|
On the boat there was a funnel one of the watchstanders would commonly use for the same purpose, there was a little seawater valve that could be used for flushing it, and it was perfectly about waist height, plenty of water went through the tank it drained to, so there were no smell issues or anything. Obviously you are not supposed to be peeing into things not meant to recieve pee, but it was an open secret that it happens. Anyways, newly qualified officer is walking through the Engine Room on his tour, sees some moisture in the funnel, and tastes it to see if the seawater valve is leaking in front of the horrified watchstander who had recently relieved himself. I got to be the one to talk him out of making us repair the "leaking" valve, over the funnel with the salty "water"
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2020 22:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 22:00 |
|
|
Sagebrush posted:it's a moot point because he can't even reach the pedals with his legs extended. also the yoke seems to be broken because the pilot's handle is pulled out way further than the co-pilot's That sounds like someone bullshitting you; it's not like the cabin pressure dump actively sucks air out, so the best it can do is equalize with the outside air pressure. Which if you're up at altitude is a) very noticeable and b) very bad for people and equipment. What will happen is a guy in the back will let the pilots know he's getting up to use the piss tube, and about 30 seconds later the plane noses over into zero g. Experienced NFOs know to wait a little while before actually getting up to piss. It's also really loving cold back there, so the most common new guy mistake is not holding the drain valve open long enough to clear the tube once they're finished, which creates a nice frozen blockage for the next poor soul who tries to use it. e: VVVV yes
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2020 22:30
|
|
|
I assume the joke is you piss into it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2020 22:30
|
|
|
Man I love Curious Droids amount of research (including great stock footage) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fR-r6RR1nJM
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2020 16:35
|
|
|
My Relief Tube story: I worked on H-53s in the Navy. The relief tube is behind the pilot's seat, and because the tube flops around, it's got a twist of shear wire (.015" dead soft copper) around it. In flight, the pilot goes to use the tube, but the tube catches on the shear wire. He doesn't pull any harder, the wire doesn't break, and he just thinks the tube is too short. Upon landing, he writes a discrepancy: "Relief tube too short." The mechanic sees the report and travels to the aircraft. Slides the seat all the way up and forward (as per the procedure for checking tube length), then grabs the tube and pulls. Of course the shear wire breaks and the tube is noted to be long enough. He throws another loop of shear wire on the tube and heads back to the shop, signing off the discrepancy: "Relief tube check 4.0. Length sufficient for enlisted prick." This discrepancy is signed off by the inspector, workcenter supervisor, and maintenance control and is entered into the logbook. It is then deleted from the history of everything, so that only the paper copy is in the book. A good laugh is subsequently had by all when the pilot reports the next day to find his discrepancy signed off. That paper copy stays in the book for 56 days, and EVERY PILOT was sure to check it and get a subtle laugh.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2020 21:49
|
|
|
I remember a joke about a pee-tot tube.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2020 07:42
|
|
|
So this morning at work I saw some or the other four engine (I think) plane in Air Force gray doing maneuvers at relatively low altitude quite a ways out from any airport. Is there anywhere that stores ADS-B records so you can trace back through them later and find out what you were looking at?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2020 20:15
|
|
|
EvenWorseOpinions posted:So this morning at work I saw some or the other four engine (I think) plane in Air Force gray doing maneuvers at relatively low altitude quite a ways out from any airport. Is there anywhere that stores ADS-B records so you can trace back through them later and find out what you were looking at? Flightradar24, although the interface isn't super intuitive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2020 20:53
|
|
|
You probably won't be able to see any AF aircraft online anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2020 21:55
|
|
|
Zero One posted:You probably won't be able to see any AF aircraft online anyway. Not true, unless they're in a military range, which doesn't sound like it's the case. Edit: V Ok that might change things. But military aircraft in civilian airspace have to do all the standard squawks and reporting as anyone else, and since they transit on the same routes as everyone else it'd be dangerous otherwise. But app display is a different thing, I guess. I've definitely seen it, but couldn't tell you which app. Godholio fucked around with this message at 00:00 on Aug 16, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2020 23:51
|
|
|
I think it's flightradar that will hide stuff if asked/paid. ADSB exchange is unfiltered.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2020 23:55
|
|
|
EvenWorseOpinions posted:So this morning at work I saw some or the other four engine (I think) plane in Air Force gray doing maneuvers at relatively low altitude quite a ways out from any airport. Is there anywhere that stores ADS-B records so you can trace back through them later and find out what you were looking at? Four engines and "air force gray" makes me think KC-135.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 00:47
|
|
|
Maybe we're in the same neck of the woods because yesterday I saw a C-130 doing low loops over the freeway near Stewart International Airport. It was pretty cool and seemed kinda dangerous considering the bank angles they were hitting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 01:24
|
|
|
eggyolk posted:Maybe we're in the same neck of the woods because yesterday I saw a C-130 doing low loops over the freeway near Stewart International Airport. It was pretty cool and seemed kinda dangerous considering the bank angles they were hitting. Just LMAO if you can't handle your plane at 60 degrees angle of bank, minimum.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 01:47
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Four engines and "air force gray" makes me think KC-135. the only four engined AF plane I can think of that’d do low level stuff is a C-130
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 01:59
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Just LMAO if you can't handle your plane at 60 degrees angle of bank, minimum. Hell yeah, "Bud"!
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 02:01
|
|
|
An empty C-130J is pretty sporty. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbwM-nBKVaI
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 02:05
|
|
|
e.pilot posted:the only four engined AF plane I can think of that’d do low level stuff is a C-130
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 02:25
|
|
|
e.pilot posted:the only four engined AF plane I can think of that’d do low level stuff is a C-130 The AF still does touch and goes in real airplanes instead of sims like it’s 1975.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 03:13
|
|
|
Ambihelical Hexnut posted:An empty C-130J is pretty sporty. On a related tangent, there are a few modified E-2C airframes known as TE-2C's, dedicated for pilot training, that have virtually all the radar and communications equipment removed. As a result they're several thousand pounds lighter and are, relatively speaking, goddamn rocket ships. They still have the rotodome on top, but internally anything not required for safety of flight got stripped out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 03:24
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:On a related tangent, there are a few modified E-2C airframes known as TE-2C's, dedicated for pilot training, that have virtually all the radar and communications equipment removed. As a result they're several thousand pounds lighter and are, relatively speaking, goddamn rocket ships. They still have the rotodome on top, but internally anything not required for safety of flight got stripped out. Tinker used to have some old 707s (no dome, but allegedly that doesn't make much of a difference) for the same purpose, but now they just put the hours on the real E-3s.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 04:12
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:The AF still does touch and goes in real airplanes instead of sims like it’s 1975. On nearly any given day at KBGR, you can see (at a minimum) a KC-135 or three bouncing unless they're all deployed, and often we'll have C-17s, C-5s, and somewhat less often C-130s in the pattern. We have a ~10,000 foot runway and an ANG base that the heavies like to come up and play on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 04:29
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:The AF still does touch and goes in real airplanes instead of sims like it’s 1975. I was flying out of MCI a couple years back and there was some random E-6 doing touch and goes. I saw them do a couple while we were taxiing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 05:43
|
|
|
Speaking of touch and go's, I used to work near Haeco (formerly Timco before they got bought by a Chinese company) when they did a lot of maintenance for AF birds out of GSO. C-17, C-130, KC-135, even AF-1's that were out of rotation. Having to convince the folks I worked with that in fact, no, the president isn't doing laps was tiresome 
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 13:15
|
|
|
I lived near Stratton ANG base (where they keep the C-130s with skis) and they’d practice touch and gos three times a week or so for a few hours. Every ten minutes on the dot, *BRRRRRRRRRRMMMMMMMMMM* right overhead
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 14:12
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:On a related tangent, there are a few modified E-2C airframes known as TE-2C's, dedicated for pilot training, that have virtually all the radar and communications equipment removed. As a result they're several thousand pounds lighter and are, relatively speaking, goddamn rocket ships. They still have the rotodome on top, but internally anything not required for safety of flight got stripped out. i should ask my sister-in-law about this, I think she trained in FL and flies C-130s, my sister flies KC-135s but apparently not for much longer because she's senior enough to get strapped to a desk
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 14:40
|
|
|
fknlo posted:I was flying out of MCI a couple years back and there was some random E-6 doing touch and goes. I saw them do a couple while we were taxiing. I've watched them do this on ADS-B a few times. They'll do it at random airports and also military airstrips - saw one do touch-and-gos at Harrisburg's airport, and also at Fairchild AFB. Sometimes you can get the tower frequency and listen to them when they're doing the ovular departure and approach track.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 18:52
|
|
|
So having watched the curious droid video on the eternally cool AH-56 Cheyene, after the part about the mast bumping(?) accident where the main rotor struck the tail and the cockpit, I had a random thought. If the mast had been taller the rotor couldn't have reached anything to hit. Q: how aerodynamicly inefficient is it to make helicopters have longer mast? Why do some helicopter designs have their rotors closer to the airframe than others, f.i. the Commanche or the EC135? How much extra drag would you get from having a longer mast on those? Like I'm sure they get more maneuverability from having the pivot point closer to center of gravity, but is it also more aerodynamicly efficient? Is it enough that it matters?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 20:23
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:I've watched them do this on ADS-B a few times. They'll do it at random airports and also military airstrips - saw one do touch-and-gos at Harrisburg's airport, and also at Fairchild AFB. Sometimes you can get the tower frequency and listen to them when they're doing the ovular departure and approach track. On the AF side, it's an annual training requirement to do it at different airfields. I'd expect the Navy has something similar.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 20:30
|
|
|
ThisIsJohnWayne posted:So having watched the curious droid video on the eternally cool AH-56 Cheyene, after the part about the mast bumping(?) accident where the main rotor struck the tail and the cockpit, I had a random thought. If the mast had been taller the rotor couldn't have reached anything to hit. I’m eagerly awaiting the response to this. Any day Ambilical Hexnut effort-posts is a good day.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 22:15
|
|
|
Godholio posted:On the AF side, it's an annual training requirement to do it at different airfields. I'd expect the Navy has something similar. There's no explicit requirement to use different airfields, but pilots generally seek out different places because it's less boring and better training value.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 22:24
|
|
|
Godholio posted:On the AF side, it's an annual training requirement to do it at different airfields. I'd expect the Navy has something similar. What, like hit up a different carrier?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 23:43
|
|
|
The Navy just does topless beach volleyball.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2020 00:35
|
|
|
ThisIsJohnWayne posted:So having watched the curious droid video on the eternally cool AH-56 Cheyene, after the part about the mast bumping(?) accident where the main rotor struck the tail and the cockpit, I had a random thought. If the mast had been taller the rotor couldn't have reached anything to hit. Mast bumping is a phenomenon where helicopters with semi-rigid underslug rotor systems (news chopper 5) reach the travel limits of the hub and physical contact occurs between the hub and the mast. This is very good at causing the main rotor to separate from the mast which has a negative impact on crew survivability. This is why those type of rotor systems cannot perform low-G maneuvers as unloading the weight of the fuselage makes it free to flop around. As I understand it what happened with the Cheyenne, whose fully rigid rotor system meant blade flapping occurs as physical bending of the rotor blade (as opposed to independent hinging in a fully articulated or coupled hinging in a semi-rigid system), is: quote:The fourth AH-56 (s/n 66-8828) was another similar Cheyenne used for in-flight testing. This aircraft was involved in a fatal crash, killing test pilot Dave Beil, on March 12th, 1969. Number four's loss was attributed to an uncontrollable oscillation of the main rotor that had dropped down into Biel's cockpit as well as the tail rotor, dooming the aircraft So the blades flexed beyond their intended down limits, hitting the cockpit and tailboom, as a result of an oscillation resulting from some peculiarity of the design or flight regime. What if we made the mast much longer? Well there are a few challenges: First, the mast length represents a moment arm between the main rotor, where aerodynamic, gyroscopic, and driveshaft torque forces are manifesting, and the drivetrain/fuselage, which represent 80-90% of the weight of the aircraft. The mast and its interface with the rotor system and airframe are where you find maximum beef. Helicopters are inherently heavier and more complex than planes, and the Cheyenne has like six tons of metal and four thousand horsepower hanging on the bottom of that mast, so every inch longer it gets means higher potential forces manifesting against the mast interfaces, which likely means things need to be beefier and heavier, and on you go. Probably changes the forces required by that gyrodoodle, too. Second challenge, a much smaller one, is that yes the longer mast changes the aerodynamic situation and increases your flat plate / parasite drag as it increases the non lift producing surface area of the aircraft. Finally, most importantly, there is a physical material limit to how far those rigid blades can bend. Even if you added 10 more feet to the mast, the Cheyenne's rigging or design peculiarities leading to an oscillation that results in uncontrollable downflap would just mean that instead of the rotor blade crashing through the cockpit intact, it would snap apart first. Loss of more than a small percentage of a main rotor blade is effectively like loss of an entire wing on an airplane, since all your retreating blade lift is being produced by the extreme end of the blade. See the retreating blade stall diagram:  The retreating half of the rotor disc must produce lift with the non-stalled tip region of its blade that equals the lift produced by the entire length of the advancing blade. Flapping blades up as they advance and down as they retreat is the mechanical trick that lets you increase the angle of attack on the retreating side and decrease it on the advancing side. Whether the rotor system is fully rigid (flaps by flexing), fully articulated (flaps by independent hinges), or semi-rigid (flaps by one shared hinge), a mechanical limit bounds how fast you can go before retreating blade stall. The Cheyenne's mechanical design enabled a higher RBS onset speed, and the pusher prop and wings allowed the aircraft to actually reach that speed in not a dive with low aerodynamic loading on the main rotor. All that is a rambly way of saying I think they had other problems to solve, and defense nerds love looking fondly upon misfit aircraft of years past. But I don't know that much about the Cheyenne, so someone else feel free to rip me apart. Also gently caress whatever engineer thought that a guy staring down an optical gunsight in a helicopter going 200mph at treetop level would also want to physically spin his body in a 360.  MrYenko posted:I’m eagerly awaiting the response to this. Any day Ambilical Hexnut effort-posts is a good day. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2020 01:00
|
|
|
Ambihelical Hexnut posted:Effort 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2020 05:06
|
|
|
That Sam Chui guy just did a new video on an LH 747-8i from LAX to FRA and drat is it cringey in places. I mean, pre-COVID he would get *right* in the personal space of female flight attendants, but I'm really surprised the crew let him get away with his "I'm a famous YouTube influencer" poo poo traipsing around the plane needlessly and chatting up/interfering with crew and service in the galleys, which is usually really high up on the "I'm a flight attendant and here's what you should NEVER DO if you don't want us to absolutely hate you" lists. The video in question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzO86ipXK2o Sure, he's got a mask on most of the time, but maybe stay out of the loving galleys and maybe skip the chat with the pilots. I mean, I'll always geek out on a good approach video like one toward the end of the video, but ugh to the rest. Flight attendants and pilots should be allowed to be as distant from people as possible since they could so easily become super spreaders. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2020 06:20
|
|
|
Since that derecho from last week is making national news I guess I’ll post this, I landed on the backside of it AMA.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2020 07:17
|
|
|
e.pilot posted:Since that derecho from last week is making national news I guess I’ll post this, I landed on the backside of it AMA. Do you qualify as a submersible pilot now? drat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2020 08:40
|
|
|
CAUTION WAKE TURBULENCE
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2020 08:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 22:00 |
|
|
priznat posted:Do you qualify as a submersible pilot now? drat. We actually didn’t go through too much precip surprisingly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2020 13:08
|
|