|
Wow. When I started reading this thread, it had 196 pages.... High points: zeppelin post every day! Low points: F-22/F-35 whining. Content: today I saw F-22s, Tornadoes, T-38s, F-4s, and Apaches overhead. It wasn't even an airshow, just a Wednesday. Also got to see JLENS being launched on the drive home.
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2012 03:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 18:12 |
|
|
grover posted:Early jet engines were a lot like that. This is actually very simple. You just build a combustor and stick it where the engine normally goes. You now have a turbojet engine. It helps to upgrade the thrust bearings and make sure you've got really good oil flow, but that's basically it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2012 04:49
|
|
|
Last time I seriously looked into this, the electronics rules aren't mandated by the FAA at all, but the FCC. Some others of them are enforced by specific carriers, and others by the TSA. When I flew .mil, they didn't care what flight regime you were in, all everything was OK. They said that you'd get rear end for phone signal above 10kAGL, so don't bother, but didn't actually care if you tried. Laptops during taxi, takeoff, and landing? Just fine. They had 110v outlets there in the cabin to plug your chargers into, as well. FM radio? Shortwave? GPS? All just great. They didn't want you using the microwave during taxi because the grounding was bad and caused horrible hum on the interphone, but that was an A/C specific gripe. I use my personal phone during flights in GA A/C all the time. The radios are Bendix/King from the 60s and don't seem to pick up anything, even when the phone is on the dash, less than a foot from the wiring. I know anecdotes do not data make, and better safe than sorry, but the risk is infinitesimal that your PDA is going to degrade flight controls of modern aircraft enough that safety of flight is an issue. Ninja edit: CFR 14 135.144 bans all personal electronic devices unless allowed by the carrier (certificate holder in part 119). So United could say "we fly all safe, modern aircraft. Except for GPS jammers, anything with a battery in it is fine, during all times." babyeatingpsychopath fucked around with this message at 00:38 on Jan 1, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2013 00:32
|
|
|
MrChips posted:In the case of a P-51, most of the structure would likely comply with Part 23 with few problems; there would be some minor things that don't comply, but it wouldn't be hard to make it work - the techniques and whatnot used in metal aircraft construction haven't really changed much since then. In terms of equipment and instrumentation, that really isn't an issue even for modern aircraft - you can pretty much install as much or as little as you need to be compliant and be done with. I'm looking over the FARs right now, and I can't see anything as obvious as you can. Granted, I don't know manufacture of P-51s all that well, but it still seems like a full-scale reproduction of this aircraft built with modern techniques would pass airworthiness requirements for an acrobatic aircraft.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2013 12:36
|
|
|
fknlo posted:If I could legally buy airline stocks and had some money laying around I'd buy the poo poo out of it. It's not like the wings are falling off of them, it's a loving battery. This is the time to buy YUASA. They're not going under. They're going to fix this, and make bank. Their stock is down 50% from a year ago, though.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2013 06:21
|
|
|
D C posted:It was a joke geeze! What does hanging big camera equipment off the front do to weight/balance? I know our H-60s were designed with all kinds of stuff in mind that we never installed, so we got to hang steel plates off the nose, but those Bell 206s didn't have that design in mind. Is there a bunch of ballast in the back? Can you not take passengers anymore? Does the camera system just not weigh all that much?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2013 04:48
|
|
|
vulturesrow posted:Anyone here planning on going to Oshkosh this year? In strongly considering trying to bring one of our planes up this year. Is it in any way possible to "accidentally" turn one of the pods on with ground power? I know they can't produce full wattage without the ram air, but is it even possible to get them to emit with weight-on-wheels?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2013 04:57
|
|
|
ctishman posted:So apparently people landing on Taxiway Tango at KSEA is a recurring problem, despite efforts the port has taken to educate and prevent accidental landings there. I'm new to the whole aviation world, but from what I understand of avionics, wouldn't your localizer be pointing out helpfully the entire way down that you're significantly off, or would it only manifest when you got close enough for it to make no difference? So that article is from 2005, and now there's a 16C in between. Is this still a problem?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2013 23:47
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:It seems like the real problem with the DC-10 was in the hydraulics not really taking well to anything going wrong ever. IE: Engine falls off, hosed up hydraulics put plane into death roll. Engine explodes, hosed up hydraulics make plane un-flyable. Cargo door blows out, Control cables cut, plane unflyable. This was a common theme in all aircraft design in the 50s and 60s (and maybe today). Reading incident reports, it seems like the designers didn't design stuff fail-safe, or with failure in mind. Single hydraulic systems, multiple hydraulic systems that all share a common reservoir, all electrical generators mounted to one engine, that kind of thing. Sure, failure is unlikely, but when it happens to that single point in common, an unlikely event immediately becomes a catastrophic one. This slat thing is an example: slats are held open only by hydraulic pressure. If you're in a flight regime that needs slats, and you have differential pressure loss, you now have differential slat deployment. If that pressure loss comes from a failed engine, then the system that tells you about the slat disagreement is powered by the same failed engine. So a likely failure mode (failed engine) produces problems that it cannot alert the pilots about.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2013 23:23
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Let me speak from a E-3/707 background here; the plane is ridiculously reliable and has plenty of redundancy. The ingenuity of the aircraft comes from what Boeing engineers did in what and how systems such as spoilers, brakes, flaps, landing gear, etc are all powered or how they can be operated via other methods. You do make a good call on the common reservoir issue because it's a fairly well-known issue that if the utility (engine-driven hydro pumps) system goes, it'll piss out all of the fluid even though the reservoir has off set heights for where the aux and utility connects to in case of a system failure like that. I come at this from a military helicopter standpoint. Apparently Sikorsky knew that these things were basically huge flying death traps who only beat the air into submission and flail their way to barely above ground level. The #1 engine powers #1 hydraulic and #1 electric. #1 hydraulic is also first stage flight controls for pitch,roll, and yaw. However, #1 engine monitoring is provided by #2 electric. First stage collective is provided by #2 hydraulic (#2 engine). Aux hydraulic powers second stage pitch/roll, with second stage yaw powered by #2 aux. First stage flight controls are on #2 electric, second stage is emergency electric (a DC bus) fed by both #1 and #2 electric through rectifiers and some god-awful huge fusible-link contactor busses. Of course, the #2 engine monitoring is from #1 engine, and #3 engine montitoring is from one of the DC busses. If any of the engine FADECs go, then all you get from that engine (regardless of power source) is a huge-rear end "this engine is dead" light (pop the bottle). The fire control lights are provided by thermocouples in the engine bays. Enough heat to light the lights? Pop the bottles. First stage of the door ramp is powered by aux hydraulic, with the second stage door ramp powered by #3 hydraulic, which is normally only for mission packages. Even the winch has feeds from two hydraulic systems. All in all, four hydraulic systems with four reservoirs that are only connected by the in-flight replenishing point is probably overkill. Same with three AC busses (only two of which are ever actually online, with the third automatically failing over) and two DC busses, plus a DC emergency buss and a DC battery buss (either of which can be from the inverters, but is normally from the non-failed-over AC system (#3 usually) but can also be standalone, or powered from each other). So: troubleshooting: pain in the dick. Unless you REALLY know systems, it's hard to find the problem by pulling breakers. Of course, if you really know systems, then it's easy to ID problems. I guess the upside is being able to have the rotorhead hydraulic coupling literally fall out of the rotor and the aircraft can still fly 100% normal. The flight crew has a bucket collecting hydraulic fluid from the main rotorhead drain pan and dumping it straight into the inflight servicing bucket, but the PILOTS never knew how bad it was.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2013 13:17
|
|
|
DoesNotCompute posted:Honestly, being a 5'6" 155lb person I can not even FATHOM how people 6' or taller or heavy set people tolerate flying. Ok, so you know that clear plastic bag you have to put all your fluids in, and all the fluids have to be 3oz or less? You can put a whole lot of "airline bottles" of booze in one of those bags. First time the service comes through (or even on the ground, if this is a connecting flight and you're bold), ask for the whole can. Especially tonic water, they've always got tons of that. Bombay Sapphire and tonic: you can chat with anybody now.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2013 08:32
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I would live there, like a hermit. I know from personal experience that sleeping inside an afterburner is not a good way to spend a night. Injectors are pokey.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2013 03:42
|
|
|
slidebite posted:He was sure wigging out on that stick around 5:40-ish. I assume that's normal? Stirring the stick on short final into tropical islands is normal. I want the next minute of video. The guys get to the end of the runway and get a "please expedite turnaround, following traffic on four-mile final." Since those chuckleheads went from five-mile to down in about 95 seconds, they've got about 35 seconds on that turnaround to back-taxi and clear the runway. Mugging for the camera time, included.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2013 07:33
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:
This is a Kerbal Space Program spaceplane. Two different wings? Different colors? Jam an avionics pack on it to make it fly somewhat at all? Try to at least get the COM and COT lined up?  For actual content, have a P-2V. Turbo-compounding is sweet.  A bit later, I had to hold short of a taxiway. Never gotten that instruction before... what kind of idiot can't see me on the taxiway here....  Oh.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2013 23:06
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Yeah, Reapers are light plane sized, way bigger than most people expect them to be. They are certainly larger in every dimension than the C-172 I was in.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2013 01:02
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:It's an airplane, it counts: I'm not going to lie. If I had unlimited funds, I would be launching commercial rockets as often as possible. I would then fly to the moon and come back. Why can't the lottery get up to $2B?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2013 19:38
|
|
|
ChickenOfTomorrow posted:Stupid Airbus question: During taxi in an A320, I heard 4 or 5 "bark"-like squeals from the undercarriage. Upon reaching the gate, I heard something similar. Since the barks seemed to coincide with engine spool-up/down, I suspect the PTU. It sounded like it was right under my feet, and freaked the heck out of a bunch of people around me. The barking is a hydraulic converter, letting the #1 system power the #2 system when the #2 engine is shut down. It's kind of a fun noise, really. I think the Boeings use all auxiliary hydraulics for taxi, powered by the APU, so no barking of hydraulic transfer, but I'm not sure about that.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 04:48
|
|
|
Phy posted:That's always been one of my favourite engineering stories, and the point it makes is a good one, but at best it's unattributable. (Relevant bit at the bottom) It's attributable to Abraham Wald, and his 1943 paper A Method of Estimating Plane Vulnerability Based on Damage of Survivors. It's my #1 go-to for stories about selection bias.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2013 18:34
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Is that really the case in a modern aircraft? WWII aircraft that relied on carburetors for gas and gravity to feed oil to the engine, sure, but in a modern engine? I can't see the fuel delivery system in a gas turbine caring about what orientation the airplane's in. Most of the turbines I've seen have to be specifically designed for dry-sump operation. Otherwise, there's an oil tank on the bottom with an oil pump in it. Fuel dip tubes are also bottom-fed, so even though all the pumps and whatnot work in any attitude, fuel is only at the input in a limited range.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2013 22:55
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:Heard that F-18 pilots actually have to get additional training to get hired on with airlines after their service. They have shitloads of turbine time, but the centerline thrust doesn't count for proper multi engine experience, so they need some additional hours getting used to flying a plane that goes to poo poo when it loses an engine. Is that fact or just bullshit I picked up somewhere? Nope. F-4s, F-15s, F-18s, all like this. I was told that the T-38 guys don't even get a multiengine rating, since a single engine loss in that platform doesn't significantly affect flight performance.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2013 05:41
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:Right but you don't actually cut the engine for the practice maneuver. They don't have to be jarring, but those Robinsons have a VERY low-inertia rotor system, so even a tiny bit off of perfect and you hit the ground hard. My CFI flew helos, and liked the Hiller more than the Robinson because of its huge all-solid-wood rotor blades and the fact you could be halfway lazy for autorotations. The offset of that was that he could get into a hover at 6000' density altitude with the Robinson, not so much with the Hiller. For the demonstrated autos, you have to release the clutch somehow; there's got to be "split RPM" demonstrated, so the engine is absolutely not attached to the rotor system for the practice stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 03:31
|
|
|
Polymerized Cum posted:Didn't someone in another thread say that A-10 pilots for practice hang out in pairs above an interstate and "call" cars for each other to target? In high school, I lived next to a F-117 pilot. I thought it was cool when the stealths would fly over our house at night. I found out that the guys planning the missions would put the lat/lon of pilots' houses as bomb points. When the jets were flying over at midnight, they were practicing putting a 500lb bomb through my neighbor's front window.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2013 21:15
|
|
|
vulturesrow posted:Seeing those pictures reminded me of kind of a funny story. We were taxiing back to our hangar at NAS Whidbey one evening and there was an Air Force heavy on the flight line that was up on jacks. I can't remember what kind of plane it was unfortunately. I told one of the guys on our crew that I'd give him 20 bucks if he laid underneath the wheels for 5 minutes. His response was a hearty "Go gently caress yourself." Getting caught underneath something that can squish you while on jacks is a big no-no. There are wonderful pictures all over the hangar of jack failures. Some of them have captions like "that's not a pool of hydraulic fluid" and "it's surprising how much blood a body holds" and stuff like that.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2013 15:59
|
|
|
CroatianAlzheimers posted:
http://www.militaryaviationmuseum.org/ Out in the sticks; they've got a grass field, and sometimes fly their stuff. They've got more than planes there, too. They had a BMW motorcycle with sidecar in Afrika Korps trim, an 88mm, and some Russian Jeep-things. Much of their stuff is flying or near-flyable condition. Really cool place. It's basically just two or three somewhat large hangars, but well worth it because of how very very very close they let you get (touching, if you ask nicely).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2013 20:34
|
|
Holy poo poo, the City Museum has changed since the last time I was there.
|
CroatianAlzheimers posted:Isn't that gone now? I thought they were liquidating their aircraft because the old guy who owned all of them lost his shirt on a chain of for-profit scammy-rear end tech schools. I may be misunderstanding it, but that's the reason I was told when their ME-262 and the Mosquito were pulled from Thunder Over Michigan. I sure hope not. I was there a couple years back; I'd planned on going when I was back in town in a few weeks. If it's all gone, I will be sad.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2013 21:51
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:For me is was the Cobra Night Raven. It had missiles galone, mechanical retracting landing gear and a hidden pair of laser cannons. Oh, and a D-29ish fighter pod. Yes. I gave up all my toy gifts for a whole year to get this for Christmas. It was totally worth it. I found it in a tub with some He-Man figures a few years back. It still has ALL ITS MISSILES AND ROCKETS. I also have major subassemblies for some white half-track that's got all its missiles, too, but not its wheels. edit: my mom informs me that the hovercraft and the a-10 are also in that box. I don't remember that. I do remember the hovercraft's missiles getting everywhere, though, and my dad yelling at me for it. double edit: yojoe.com. Man '84-'85 were the best years for toys, like, ever.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2013 21:14
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:But *my sense of entitlement* Most light aircraft engines are direct-drive: there's a propeller bolted to the driveshaft. That, in itself, serves as a fairly effective governor. Since drag goes up with the square of velocity, the engines become horsepower-limited trying to spin an ever-increasing load before they over-rev.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2013 19:07
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:You're proposing we compare a plane to a small plane and a famously small plane and then determine that it's also small? Exactly. Compare it to an F-15 or F-14. Even a F-117. The A-10 is a meaty plane, for sure, but it holds its size well. It looks about as big as it should look. The F-117 does not. It seems small, but the whole thing is just an ENORMOUS brick. Side-by-side with an F-15, you get some sense of scale of the monster. And an A-4 is half an F-4, by design.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2013 22:36
|
|
|
ehnus posted:Who does that F-4 in the video belong to? Are any still flying in air forces these days? I bet it's Turkish. Those were Turkish F-16s, and I think I saw a red flag on the F-5 tail. edit: it's got the Turkish AF Roundels on the wing. babyeatingpsychopath fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Aug 28, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2013 00:13
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:Reminds me of a story related to me by a fellow alumnus. One of the typical "routes" for student pilots soloing would be to fly from DAB down to Marathon, sometimes with a planned "lay over". He gets down there and there are about 5 other pilots from my school already there when the weather warnings for DAB start coming in. So, all six of them take off one right after the other to get back to DAB before the poo poo hits (typical summer storms you get over the Florida peninsula). Well, with six of our birds flying close enough together, and technically all six flying VFR, they all decide to have an impromptu formation. Within about a minute ATC jumped on their poo poo and told them to knock it off. Why did ATC tell them to knock it off? Do you have to file formation flights? I thought in VFR the only thing required for formation was that all the pilots agreed to fly formation, then the formation leader talked to ATC and the flight acted like one aircraft until the pattern.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2013 11:26
|
|
|
The Locator posted:So this is a weird video. Not so much for the engine 'exploding', as for the amazing vortexes that are being formed from the inboard engines. I've never seen anything like it. Back-taxi with thrust reverser. They got some compressor stall. It's like a backfire, but louder.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2013 05:55
|
|
|
Q_res posted:Well, does anyone have a preference for which one I do next? I've got F-84 Thunderjet, F-86 Sabre, F-104 Starfighter and F-105 Thunderchief. I'll probably do one tomorrow, maybe one sometime during this week and then next weekend finish off the last two. F-105, then F-84.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2013 01:50
|
|
|
Charlotte Douglas has one. It's even got a placard with all the radio frequencies listed in case you want to take your scanner. Not usually necessary, though, as all the times I've been, there have been guys with scanners and large sound systems. Listening to (say) Delta Ground Ops is pretty cool. The pilots get to complain about ramp delays and talk to schedulers and stuff and about how they're gonna run out of crew rest or fuel or something. Then you hear them on the Ground Control freq asking for an ETA.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
I've flown Delta MD-xx, United somethings and ERJs, and Southwest 737-700s in the past month. I thought the Southwest seats were surprisingly narrow. Legroom was acceptable, but the bones in my hips touched both arm rests. ERJs are awesome, though. The "A" seat, where you have both a window and an aisle? Yes, please! Even the B and C seats aren't bad. I really would have liked not to fly United, though. They really suck as an air carrier.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:I'll just add that going off of the top of my head I want to say that the Mass ANG has some of the oldest F-15Cs in the fleet (which is like being the oldest person in a nursing home)...so yeah, I'm going with some sort of structural failure. Weren't the Cs the ones where the wings fall off or something at high flight cycles? I seem to remember a grounding. edit: Yep. Bad stringers caused the fuselage of an ANG F-15C forward of the air intakes to fall off in flight in 2007. All aircraft were inspected, repaired, and subsequently released for flight in 2008. So, say the nose falls off. Is there enough battery and wiring left to declare an emergency? I don't know where the radios are located in an F-15.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
Looks like #9 is the air radio. ARC-164? Google says ARC-190(V). Whichever. It looked like the front of an Air Radio to me. So depending on how much residual energy is sitting around, maybe?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
drgitlin posted:A rather cool *H-53 variant flew past us yesterday on the beach at Assateague - almost silent like the MH-53 I saw in London, but darker grey or green, and with the fatter pontoons and no drop tanks. Had what looked like a refueling boom on the back too. I thought all the Sea Stallion family had been retired now? There are a couple of MH-53 squadrons operating out of Norfolk. No refuelling boom on the back; it may have had the tow winch set up. They tow a sled for minesweeping.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
Linedance posted:Is it actually a leak, or did the drunk pouring the oils just miss the scupper with half the can? Every engine and most gearboxes I've ever worked on have had a drip rate in the pubs. That rate can be pretty high. On the MH-53E I worked on, the max drip rate out of the back of the intermediate gearbox was something like six drops per minute. That gets into pint-level leaks overnight. If it's leaking from both seals, and the APU and hydraulic manifold are both leaking, you can be looking at just shy of a gallon of mixed oil/fluid in one drain pan over a weekend. Newer stuff (built in the 2000s at least) is better. The most recent aircraft engine I worked on was four drops per hour. It was a 2013 major overhaul engine and never leaked the entire time we used it. The aircraft stay SCARILY clean when they're not constantly dripping fluids.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
Ardeem posted:Well, I was right about something weird going on with that one. Nice to know what it is! What about the one next to it? I spent half an hour tracking down the Rotor Systems Research Aircraft. It's a Sikorsky helicopter chassis, with the rotor system of an SH-3, landing gear of an F-5, and engines of an S-3 bolted on. It's also a helicopter with ejection seats. The reason it was so hard to track down is that there's no rotor system installed in that photo, with the SH-3 bits painted an exciting blue, so I couldn't figure out what the hell was going on with it, and wasn't looking in their helicopter section at all. The rotor bits are a nice color because it's in the middle of getting upgraded to the X-wing platform (shortly before the program was cancelled).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 18:12 |
|
|
YF19pilot posted:Agreed. I don't care if her face looks like an English bulldog chewed a wasp, if she gives me the whole coke, she is my favorite person for the next hour or so. It bugged the hell out of me when I flew Delta as a teenager, that they wouldn't give you the whole can unless you asked. More so because they would just toss whatever didn't get poured out half the time. I typically order tonic water and almost always get the whole can without asking. I then pour an airline bottle of gin in it. edit: I didn't realize it was specifically illegal to do this, so I guess I'm gonna stop now.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2014 00:36
|
|