|
Platystemon posted:He’s still flying. Has anybody bothered watching his new stuff? Did he get his act together, or are there times when several minutes are just missing due to the magic of editing?
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2021 17:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 10:39 |
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Ditchings happen, and from a stick and rudder perspective it was expertly done, but that guy really should have done it like a hundred feet further out to reduce the chance of decapitating some kid playing in the waves. "Nah, the spot he picked was fine." -John Landis
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2021 18:46
|
|
|
Lord Stimperor posted:Transponder has a fart mode when set to 6969 Pretend I wrote a  rant about how 6969 is an invalid transponder code here
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2021 20:28
|
|
|
BalloonFish posted:... It's such a juicy anecdote, it's no wonder it's repeated everywhere. I have been guilty of spreading it over the years, and was truly disappointed when I found out from Balloonfish that it was untrue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2021 21:26
|
|
|
Juicy bullshit confessionals: I spent more than a decade telling people that the T-6 prop tips go supersonic at takeoff, and that signature roar sound is dozens of shockwaves per second. Only recently did I actually calculate it. Spoiler alert, it's bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2021 21:53
|
|
|
This is the time I wish I knew the technical details about how the hispano suizza 12Y changed into the VK10x series powering all the Yakovlevs. BallonFish posts are never not a treat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2021 21:57
|
|
|
BalloonFish posted:... Well poo poo, that was such a quality post I don't even need to ask my question about what changes Packard made since it seems the answer is "not a whole hell of a lot".
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2021 22:02
|
|
|
wibble posted:What about the diesel Audi fellow? What is he up to? Slowly oscillating around the continental USA? Massive in-flight oil leak due to the diesel Audi fellow being lazy about installing a difficult seal retaining clip which he decided wasn't necessary since he had to use so much force to install the seal. After it predictably popped out in flight, the engine lost power and stopped during his emergency landing. Fortunately he was uninjured, but he overcontrolled roll during the landing due to nerves and slammed one wingtip into the ground, causing minor damage. He had initial hopes of flying on the same engine again since it wasn't completely seized or holed, but it couldn't rotate a full 360 due to broken parts inside. He sold it for scrap without even bothering to tear it down, so we'll never truly know everything that was wrong with it. You might think that's reasonable - after all, we know it died to oil starvation and we know why the starvation happened, so why worry about the details? But he had other things going on before the incident, such as constant overheating problems, so it would've been a good idea to do a full teardown inspection before scrapping it. Also crazy: He seemed to think it was reasonable to see if he could do a few external and borescope checks, refill with oil, try to fire it up, do a few runups to see if it blew up, and go flying again. It's one thing to bandaid up your shitbox beater car's engine after it runs close to dry, you can just pull over when it grenades. But an airplane engine? OH GOD NO. It's teardown and rebuild time. He's acquired a new-to-him same-model engine of unknown history from a junkyard (the only possible source for this particular Audi diesel). He did not perform a teardown inspection to figure out whether there were existing problems, just threw it in and transplanted the modified accessories from his original engine, most of which he did not inspect either. He continues to angrily dismiss and delete very reasonable comments by real experts pointing out problems. A few examples: - He's still committed to a turbo configuration which cannot work as intended, and in fact is very likely causing excessive EGT, which he refuses to directly measure - His videos show what is likely torsional vibration resonance as he ramps his new engine through its RPM range. He's dismissing it as no big deal since he claims he can't feel it in the cockpit. You really want to get TV under control to avoid having an unexpected bad day. - His prop is variable pitch, driven by oil pressure, and the oil supply to the prop hub is through its hollow driveshaft. Oil is supplied to the shaft through a donut-like dingus which doesn't rotate with the shaft, just seals to it at both ends with nothing more than tight clearance. The shaft and dingus galled each other during his oil starvation incident. So, he had things to fix. But rather than replacing both shaft and dingus, or getting one repaired and the other replaced, he decided he'd just keep the damaged shaft as-is, CAD up a longer version of the dingus which sealed onto a different and undamaged portion of the shaft, and have a machine shop build it. This is questionable because the original dingus was designed by a real engineer under contract or something like that, but the new one is just Peter loving around in CAD, and he doesn't know anything. Which we know is true because of the other design change he made here: Rather than coming to the natural conclusion that poo poo happens to rotating metal interfaces when lubricant is absent, he decided that he also needed to change materials on the dingus so it couldn't ever hurt the shaft again. His choice?  DELRIN What does plastic not have as much of as steel? Tensile strength What does plastic have even less of when heated to operating oil temps? Tensile strength What property is very different between plastic and metal, typically? Coefficient of thermal expansion What does the dingus need to hold pressure and make an effective seal with the shaft? Lots of tensile strength, and a very similar CTE to the shaft Fortunately for his health, in this case he did the engineering so wrong that the inevitable failure to seal occurred during ground runup tests. He had the machine shop re-make his new dingus design in metal, and it's working better. But the real issue is that once again people tried to tell him he was doing something grossly wrong, and he went ahead with it anyways. TLDR: Still seems likely to end up killing himself because Dunning-Kruger plus a big ego 
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2021 22:07
|
|
|
Getting real "Flying Pinto" vibes from this clown. Betting he'll auger in while Jerry keeps on truckin'
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2021 23:04
|
|
|
Mr. Funny Pants posted:"Nah, the spot he picked was fine."
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2021 23:47
|
|
|
Cat Hatter posted:Well poo poo, that was such a quality post I don't even need to ask my question about what changes Packard made since it seems the answer is "not a whole hell of a lot". The thing is, there was a very active (and healthy) dialogue between Rolls-Royce and Packard. Packard were not entirely without experience in aero-engines having built Liberty engines in WW1, independently developed a successful aircraft diesel engine in the 1920s and developed the Liberty into a very successful series of marine engines for torpedo boats. Packard knew how to build big, powerful V12 engines and were easily Rolls-Royce's peer when it came to automotive engineering - actually superior in some key ways. This was a big part of why Packard was chosen to build Merlins/V-1650s in the first place . At the time Packard were preparing for Merlin production, Rolls-Royce were finalising the re-design of the Merlin from the 'Kestrel but bigger' forced on them by the failure of the original ramp-head design back to separate cylinder heads. Given that Packard were tooling up from scratch, it was decided that Packard would be the first to build this new design of Merlin, over a year before Rolls-Royce was in a position to switch. In fact, in the interim Rolls-Royce had come up with an improved design of cylinder head so when R-R made the switch Packard did too. But from the start Packard was more than a mere assembly operation - they were trusted to implement new designs stemming from the R-R offices. Rolls-Royce's 'development over design' approach (and, to be fair, the pressures R-R were working under) led to quite a few nasty surprises. As mentioned, the Merlin used a typically British array of fixing and thread types - not only different sizes but different standards (British Association, British Standard Fine, British Standard Whitworth and so on) and in some cases had determined to use their own unique thread types with equally unique nuts and bolts made by Rolls-Royce itself. The total was something like 150 distinct thread/fixing sizes and not all of these had been properly detailed in the official blueprints, being 'on the fly' changes made on the shop floor as a result of testing or development work. The same thing cropped up when Packard compared the Merlin engine it had been sent as a sample and the blueprints that accompanied it - there were numerous differences between theory and reality, even down to fundamental things like the thickness of some of the major castings. Here again a Rolls-Royce engineer had at some point been given a draughtsman and a couple of machinists, had been told to 'fix the problem with [x]', had devised a solution and this had been passed to the shop floor without going through the drawing office. To sort it out Packard ended up dismantling its 'sample' Merlin, measuring every part and drawing new blueprints from what was actually in front of them. They were going to have to redraw all the blueprints anyway because British industry used a different projection to the Americans (plus other differences in standards). Although it was considered to take the opportunity (since they were starting production from scratch and redoing all the drawings anyway) of switching to American thread standards and rationalising their use, it was decided that there wasn't enough time and it would cause too much logistical difficulty once the engines entered service. Since no American tool-and-die makers would work to the British standards Packard had to make their own from scratch and produce all their own fixings. I'm sure this sort of thing is what's at the root of the false tales about the Rolls-Royce tolerances being too great for modern American production methods, but it's worth restating that Packard followed all the existing Rolls-Royce tolerances and standards, as laid out in the official drawings, to the letter. Packard were also unable to cure the perennial problem that afflicted every Merlin (and every Rolls-Royce aero-engine from the Kestrel to the Griffon) of internal coolant leaks from the cylinder liners. It was a fundamental facet of the design which could only be solved by designing a new engine from a literal clean-sheet. With the Merlin in production Packard undertook some of its own development and investigation work, drawing up solutions to in-service problems and other improvements to the engine. These had to be run past Rolls-Royce but were very often approved, and there were some changes that appeared only on Packard-built engines and not R-R ones. As well as being trusted to implement the new separate-head design, Packard was responsible for a new design of coolant pump (with sealed ball bearings that didn't need regular lubrication), a new type of two-speed supercharger drive gear, work with Delco to develop and implement new magnetos to replace the existing British ones which had problems at high altitudes and - most importantly - a near-total redesign of the camshaft drive gear system which allowed the gears to be removed without dismounting the cylinder blocks from the crankcase. As you can see, a lot of these changes reflected the American expertise in mass-production and superiority in metallurgy and material science. Packard-built engines had silver-lead material in their main, big- and little-end bearings which had been standard on American car engines for nearly a decade which British cars continued to use white metal until well into the 1950s. What Packard really brought to the table was (unsurprisingly, being an American company) massive superiority in production methods. They were able to significantly reduce the man-hours, work-hours and the number of individual machining operations needed to build each engine. And not only was their camshaft drive arrangement easier to service but it had something like 20 fewer parts than the Rolls-Royce original. I will still maintain that the Allison V-1710 is unfairly maligned and an inherently superior machine, if not such a fantastic bit of craftmanship. It's the difference between a clockwork Swiss chronometer with thousands of little cogs, springs, escapements and levers all turning on jeweled bearings...and a Casio F-91W which has no moving parts and a dull plastic case that hasn't changed since the 1980s but is more accurate, more durable, more waterproof and more multi-functional than the chronometer and at a fraction of the cost. It's very obvious when you get up close to these things on a bench that the Allison is designed and specified to much higher standards. For instance, every Allison has roller tappets at the end of its valve rockers - at the end of each of the little levers that actually push down on the valve stem is a little solid metal wheel carried in tiny plain bearings, so that the downward force can be applied to the valve without the slight shearing action between what would otherwise be a plain 'fingertip' of the rocker arm and the top of the stem. The Merlin (or any other Rolls-Royce engine) didn't have these. It just had plain rocker arms acting right on the valve stems. They did eventually design roller tappets...in mid-1945 just as the war was ending and they were never introduced. And virtually every Merlin flying in a warbird or racer today uses Allison connecting rods because not only are they interchangable but the Allison ones are hugely more durable and (for the racers) can take much, much more power.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2021 23:57
|
|
|
BobHoward posted:TLDR: Still seems likely to end up killing himself because Dunning-Kruger plus a big ego Thanks for this, I love news about this guy, but mot enough to find it on my own.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 00:03
|
|
|
BobHoward posted:TLDR: Good loving Lord. Getting big "I don't want it done right, I want it done NOW" vibes
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 00:06
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Good loving Lord. Yes. He seems exhausted with running the whole program himself for a couple years now (he drove off all expert help), and is making worse and worse decisions aimed at ending this phase and getting to the next with minimum effort. Specifically, he thinks that if he flies off some kind of 40 hour testing requirement at his home airport (people have tried to figure this out based on FAA regs and how his airplane is registered and iirc they haven't made sense of it), then ferries the plane to California, he'll have manufacturing partners on board to start series production. So, he keeps taking shortcuts to increase the number of hours flown rather than trying to do a real test program with thoughtful and safe envelope expansion. (He still has no idea of the aircraft's stall speed or CG limits, because he hasn't dared to try testing those limits himself.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 00:39
|
|
|
vessbot posted:Juicy bullshit confessionals: I spent more than a decade telling people that the T-6 prop tips go supersonic at takeoff, and that signature roar sound is dozens of shockwaves per second. Only recently did I actually calculate it. Spoiler alert, it's bullshit. How close is it? If it’s close-ish the tips don’t have to be going supersonic for the air to be.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 02:47
|
|
|
I just cannot fathom being this much of a complete loving moron.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 02:51
|
|
|
e.pilot posted:I just cannot fathom being this much of a complete loving moron. It really is a sublime study in just how far one person is willing to go to off themselves.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 02:54
|
|
|
BobHoward posted:Yes. He seems exhausted with running the whole program himself for a couple years now (he drove off all expert help), and is making worse and worse decisions aimed at ending this phase and getting to the next with minimum effort. I'm more convinced than ever that he's doomed. It's like he's trying at this point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 03:47
|
|
|
There's a bunch of aviation accidents where you read the report and think "oh, well, that's a shame. Maybe if they'd done X differently, it could've been avoided," and a few where it was not reasonably avoidable, and then there's ones like this guy will eventually generate, where you'd be forgiven for honestly pondering the possibility that they craved death and did all within their power to reach it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 03:50
|
|
|
I went to a WINGS safety seminar at the flight school once that started with the presenter asking two questions: "How many of you know a pilot who's been involved in an accident?" (several hands go up) "Okay, for those of you with your hands up, how many of you were surprised that it was that particular guy who crashed?" (nearly all of the hands go down)
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 03:57
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:I went to a WINGS safety seminar at the flight school once that started with the presenter asking two questions: Yep. The other cliche I like is "the most dangerous phrase in the English language is 'that's the way we've always done it.'" Two of the three most recent fatal accidents at my airport came from people doing things that were "standard procedure" but were unsafe to the point that Transport Canada had written guidance in bold letters saying "DO NOT DO THESE THINGS." Bad luck does happen, but it's not responsible for the vast majority of serious accidents.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 04:05
|
|
|
Disappointingly, it seems to be entirely conceptual still. Strong Dahar Insaat energy from their website though. https://www.migaloo-submarines.com/migaloo/
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 09:50
|
|
|
PT6A posted:The other cliche I like is "the most dangerous phrase in the English language is 'that's the way we've always done it.'" Boy have I got some good news about the FAA!
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 13:03
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Has anybody bothered watching his new stuff? Did he get his act together, or are there times when several minutes are just missing due to the magic of editing? He does this hold totally wrong, but maybe he learned something from it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeAvlHBX_6I He didn’t learn enough, mind.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 13:49
|
|
|
PT6A posted:The other cliche I like is "the most dangerous phrase in the English language is 'that's the way we've always done it.'" Counterpoint, doing things 'better' is a good way to introduce failures into a system that was already pretty good. Applying blanket panacea statements like this is problematic and IMO each round of 'improvements' need to be considered before AND after implementation to see if you are actually making improvements. Very often, but not always, the people who first encountered an issue and generated a working resolution for it were as smart as you are.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 13:55
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Very often, but not always, the people who first encountered an issue and generated a working resolution for it were as smart as you are. If they didn’t document their reasons, gently caress ’em. Chesterton was wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 13:59
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:He does this hold totally wrong, but maybe he learned something from it. I hope I get Jerry's DPE for my instrument ride.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 15:08
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Counterpoint, doing things 'better' is a good way to introduce failures into a system that was already pretty good. No one ever said the new way is always better, just that "that's the way we've always done it" isn't a good reason for anything. Either suggesting a new way or defending the old way should involve actual reasons and preferably objective data. In the programming world there's a concept called "code smell" where there are certain things you can observe at a high level that aren't necessarily wrong on their own but may indicate deeper problems. "The way we've always done it" should be thought of similarly, whatever they're justifying that way isn't necessarily wrong but it's probably worth investigating, especially if it could cause harm.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 17:05
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:If they didn’t document their reasons, gently caress ’em. wolrah posted:No one ever said the new way is always better, just that "that's the way we've always done it" isn't a good reason for anything. Either suggesting a new way or defending the old way should involve actual reasons and preferably objective data. My point is just that, 'we've always done it that way' doesn't actually imply that the way you've always done it is wrong. Which is heavily implied in the parent statements, "MOST DANGEROUS" phasing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 17:24
|
|
|
"We've always done it that way as a response to someone in a position of authority asking you why the gently caress you're violating written and tested procedures with your tribal knowledge cowboy bullshit that's going to get someone hurt" would be the full most dangerous phrase, but that lacks pith so it got shortened. Like, that's it, it doesn't imply innovation or lack thereof, it signifies noncompliance with written standards.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2021 01:45
|
|
|
The Avenger has been fished out of the water. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i27CN9uVIS4
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2021 07:29
|
|
|
Can they get it back in the air without effectively rebuilding it from scratch? I'd assume that even where the structure was intact it'd be riddled with microfractures and be totally untrustworthy
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2021 08:51
|
|
|
Deptfordx posted:Can they get it back in the air without effectively rebuilding it from scratch? If the owner has insurance, and decides not to pay to keep it, it will go to an insurance company, who will auction it to cover losses. As I recall, Avengers go for something like 300-500k when they come up for sale, so it's probably fixable. Micro-fractures are not a huge concern, airplanes got landed gear up all the time, and while you do an inspection and repair any damage, a plane isn't written off every time it happens. Ditching in salt water adds corrosion concerns, but $300,000 pays for a lot of inspection and repair. I've seen an Avenger getting set up for flight at KBDU, and the wing folding looks complex.  I'm waiting out the pain of an annual. I decided to have all the little issues fixed, like one tach reading a little high, and the other reading low, but it's meant weeks of sitting and waiting for repair shops to service different things. I had to replace an exhaust manifold (cracked collector weld), some push rod tubes were seeping oil, and the tailwheel bearing was falling apart. When I bought the plane last year, I had most of the rubber parts of the plane replaced, but things still always come up on the first annual.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2021 14:38
|
|
|
Elviscat posted:"We've always done it that way as a response to someone in a position of authority asking you why the gently caress you're violating written and tested procedures with your tribal knowledge cowboy bullshit that's going to get someone hurt" would be the full most dangerous phrase, but that lacks pith so it got shortened. You are wrong. Non-compliance to standards is a different thing altogether and often implies fines, sanctions and loss of license or certification. That's something you fire people over not have a semantic debate about best practices about. "We've always done it that way, it works pretty well and it complies with the standard so why change it?" "I'm the new boss and I want it my way. You will respect my ath-or-eh-tie!" Is a conversation that happens alarmingly frequently. Murgos fucked around with this message at 15:28 on Apr 21, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2021 15:25
|
|
|
"we've always done it that way and it works well!" "ok so show me the process documentation" crickets/it doesn't match at all this is also very common
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2021 15:32
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm not saying everyone should do everything in a novel way every time. I'm just saying: if you can't actually justify why something is being done a certain way beyond "that's how we've always done it," then you should carefully examine why you are doing it that way and perhaps make changes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2021 15:43
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:"we've always done it that way and it works well!" Yes, I agree. That's why up thread I agreed with the poster who said, "If they don't have documentation then gently caress em."
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2021 15:56
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Yeah, I'm not saying everyone should do everything in a novel way every time. I'm just saying: if you can't actually justify why something is being done a certain way beyond "that's how we've always done it," then you should carefully examine why you are doing it that way and perhaps make changes. Locomotive rather than Aeronautical Insanity, but: There's a great anecdote from the 1920s when William Stanier was made Chief Mechanical Engineer of the largest commercial enterprise in the British Empire, the London Midland & Scottish Railway. The LMS was created by a forced amalgamation of several smaller companies which had been bitter rivals and which had radically different - and incompatible - engineering and operating philosophies, and the new company's management was too weak and fractured to impose any real order on things. In the anarchy the ways of the former Midland Railway had floated to the top and become LMS standards...which was bad because the Midland was mechanically cautious to the point of puritanism and hadn't really designed a new locomotive since the 1890s. Stanier was brought in from another company as an outsider to finally gee things up and impose both some order and some innovation. Apparently when he first arrived at the main drawing office he introduced himself to his staff and requested that for the next few weeks all the draughtsmen brought each drawing they completed to him so he could go through it with them and understand what the workshop did and why. Throughout the first day a steady stream of draughtsmen went in and out of the new boss' office. In the mid-afternoon, Stanier suddenly hurled the door open, a shocked draughtsman scuttled out clutching a blueprint, accompanied by a bellow directed at the office at large: "The next man who replies "That's the way we've always done it, Mr Stanier..." when I ask him a question will be given a special project - his letter of resignation!" and the door was closed. In the years to come Stanier would prove to be very willing to listen to his assistants' and draughtsmens' opinions, and was often willing to defer to them when they made a design or engineering decision that he didn't necessarily agree with at first. But they had to be able to explain and justify why they had made such a decision, and "that's the way we've always done it" wasn't good enough. Especially not on a railway where locos were tearing apart their axle bearings because they were still using a standardised design first used in the 1860s..."because that's the way we've always done it."
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2021 17:13
|
|
|
And, as others have pointed out, you shouldn't change things just to change things either. You need to: 1) Figure out what problems exist with current way of doing things. 2) Determine how to fix those problems. 3) Figure out how to implement the changes you're going to make. 4) Decide how you're going to evaluate if the changes were successful. Whatever you do, whether it's keeping things the same, or making changes, should always be justified.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2021 18:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 10:39 |
|
|
vessbot posted:Juicy bullshit confessionals: I spent more than a decade telling people that the T-6 prop tips go supersonic at takeoff, and that signature roar sound is dozens of shockwaves per second. Only recently did I actually calculate it. Spoiler alert, it's bullshit. I thought the same thing about the V22 until a couple days ago
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2021 22:36
|
|
