|
monkeytennis posted:3 pack of tankers meeting a doomsday plane (I think?) over the Black Sea. Yep, E4B is the “poo poo is about to nuke the fan” plane.
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2021 00:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 09:18 |
|
|
e.pilot posted:I flew a plane for fun for the first time in like 4 years last night. Weird seeing the city like that, I had to pull up google maps to straighten out your view in my head. Looks like you had a super gorgeous day to go joyriding 
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2021 01:30
|
|
|
monkeytennis posted:3 pack of tankers meeting a doomsday plane (I think?) over the Black Sea. QID can also be used for RC-135s. TITAN is also the callsign for the 340th Weapons Squadron that does B-52H training out of Barksdale. E-4B has a *shitload* of callsigns and you can look some of them up here (it's not a full list): https://henney.com/chm/callsign.htm BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 01:47 on Mar 22, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2021 01:44
|
|
|
e.pilot posted:I flew a plane for fun for the first time in like 4 years last night. You picked a fabulous day for it, not to mention the locale. How'd it feel?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2021 03:54
|
|
|
Today I was in Grand Junction, CO and I saw a Delta 737 landing. I thought this was quite odd, because it’s a small regional airport. I looked it up and saw it was DL907 from Nashville to Salt Lake City, but shows as diverted. It looks like it almost got there, but turned back to land in Grand Junction. Why might this have happened?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2021 04:10
|
|
|
LibCrusher posted:Did the panel and switch lights get brighter as some auto-brightness response to the flash? It's probably the phone auto-adjusting the exposure.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2021 04:19
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Always a good idea to do meth on an airplane Seriously, of all the mind-altering substances to partake of while packed in with a ton of other people with no escape for hours, I know *I* want the one that will make me twitchy and high-strung!
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2021 04:23
|
|
|
~Coxy posted:It's probably the phone auto-adjusting the exposure. Why would the phone make everything brighter? If anything, the auto-exposure after a lightning strike should make the image darker. I think it actually is the panel illumination adjusting to the flash. I'm not familiar with the 787 cockpit of course but the auto-brightness on the glass panels I have used is pretty darn quick to respond.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2021 04:26
|
|
|
PainterofCrap posted:You picked a fabulous day for it, not to mention the locale. How'd it feel? Pretty good, 172s are slow.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2021 04:28
|
|
|
0toShifty posted:Today I was in Grand Junction, CO and I saw a Delta 737 landing. I thought this was quite odd, because it’s a small regional airport. I looked it up and saw it was DL907 from Nashville to Salt Lake City, but shows as diverted. It looks like it almost got there, but turned back to land in Grand Junction. Why might this have happened? FlightAware has them departing again 40 minutes later and they diverted in the middle of cruise without any extra maneuvering. No idea, if it was a medical emergency or the like landing direct at SLC would’ve been faster. http://flightaware.com/live/flight/DAL907/history/20210321/1237Z/KBNA/KGJT http://flightaware.com/live/flight/DAL907/history/20210321/1630Z/KGJT/KSLC
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2021 04:32
|
|
|
Some serious Type 2 fun happening in that cockpit
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2021 06:41
|
|
|
charliemonster42 posted:Some serious Type 2 fun happening in that cockpit Is it just me or do the displays glitch during the flash?! I can't tell if that's a near miss or a strike. Looks like a near miss.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2021 08:07
|
|
|
Stream of consciousness incoming! So, originally I was thinking about going directly for a PPL. This weekend I'll be having a try out with another flight school that also does LAPL. On the phone, the guy was urging me to consider starting with LAPL instead of PPL. And there are some points in favor of that. First, he explained that I could do the LAPL and then continue my way towards PPL at my own leisure. LAPL planes are cheaper to rent and I don't want more than one passenger at all for a while anyway. And while it's not an international license, it works all across Europe. Finally, once I started looking more closely for smaller airfields and clubs in my area, I found a bunch of light air plane and microlight clubs, so plane availability doesn't seem that big of an issue as I thought. So, I'm thinking, why not? I might have to do another medical and do a little more coursework in order to get a PPL to haul a family around. But transitioning through PPL doesn't sound like bad idea at all. Am I missing anything?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2021 20:31
|
|
|
LAPL must be a European thing, right? In the USA, the Light Sport and Recreational pilot's licenses are generally considered not a great deal. Yes, it's a little less training and it's a bit cheaper, but those licenses have some pretty severe restrictions on where and how you can fly. If you're planning on flying regularly after you get your license (and why wouldn't you?) then you should just spend a little more up front and get the full PPL. The main benefit of the "smaller" licenses in the USA is reduced medical requirements, which is great for people who can't pass or are worried about passing the regular medical exam. In other countries, though, I understand that the smaller licenses are often more open and the basic PPL is more restricted (for instance in Canada I know you need a separate rating to fly at night, while in the USA it's part of the PPL). So it might well be worthwhile going that way. There are definitely some Canadian pilots in here but I don't know about any European ones. Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 22:44 on Mar 22, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2021 20:42
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:LAPL must be a European thing, right? Might be that LAPL is primarily European, the license doesn't allow flying outside of EU in in any case. The most severe restrictions compared to PPL seem to be: no IFR, max. weight 2 tons, max. 3 passengers, no instructing. Both PPL and LAPL require a 5h course for a night flying qualification. So, for VFR flyring with smaller planes like a Cessna 172, Cirrus or Diamond 40, LAPL/PPL doesn't seem to matter. Bigger planes are out of reach and necessity for me anyhow. And if I look at the schools that emphasize LAPL, their little planes are a bunch cheaper to rent and charter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2021 22:33
|
|
|
So I looked it up because I was curious and here's a decent website with the differences. http://leicesterairport.com/flight-training/ppl-lapl-comparison/ Since you're unlikely to be trying to fly anything heavier than 2000kg or with more than 3 passengers at this stage, the most relevant differences are that the LAPL has 30 hours of required training vs the PPL's 45, and the medical exam is perhaps less stringent (it's different, anyway). You can get a tailwheel, complex, etc. endorsements but you cannot get a multi-engine or instrument rating unless you do the additional training and checkride to upgrade to a PPL first. Basically it does seem like it's just a somewhat shorter and cheaper license if your goal is to fly your friends around in a single-engine plane in day VFR. The big question is just whether you can finish in 30 hours, I guess. e: beaten, but yeah
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2021 22:44
|
|
|
Kesper North posted:Is it just me or do the displays glitch during the flash?! I can't tell if that's a near miss or a strike. Looks like a near miss. Its the phones camera auto-correcting to the super bright flash of the lightening, nothing more.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2021 23:51
|
|
|
McDeth posted:Its the phones camera auto-correcting to the super bright flash of the lightening, nothing more. It seems to me a bright flash of light would cause the phone to lower the exposure, not increase it. The displays adjusting to the brightness seems more likely.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2021 23:59
|
|
|
If you're looking into the differences between licenses, look very closely as the skill requirements for each, and see what's missing from the LAPL compared to the PPL. My biggest criticism of the Canadian recreational pilot permit is that a lot of the differences are... things you really ought to know and feel confident about, as any kind of pilot no matter what you want to do. I'm not sure about the LAPL, but I would look very carefully about what the actual differences in training are, not just the number of hours you need, because above all else, you should want to be a safe and competent pilot. And, within reason, you should be able to do a PPL at the schools that promote the LAPL, in the same cheaper aircraft provided it's not an ultralight or something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2021 02:56
|
|
|
https://simpleflying.com/next-generation-widebody-low-emissions/amp/
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2021 17:59
|
|
|
They didn't even bother to put the landing gear up in their render
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2021 18:00
|
|
|
quote:The principle of the aircraft is embedded not only in its unusual tri-wing design but also in its construction. Rather than being fabricated from bolted-together panels, the SE200 features a monocoque design, meaning it is molded from one single piece of composite. This, the company says, will reduce fatigue and make the aircraft safer for passengers. lol at everything in that article. Their website is even funnier  https://www.seaeronautics.com/ Mach 0.9 with those wings huh. edit: awww I can't hotlink that. the uri is pretty drat funny though in and of itself though! hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 18:10 on Mar 23, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2021 18:06
|
|
|
I like how their 3D model apparently doesn't have a way to hide the landing gear
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2021 18:12
|
|
|
They figured it out on this page https://www.seaeronautics.com/engineering
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2021 18:14
|
|
|
I've built that in KSP works better if you make all the wings biplane wings.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2021 18:17
|
|
|
Why in the gently caress triplane wings
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2021 18:25
|
|
|
Don't long range flights require at least two engines for redundancy?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2021 18:29
|
|
|
Yeah, that's insanity, alright.  E: They apparently claim a second engine below the exposed one lordofthefishes fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Mar 23, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2021 18:31
|
|
|
yeah there's no way that's not just a uni student's design project
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2021 18:34
|
|
|
Lord Stimperor posted:Don't long range flights require at least two engines for redundancy? I mean, only if you're afraid of swimming or something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2021 18:45
|
|
|
Maybe it can glide for 180 minutes
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2021 18:54
|
|
|
lordofthefishes posted:E: They apparently claim a second engine below the exposed one yeah, you can see a scoop duct for it on the side fuselage, which i'm sure is just as efficient as the standard turbofan up above
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2021 19:01
|
|
|
"This plane's wacky quirk improves fuel economy. Airports HATE it!" Betting all the airports that put in special gates for the A380s are gonna be *so* on board with rolling out the red carpet for the next "revolutionary airliner."
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2021 19:02
|
|
|
marumaru posted:yeah there's no way that's not just a uni student's design project Looks like an undergrad project, but the 'about us' page shows a bunch of old geezers. No LinkedIn-profiles or CVs, though. They're also encouraging applications from 'overall business experts' and 'vendors who are the most innovative in their fields'. Nevermind that the images they're showing still have the red squiggly MS word spell check underlining showing. Their address seems to come back to the CEO's residence. I would never ridicule an undergrad for coming up with cranky ideas, but I'm guessing the writer at simpleflying didn't really look too closely at who they were talking to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2021 19:06
|
|
|
The fuel isn’t stored in the wings, that would be inefficient! Instead, we store it directly over the passenger compartment!
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2021 20:08
|
|
|
I assume the vorticies and turbulent air coming off the the front wing are going to wreak havoc on the aft two wings, but they're probably coming up with an app and/or blockchain to solve that issue. Also, I'm curious as to how exactly they plan on building a single piece composite fuselage, since the largest autoclave in use now is a bit past 100ft long, and the largest single carbon-fiber part in production is an A350 wing component that's about 104ft long.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2021 20:15
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:"This plane's wacky quirk improves fuel economy. Airports HATE it!" One would assume the triple wing thing would be to reduce overall wing length so it doesn't have the new 777 issue where the wingtips have to retract to fit into "normal" gates. azflyboy posted:I assume the vorticies and turbulent air coming off the the front wing are going to wreak havoc on the aft two wings, but they're probably coming up with an app and/or blockchain to solve that issue. I was expecting some kind of CFD thing to indicate "hey this could work!" on their webpage but nope! Mazz posted:The fuel isn’t stored in the wings, that would be inefficient! Instead, we store it directly over the passenger compartment! They also claim thats safer for ditching! Remind me, what happens when helicopters ditch?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2021 20:19
|
|
|
This rules.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2021 20:22
|
|
|
SE Aeronautics introduces the KSP-200
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2021 20:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 09:18 |
|
|
Yes, another revolutionary aircraft design. It's looking for funding, will get some small amount and disappear. Like every other truly "revolutionary" design we've heard of since Concorde. A passenger version of a flying wing is more likely than this of every seeing light of day, and that won't happen either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2021 20:42
|
|
