|
Holy poo poo someone on here knows about the Baade 152 quote:This didn’t go so well. Just before the flypast, the V1 152 crashed, killing its four flight crew. It had flown around an hour. The crash investigation was limited by state order to one week, and the results vanished into the state security apparatus. What is known is that the aircraft stalled very close to the ground in a high angle of attack. Problems were later found with the fuel tanks: they were not secured properly, and could tear loose inside the wing. Another problem here might have been the extremely slow throttle response of the RD-9s, typical in early turbojets; it took up to 20 seconds to go from idle to full throttle.
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 11:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 08:23 |
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:the full flight crew will be six, I'm not really sure why, pilot, copilot, engineer, navigator, radio man, and...? Political officer, of course.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 15:34
|
|
|
Sperglord posted:^^^ That's awesome history ^^^ Ben Rich's Skunk Works is a good jumping off point for the early days of military jet design. But it's not very in depth.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 18:02
|
|
|
Brute Squad posted:Ben Rich's Skunk Works is a good jumping off point for the early days of military jet design. But it's not very in depth. Just assume that every story involving him winning a quarter off Kelly actually happened to some one else, a lot of old engineers were pissed off at him taking credit for things he didn't do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 19:23
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:The 150 also operated its control surfaces by electricity, using irreversible screw jacks [whatever they are] to actuate flaps, ailerons, and the rudder. I'd hazard that "irreversible" implies the control screws are equipped with some kind of backlash eliminator setup so that they don't bounce around constantly while under load.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 20:12
|
|
|
It just means a worm gear system (or a similar mechanism) where the actuator can drive the flaps, but the aerodynamic forces on the flaps can't drive the actuator backwards and push them back in.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 20:18
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:It just means a worm gear system (or a similar mechanism) where the actuator can drive the flaps, but the aerodynamic forces on the flaps can't drive the actuator backwards and push them back in. Control yoke feedback isn't that important, right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 20:49
|
|
|
Actually, got a Soviet-German aeronautical question. While reading about the Baade I came across several mentions of "A GERMAN DESIGNED THE NK-12" [turboprop, used in the Tu-95/142.] I just re-read Mr. Chips excellent Bear writeup, and he details the development, from a Jumo turboprop project, to another transplant OKB with a engineer named Kuznetsov at its head, and his take is that Stalin getting really pissed that the first prototype Tu-95 crashed thanks to engine problems really brought the Soviet/German design team together in a way that only execution/imprisonment/death in a Siberian gulag only can, and the resulting product is still in use today. Anyway, I guess I'm looking for confirmation of the second, that these people are just out there overstating it
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 22:01
|
|
|
Enourmo posted:Control yoke feedback isn't that important, right? Ask an F-16 pilot
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 22:29
|
|
|
I spent a few days at EAA this year, and I feel like the C-5 is pretty insane. The size and scale of it is just monstrous. That Yak 110 that you all were talking about a few pages back (the one with the two bodies and a jet engine bolted in the middle for shits and giggles) is also pretty nuts. That one was fun as hell to watch.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 22:44
|
|
|
Every modern airliner has irreversible powered controls. Also, except for Airbus, they have artificial feel devices to backdrive the yoke and make you feel like you're feeling the air loads.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 04:04
|
|
|
Dr.Smasher posted:I spent a few days at EAA this year, and I feel like the C-5 is pretty insane. The size and scale of it is just monstrous. I was at Oshkosh saturday. Ended up walking a bit more than 13 miles... I think this is the second time I've seen a C5 in person. They're not as big as I imagine in my head. They're roughly the size as the large version of the 747. I was hoping that there would be more "around" peter siprols biplane. But, there was nobody around. Except a few flite test t-shirted people. Belite wasn't really there. One of his customer planes was there, representing them.... James Weibe crashed his chipper a little while ago. I didn't see Team Mini-Max at all... I can't remember the name of the company that's doing it, but there's a guy rebuilding lancair IV-P's to be safe planes, and faster planes. But.. the price is steep. That said, his engineering is good. The DeltaHawk engine people were there. They say they'll be ready to take orders by the end of the year. D-Motor thinks they'll be selling motors in the US this year too. D-Motor is a totally modern engine, injected, electronic ignition, etc.. except it's also a flat head? Skyraiders are amazingly big planes. The Bally Bomber was fun to visit. It's really, really, small. Vashon's planes were good to see. Very good to see. They're the only people trying to fix the cost problem. Their planes start at $95k. And that's with glass cockpit. And a well finished interior. ... it was a good day. I'll probably do it again next year.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 05:09
|
|
|
Most likely that our Pinnacle of Nazi Soviet East German Design had irreversible controls to avoid them banging the yokes around the cockpit in heavy wind. There wasn't excessive details about the actuation systems or their power sources, but can't imagine it was great.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 05:40
|
|
|
To be fair, hydraulics of some form have been a staple pretty much everywhere except personal planes since at least ww2.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 05:45
|
|
|
Truga posted:To be fair, hydraulics of some form have been a staple pretty much everywhere except personal planes since at least ww2. They're there too. Brakes, some retract systems, some flaps.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 07:19
|
|
|
So, you may remember last year that China bought the rights - and the uncompleted airframe - of the An-225. As something for their space industry, that makes sense - though they also want to build 1000 heavy lift aircraft over the next decade. According to the article linked, the Chinese also want to use the airframe for launching satellites. Now another deal has come Antonov's way, and they are restarting aircraft production ended when Ukraine was invaded by Russia, and the subsequent drying up of Russian-sourced parts. Boeing has signed a deal to set up a warehouse and manufacturing facilities for Antonov to replace all the eastern-sourced parts with western units. Manufacturing will now restart in 2019. Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 03:51 on Jul 31, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 23:31
|
|
|
I'm sure all the airports in the world that can land/service an An-225 are collectively "oh gently caress"-ing about the prospect of even *ten* more An-225s in existence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 23:46
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:I'm sure all the airports in the world that can land/service an An-225 are collectively "oh gently caress"-ing about the prospect of even *ten* more An-225s in existence. But it's sooooo coooool Seriously it is awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 00:14
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:I'm sure all the airports in the world that can land/service an An-225 are collectively "oh gently caress"-ing about the prospect of even *one* more An-225 in existence. ftfy
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 00:46
|
|
|
Why do airports fear the An-225? Does it ruin the runway or what?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 00:52
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:So, you may remember last year that China bought the rights - and the uncompleted airframe - of the An-225. As something for their space industry, that makes sense - though they also want to build 1000 heavy lift aircraft over the next decade. According to the article linked, the Chinese also want to use the airframe for launching satellites. 1000 Heavy-lift aircraft in general or 1000 An-225 derivatives? Because if it's the latter, I think someone at the PLAAF has been sampling the old Magical Five Year Plan In Four Glorious Homemade Pig Iron Mushrooms again. I don't think anything has ever existed that would require that level of heavy lift. Mostly unrelated, it is nice to that I/we get to see An-124s on a somewhat regular basis in Columbus Ohio-GE trucks engines up from Evendale and flies them to Seattle from Rickenbacker. (Why they don't just truck them the ten miles to CVG, I don't particularly understand, but gift horses and all.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 01:17
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Now another deal has come Antonov's way, and they are restarting aircraft production ended when Ukraine was invaded by Russia, and the subsequent drying up of Russian-sourced parts. Boeing has signed a deal to set up a warehouse and manufacturing facilities for Antonov to replace all the eastern-sourced parts with western units. Manufacturing will now restart in 2019. Your link doesn't work, but Google found a bunch of stories about it. I don't think they are restarting production on the AN-225 though, just the stuff they were manufacturing when the Russians invaded and possibly the new production of a twin engine aircraft being designed in cooperation with Saudi Arabia. Would be cool if they made more AN-225's though!
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 02:31
|
|
|
Hermsgervørden posted:Why do airports fear the An-225? Does it ruin the runway or what? It has so many tires that it actually has less load stress than an A380 or 747-8 - the problem is that the An-225 occasionally has to get in and out of airports that haven't been fully or even adequately upgraded to handle super-heavy aircraft, which means having to shuttle it over specific taxiways that've been shored up and are the required width (something like 80 feet with decently large shoulders) to accommodate it. There are several videos on Youtube of it departing from ZRH where it has to taxi to the end of the runway and do a 180 rather than use the taxiways to take off upwind from the right direction in the first place. And while an airport isn't like an aircraft carrier, parking space is still at a minimum and valuable. The An-225 takes up a lot of space, and it can take a fair amount more to prep and/or unload and then move its payload. And if something should break or go wrong with the plane... 
BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 02:54 on Jul 31, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 02:50
|
|
|
Yeah, my assumption is that an AN-225 severely reduced max-on-ground working capacity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 02:53
|
|
|
The Locator posted:Your link doesn't work, but Google found a bunch of stories about it. I don't think they are restarting production on the AN-225 though, just the stuff they were manufacturing when the Russians invaded and possibly the new production of a twin engine aircraft being designed in cooperation with Saudi Arabia. IIRC Saudi Arabia ordered an upgraded derivative of the An-26/32 family, with PWC engines and other upgrades. Don't know a whole lot else about the status of the program, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 03:04
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:It has so many tires that it actually has less load stress than an A380 or 747-8 - the problem is that the An-225 occasionally has to get in and out of airports that haven't been fully or even adequately upgraded to handle super-heavy aircraft, which means having to shuttle it over specific taxiways that've been shored up and are the required width (something like 80 feet with decently large shoulders) to accommodate it. There are several videos on Youtube of it departing from ZRH where it has to taxi to the end of the runway and do a 180 rather than use the taxiways to take off upwind from the right direction in the first place. Ah, an excuse to re-watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThoZNxy2JZk
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 03:18
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Ah, an excuse to re-watch this: How do you say "Hold my beer in mandarin?" https://youtu.be/21qZPaCRSQI
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 05:04
|
|
|
KodiakRS posted:How do you say "Hold my beer in mandarin?" https://youtu.be/21qZPaCRSQI Flaps are optional on takeoff in China, I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 05:09
|
|
|
We have a firetanker base up at our local airport, and the biggest of their aircraft certainly use up all of the 5000' runway on a hot day! On the plus side, it's a great way of demonstrating to my students -- particularly the ones who are planning to get their CPL -- why they need to learn short-field technique even if they're presently just flying 172s at an airport with a 5000' runway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 14:02
|
|
|
The Locator posted:Your link doesn't work, but Google found a bunch of stories about it. I don't think they are restarting production on the AN-225 though, just the stuff they were manufacturing when the Russians invaded and possibly the new production of a twin engine aircraft being designed in cooperation with Saudi Arabia. Yeah, I was writing faster than I was thinking. The partially built An-225 in Kiev is going to be completed by Antonov, but the production restart is going to be this new transport as you noted. As for the crazy transport numbers from China, I've no idea. It could be a lot of things: a) Bullshit b) An attempt to make a vast air cargo fleet that China will then leverage as soft power (I mean, imagine if by being nice to China in a crisis, you could get a fleet as big as the USAF heavy lift fleet at your disposal) c) Related to b), contingency planning for a NK collapse, making sure China holds nearly all the cards in a post-collapse political situation d) silicon valley-esque hyperbole about how big their cheap space launch industry (using An-225s or some variant developed from it as out of the lower atmosphere launch vehicles) e) Normal Chinese economic policy (where massive spending happens to keep the economic wheels turning) f) A tactic just to put the fright into American aerospace, to secure their support in the fight against the trumpiffs e) some messy combination of all of the above e: I found the above article after taking a picture of this bastard up on the tarmac. Interesting note: I didn't realize Volga-Dnepr was actually Russian owned, and that the flying An-225 is flown by Antonov airlines, not by them. Wonder if the changing political landscape has screwed them over. 
Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 16:48 on Jul 31, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 16:44
|
|
|
I'm just picturing an an-225 refitted with GE9Xs or something similarly giant
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 18:57
|
|
|
Supersonic swing wing antonov when?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 19:46
|
|
|
Dr. Despair posted:I'm just picturing an an-225 refitted with GE9Xs or something similarly giant Slam dunk some GP7000s since the A380 program is sunsetting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 19:51
|
|
|
On a couple of occasions there have been Volga-Dnepr and Antonov Airlines An-124s sharing the ramp at LCK. I can't help but wonder if/how the crews ever interact with each other.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 21:14
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YKERL6m1wk Sweden declares war on trees Extinguishing forest fires with GBU-49s EvenWorseOpinions fucked around with this message at 21:18 on Jul 31, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 21:15
|
|
|
Wasn't the real story that wildfires was encroaching an ammo dump and they decided to bomb it preemptively?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 21:23
|
|
|
um excuse me posted:Wasn't the real story that wildfires was encroaching an ammo dump and they decided to bomb it preemptively? The fire was in an impact area and fire crews couldn't go in because of UXO, but need to keep the fire from getting free/spreading by the time it left the impact area. Endangered woodpeckers, impact areas and fire: AMA! e: at least that was the claim. Maybe it was just a cover story for Operation WATCHISS: Let's drop some bombs on a fire. joat mon fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Jul 31, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 22:50
|
|
|
Hey, huge explosions was the method of choice for putting out the Kuwaiti oil well fires after Desert Storm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwaiti_oil_fires Kilonum fucked around with this message at 23:09 on Jul 31, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 23:05
|
|
|
Kilonum posted:Hey, huge explosions was the method of choice for putting out the Kuwaiti oil well fires after Desert Storm True, but a 16-inch max pipe is an easier source to bomb and starve for oxygen than acres of forest fire. Then again, a forest fire isn't burning as fiercely - I expect with a bomb the 'blowing it out' effect would extend much farther than the 'starve it of oxygen' effect. Blowing out oilwell fires with a pair of MiG-21 engines mounted on a tank is pretty AI too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7Ss3BMrscE
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 23:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 08:23 |
|
|
PT6A posted:We have a firetanker base up at our local airport, and the biggest of their aircraft certainly use up all of the 5000' runway on a hot day! Also, someone might pull a Daley on you and force you to take off from a taxiway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 23:59
|
|
