Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
slidebite
Nov 6, 2005

Good egg
:colbert:

Just had a weird equipment change on a flight.

I'm doing Montreal-Calgary mid April on a737 Max (Air Canada). Just checked and its now an A333, which Air Canada does have a domestic configuration, but this one is a longhaul with layflats up front.

That's quite the change from a Max.

Ideas to why they would go so large with more than a month to go? When I looked at out seats a couple weeks ago, I don't think it was anywhere near full.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Serjeant Buzfuz
Dec 5, 2009

Maybe it's a positioning flight for that aircraft?

sellouts
Apr 23, 2003

Todays AC319 was operated by an A333. They’ve also had a 789 on it as well in the past week.

Doesn’t seem like it’s positioning as it’s returning to MTL.

slidebite
Nov 6, 2005

Good egg
:colbert:

Coincidentally, I am on an already scheduled A333 coming from bcn earlier in the day (a lovely 5+ hour layover in YUL), I wonder if it's the same AC.

Not gonna complain though, I'd far rather have a lay flat for an almost five hour PM flight after a long day than the standard domestic business class seat. Just a pleasant surprise I found odd.

Bob A Feet
Aug 10, 2005
Dear diary, I got another erection today at work. SO embarrassing, but kinda hot. The CO asked me to fix up his dress uniform. I had stayed late at work to move his badges 1/8" to the left and pointed it out this morning. 1SG spanked me while the CO watched, once they caught it. Tomorrow I get to start all over again...
I haven’t worked at an airline long but I know enough to never assume any decision made was for a logical or well thought out reason.

Nebakenezzer
Sep 13, 2005

The Mote in God's Eye

Dr_Strangelove posted:

Albany Class, yo



I'm sorry, all of these are hideous

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008

Bob A Feet posted:

I haven’t worked at an airline long but I know enough to never assume any decision made was for a logical or well thought out reason.

I think everyone knows but hearing it from a USMC osprey pilot really adds a lot of weight to the sentiment.


;)

Wombot
Sep 11, 2001

Platystemon posted:



and you thought that METAR and NOTAM systems were antiquated

Maybe this is the "joke", maybe I don't understand the exercise, but when I take 230 away from 178 I get -52, not -32.

evilbastard
Mar 6, 2003

Hair Elf
With the Australian papers on a "Australia will be at war with China in 3 years" coordinated drumbeat, today's Bombshell is how the Prime Minister's aircraft is actively avoiding China Airspace while flying India - Japan - USA.



I thought everyone did this because the Chinese internal waypoints were so convoluted no-one wants to deal with and they just choose to go around them. I know when I flew Cathay Dragon, Hong Kong <-> Shanghai I skirted the coast all the way in both directions.

Does any non-China-involved flight actually go through China ? Or does everyone try to avoid it unless they have to take off or land ?

slidebite
Nov 6, 2005

Good egg
:colbert:

You can overfly China, but zero clue to the regs or if it's a pain in the rear end.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/ETD871

Safety Dance
Sep 10, 2007

Five degrees to starboard!

slidebite posted:

You can overfly China, but zero clue to the regs or if it's a pain in the rear end.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/ETD871

It's interesting how FlightAware yadda-yadda-yaddas the airplane's track over China. I imagine there aren't any ADSB receivers sending them information.

pik_d
Feb 24, 2006

follow the white dove





TRP Post of the Month October 2021
:thunk:

https://twitter.com/LockheedMartin/status/1635026632032362497


"...acknowledged..."?

Potato Salad
Oct 23, 2014

nobody cares


Nebakenezzer posted:

I'm sorry, all of these are hideous

No love for the Sam the Eagle brow?

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008


I like to imagine that say Northrop Grumman has a secret squirrel faster jet that they’re subtweeting but Aurora or whatever would be LM as well.

Maybe someone at Boeing was bragging about the X-37. Though you’d think the most effective shade there would be to call it cute


I mean just look at :3:

vvv yes that’s the point. Boeing: we have the fastest, highest flying spy “plane”. LM: yeah well we had the fastest, highest flying real airplane

hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 18:45 on Mar 13, 2023

OddObserver
Apr 3, 2009

hobbesmaster posted:

I like to imagine that say Northrop Grumman has a secret squirrel faster jet that they’re subtweeting but Aurora or whatever would be LM as well.

Maybe someone at Boeing was bragging about the X-37. Though you’d think the most effective shade there would be to call it cute


I mean just look at :3:

Pretty sure X37 isn't an "air-breathing jet", but rather a rocket plane that uses separate oxidizer tanks, for whatever definition of "sure" covers what the public can know about largely classified spaceplane (it doesn't look like it has air intakes, at least).

Potato Salad
Oct 23, 2014

nobody cares


hobbesmaster posted:



I mean just look at :3:


oops :kimchi: uwu *orbits your defense satellites*

Warbird
May 23, 2012

America's Favorite Dumbass

So is the Aurora “real” in any knowable context by the public at large or just conjecture?

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008

Nice try, Xi.

Cojawfee
May 31, 2006
I think the US is dumb for not using Celsius

Warbird posted:

So is the Aurora “real” in any knowable context by the public at large or just conjecture?

Yes, comrade, here in America we all drive them to work every day. Because we are so rich and capitalism is so great.

Safety Dance
Sep 10, 2007

Five degrees to starboard!


I thought the A-12 was acknowledged to be faster than the SR-71

HookedOnChthonics
Dec 5, 2015

Profoundly dull


Official speed records are all phrased as “speed over a recognized course” (ie New York to Paris) and the SR-71 and A-12 each hold a couple iirc

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008

Safety Dance posted:

I thought the A-12 was acknowledged to be faster than the SR-71

Official aviation speed records are a funny thing. They have to be “official” and witnessed so a completely secret project can’t hold one. Even then it’s an average speed over a course.

If you look up the declassified flight manual Mne is 3.2 but really the limit is engine inlet temperature. The A-12 was lighter but engine inlet temp would still be an issue. Still, if for whatever reason the temperature was still low the A-12 could probably fly faster?

BIG HEADLINE
Jun 13, 2006

"Stand back, Ottawan ruffian, or face my lumens!"
Apparently the speed in the Brian Shul story about getting shot at over Libya was ~M3.38 for a brief time.

Also, the SR-71's true speed is classified for propaganda reasons as much as anything else - the Blackbird was stealthy for its time, but I'm sure the Chinese, North Koreans, Russians, and Vietnamese all have archives of what their top ground speed readouts were on them.

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008

BIG HEADLINE posted:

Apparently the speed in the Brian Shul story about getting shot at over Libya was ~M3.38 for a brief time.

Also, the SR-71's true speed is classified for propaganda reasons as much as anything else - the Blackbird was stealthy for its time, but I'm sure the Chinese, North Koreans, Russians, and Vietnamese all have archives of what their top ground speed readouts were on them.

Note that the highest mach instruments read is not necessarily the “fastest speed”. And even then if the number a pilot/RSO saw exceeded Mne and whatever the “real” standard procedures were they probably just didn’t say anything like in that stall story.

Midjack
Dec 24, 2007



Warbird posted:

So is the Aurora “real” in any knowable context by the public at large or just conjecture?

Anyone who knows for sure won't say and anyone who says for sure won't know.

Woolwich Bagnet
Apr 27, 2003



Just add it to War Thunder and the answer will come out soon enough.

HookedOnChthonics
Dec 5, 2015

Profoundly dull


BIG HEADLINE posted:

Apparently the speed in the Brian Shul story about getting shot at over Libya was ~M3.38 for a brief time.

Also, the SR-71's true speed is classified for propaganda reasons as much as anything else - the Blackbird was stealthy for its time, but I'm sure the Chinese, North Koreans, Russians, and Vietnamese all have archives of what their top ground speed readouts were on them.

The earliest genesis of the blackbird was actually CIA asking Lockheed what it would take to design a stealth aircraft and Kelly Johnson et al going “welllll, we can do x and y and z to get the signature way down, but really the best defense would be speed + altitude.” Some aspects of the program ended up having internal Lockheed project number 2001 because Kelly Johnson was confident that it would be totally immune to interception until that year.

Blackbird ended up having a radar cross section of about 10 sq m fwiw

Sagebrush
Feb 26, 2012

Warbird posted:

So is the Aurora “real” in any knowable context by the public at large or just conjecture?

Aurora is totally real. It was the code name for the program to develop what became the B-2.

In 1985 the name was accidentally included in a Pentagon budget and leaked to the media, and aviation nuts made their best guesses as to what it could be. They associated it with reports of black triangular aircraft flying around Nevada, and assumed it was an advanced successor to the SR-71, the only well-known black triangular aircraft at the time.

3 years later the F-117 and B-2 would both be publicly revealed, and the black triangles suddenly made sense and everything fell into place for those paying attention. But the popular myth of Aurora as a hypersonic reconnaissance plane never totally went away.

Wingnut Ninja
Jan 11, 2003

Mostly Harmless
Getting unnecessarily annoyed at using the tag "RealTopGun" to describe a plane that has nothing to do with TOPGUN.

Hockenheim
Oct 20, 2022

by VG
"Aurora in flight" from C&C Generals is burned into my brain

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fZekJ3Bujc&t=28s

Potato Salad
Oct 23, 2014

nobody cares


Warbird posted:

So is the Aurora “real” in any knowable context by the public at large or just conjecture?

are hvha and hypersonic glide test systems real? yeah and there's a bunch that have been manufactured in public production for years

Warbird
May 23, 2012

America's Favorite Dumbass

Oh for sure, and I don’t really expect anything concrete until it gets added to War Thunder and someone wants to prove a point. It was always weird to me seeing it in the version of Jane’s USAF or whatever a million years ago so I didn’t know if it was some open secret or something to that tune.

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008

After aviation week flew a Cessna over the B-2 reveal they seemed to get a bit full of themselves in the early 90s:

HookedOnChthonics
Dec 5, 2015

Profoundly dull


Safety Dance posted:

I thought the A-12 was acknowledged to be faster than the SR-71

Ok here are the official blackbird FAI records (I had forgot it was actually a Kedlock aircraft that did the A-12 ones too)

“YF-12A records” posted:

Absolute altitude: 80,257.86 ft
Absolute speed over a straight course: 2070.101 mph
Absolute speed over a 500 km closed course: 1688.889 mph
Absolute speed over a 1000 km course: 1643.041 mph

All records set 1 May 1965, the 5th anniversary of Powers being captured, in tail no 60-6936, which subsequently crashed in 1971

“SR-71 records” posted:

Sept 1974, tail no 61-17972 (Preserved @ Udvar-Hazy)
Speed over a recognized course (New York to London, 3490 mi): 1 hr 54 min 56.4 sec
Speed over a recognized course (London to LA, 5645 mi): 3 hr 47 min 35.8 sec

July 1976, tail no 61-17962 (Preserved @ Duxford)
Altitude in horizontal flight: 85,068.997 ft

July 1976, tail no 61-17958 (Preserved @ Warner-Robbins AFB)
Speed over a straight course (25 km): 2193.167 mph
Speed over a closed course (1000 km): 2092.294 mph

March 1990, tail no 61-17972 (Preserved @ Udvar-Hazy)
Speed over a recognized course (LA to East Coast, 2086 mi): 1 hr 7 min 53.69 sec

Vincent Van Goatse
Nov 8, 2006

Enjoy every sandwich.

Smellrose

hobbesmaster posted:

After aviation week flew a Cessna over the B-2 reveal they seemed to get a bit full of themselves in the early 90s:


Ah yeah, like when they misheard some Pentagon dude talking about a "Tier Three" program, all of a sudden the Northrop TR-3 was the new hotness for a couple years.

Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 22:21 on Mar 14, 2023

I would blow Dane Cook
Dec 26, 2008

quote:

video

A Russian fighter has collided with a US Reaper drone, forcing it down into the Black Sea, in what US forces called an “unsafe and unprofessional” intercept.

A US European Command statement said the collision happened just after 7am on Tuesday morning, when two Russian Su-27 fighter jets flew up to the MQ-9 Reaper drone over international waters west of Crimea. The statement said the Russian pilots sought to disrupt the US aircraft before the collision.

“Several times before the collision, the Su-27s dumped fuel on and flew in front of the MQ-9 in a reckless, environmentally unsound and unprofessional manner,” the US statement said. “This incident demonstrates a lack of competence in addition to being unsafe and unprofessional.”

One of the Russian fighters then struck the drone’s propeller, “causing US forces to have to bring the MQ-9 down in international waters”.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/14/russian-fighter-jet-collides-us-drone-black-sea-crash

HookedOnChthonics
Dec 5, 2015

Profoundly dull


Lmao what is the environmentally sound way to operate a Su-27

Xenoborg
Mar 10, 2007

Spending your fuel budget of vodka and not flying.

mlmp08
Jul 11, 2004

Prepare for my priapic projectile's exalted penetration
Nap Ghost
Germanwings: Environmentally Unsound HAZMAT Disposal

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

HookedOnChthonics
Dec 5, 2015

Profoundly dull


Xenoborg posted:

Spending your fuel budget of vodka and not flying.

Hmm

Su-27 internal fuel capacity = 11975 l * .778 usd / l jet-a price = $9316.55

Russian standard vodka is… $15 / l, let’s say?

So not counting drop tanks or liquor taxes you’re looking at ~620 l of vodka per full-range Su-27 flight not taken

According to this brewery 30,000 lbs of potatoes yields 450 l of vodka, so 620 l would take about 41100 lbs of potato, which is maybe a little more than the yield of a mature acre of potato crop land per growing season according to cursory research

This study says 251 kg CO2 eq./t potato harvested so 41100 lbs = 20.55 t = 5158 kg C02 emissions per Su-27-flight-vodka-potato-equivalent

:hmmyes:

HookedOnChthonics fucked around with this message at 04:29 on Mar 15, 2023

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply