|
hobbesmaster posted:Not thinking big enough... Nah, that would just cut into Boeing's CMV-22 sales at this point.
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 23:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 11:41 |
|
|
Sagebrush posted:so which is more likely at this stage? I predict the cost of aluminum beverage cans will drop precipitously
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 23:49
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Only if they rename it the Pelican...on account of it diving into the water unexpectedly. Easier to find subs that way. Tappinghead.gif
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 23:52
|
|
|
There's about $70 billion tied up in the 737 MAX program between already manufactured airframes and capital/tooling, that truly is in too big to fail territory so I don't think the max is gonna get canceled. Will it fly before I lose my job/the company I work for goes bankrupt? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 01:17
|
|
|
Non-Boeing: The FAA is now hunting for formations of mystery drones over Colorado and Nebraska
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 02:45
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:so which is more likely at this stage? c) The 737 MAX reenters service, but it’s no safer than other planes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 02:52
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Non-Boeing: The FAA is now hunting for formations of mystery drones over Colorado and Nebraska The sound of the props make it sound bigger than a consumer hobby unit, but  How big and high does something have to be before it's picked up on radar? slidebite fucked around with this message at 03:06 on Jan 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 02:57
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Non-Boeing: The FAA is now hunting for formations of mystery drones over Colorado and Nebraska quote:On Tuesday, January 7, a Flight for Life medical helicopter pilot nearly collided with a suspected drone after flying within 100 feet of an unidentified small aircraft. Pilot Kirk Peebles and his crew were responding to a routine medical call near Fort Morgan, Colorado northeast of Denver when the close call occurred. Peebles told NBC affiliate 9News.com that the drone flyby happened so fast his crew didn’t have time to respond or identify what type of aircraft it was. "A drone just went right under us," he said. "Probably about 100 feet."
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 02:58
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Edit: and Apollo 1 situation was:
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 03:02
|
|
|
What if Jerry bought a drone?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 03:07
|
|
|
simplefish posted:Thanks, I was thinking more what led to these decisions being made. MCAS was all about keeping type rating, what was going on here? A lot of individual factors that all summed together to make a disaster. 1) the capsules ran at a 100% oxygen atmosphere in space, so they stuck with that during pad tests as well. The problem is that in space it was at a much lower total pressure with a correspondingly lower and safer partial pressure of O2. After Apollo 1 they redesigned the pressurization regime so that it was a regular mix at sea level that gradually reduced and changed to pure O2 during ascent. 1a) fun fact, the Gemini missions launched with sea-level pure O2 mixtures in the cabins, which meant that if they ever actually had to use the ejection seats to escape the capsule the astronauts would most likely have been incinerated. Or if there had been any kind of Apollo 1 style fire. 2) velcro is fantastically useful for sticking items to the wall in zero G. It's also fantastically flammable, especially in a high-pressure pure O2 environment. They had a lot of velcro around in the early capsule designs. Though a whole lot of stuff is extremely flammable at 15+ psi of pure O2. 3) generally hasty design and build process to keep the program on track. 4) it's been a while since I read up on the hatch design so I don't remember for sure. It was either something like the hatch was basically bolted shut from the outside, or just that the pressure differential in a pressurized capsule made it impossible to open (since it opened inward, fighting against the cabin pressure like most airliner doors).
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 03:16
|
|
|
simplefish posted:Thanks, I was thinking more what led to these decisions being made. MCAS was all about keeping type rating, what was going on here? They were building a first of its kind craft, with techniques, materials, and systems that had never been used before.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 03:19
|
|
|
MRC48B posted:They were building a first of its kind craft, with techniques, materials, and systems that had never been used before. "can we spend very little money making a new aircraft mimic an old one?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 03:28
|
|
|
Boeing is going to have to swallow it's pride. Label the max a new type. Over engineer MCAS (probably can't remove it), then over train on it. It's the only solution. The ship has sailed on retaining type certification and skipping training. They've got to do some big change to these planes to make them "new" then they're going to have to hand out sim time like crazy. It really feels like any solution that isn't a variety of this is DOA.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 03:32
|
|
|
slidebite posted:How big and high does something have to be before it's picked up on radar? Even if those show up on radar it's just going to be a random primary that pretty much no one is going to pay attention to. Low airspace is generally littered with random primaries.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 03:32
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:4) it's been a while since I read up on the hatch design so I don't remember for sure. It was either something like the hatch was basically bolted shut from the outside, or just that the pressure differential in a pressurized capsule made it impossible to open (since it opened inward, fighting against the cabin pressure like most airliner doors). It was a plug-type door that opened inward and could not be opened against interior pressure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 03:33
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:c) The 737 MAX reenters service, but it’s no safer than other planes. Even if Boeing 100% fixes MCAS (lol), a 737MAX will eventually crash for some completely unrelated reason and we'll get to enjoy this safety panic all over again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 03:37
|
|
|
FunOne posted:Boeing is going to have to swallow it's pride. Label the max a new type. Over engineer MCAS (probably can't remove it), then over train on it. My understanding is that the stall characteristics that MCAS was supposed to augment are not unacceptable in a new aircraft. It’s just that they are markedly different than 737 Classic/NG characteristics. If the MAX gets a new type certificate with commensurate pilot training, there’s no reason MCAS cannot be excised. At that point, deleting MCAS is killing two birds with one stone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 03:38
|
|
|
At that point though, the primary selling point for the aircraft goes right out the window and airlines have no reason to build fleets of them (especially not now.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 03:50
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:At that point though, the primary selling point for the aircraft goes right out the window and airlines have no reason to build fleets of them (especially not now.) Well, it is supposedly still like 2% more fuel efficient than an A320neo, and Airbus' line is backed up for years. Requiring a new type rating would change the calculus, but it might still be better than "fly old expensive planes, or nothing, for years while our competitors get the edge."
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 04:07
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Laypeople with zero frame of reference trying to identify size and speed of something in the sky is hard enough, let a lone at night. That sounds like a muffled 4-stroke internal-combustion engine. Like a small Rotax. I've flown smaller drones (DJI units; I own a Mavic, and flew a Phanton 4 Pro for work) and those so silent above 40-50-feet. I had a roof surveyed by a pilot operating a larger DJI (Inspire) and it would be soundless above 100-feet. When I flew R/C aircraft (2-stroke .60), they were soundless beyond about 200-yards. Whatever this is, it's not far off the ground.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 04:14
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Some of the stuff it quotes is dubious. The part about previous test flights all failing and both main and backup parachutes failing is undisputed, however. The truly hosed thing is that at 1 atm of pure O2, fire hazards aside, they would've all had collapsing lungs and brain damage by the time they got to the moon. I guess the life support guys and the dive-tank-trainer guys didn't trade notes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 04:20
|
|
|
They would have vented it down to 3psi in space, resulting in the same partial pressure of O2 as sea level Earth atmo. They only had it at 15psi cause they were doing a test, which included sealing for launch. The capsule wasn't designed to create and maintain a 12psi negative pressure, because it never would have needed that in operation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 04:39
|
|
|
The whole MAX debacle is an excellent opportunity for everyone to assess how they can cut down on their own flying.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 11:12
|
|
|
fknlo posted:Even if those show up on radar it's just going to be a random primary that pretty much no one is going to pay attention to. Low airspace is generally littered with random primaries. Pretty much this. When the radar filters get screwy, and the atmosphere is juuuuust right, sometimes you can see trucks on I75 going across the state.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 11:37
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Laypeople with zero frame of reference trying to identify size and speed of something in the sky is hard enough, let a lone at night. slidebite posted:How big and high does something have to be before it's picked up on radar? PainterofCrap posted:I've flown smaller drones (DJI units; I own a Mavic, and flew a Phanton 4 Pro for work) and those so silent above 40-50-feet. The noise also really depends on disc loading. An Ag or large cine drone with no payload can be bizarrely quiet. evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 13:51 on Jan 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 13:46
|
|
|
Big drones are loving creepy. I kind of want to see what kind of mind destroying poo poo Boston Dynamics would come up with.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 14:31
|
|
|
Ola posted:The whole MAX debacle is an excellent opportunity for everyone to assess how they can cut down on their own flying. I suspect the continuing trend of budget airlines going bust might do that first
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 14:45
|
|
|
PainterofCrap posted:That sounds like a muffled 4-stroke internal-combustion engine. Like a small Rotax. My coworker has a Zenair with a 4cyl rotax (muffled of course) and on a quiet day I can here that thing from over a mile away, easily. fknlo posted:Even if those show up on radar it's just going to be a random primary that pretty much no one is going to pay attention to. Low airspace is generally littered with random primaries.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 17:50
|
|
|
lol that “drone” in the WOWT video is almost certainly a PC12, I’d know that light pattern and sound anywhere. https://www.wowt.com/content/news/CAUGHT-ON-CAMERA-Recent-drone-phenomenon-spotted-in-Saunders-County-566798651.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 18:31
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:... would commenting about the army wanting a ground attack plane be in bad taste? ... Yeah, horrible taste. You really wouldn't need to modify MCAS that much to just create a new pilotless 737 Kamikaze edition. Just like 50 lines of code it's already halfway done.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 18:35
|
|
|
e.pilot posted:lol that “drone” in the WOWT video is almost certainly a PC12, I’d know that light pattern and sound anywhere. That's quite the "drone" lmao
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 20:54
|
|
|
They need to get ADS-B receivers out there when they're drone watching.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 20:56
|
|
|
The weird thing about these drones is if it's some sort of weird secret operation then why are they using big rear end nav and strobe lights? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 22:52
|
|
|
What if it's all just been normal airplanes all along, because people are loving idiots. WHHHHAAAAAT IS THAAAT, IT'S A VEEEE
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 23:00
|
|
|
e.pilot posted:lol that “drone” in the WOWT video is almost certainly a PC12, I’d know that light pattern and sound anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 23:22
|
|
|
remember when there was that repeated "drone invasion" at that airport in the UK and it eventually turned out to be either the light on top of a radio antenna or a plastic bag
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 23:29
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:remember when there was that repeated "drone invasion" at that airport in the UK and it eventually turned out to be either the light on top of a radio antenna or a plastic bag Actually, yeah, now that you mention it Here's a link: Bombardier future bleak says wealth manager I'm a little confused about what's happened with the C300/A220, since I know it's happening and the whole 737 thing makes me thing it is a buyer's market for the new guy quote:"They bet the company really on the C series jets," Baskin said, "and now it's going to be worth zero for them. They don't have the financial resources to make continuing contributions to the project." But I link this mostly for the subheading 'Competence is Now in Question' quote:Bombardier has depended on billions of dollars in contributions from the governments of Canada and Quebec in order to keep going and keep the controlling families in charge, Baskin said, despite what he called "arguably gross mismanagement."
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 23:46
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Actually, yeah, now that you mention it Selling (effectively) the entire C series project to Airbus and selling off the CRJ to Mitsubishi feels kinda like selling the seed corn in retrospect. I guess they have.... streetcars? edit: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-21/bombardier-is-said-to-explore-combining-rail-unit-with-alstom nope bombardier appears to effectively be dead 
hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 23:57 on Jan 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 23:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 11:41 |
|
|
Their streetcar division is more hosed than their aircraft division lately. NYC is about an inch from suing them and Toronto has had nothing but problems. That company is the darling or Quebec and the only reason they still exist is because of government handouts. Let them die.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 23:59
|
|