|
Welp see ya later!
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 02:27 |
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:First will be Singapore's suites class, economy and will be half standing on bicycles seats with 16" seat widths so the same number of people can be carried despite each first class customer having a full double bed. Um, that's already a thing. It's a three room suit for two.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Welp see ya later! Stop! My penis can only get so erect.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
e: wrong thread
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 14:43
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Welp see ya later! christ this looks like a next-gen Ace Combat game or something. That owns
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
Someone should add on the bikini scene from Stealth and call it a day.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
The story of how a an American B737 pilot became a Mirage F1 pilot in Libya, discovering the joys of flying on very fast, and very, very unmaintained warplanes with no prior training.quote:Most are not going to believe this I found this on a French forum where they said they found it on an American forum but without linking the source unfortunately. There's also some pics. http://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=520247IMG7884copy.jpg -- during taxi trials http://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=965523IMG7847copy.jpg -- actual flight (with a different helmet) http://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=992713IMG7876copy.jpg -- safely back on the ground
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
Holy loving poo poo that is incredible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
hahahahahahahaha. on one hand, WW2 was arguably worse for lots of pilots. Some glider time and bang you're in the seat of a me109 or hurricane/spitfire on the other hand holy poo poo loving being given a jet, bombs and missiles with no training lmao. he didn't mention learning or practicing how to bomb??
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Lol so true. This works the same for C-130s. "Whats that, we landed somewhere we like? Oh look, the prop gearbox is leaking. Guess we gotta do a prop change.....in 4 days"
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
LUBE UP YOUR BUTT posted:hahahahahahahaha. He took my method of learning dcs planes and used it in real life. Im so proud.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
Just got back from the Naval Aviation museum; I didn't really get many pictures as I was mostly overwhelmed trying to see anything. I do loving love the weird rear end 50s-60s naval aircraft. The Demon, Skyray, Cutlass, etc. Weird looking and short lived but very cool. I'd figuratively kill for a DCS: F-3 Demon. Previa_fun fucked around with this message at 22:25 on Jun 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
OhsH posted:He took my method of learning dcs planes and used it in real life. Im so proud. Looking forward to DCS: Ender's Game
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:The story of how a an American B737 pilot became a Mirage F1 pilot in Libya, discovering the joys of flying on very fast, and very, very unmaintained warplanes with no prior training. Did anyone save the pics from this, because hollllly poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
Ardeem posted:Are you able/willing to travel 100 miles? I was the guy that posted about it and while I recommend this, too, the airfield the Coney Island show was moved to is closer. Stewart International in Newburgh. Come and marvel at the longest runway you'll ever see that hardly gets used. Also, Orange County Choppers is like right there on 17k if you like catalog bikes
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 02:15
|
|
|
This photo is airplane related.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
Previa_fun posted:I'd figuratively kill for a DCS: F-3 Demon. I'd sacrifice a goat to get DCS: F-14 to come out quicker, but on the other hand I don't want it rushed/hosed up, either. Evidently they're only starting beta testing at the end of this year.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 03:25
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:I'd sacrifice a goat to get DCS: F-14 to come out quicker, but on the other hand I don't want it rushed/hosed up, either. Evidently they're only starting beta testing at the end of this year. If it's the A model how could you tell if it's the sim or the plane loving up though 
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 05:04
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:The story of how a an American B737 pilot became a Mirage F1 pilot in Libya, discovering the joys of flying on very fast, and very, very unmaintained warplanes with no prior training. It's like a real life Area 88
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 07:40
|
|
|
freelop posted:It's like a real life Area 88 Speaking of, when are we gonna get our live action A88 movie?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
it was called Iron Eagle III
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
n0tqu1tesane posted:This photo is airplane related. an airbus maintenance depot ?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWTK9phKoaE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxvwGppH4zg Are these an effect exaggerated by the camera or do these have 1+ TWR when empty?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
Inacio posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWTK9phKoaE Well, it's not >1 TWR. It's a standard short-field takeoff procedure. You wait to rotate at some speed higher than your minimum and convert that extra forward speed into altitude rapidly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
Inacio posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWTK9phKoaE Effect exaggerated by the camera. In the first video, the plane is climbing straight toward the camera, which negates any lateral movement and leaves only vertical. In the second video the same thing is happening, plus a high focal length lens is used, which reduces any motion in the toward-camera/away-from-camera dimension, thus further relatively exaggerating the vertical.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
babyeatingpsychopath posted:It's a standard short-field takeoff procedure. You wait to rotate at some speed higher than your minimum and convert that extra forward speed into altitude rapidly. That doesn't make sense because the energy going into speed (and then from that into altitude) could just go to straight into altitude in the first place. vessbot fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Jun 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
Assuming the same pitch angle is used, a plane rotating at 150 knots climbs faster than a similar plane rotating at 135 knots. I don't understand the argument.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Assuming the same pitch angle is used, a plane rotating at 150 knots climbs faster than a similar plane rotating at 135 knots.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Assuming the same pitch angle is used, a plane rotating at 150 knots climbs faster than a similar plane rotating at 135 knots. While you're building the extra 15 knots you're also using up runway distance. So you've gotta make up that runway distance plus more, if it's gonna be a "short field" technique.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
Yea alright that makes sense. We didn't have anything like that in awacs except holding a takeoff run further for the extra climb speed because lol Pratt and Whitney
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
Inacio posted:Are these an effect exaggerated by the camera or do these have 1+ TWR when empty? Empty weight is roughly around 250k pounds where both the GEnx and Trent 1000s max out around 75,000 lbs thrust for takeoffs, so nowhere close to 1 TWR. Now if some crazy person were to put GE90s on it you'd be getting pretty close. The hypothetical all-GE90 747 that most of us thought of when seeing the photo from testing with the one of 'em mounted up would exceed 1:1 TWR.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Assuming the same pitch angle is used, a plane rotating at 150 knots climbs faster than a similar plane rotating at 135 knots. If it's a "short-field takeoff procedure," why would you stay on the ground longer to build up to 150 knots if you can rotate at 135?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Yea alright that makes sense. We didn't have anything like that in awacs except holding a takeoff run further for the extra climb speed because lol Pratt and Whitney
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
And MANPADS
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:And MANPADS
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
vessbot posted:While you're building the extra 15 knots you're also using up runway distance. So you've gotta make up that runway distance plus more, if it's gonna be a "short field" technique. Argh. Not short-field. "Obstacle clearance." You're rotating at the speed which gives you the best rate of climb (most altitude per unit time) vs a short-field which gives you best angle of climb (most altitude per horizontal distance). If you're doing trick maneuvers and you've got runway distance, then you can get your speed up even higher and keep that rate of climb for a lot longer until your speed decays down to close to stall speed. Since you're pitching up to get your airspeed down, it looks like you're taking off like a rocket.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
Now I want to see a 787 do a soft field take off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
babyeatingpsychopath posted:Argh. Not short-field. "Obstacle clearance." When it comes to obstacle clearance, my point still stands that any speed build-up above the appropriate climb speed (best angle of climb speed, in this case) is wasted potential, since it consumes distance (that is, distance from start of takeoff roll to obstacle) for no benefit. Not only is there no benefit, there is a loss since you've spent that time operating at a less efficient condition than best-angle. In fact, depending on the obstacle height and distance, there is a benefit to flying slower than best-angle speed, rather than at it. The climb angle is less than optimal, but the earlier lift-off point will make up for it, for close-in obstacles.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
wolrah posted:Empty weight is roughly around 250k pounds where both the GEnx and Trent 1000s max out around 75,000 lbs thrust for takeoffs, so nowhere close to 1 TWR. Supersonic 747  
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 02:27 |
|
|
vessbot posted:When it comes to obstacle clearance, my point still stands that any speed build-up above the appropriate climb speed (best angle of climb speed, in this case) is wasted potential, since it consumes distance (that is, distance from start of takeoff roll to obstacle) for no benefit. Not only is there no benefit, there is a loss since you've spent that time operating at a less efficient condition than best-angle. I went to my Pilot's Operating Handbook to check some stuff out. Things may be different for jets; this is for a Cessna 172 with 210-HP engine and fixed prop. Normal takeoff is trim for takeoff and plane will rotate itself at 55KIAS and lift off between 70-80KIAS, with best rate of climb at 73KIAS. Short field/obstacle clearance takeoff is hold nose down until 59KIAS then pitch back for best angle climb 59KIAS. If field conditions indicate flaps, no more than 10° and climb at 55KIAS. Stall speeds are given as 42 KIAS flaps up and 38 KIAS flaps 10°. Do jets have different speeds? The physics seems to indicate that if you take off earlier and your climb rate isn't ideal, then you end up lower than if you'd followed the best angle-of-climb profile. Just like you can't "cheat" your best-glide speed. Going faster means you hit the ground earlier. Going slower means you hit the ground earlier.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 20:22
|
|