|
Liberty Belle was destroyed by fire a few years back and they started a rebuild pretty quickly. Hell, Champaign Lady is a combination of bits from at least five different B-17s. This P-51 was destroyed in a fatal accident and came back this far by 2011: https://flic.kr/p/jZ9T5i As a historian I have serious doubts about the idea of rebuilds at this level, to be perfectly honest. But then the Warbird guys' commitment to proper history is often pretty tenuous at best, in my experience.
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 16:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 00:22 |
|
|
Keeping warbirds going has been the boomers’ thing and once they go I doubt there will be a lot of interest. drat millennials! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 16:54
|
|
|
Maybe it will be like the Moon landings, where there is a resurgence of interest and younger generations are more likely to know the names Aldrin, Armstrong, Collins.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 17:18
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Maybe it will be like the Moon landings, where there is a resurgence of interest and younger generations are more likely to know the names Aldrin, Armstrong, Collins. Let's get Grumman and NAA making landers and CSMs again. I'd donate to that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 17:24
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7mc3C19kE4 Kittyhawk just announced their latest electric VTOL aircraft. https://techcrunch.com/2019/10/03/kitty-hawk-reveals-its-secret-project-heaviside/ 100 mile range, one passenger / pilot. Autonomous capable. They describe the intended market as commuting, which sounds dumb.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 18:16
|
|
|
quote:Thrun says HVSD, which has a range of about 100 miles, can travel from San Jose to San Francisco in 15 minutes. There is only one operational helipad in the entire city of San Francisco, and it's on top of the UCSF hospital. Flying from KSJC to that helipad in 15 minutes is an average speed of 130 knots, which seems optimistic for an electric VTOL of that size. That's also a direct line through the SFO approach corridor so the real trip would probably be further, even assuming SFO let you transition through. quote:The aircraft can be flown autonomously or manually, but even then most of the tasks of flying are handled by the compute, not the human.  quote:Thrun tells me the interface will be simple to use like “pushing a button.” quote:Looking just at the weekday commute, an individual still manages to log 231 hours a year commuting. On Heaviside, Thrun says, it comes to 21 hours a year commuting. “That’s 10 times faster.” Literally the only case where this would be true is if you lived on a large estate in the country where you have the space in your back yard to hangar and launch a helicopter, but worked in the city at a huge corporation with a helipad on the roof, and were rich and powerful enough to get access to it for your commute. quote:The idea is for HVSD to be accessible to more than just the super rich and those who have a pilot license, Thrun says. oh, well, glad we cleared that up e: I just realized that when this guy says "super rich" he means billionaires, and that it will be accessible to normal people like him whose net worth is only a few tens of millions Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Oct 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 18:44
|
|
|
This thing will kill at least three Silicon Valley billionaires before they stop using them as  machines, so it needs IMMEDIATE funding.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 18:46
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:There is only one operational helipad in the entire city of San Francisco, and it's on top of the UCSF hospital. Maybe they meant SFO to SJC. In which case I wonder what the landing fees and taxiing/hold times would be
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 18:50
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Maybe they meant SFO to SJC. In which case I wonder what the landing fees and taxiing/hold times would be SFO is still a 30 minute drive from downtown SF, and more like double that in rush hour traffic, so that would be exceptionally pointless. Struggle through rush hour traffic from your house to SJC, park car #1 there, switch to the VTOL, fly 15 minutes (passing through 5 airports' airspaces on the way, presumably with the ~computer~ handling the radios), land at SFO, get in car #2, struggle through rush hour traffic the rest of the way to the city. A+
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 18:56
|
|
|
It doesn't have to make *sense*, it just has to be cool/new/kitchy enough to make billionaires want one. Or five.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 19:12
|
|
|
i really love how there's no human in that cockpit in the video lol it's just a big drone
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 19:59
|
|
|
Using helicopters to avoid traffic is something that already happens in some considerably less wealthy areas than San Francisco (Sao Paulo in particular). Millionaires being able to afford it as opposed to billionaires is, well, a 1000x improvement in affordability. There...doesn't really seem to be anything to be upset about here? Like either it works or it doesn't, and I'm very skeptical of electric aircraft, but if that's the business case it isn't terrible at first blush. Perhaps there are better markets than San Francisco but whatever. And maybe it would be better with normal helicopters rather than electric ones. As for lack of helipads: You can, in fact, build helipads, it is a thing people do from time to time. There are a bunch of disused piers in downtown SF that would make perfectly serviceable ones. Like set all of the whizbang technology disruption language poo poo aside for a minute. There are lots of people who will pay money to avoid traffic. There are some people who will pay lots of money to avoid traffic. If you can figure out how to use helicopters (electric or otherwise) to help those people avoid traffic then great, that's a sensible way to make money.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 20:46
|
|
|
It turns out buying a home closer to work is also a way to use money to avoid traffic. Even at SF real estate prices, I'm pretty sure housing is a better way to solve the problem than helicopter drones.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 20:51
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Using helicopters to avoid traffic is something that already happens in some considerably less wealthy areas than San Francisco (Sao Paulo in particular). Millionaires being able to afford it as opposed to billionaires is, well, a 1000x improvement in affordability. There...doesn't really seem to be anything to be upset about here? Like either it works or it doesn't, and I'm very skeptical of electric aircraft, but if that's the business case it isn't terrible at first blush. Perhaps there are better markets than San Francisco but whatever. And maybe it would be better with normal helicopters rather than electric ones. There's a whole lot of red tape and existing air traffic you're ignoring. You don't add a helipad by painting lines. And given the location, I expect lower tiers of government will be at least as large a pain in the rear end as the feds.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 21:10
|
|
|
Yes. Note that the UCSF helipad I mentioned only opened like four years ago; prior to that, there were zero helipads in the city, even on any of the hospitals, primarily because neighborhood associations like the Telegraph Hill Dwellers protest them on account of noise. Other major first-world cities also have severe restrictions on helicopter flight through the city core; q.v. NYC. I'd imagine that in Sao Paulo they don't have the San Francisco construction permitting structure where a gang of NIMBYs can shut down any development they dislike for years on end -- or they just solve everything through bribery. Mortabis posted:Like set all of the whizbang technology disruption language poo poo aside for a minute. There are lots of people who will pay money to avoid traffic. There are some people who will pay lots of money to avoid traffic. If you can figure out how to use helicopters (electric or otherwise) to help those people avoid traffic then great, that's a sensible way to make money. Alternately we could expand the CalTrain line from SJC to downtown SF into a high-speed rail corridor, which would be faster than a light aircraft anyway and support millions of people instead of dozens, but the millionaires would protest it because they don't want train noise in their picturesque Palo Alto suburb, and if built they'd refuse to take it anyway because they might have to temporarily coexist with a poor person. Electric VTOL aircraft experiments are good; I'm just making fun of their ridiculous business plan. If Burt Rutan were building this thing with NASA funding and an "idk, it's experimental" attitude I'd have no issues with it. This is a Google billionaire funding a whizbang "people will commute directly from their house to their workplace with this pushbutton autonomous flying car" technology disruption investor storytime, and that's just as ridiculous and stupid as it has been since the 1950s.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 21:27
|
|
|
Godholio posted:There's a whole lot of red tape and existing air traffic you're ignoring. You don't add a helipad by painting lines. And given the location, I expect lower tiers of government will be at least as large a pain in the rear end as the feds. That's wildly solvable. In Manhattan (bigger, denser, more populated, busier airspace) there are three heliports and a seaplane base on the East and Hudson rivers. Caravans on floats fly past my window every 20 minutes or so during the summer. People with means can get regulations changed super quickly if they want.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 21:34
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Using helicopters to avoid traffic is something that already happens in some considerably less wealthy areas than San Francisco (Sao Paulo in particular). Millionaires being able to afford it as opposed to billionaires is, well, a 1000x improvement in affordability. There...doesn't really seem to be anything to be upset about here? Like either it works or it doesn't, and I'm very skeptical of electric aircraft, but if that's the business case it isn't terrible at first blush. Perhaps there are better markets than San Francisco but whatever. And maybe it would be better with normal helicopters rather than electric ones. The solution to insufficient or inefficient public transit is not a massive carbon footprint special carveout for the very rich. Yes, one could use this line to suggest I’m asking to outlaw jet airliners in favor of only sailboats or something, but I’m not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 21:35
|
|
|
If I were a billionnaire wanting to escape traffic, I'd privately fund a comprehensive mass transit system with tramways and metros so that the streets can be emptied of most of the commuters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 21:52
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:If I were a billionnaire wanting to escape traffic, I'd privately fund a comprehensive mass transit system with tramways and metros so that the streets can be emptied of most of the commuters. I know no plutocrats, so forgive the ignorance of this question: Why not get a driver and a luxury car to commute in? Hell, you could be like Mitt Romney's dad and take naps while commuting. Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Oct 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 22:13
|
|
|
There are some people who do have a luxury van/office with a driver and an internet connection, and just go from meeting to meeting all day.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 00:16
|
|
|
Godholio posted:There's a whole lot of red tape and existing air traffic you're ignoring. You don't add a helipad by painting lines. And given the location, I expect lower tiers of government will be at least as large a pain in the rear end as the feds. Sagebrush posted:
mlmp08 posted:The solution to insufficient or inefficient public transit is not a massive carbon footprint special carveout for the very rich. Nebakenezzer posted:Why not get a driver and a luxury car to commute in? Definitely communism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 00:29
|
|
|
http://www.twinnavion.com/oddballs.htm Twin engine conversions of various single engine planes. On a phone and don't have the patience to put pics directly into the thread, if somebody wouldn't mind...
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 04:24
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:The solution to insufficient or inefficient public transit is not a massive carbon footprint special carveout for the very rich. It doesn't strike me as a special carveout, especially if they mainly hang out in class G airspace, and it's not, like, mutually exclusive with someone building transit (in fact it would probably serve a very different set of customers). Like most ideas it isn't solving some kind of grand social issue of the day. It's just, some people who have money want to pay money to not sit in traffic. e: I don't buy for a second that something like this would change the world. I just see it as plausible that costs on some VTOL aircraft or some kind, helicopters, "drones," whatever will come down due to technology and it'll become a more regular mode of transit for the wealthy. Mortabis fucked around with this message at 04:56 on Oct 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 04:40
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:It doesn't strike me as a special carveout, especially if they mainly hang out in class G airspace, and it's not, like, mutually exclusive with someone building transit (in fact it would probably serve a very different set of customers). Like most ideas it isn't solving some kind of grand social issue of the day. It's just, some people who have money want to pay money to not sit in traffic. What's your background in aviation?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 05:03
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:It doesn't strike me as a special carveout, especially if they mainly hang out in class G airspace,   Where? Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 05:30 on Oct 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 05:28
|
|
|
Oooh, now show him LA and London
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 06:00
|
|
|
 lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 13:47
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9g5TTGTuATA
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 14:15
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Where? y'know these maps scream for a layer tool on a tablet, but on the other hand of all the times you don't want your ipad to break trying to thread that needle of airspace restrictions is one of them one of those competing "this is essential that it works, but the UX, argh" debates I guess
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 18:20
|
|
|
 https://www.skipass.com/news/194448-avion-vs-telesiege.html A-6 remains the lift cable champion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 21:41
|
|
|
Okay, so aside from my possibly taking leave of my senses, is there anything else missing from this route that's worth seeing? Obviously I'd be cutting it up over 4-5 days, and the museum at Danville might be optional seeing as it's a doable day trip for me any time. And yes, I'd *like* to fit the Mighty Eighth museum in there, but I can't justify the detour to Savannah, and the Museum of Aviation at Warner-Robins AFB is certainly interesting, but doesn't have anything unique at it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 22:12
|
|
|
the naval aviation museum in pensacola is phenomenal, on par with udvar-hazy annex, and not far out of the way from mobile
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 22:18
|
|
|
There's space and rocket stuff in Huntsville.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 22:24
|
|
|
brains posted:the naval aviation museum in pensacola is phenomenal, on par with udvar-hazy annex, and not far out of the way from mobile BIIIIG plus one to this. It’s a must-see. Bonus points if you plan to be there Nov 8/9 for the Blue Angels homecoming air show at Pensacola NAS.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 22:27
|
|
|
brains posted:the naval aviation museum in pensacola is phenomenal, on par with udvar-hazy annex, and not far out of the way from mobile Yeah, I've been there, but not recently. I suppose I could make the trip Home > Atlanta > Pensacola > New Orleans > Huntsville > Home. Nothing at the museum at Barksdale is unique (other than one of the Vulcans) and the same can be said about the Southern Museum of Flight. I also don't mind doing 10-12h on the road - did it driving from DC to Ottawa. All I need is for my internet radio not to cut out and I can maintain my sanity. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Oct 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 22:52
|
|
|
joat mon posted:There's space and rocket stuff in Huntsville. Seeing the Saturn V is very cool
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 23:01
|
|
|
The museum in Birmingham is alright but I would definitely take the Pensacola museum or Space & Rocket Center over it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 23:06
|
|
|
Jalopnik flew on a helicopter taxi service in NYC that is probably financially viable
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 23:19
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Jalopnik flew on a helicopter taxi service in NYC that is probably financially viable How many times has the regular service JFK-Manhattan helicopter been tried?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 23:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 00:22 |
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:How many times has the regular service JFK-Manhattan helicopter been tried? It was profitable when the helicopters could go directly to helipads on buildings downtown. The New York Airways crash in 1977 put a stop to that, for better or worse. It will always be an extremely marginal business case when the first part of your “time saving helicopter flight” is catching an Uber through downtown New York.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 02:28
|
|