Aeronautical Insanity: switching to secondary tolerances

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Automotive Insanity > Aeronautical Insanity: switching to secondary tolerances

«‹›2243 »

foghorn: Oct 9, 2006; Haters gunna hate.

PittTheElder posted:

A random question I had while watching vids about disasters involving fires on aircraft: assuming it's in the main pressurized cabin, is there ever a point where you consider depressurizing to cut the oxygen level to the fire and hopefully vent some of the smoke?

Fun fact: the fire suppression system on the 747 freighter is designed to work partially this way, by depressurizing the main deck to starve the fire and hopefully put it out.

That didn�t quite work to plan on UPS flight 6, when they tried it and instead basically turned the flight deck into a BBQ smoker and slow cooked themselves to death.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UPS_Airlines_Flight_6

Later testing revealed that even if the system worked as expected, two things would have happened. First, it wouldn�t have been very effective because they wouldn�t have been at altitude long enough to really make a difference. And second, even if the fire had been reduced, it would have roared back as soon as they descended for landing and gotten increased air density again.

# ? Jan 28, 2024 03:09

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 3, 2024 22:16

Murgos: Oct 21, 2010

foghorn posted:

Fun fact: the fire suppression system on the 747 freighter is designed to work partially this way, by depressurizing the main deck to starve the fire and hopefully put it out.

That didn�t quite work to plan on UPS flight 6, when they tried it and instead basically turned the flight deck into a BBQ smoker and slow cooked themselves to death.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UPS_Airlines_Flight_6

Later testing revealed that even if the system worked as expected, two things would have happened. First, it wouldn�t have been very effective because they wouldn�t have been at altitude long enough to really make a difference. And second, even if the fire had been reduced, it would have roared back as soon as they descended for landing and gotten increased air density again.

This seems like a �solution� where no one actually did any due diligence to confirm the concept. Like smoldering wood in a low oxygen environment is how you make charcoal..

Aerospace engineering facilities have vacuum chambers, some of them quite massive, it really wouldn�t have been all that hard to test what conditions would be needed to extinguish a fire vs just damping it temporarily.

# ? Jan 28, 2024 03:44

Arson Daily: Aug 11, 2003

also a pack was deferred under MEL so there was no airflow to help clear the smoke out of the cockpit since all of the packs were turned off. a simple lack of systems knowledge doomed that airplane along with the fire burning through the oxygen line to the masks. lots of holes in that swiss cheese model.

# ? Jan 28, 2024 03:47

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

Arson Daily posted:

i once ferried a 737-800 from cancun to houston with the landing gear down because the company didnt want to mess with trying to do maintenance in a foreign country. it was very much a "gently caress it" situation because a 737 flying at 10,000 feet at 250 knots with the gear down burns a shitload of gas.

Did you go across the gulf or take the same scenic route? Depending on weather that coastal routing should be very pretty.

# ? Jan 28, 2024 05:02

I would blow Dane Cook: Dec 26, 2008

https://twitter.com/StansaidAirport/status/1751368369830322407

# ? Jan 28, 2024 08:33

Arson Daily: Aug 11, 2003

hobbesmaster posted:

Did you go across the gulf or take the same scenic route? Depending on weather that coastal routing should be very pretty.

scenic route. It was pretty but really loud so that dampened the experience a bit.

# ? Jan 28, 2024 17:10

Psion: Dec 13, 2002; eVeN I KnOw wHaT CoRnEr gAs iS

back when the Museum of Flight got the first production 727 restored they flew it down from Paine Field to Boeing Field and the museum. Gear down, low over the water. given all the poo poo I've heard about JT8Ds I was disappointed in how loud it was...more specifically, wasn't.

I'm sure the flight deck crew would disagree with me, though :v:

e: I do have to give them credit for smoke trail. they didn't let me down on a big smoky exhaust trail.

Psion fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Jan 28, 2024

# ? Jan 28, 2024 18:50

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

Psion posted:

back when the Museum of Flight got the first production 727 restored they flew it down from Paine Field to Boeing Field and the museum. Gear down, low over the water. given all the poo poo I've heard about JT8Ds I was disappointed in how loud it was...more specifically, wasn't.

I'm sure the flight deck crew would disagree with me, though

e: I do have to give them credit for smoke trail. they didn't let me down on a big smoky exhaust trail.

That airplane has hush-kits; It�s quite a bit quieter than it was when it was new.

# ? Jan 28, 2024 22:13

CarForumPoster: Jun 26, 2013; â¡POWERâ¡

Psion posted:

back when the Museum of Flight got the first production 727 restored they flew it down from Paine Field to Boeing Field and the museum. Gear down, low over the water. given all the poo poo I've heard about JT8Ds I was disappointed in how loud it was...more specifically, wasn't.

I'm sure the flight deck crew would disagree with me, though

e: I do have to give them credit for smoke trail. they didn't let me down on a big smoky exhaust trail.

Why would they fly gear down over water? Seems like a recipie for a diving aircraft

# ? Jan 28, 2024 22:24

a patagonian cavy: Jan 12, 2009; UUA CVG 230000 KZID /RM TODAY IS THE FIRST DAY OF THE BENGALS DYNASTY

CarForumPoster posted:

Why would they fly gear down over water? Seems like a recipie for a diving aircraft

The plane was not in an airworthy condition after sitting for 20+ years, the less number of things needed to be fixed/repaired to move it 30 miles on its last ever flight, the better.

# ? Jan 28, 2024 22:37

Psion: Dec 13, 2002; eVeN I KnOw wHaT CoRnEr gAs iS

It's been several years so my memory's fuzzy on specifics, but what I recall is the FAA waiver to allow the ferry flight required both. gear stayed locked and down in case the gear system wouldn't work, and the routing kept it away from going over densely populated areas in case it decided to be crashy.

also, a big chunk of the approach to KBFI is over water anyway so may as well even without that, I assume? if nothing else, photo ops. There was a photo chase plane the entire way that I saw personally, probably the whole flight start to finish.

Psion fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Jan 28, 2024

# ? Jan 28, 2024 23:14

Sagebrush: Feb 26, 2012

It's only a 23nm flight anyway. That's like 8 minutes in the air at a reasonable gear-down speed. Meh

# ? Jan 28, 2024 23:44

Cactus Ghost: Dec 20, 2003; you can actually inflate your scrote pretty safely with sterile saline, syringes, needles, and aseptic technique. its a niche kink iirc

the saline just slowly gets absorbed into your blood but in the meantime you got a big round smooth distended nutsack

old man at the beach with his undercarriage hanging out

# ? Jan 28, 2024 23:54

Midjack: Dec 24, 2007

Psion posted:

back when the Museum of Flight got the first production 727 restored they flew it down from Paine Field to Boeing Field and the museum. Gear down, low over the water. given all the poo poo I've heard about JT8Ds I was disappointed in how loud it was...more specifically, wasn't.

I'm sure the flight deck crew would disagree with me, though

e: I do have to give them credit for smoke trail. they didn't let me down on a big smoky exhaust trail.

wheels down
engines up
that's how
i like to ferrry

# ? Jan 29, 2024 01:02

Nebakenezzer: Sep 13, 2005; The Mote in God's Eye

I just watched Masters of the Air ep 1 , and the level of betrayal I feel can only be likened to an idealistic little girl learning in the blink of an eye via magic of every genocide of the 20th century in grotesque detail

Aircraft on ferry flights to the UK were not armed

That's extra weight, they put on machine guns in Britain

# ? Jan 29, 2024 03:11

Terrifying Effigies: Oct 22, 2008; Problems look mighty small from 150 miles up.

Wait, do they get in a dogfight on a ferry flight or something?

# ? Jan 29, 2024 03:25

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

No they are just installed on the plane i guess.

# ? Jan 29, 2024 03:31

Platystemon: Feb 13, 2012; BREADS

How many ferry flights across the North Atlantic were lost to enemy action, anyway?

# ? Jan 29, 2024 04:21

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

Platystemon posted:

How many ferry flights across the North Atlantic were lost to enemy action, anyway?

Quite a lot once the uboats got airborne.

# ? Jan 29, 2024 04:25

Sagebrush: Feb 26, 2012

Cojawfee posted:

Quite a lot once the uboats got airborne.

if only the planes had machine guns, they could have fought back

# ? Jan 29, 2024 05:18

Platystemon: Feb 13, 2012; BREADS

The deck gun would do a hell of a lot more to my plane than my .50 cal would do to the U‐boat.

I would simply fly away and radio in a contact report.

# ? Jan 29, 2024 05:27

Cactus Ghost: Dec 20, 2003; you can actually inflate your scrote pretty safely with sterile saline, syringes, needles, and aseptic technique. its a niche kink iirc

the saline just slowly gets absorbed into your blood but in the meantime you got a big round smooth distended nutsack

you'd think that, but it took very little armament to discourage a uboat from making an aerial attack

they could just pick unarmed targets off at leisure, while armed targets necessitated attacking from above and behind in so called "boom and zoom" tactics

# ? Jan 29, 2024 05:35

slidebite: Nov 6, 2005; Good egg

a patagonian cavy posted:

The plane was not in an airworthy condition after sitting for 20+ years, the less number of things needed to be fixed/repaired to move it 30 miles on its last ever flight, the better.

They did something similar to an old museum piece 737 in Edmonton that was sitting for years but the airport land it was on was being re-zoned, so they made it airworthy and flew it about 12 minutes or so to a new home literally just before the airport was closed.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/737-plane-leaves-city-centre-airport-for-new-home-1.2445868

# ? Jan 29, 2024 06:17

Serjeant Buzfuz: Dec 5, 2009

Cactus Ghost posted:

you'd think that, but it took very little armament to discourage a uboat from making an aerial attack

they could just pick unarmed targets off at leisure, while armed targets necessitated attacking from above and behind in so called "boom and zoom" tactics

Hence the modern use of the word "boomer" to refer to ballistic missile submarines.

# ? Jan 29, 2024 06:25

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

What's really interesting is that they were still called U-boats. They were Unterseebooten and then became �berseebooten. Though I guess technically they were �-boats.

# ? Jan 29, 2024 06:30

Sagebrush: Feb 26, 2012

eew-boats

# ? Jan 29, 2024 08:05

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

Sagebrush posted:

eew-boats

Eweboats were the ones they covered in cotton wool to blend in with the clouds.

# ? Jan 29, 2024 15:14

Powered Descent: Jul 13, 2008; We haven't had that spirit here since 1969.

Cojawfee posted:

What's really interesting is that they were still called U-boats. They were Unterseebooten and then became �berseebooten. Though I guess technically they were �-boats.

Allied reporting name: Umlaut

# ? Jan 29, 2024 16:56

Wingnut Ninja: Jan 11, 2003; Mostly Harmless

Powered Descent posted:

Allied reporting name: Umlaut

That would imply it's jet-powered, should be a single syllable name for propeller-driven vehicles.

# ? Jan 29, 2024 16:58

Nebakenezzer: Sep 13, 2005; The Mote in God's Eye

Platystemon posted:

How many ferry flights across the North Atlantic were lost to enemy action, anyway?

This is partially why I know about the unarmed thing, the Germans wanted to use that to shoot down ferry flights once, ahem, they got the He 177 working

There are many shots on the ferry flights where you see the .50 cals and ammo

# ? Jan 29, 2024 19:42

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

Are you saying the Germans used their own bomber to shoot at other bombers?

# ? Jan 29, 2024 20:34

Cat Wings: Oct 12, 2012

Would they have flown into Greenland on their way over instead of stopping in Gander? Or was it long enough that they needed to stop in both?

# ? Jan 29, 2024 21:05

winnydpu: May 3, 2007; Sugartime Jones

Cojawfee posted:

Are you saying the Germans used their own bomber to shoot at other bombers?

That was a thing. B-24s used for ASW patrol shot down a number of German Fw-200 four engine bombers.

# ? Jan 29, 2024 22:54

~Coxy: Dec 9, 2003; R.I.P. Inter-OS Sass - b.2000AD d.2003AD

I would blow Dane Cook posted:

https://twitter.com/StansaidAirport/status/1751368369830322407

I'm the 0 instead of O sticker.

# ? Jan 30, 2024 04:34

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

Cojawfee posted:

What's really interesting is that they were still called U-boats. They were Unterseebooten and then became �berseebooten. Though I guess technically they were �-boats.

During the early space race a bunch of people claimed to have invented reactionless engines which would free NASA from the tyranny of the rocket equation. One of these people was Norman Dean, the inventor of the Dean Drive. He purported to have a device that could convert rotary motion into linear motion via, well, magic I guess.

Well anyway, Dean immediately went to the editors of science fiction magazines and writers immediately realized that if you had a pressure hull with a big reactor in it that can turn a wheel then if you add this thing you have a spaceship! And thus the submarine in space era of pulp sci-fi began!

Atomic rockets has the original article in analog that started the idea.

quote:

A modern nuclear-powered submarine needs only relatively minor adaptations to make an ideal spaceship; it has everything it needs, save for the space drive.

The Dean drive requires a rotary shaft drive; our nuclear submarines turn nuclear energy into heat, produce steam, drive a turbine, and generate electric power. Electric power is perfect for running the Dean drive.

The modern submarines are � we have learned from past sad experience � equipped with lifting eyes so that, in event of accidental collision, quick salvage is possible. Pontoons can be towed in place, sunk beside the ship, and hitched to the built-in lifting eyes, and the ship refloated. The eyes are, of course, designed into the ship so that the structure can be lifted by those eyes without structural damage to the hull.

Dean drive units could be attached directly to the existent eyes. (ed note: you can see this in the image. The two bands around the submarine's waist hold the Dean Drive units. This also means the ship's direction of motion is in the direction the conning tower is pointed, which would make sense.)

The pressure hull of modern submarines is designed to resist at least 600 feet of water pressure; its actual thickness is a piece of classified data, of course, but we can guesstimate it must be at least 4 inches thick. After the second Bikini bomb test, the old submarine Skate was still in pretty fair condition; the light-metal streamlining hull looked like the remains of an airliner crash, but the pressure hull was perfectly intact. Stout stuff, a sub�s pressure hull.

And very fine stuff indeed as protection against the average meteor; the light streamlining hull would stop the micrometeors, of course.

Not even 4 feet of steel would stop primary cosmic rays, of course� but those inches of armor steel would have considerable damping effect on the Van Allen radiation belt effects.

The nuclear subs have already been tested with full crews for 30 continuous days out of contact with Earth�s atmosphere; their air-recycling equipment is already in place, and functions perfectly. What difference if the �out of contact� situation involves submersion in water, instead of out in space?

The modern nuclear submarine is, in fact, a fully competent space-vehicle, lacking only the Dean drive.

With the Dean drive, the ship, if it can lift off the Earth at all, can generate a one-G vertical acceleration. Since that acceleration is being generated by engines capable of continuous operation for months � if not years � at a time, the acceleration can simply be maintained for the entire run; there would be no period of free-fall for the ship or crew. Therefore the present ship structure, equipment, and auxiliary designs would be entirely satisfactory. Also, a sub has various plumbing devices with built-in locks so the equipment can be used under conditions where the external pressure is widely different from the internal.

In flight, the ship would simply lift out of the sea, rise vertically, maintaining a constant 1000 cm/sec drive. Halfway to Mars, it would loop its course, and decelerate the rest of the way at the same rate. To the passengers, and to the equipment on board, there would be no free-flight problems.

There is one factor that has to be taken in to account, however; the exhaust steam from the turbine has to be recondensed and returned to the boiler. In the sea, seawater is used to cool the condenser; in space, the cold vacuum would do the job.

The tough part would be the first 100 miles up from the Earth; ice could be used.

As a crash program, this could have been done � if work started when Dean first applied for his patent � in 15 months. The application went in in July 1956; 15 months later would have been October 1957.

Under the acceleration conditions described above, a ship can make the trip from Earth to mars, when Mars is closest, in less than three days. And even when Mars is at its farthest possible point, on the far side of the Sun, the trip would only take 5 days.

It would have been nice if, in response to Sputnik I, the US had been able to release full photographic evidence of Mars Base I.

Easy peasy! Just slap some of these drives on the USS Skate and voila:

# ? Jan 30, 2024 05:16

Wingnut Ninja: Jan 11, 2003; Mostly Harmless

quote:

What difference if the ‘out of contact’ situation involves submersion in water, instead of out in space?

Narrator: Quite a loving lot, actually.

# ? Jan 30, 2024 05:37

Serjeant Buzfuz: Dec 5, 2009

The Gang Finds Out About Thermodynamics

# ? Jan 30, 2024 06:10

mllaneza: Apr 28, 2007; Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1993-1952

hobbesmaster posted:

Atomic rockets has the original article in analog that started the idea.

Two things,

1. The Atomic Rockets site is a generally outstanding source for finding out the real science behind all sorts of things in SF, especially, of course, atomic rockets.

2. Vacuum is not cold. You need extensive radiator arrays to get rid of heat in a vacuum. This is a rare error on Nyrath's part.

# ? Jan 30, 2024 06:18

Platystemon: Feb 13, 2012; BREADS

I would simply pump the vacuum through a heat exchanger to shed heat from the vessel.

# ? Jan 30, 2024 06:20

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 3, 2024 22:16

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

mllaneza posted:

Two things,

1. The Atomic Rockets site is a generally outstanding source for finding out the real science behind all sorts of things in SF, especially, of course, atomic rockets.

2. Vacuum is not cold. You need extensive radiator arrays to get rid of heat in a vacuum. This is a rare error on Nyrath's part.

To be clearer I quoted the original article from the 1950s and basically every word of it is wrong. I couldn�t decide what to quote because all of it is incredible.

# ? Jan 30, 2024 06:26

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Automotive Insanity > Aeronautical Insanity: switching to secondary tolerances

«‹›2243 »