and even the best pilots are going to have their reflexes slow down by the time they're 70, so mixing elderly pilots, an equally elderly airplane (that probably can't produce full power on 100LL), and an inability to realistically practice in-flight emergencies seems like a good way to end up with an accident if something fails at the right time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 06:07
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:I also have to wonder if having a couple of pilots in their 70's didn't contribute to the accident somehow. I was wondering about that too as soon as they said engine out and that they appeared to lose yaw control.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 06:34
|
|
|
Ola posted:If not fuel as mentioned, then armor or heavy radios. The modifications to carry two are peanuts. But the attrition rate isn't. There's a limited number of them and some crash every year. Warbirds are an endangered species. I'm sure someone will post some greatly researched article about my question, but.... Engineering data is available, and we most definitely have the technology. Why can't some company just remake warbirds from scratch? Other than money of course, because having an up to spec airframe with a 'new' warranty etc would appeal to a lot of rich people to hand over cash faster than they can get their licence.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 06:54
|
|
|
There are replicas built and flown of warbirds. They also have a tendency to make fiery wrecks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 07:04
|
|
|
Humphreys posted:I'm sure someone will post some greatly researched article about my question, but.... It'll take Learjet money and what you end up with is not a warbird. The definition is something vintage that has been operated by the military. But it's a dilemma. It's incredibly more valuable to have them flying than just to have a static display and you have to fly them fairly often just to keep pilots proficient.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 07:13
|
|
|
It's the money. a 3/4 scale P-51 is 66k. The carbon fiber replica's price appears to be "If you have to ask..." There's a guy in Europe building them at 70% size for €99,800.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 07:18
|
|
|
Ola posted:It'll take Learjet money and what you end up with is not a warbird. The definition is something vintage that has been operated by the military. But it's a dilemma. It's incredibly more valuable to have them flying than just to have a static display and you have to fly them fairly often just to keep pilots proficient. Sad face. Although a piece of me wants to see this 'disrupted' (but not the failed venture capital causing shoddy work and people dying)
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 07:18
|
|
|
I thought part of it had to do with safety regulations. In that none of them meet modern safety standards and are only allowed to fly at all because of waivers granted to historic airframes largely on the basis that there's not many of them and theoretically only ever going to be less of them as time goes by.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 09:18
|
|
|
Ola posted:It'll take Learjet money and what you end up with is not a warbird. The definition is something vintage that has been operated by the military. And the monetary value in a warbird is in the fact that it's a vintage aircraft with a verified military service record and a continuous identity. Even if you get all Ship of Theseus and virtually all the parts have been replaced by restoration and maintenance after seven or eight decades, it's still (say) a P-51 with genuine warbird status and that makes it worth a lot. If you were to scratch-build a brand new P-51 it would not only be massively, cripplingly expensive but the end result would be worth much less than a genuine one. Which means that, even by vintage aircraft standards, the idea becomes a financial black hole. It would probably be uninsurable as it would be just as expensive to run and repair but without the inherent value in it to make the cost worthwhile. That's partly why warbird restorations try to use as much of the original aircraft as they can. Those two Mk1 Spitfires that were dug out of the beach at Dunkirk in the 80s and 'restored' each retain a handful of original parts - iirc they were able to keep the engine block on one and the wheels on the other. Some other parts were scoured up from other scrapped Spitfires but the huge majority of the parts and the entire physical structure, wS remanufactured from scratch. Both are, in practical terms, 'new build' Spitfires. But they retain the originals' manufacturer's plates and thus the continuity of identity. Officially this is the only part of the plane that is imbued with that identity, so Spitfire N3200 is still around even if that means, slightly perversely, that the physical airframe which was built in 1939, crashed at Dunkirk and lay in the beach for 45 years and still survives (since it wasn't used in the 'restoration') is no longer N3200. The 'new' N3200 has the continuity of identity which means it is accepted as 'a Dunkirk Spitfire' which means it's worth about £3.5 million - enough to make the project (and the aircraft's ongoing use and upkeep) viable. I'm sure the company that restored the two Dunkirk Spitfires could build you a faithful Spitfire replica. They have the ability. But the end result would not officially be a Spitfire, would have no history and would therefore be worth less than the cost of its build. It would also, of course, be a new-build aircraft and so be liable for all the 2019 safety regulations which 'new' aircraft with 1930s ID plates are exempt from. The good news (for Spitfires at least) is that there's such a well- established industry for restoring them and sourcing or remanufacturing parts, right down to making new airframes from whole cloth, that it's now viable to 'restore' planes which have existed only in the sense that an ID plate has been sitting in a box for 60 years. So the number of airworthy Spitfires has been steadily going up in recent years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 09:29
|
|
|
Whenever I’ve flown on warbirds, I’ve at least known that if I died it was while doing a unique activity and financially supporting keeping a piece of history flying. I’d feel so dumb dying in a cosmetic mockup plane.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 09:39
|
|
|
Just a friendly reminder from a former B-17 crewmember, each airframe costs somewhere north of $2.5M per year to keep airworthy, and most all the crew are volunteer. Please hug the crew and donate heavily to restoration and support for these airplanes. I'm gonna go back into my hidey hole of avoiding the news because it makes me so loving sad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 10:12
|
|
|
Spaced God posted:Just a friendly reminder from a former B-17 crewmember, each airframe costs somewhere north of $2.5M per year to keep airworthy, and most all the crew are volunteer. Please hug the crew and donate heavily to restoration and support for these airplanes. It's not a joke, it's what I thought internally when I saw the news: B17...Bummer 
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 10:41
|
|
|
Humphreys posted:I'm sure someone will post some greatly researched article about my question, but.... You may enjoy Guy Martin's Spitfire Also Peter Jackson has a bunch of flying WWI replicas at Omaka. I was enjoying just looking at them the the volunteer guide comes up and tells me "You know, everything with a drip tray under it flies." I was agog. That's a sizeable portion of the collection. There's like 3-5 Fokker triplane replicas that fly. If I ever get round to it, I might post some photos if anyone's interested. But yeah that's what LOTR money gets you, a literal flying circus
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 11:18
|
|
|
I'll happily take one of those modern built Me-262s. At risk of diverging into sim chat, any of you guys seen/heard the new MS flight simulator? The scenery (autogen based of of satellite data?) is amazing as is the weather effects and visibility. True VFR is what they are aiming for. Interestingly, no VR supported at least not right away. https://youtu.be/Fj8h6yibHHc https://youtu.be/OmoG8jgdQvQ
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 16:12
|
|
|
New MS flight simulator is going to be amazing. It'll be on gamepass for xbox and pc as well, so free if you have that. Have an A380 landing while an A350 takes off... luckily no delays https://i.imgur.com/KrgUvLz.mp4 Here is a clear overhead shot of the nine-o-nine wreckage 
drunkill fucked around with this message at 17:07 on Oct 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 17:03
|
|
|
Carth Dookie posted:I thought part of it had to do with safety regulations. In that none of them meet modern safety standards and are only allowed to fly at all because of waivers granted to historic airframes largely on the basis that there's not many of them and theoretically only ever going to be less of them as time goes by. I guess you can’t sell rides on an experimental aircraft?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 19:52
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I guess you can’t sell rides on an experimental aircraft? Nope.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 21:02
|
|
|
It seems like those warbirds with all new parts except a tire and number plate really should be experimental.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 00:58
|
|
|
Apart from a few owned by rich people, I bet most of them wouldn't be able to operate and do the air show circuit without the ability to sell rides.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 01:39
|
|
|
So what y'all are saying is that 909 will be re-built.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 04:01
|
|
|
Warbirds have been rebuilt from less, so as long as they find the data plate and someone has the money/time to burn, it could absolutely be rebuilt. That said, B-17's are way less popular than Mustangs or Texans as a toy for rich people, so finding the money to rebuild the 909 probably won't be too easy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 04:19
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:Warbirds have been rebuilt from less, so as long as they find the data plate and someone has the money/time to burn, it could absolutely be rebuilt. This crash actually would probably lend a lot of weight to get that money.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 13:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 18:35 |
|
|
Anarcho-Commissar posted:This crash actually would probably lend a lot of weight to get that money. Yeah a thread of goons, maybe 10 of us sad about it. Imagine the specific forums for that plane and the FB groups etc. Theres already someone waving stacks to get it going.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 15:30
|
|