|
BalloonFish posted:How about the double-deck VC10 'Superb' that BAC proposed as a way to get the cost/seat down? Brits do love double deckers, it's true
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 15:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 05:31 |
|
|
Last Week Tonight on Sunday was a breakdown of Boeing. MAX has been delaying the Youtube upload until later in the week to try to drive subs, but it's a pretty good piece. Probably no information in it that people here don't already know, but it's going to blow up to a lot larger audience.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 15:42
|
|
|
BalloonFish posted:How about the double-deck VC10 'Superb' that BAC proposed as a way to get the cost/seat down? Going to guess luggage fees would be astronomical with the lack of cargo space? And in case of an emergency landing with gear up, I bet it would be real exciting to sit in the lower front. Probably exciting during normal landings sitting so close to the ground. Would try it tbh.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 16:15
|
|
|
They put the cockpit on the top deck where it belongs
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 16:19
|
|
|
Dunno-Lars posted:Going to guess luggage fees would be astronomical with the lack of cargo space? The probable center of gravity on that thing would also make sitting on the lower deck interesting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 16:57
|
|
|
Double stack engines, double stack passengers. Hell yeah. Also it looks like the engines are angled out based on that top view, which seems kind of weird.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 17:13
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:The probable center of gravity on that thing would also make sitting on the lower deck interesting. Every time I see a photo of a VC-10 it feels like it should be a tail dragger or something, it doesn’t seem natural to have 4 engines there!
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 17:22
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Every time I see a photo of a VC-10 it feels like it should be a tail dragger or something, it doesn’t seem natural to have 4 engines there! It could turn into a taildragger if you accidentally empty all the fuel tanks except the one in the fin.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 17:34
|
|
|
Even the longer 737 stretches have problems with tail tipping!
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 17:36
|
|
|
Scam Likely posted:Double stack engines, double stack passengers. Hell yeah. This is completely normal, to orient the longitudinal axis of the engine directly into the local relative wind. Airplanes with underwing engines usually have the engines pointed a tiny bit inward for this reason.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 18:01
|
|
|
Just ruminating on these two posts again (because I love the VC10 - I rate it as one of the best-looking aircraft ever made):Vincent Van Goatse posted:The VC-10 was a pretty cool jetliner. RIP the British aircraft industry, killed by the 1960s. Really the VC10 was killed by BOAC. The airline was very sceptical - hostile, even - to the VC10 and its management generally resented the dual expectations placed on it by the British government that it both operate as a profit-making commercial venture and serve as an in-built customer base and product proving service for the British aircraft industry. BOAC was quite happy to operate proven American types, from DC-3s right up to Stratocruisers, DC-7s and Constellations. The airline had been badly stung by the Comet's troubles and the dithering by the Ministry of Supply over the V.1000/VC7, hence the order for Conway-powered 707s. BOAC did find that the Boeing was underpowered and over-sized for the old 'Empire Routes' to Africa and the Middle East, and the RAF still needed its jet transport/tanker that the V.1000 was supposed to be. Hence the VC10. But even within BOAC management there were anti- and pro-VC10 factions and the antis held a lot of sway. The specification and the order was continually changed. BOAC publicly stated its desire to cancel its VC10 order several times, with BOAC's chairman and MD both resigning rather being forced to buy even a reduced number of VC10s. New chairman Giles Guthrie agreed to a smaller order but also went on record saying that, on a purely commercial basis, his preference was for more 707s, even if they were suboptimal on certain BOAC routes. BOAC also insisted that Vickers' original proposal for the larger 'Super' model was too big to ever gain a profitable load factor on its routes and had the 'stretch' reduced. In the end the entire project only continued because the government brought forward its RAF orders to fill the spaces in the order book originally intended for BOAC, and BOAC arranging a £30 million subsidy to cover operations of an airliner it insisted would not be profitable to run. These delays and the public disparaging of Britain's flagship jetliner by its own flag carrier ruined almost any confidence any other buyers would have had. And the finale? In the 1970s British Airways (as it then was) assessed the long-term running costs of the VC10 and the 707. It found that the VC10 fleet flew more hours per day than the 707 fleet, and at lower average running costs per flight hour. The VC10s had a higher average load factor than the 707s and were greater profit earners. Passenger research showed that the Vickers was more popular than the Boeing, with many of BA's long-term regular customers specifically choosing to fly on the VC10 over the Boeing due to its lower noise, greater speed and smoother ride. In fact the VC10's superior load factors over the Boeing did not discern the fact that a typical BA 707 carried a number of passengers who had wanted to fly on a VC10 but couldn't because the VC10 was fully booked. The thing to bear in mind with the above is that the these are long-term running costs, assessed in the early 1970s when both types had been in BOAC/BA service for about a decade. In any given year in the mid-1960s the 707s cost less to run per hour than the VC10s and flew more hours. But that gap narrowed as the aircraft aged and the VC10s proved to be much cheaper to run in the long term. The 707 had a fixed structural lifespan while the VC10's 'fail safe' fuselage was certified to 60,000 hours/20,000 landings and could go beyond those 'on condition'. Boeing could overhaul an elderly 707 to give it more hours but it was an expensive process, and BOAC found that after 30,000 hours the refit/repair costs of a VC10 were a tenth of those needed by the Boeing. BA had recurrent problems with engine supports cracking on its 707s in the 1970s while the Vickers' just went on and on with next to no unscheduled maintenance work. So, despite BOAC digging its heels in and getting a hefty subsidy to fly the VC10, they probably cost less to run/made more profit over their service lives than the Boeings did. BOAC's dismissal of the VC10 was more of a political play - not wanting to be be seen as a shoe-in dumping ground for another British aircraft industry white elephant. Unfortunately it seems that the VC10 was pretty much the point at which that industry finally got its act together and produced a world-class product, by which time BOAC didn't want to know, so neither did anyone else and then it was decided that full-size airliners were not a product that the UK could realistically make on its own anymore. Such a shame. I mean, look at it:  btw, when Caledonian sold its VC10s they made a sales brochure, which is a really good dive into the VC10 with loads of images, data and a list of all the fitted equipment and instrumentation. These were the 'combi' passenger/freight versions originally used by BUA for charters to Africa and South America.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 19:24
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:The probable center of gravity on that thing would also make sitting on the lower deck interesting. How so? I can only see it as a crumple zone where poor people sit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 19:25
|
|
|
Volkova III posted:oh my god that thing is so pretty Turn on your monitor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 19:35
|
|
|
Dunno-Lars posted:How so? I can only see it as a crumple zone where poor people sit. Just a rough guess, but the CG on that theoretical double-decker VC10 is probably a little behind the wing root of the plane. Much like in mid-engined planes where people in the back get a noticeably "wilder" ride than those over the wing and in the front, the lower front would probably feel the greatest "sense of motion" and you'd probably have a lot of airsickness problems down there to go along with the "crumple zone" issues. Think of it like a wagging  . Everything's more stable at the base, but the tip is all over the place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 21:38
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:
That's a helicopter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 22:53
|
|
|
four nuts at the base of the shaft
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 22:58
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Just a rough guess, but the CG on that theoretical double-decker VC10 is probably a little behind the wing root of the plane. Much like in mid-engined planes where people in the back get a noticeably "wilder" ride than those over the wing and in the front, the lower front would probably feel the greatest "sense of motion" and you'd probably have a lot of airsickness problems down there to go along with the "crumple zone" issues. Oh poo poo yeah, that sounds really awful. So perfect for modern airlines. Thanks for the explanation!
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 23:07
|
|
|
Volkova III posted:oh my god that thing is so pretty Turn on your monitor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 23:14
|
|
|
Scam Likely posted:Also it looks like the engines are angled out based on that top view, which seems kind of weird. Trivia: on the Saab 340 the propeller discs are not perpendicular to the aircraft's longitudinal axis; both engines are angled about 3-4 degrees to the right. In other words the engines aren't quite on there straight; they're pointing slightly to the right. The nacelles are slightly asymmetrical too. The reason for this is related to the fact that both engines rotate in the same direction (clockwise when viewed from the aft). Many if not most twin engine turboprops do this, mainly for ease of maintenance reasons (don't need gearboxes or specifically left/right-handed engines), but it's not symmetrical. Basically the thrust vector becomes offset slightly to the right of the engine, which leads to some aerodynamic asymmetries, which the obliquely mounted engines compensate for to some extent. I don't know how many other turboprops do this but it feels vaguely cursed and very Saab-esque. I learned this from this excellent and very under-watched youtube channel on aircraft design by a professor at the University of Southampton: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJC6xPqukG4 (Segment on the angled engines starts at around 10:20). TheFluff fucked around with this message at 23:59 on Mar 4, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 23:55
|
|
|
This was the hack when building R/C aircraft: the engine is always mounted with the thrust line a few degrees to starboard to counteract torque roll as well
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2024 01:18
|
|
|
BalloonFish posted:Just ruminating on these two posts again (because I love the VC10 - I rate it as one of the best-looking aircraft ever made): gently caress yes, this is exactly the sort of thing that has this thread in my bookmarks. Thanks for this post.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2024 07:31
|
|
|
BalloonFish posted:Just ruminating on these two posts again (because I love the VC10 - I rate it as one of the best-looking aircraft ever made): It's no Constellation, but it'll do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 04:25
|
|
|
 https://twitter.com/BvuePD/status/1765195410463977634
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 10:23
|
|
|
I genuinely love that airplane parachutes are a thing. Not just for the safety aspect, but because it sounds like some cartoon idea.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 12:01
|
|
|
TuxedoOrca posted:I genuinely love that airplane parachutes are a thing. Not just for the safety aspect, but because it sounds like some cartoon idea. The first thing they teach you is that if you’re engine goes out, never look down to the ground
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 13:22
|
|
|
TuxedoOrca posted:I genuinely love that airplane parachutes are a thing. Not just for the safety aspect, but because it sounds like some cartoon idea. Airplanes with parachute and rockets that land on little feet that pop out at the last second. Truly the future we were promised. Just don’t pay attention to the fascism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 15:07
|
|
|
TuxedoOrca posted:I genuinely love that airplane parachutes are a thing. Not just for the safety aspect, but because it sounds like some cartoon idea. I’ve seen Cirrus license plate frames in the wild with “Chute Happens” on them mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 15:45 on Mar 6, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 15:19
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:I’ve seen Cirrus license players frames in the wild with “Chute Happens” on them That's perfect.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 15:30
|
|
|
MD500 engine failure in Kauai https://i.imgur.com/7wj639o.mp4 One minor back injury.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 17:36
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Airplanes with parachute and rockets that land on little feet that pop out at the last second. Truly the future we were promised. The fascism was also promised.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 23:08
|
|
|
I have my airframe written test tomorrow for my A&P. My head hurts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 23:42
|
|
|
insanely cool video, the last produced 727 flying around at 150 feet above the water over the north sea for oil cleanup missions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFQo45CHb2I
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 23:56
|
|
|
ImplicitAssembler posted:MD500 engine failure in Kauai pilot nailed it as far as i can tell. followed the training and everyone walked away. is there a longer version of this with sound? or an ntsb report? i don't know how to look those up with only vague info
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2024 01:29
|
|
|
ImplicitAssembler posted:MD500 engine failure in Kauai I'd imagine it's gonna be interesting to get that thing out of that cove. There used to be CH-53Es on Hawaii but I think the Marines moved them all out years ago.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2024 03:10
|
|
|
Cactus Ghost posted:pilot nailed it as far as i can tell. followed the training and everyone walked away. https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/352043 Best I got. He ran out of airspeed making the turn, so there wasnt much of a flare, but that's easy to say from here. BIG HEADLINE posted:I'd imagine it's gonna be interesting to get that thing out of that cove. There used to be CH-53Es on Hawaii but I think the Marines moved them all out years ago. An Astar can easily lift that out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2024 03:52
|
|
|
there's always a way if someone can pay
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2024 06:39
|
|
|
TuxedoOrca posted:I genuinely love that airplane parachutes are a thing. Not just for the safety aspect, but because it sounds like some cartoon idea. Even crazier was one of the first airframe parachute systems. Tested out in flight - once - on a Stinson 108 it consisted of explosive bolts in the wing attach fittings. These would jettison the wings from the fuselage and then all three would float down under their own parachutes. Apparently they tested it just the one time and then left the plane in a hangar to collect dust. Somebody bought it and put it back together and It’s still flying/registered today! http://www.stinsonflyer.com/avtextsf/stn-ewb.pdf
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2024 09:25
|
|
|
Definitely not in the nautical insanity thread today; Any dredging barge would be able to crane that onto the barge and then deliver to the nearest port. I'm sure there's other options but putting that on a barge wouldn't be exceptionally difficult. Might need to wait a couple days for the ideal weather window though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2024 10:07
|
|
|
charliemonster42 posted:Even crazier was one of the first airframe parachute systems. Tested out in flight - once - on a Stinson 108 it consisted of explosive bolts in the wing attach fittings. These would jettison the wings from the fuselage and then all three would float down under their own parachutes. Apparently they tested it just the one time and then left the plane in a hangar to collect dust. Somebody bought it and put it back together and It’s still flying/registered today! That's pretty wild.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2024 10:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 05:31 |
|
|
Cactus Ghost posted:pilot nailed it as far as i can tell. followed the training and everyone walked away. If you open it in a new tab, it has audio on it (not sure about a longer version though). edit: nm it's in that link my bad
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2024 20:18
|
|
