HelloIAmYourHeart posted:

Caitlin Doughty (Ask A Mortician)

Pennywise the Frown posted:

That's a coffee carafe, not hand sanitizer.

https://i.imgur.com/13KUrbl.mp4

Cojawfee posted:

Do you have any evidence of this? That doesn't make any sense. Nearly every fighter then had a long nose and was a tail dragger. I've never heard of any other plane requiring standing on the seat to land. Especially because landing would require yaw control and standing on the seat would mean the pilot couldn't operate the rudder pedals, nor could they operate the brakes. I did some cursory research, and it seems like a lot of planes were lost due to the configuration of the front landing gear being angled or something.

Ugly In The Morning posted:

Which one did you use? I did mine through Advance Online and it was brutally boring to actually get through but it did the job well enough.

Lake of Methane posted:

I dunno about leaving one's seat, but the FAA says, "In [tailwheel] aircraft that are completely blind ahead, all taxi movements should be started with a small turn to ensure no other plane or ground vehicle has positioned itself directly under the nose while the pilot’s attention was distracted with getting ready to takeoff. In taxiing such an airplane, the pilot should alternately turn the nose from one side to the other (zigzag) or make a series of short S-turns."

FuturePastNow posted:

I've seen that before but I just realized an Avenger pilot is sitting up higher than a semi driver

drgitlin posted:

Do you think USPS is the company doing same-day Amazon Prime delivery? There are private courier companies in the UK and I’m sure Canada too.

Cyrano4747 posted:

Have you met old people?

Powershift posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goSEyGNfiPM

We're gettin a CSB video game!

Lake of Methane posted:

I dunno about leaving one's seat, but the FAA says, "In [tailwheel] aircraft that are completely blind ahead, all taxi movements should be started with a small turn to ensure no other plane or ground vehicle has positioned itself directly under the nose while the pilot’s attention was distracted with getting ready to takeoff. In taxiing such an airplane, the pilot should alternately turn the nose from one side to the other (zigzag) or make a series of short S-turns."

Ixian posted:

No one disputes that and the practice continues with that type of aircraft configuration. It's the whole "stand on the seat even though that means you can't control the rudder pedals which is how you steer the plane on the ground" aspect that has those of us who have flown scratching our heads. Not to mention yaw control which is something you'll want to have available on a landing approach.

Ixian posted:

No one disputes that and the practice continues with that type of aircraft configuration. It's the whole "stand on the seat even though that means you can't control the rudder pedals which is how you steer the plane on the ground" aspect that has those of us who have flown scratching our heads. Not to mention yaw control which is something you'll want to have available on a landing approach.

Helen Highwater posted:

My source was an old Romanian fighter pilot who had flown Bf 109s post-war. He'd been invited over by my employer at that time to provide some historical context for a game that we made. He told us a bunch of super cool stories, one of which was how hard it was to land the 109, due to the extreme angle of attack and the very long landing gear. He was talking to us in Russian, which I don't speak super fluently, but I got the part about being outside the cockpit to get lined up. I guess he could have meant unstrapping and leaning real far out of the open canopy.

dog nougat posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcUm6buFlb8

Helen Highwater posted:

My source was an old Romanian fighter pilot who had flown Bf 109s post-war. He'd been invited over by my employer at that time to provide some historical context for a game that we made. He told us a bunch of super cool stories, one of which was how hard it was to land the 109, due to the extreme angle of attack and the very long landing gear. He was talking to us in Russian, which I don't speak super fluently, but I got the part about being outside the cockpit to get lined up. I guess he could have meant unstrapping and leaning real far out of the open canopy.

Powershift posted:

We're gettin a CSB video game!

Helen Highwater posted:

My source was an old Romanian fighter pilot who had flown Bf 109s post-war. He'd been invited over by my employer at that time to provide some historical context for a game that we made. He told us a bunch of super cool stories, one of which was how hard it was to land the 109, due to the extreme angle of attack and the very long landing gear. He was talking to us in Russian, which I don't speak super fluently, but I got the part about being outside the cockpit to get lined up. I guess he could have meant unstrapping and leaning real far out of the open canopy.

Cojawfee posted:

If there was a language barrier, it was likely the guy said something along the lines of "you pretty much had to stand on the seat in order to see where you were landing" which got lost in translation as "in order to land it, you have to stand on the seat". Idioms and sarcasm don't translate well.

DelphiAegis posted:

Gotcha. Fair point. And capitalism being what it is, the trucker's lobby to keep deisel prices down because otherwise doing so would cut into profits delivery of goods.

So normal poo poo hole American economics. Peachy.

Powershift posted:

chitoryu12 posted:

Rudder control is especially important because the propeller on that massive engine likes to drag the plane in one direction. The P-51 needs 6 degrees of rudder trim on takeoff because otherwise it’ll veer to the side when you put the throttle up.

Sagebrush posted:

Also a great post about the Zero.


It has everything to do with engine rotation, for four different reasons. They are grouped together in (western) pilot training as "left-turning tendencies," because nearly all western single-engine aircraft have the engine turning clockwise from the pilot's perspective, and in that situation the forces cause the airplane to prefer a left turn. If the engine and propeller turn counterclockwise, as in most Russian aircraft for instance, everything is reversed. I am not sure why Americans standardized on clockwise engines and Russians on counterclockwise, but it's just how things are. Russians also teach power for airspeed and pitch for altitude when landing so they're just all nuts



The first left-turning-tendency effect is simply propeller torque by Newton's third law. If you try to spin the propeller to the right (as viewed from the pilot's seat), the plane will roll left as the equal and opposite reaction, and if not counteracted this left roll will become a left turn.

The second effect is caused by the propeller slipstream. The propeller spinning clockwise creates a clockwise slipstream of air rotating around the plane. This pushes on the left side of the vertical stabilizer (and generally on the left side of the fuselage), directly yawing the plane to the left. If the vertical stabilizer were mounted under the plane (and there's no reason it couldn't be, other than needing stilt-like landing gear) this would become a right-turning effect instead.

Both of these effects occur in all phases of flight, meaning that single-engine aircraft need to be trimmed to compensate for it so you don't have to perpetually fly with one rudder pedal pressed. In most light aircraft this is done with a simple metal tab on the bottom of the rudder that the maintenance personnel bend to the right angle for that specific plane. This only works at one particular speed (usually they adjust it for normal cruise) but that isn't much of a problem given the type of flying. Fancier planes have pilot-controlled rudder trim so they can be trimmed up correctly for whatever speed the pilot wants to fly.



The third effect is called P-factor and only occurs when the airplane is in a nose-high attitude -- during takeoff or in a climb. Essentially, with the nose high, the ascending propeller blade has a shallower angle of attack (it takes a smaller "bite" out of the air) and produces less thrust than the descending blade, which has a greater effective angle of attack. If the engine turns clockwise then the descending blade is on the right; more thrust on the right side of the plane tends to pull the nose to the left.

The last effect is gyroscopic precession. When you have a spinning mass and you try to reorient its axis of rotation, the mass responds by creating a counter-torque that is offset 90 degrees around the axis of rotation. In stable flight you don't have to deal with gyroscopic effects of the engine and propeller because the axis of rotation is pointing in a consistent direction. When you pitch the plane up or down, though, you will experience a gyroscopic torque that pushes the nose one way or the other. Pitching down in a plane with a clockwise engine creates a torque to the left; tailwheel aircraft need to pitch down on takeoff to raise the tail off the ground, so they have an extra left-turning tendency in that moment. Nosewheel aircraft just pitch up to climb, which creates a slight right-turning force, but the rotation is subtle and not enough to compensate for the other three factors. Note that gyroscopic effects only happen as the plane is actually rotating, so once you pitch to your climb angle and hold it, that effect goes away.

All of these effects are further exacerbated by the aircraft flying slowly (since the stabilizers are less effective) and having the engine at high power (more torque, more slipstream, faster rotating mass, etc). Combined, it means that the plane quite noticeably wants to swing to the left on takeoff and climb-out, and if the pilot doesn't compensate properly, bad things can happen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eopl5QLQ5zs

As to the Zeros -- this effect is noticeable in any single-engine aircraft, but it isn't usually a big deal. A bit of right rudder at the correct time will handle it. In something like a Cessna 172 with 150hp and a 1600lb empty weight, you won't have any more trouble turning to the right than to the left. A Zero weighs twice as much as a 172 but has nine times the engine power, so in that circumstance yes you can have serious problems with aircraft control at certain times. Many WW2 fighters literally cannot use full power at the beginning of their takeoff roll, because without the airflow over the stabilizers the engine will flip the plane on its side.

LifeSunDeath posted:

Get ready to slide down through a 2 foot high shute into an abandoned mine with super janky supports eveywhere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xBv_mbbw64

ReelBigLizard posted:

I made my own PPE today. Trying to find solutions for second line medical staff and service workers locally. ER nearly ran out of face shields the other night.

https://twitter.com/boudloForge/status/1242981610913501185

ReelBigLizard posted:

I made my own PPE today. Trying to find solutions for second line medical staff and service workers locally. ER nearly ran out of face shields the other night.

https://twitter.com/boudloForge/status/1242981610913501185

Spaced God posted:

NTSB report on Nine-O-Nine is out

Collings hosed up so bad that they no longer are allowed to carry pax. This is frustrating and infuriating

Sagebrush posted:

oooooof. ima just pull some key lines from the report here

quote:

the evidence indicates that Collings did not train the crew chief who was onboard the B-17G that was involved in the accident on October 2, 2019. ... In an interview with the FAA on March 2, 2020, the crew chief verified that he received no initial training and was unaware of basic information concerning operations under the exemption. Instead, he only received on-the-job training

notable maintenance discrepancies existed with the B-17G, yet the Collings Director of Maintenance signed inspection records—dated as recently as September 23, 2019—indicating no findings of discrepancies. No records or evidence of the completion of periodic audits exist with regard to this aircraft. In addition, the pilot in command of the B-17G was also the Director of Maintenance; as a result, Collings did not have a structure to ensure adequate oversight of his decisions to conduct passenger-carrying operations

Regarding engine 4, to prevent the magneto “P” leads from separating from the magnetos, someone had attempted to rig the magneto leads in place with safety wire. Inspection and testing of engine 4 left magneto revealed the movement of the safety-wired lead caused grounding to the case, which rendered the magneto lead inoperative.

In addition, the right magneto of engine 4 was found unserviceable. The cam follower was worn beyond limits and the point gap was less than half the measurement required by service documents. When tested, the magneto produced weak or no spark to four of the nine cylinders.

All spark plugs were inspected and required cleaning and all electrode gaps were out of tolerance; therefore, further engine inspection indicated signs of detonation and associated damage

An inspection of engine 3 showed all spark plugs electrode gaps were out of tolerance, fouled, and revealed various signs of detonation. Further inspection of this engine revealed problems with the cylinders.

maintenance records indicate the removal of wires and no further repairs or adjustments, even though a wire was burned and arcing. ... The same record, as well as a record from the following day, indicates flights with passengers occurred in the aircraft.

bunch of idiot cowboys

withak posted:

loving hell this is bananas, why would anyone do this.