Aeronautical Insanity: switching to secondary tolerances

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

«‹›5 »

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

CarForumPoster posted:

Which is at least a little hilarious since NG:MS is making a radar and NG:AS is one of the biz jet contenders so NG will see both Raytheon's and NG:MS' numbers.

Doesnt matter though since when finding that link I also found theyre going into their 5th or 6th AoA so maybe cancelling and definitely delaying contract award.

Yeah he's at Raytheon and he's not allowed to talk to people working Raytheon's integration with the other airframes. Apparently asking for bids before determining requirements is not necessarily better for schedule than changing the requirements after the planes are being built. We'll see how it compares for cost.

# ¿ Sep 13, 2017 15:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 18, 2024 00:10

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

Murgos posted:

We just finished a similar evolution in that we were partnered with two of three competitors for a project bid. However, instead of having two fire-walled design teams we were allowed to have one design team and two fire-walled project management teams. There may have been engineering elements that were fire-walled (i.e interfaces to the primes hardware) but the general concept design were the same solution.

It could be something like that. I didn't ask him questions about it because I work for AFMC and the last thing I want to do is end up in the middle of a bid contest tantrum. I mostly just let him vent about how absurd the AF is sometimes.

# ¿ Sep 13, 2017 20:21

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

Godholio posted:

You'd be surprised on the comms bit, and how expensive it actually is. It was a sizable portion of the E-3G aka Block 40/45 upgrade, until every loving dime started getting diverted from everything but payroll to finish the F-35.

Were the payroll diversions for the F-22 or the F-35? I forget.

# ¿ Sep 14, 2017 05:28

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

CarForumPoster posted:

Yea I get what MIDS JTRS CMN-4 TTNT XYZPDQ BACRONYM does, just talking about cost. poo poo is expensive.

Back to the original discussion, Put a MIDS and SATCOM and the radar on a biz jet or 737 and call it a day, Airforce. Why all the AoAs for a jet that we already have?

Count down to "I bet Global Hawk can do this, too"

That is pretty much what they're doing for JSTARS already, and it's a multi-year process before they can decide who gets the contract. This is important because no matter how good your process for selecting the winning platform is (and let's face it, the process is probably not great), you're guaranteed to go through a round of protests and possibly also lawsuits from everyone who was not selected.

Then they do all the upfront engineering, then they can finally start bending metal on airplanes, which is another multi-year process after contract award. After all that, there is quite a lot of testing before delivery, then a process to train aircrew on the new airframe and iron out differences in tactics between the new one and the old one.

This poo poo is long and complicated and subject to disruption by Congress every time they decide that funding the government three months at a time is a good idea instead of actually passing a budget. (The last time we had a full budget was FY14.) This is how the Navy ended up with drat near 20 years of SLEP on P-3s before finally fielding the P-8, which is basically mission systems bolted onto a 737.

# ¿ Sep 14, 2017 14:43

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

Nebakenezzer posted:

It's an amazing field where the homemade blimp made by a farmer looks the safest

Yeah that's what I was thinking too.

# ¿ Sep 29, 2017 18:17

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

thetechnoloser posted:

We do CASA jumps all the time at Bragg in USASOC.

I think that might be contracted. Weirdly, I was able to find the 2012 request for proposals but not the vendor who got picked up.

# ¿ Sep 30, 2017 04:25

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

Shalhavet posted:

They have tours of the one at Peterson, too.

Alas that I only had 20 minutes to screw around in the air park there. At least I got a decent (potato) picture of the Nike Ajax display!

# ¿ Oct 18, 2017 00:44

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

PT6A posted:

In economy class, overhead bin space is absolutely a concern, which is why carry-on limits should be strictly enforced (a thing I've seen in Europe, but never North America) or the pricing model should be changed to make carry-on more expensive than checked baggage. If you price based on utility and convenience, it would make perfect sense that carry-on would cost more.

They price based on the fact that checked bags compete with cargo in the hold. Until they start stuffing FedEx packages into empty overhead bins, this isn't happening.

# ¿ Oct 26, 2017 03:01

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

Plinkey posted:

Kinda, just run out there and tell me if it's 68

A 2013 post from Above Top Secret (non-paranoid poster) has it as 85-0068.

# ¿ Dec 28, 2017 12:38

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

mlmp08 posted:

There are also all kinds of hypothetical scenarios where an F-35B operating off a smaller deck carrier would be very useful for supporting evacuation, humanitarian assistance, early arrival peacekeeping/stability, etc. It's not that they'd be bad or useless to have. That's not true. It's a matter of whether the costs associated with the development of the F-35B instead of forcing them to use F-35Cs was worth it.

And the MAGTF lacks AEW&C, but it sure as hell doesn't lack air control assets and radars. The TAOC and MACS/MACCS is a thing.

Not to toot the Air Force horn here too much, but every time I�ve seen Marine air support raids off a small deck they have been utterly reliant on KC-135/KC-10 refueling. I don�t know if the F-35B has reasonable legs in STOVL strike or CAS config (probably not) but the Harrier sure as hell does not.

# ¿ Jan 6, 2018 00:23

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

CommieGIR posted:

How do you die from something that looks so gentle

Drowning. The helicopter dunker is a thing for a reason.

# ¿ Mar 12, 2018 12:12

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

tactlessbastard posted:

Easily, in a cargo container.

Nah, those were MiG-21s.

# ¿ Apr 4, 2018 18:07

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

Mortabis posted:

I got 7480 nmi IAD-AKL versus 7120 nmi ORD-AKL.

GCmap is pretty close to that, 7476 nm IAD-AKL vs 7111 nm ORD-AKL.

# ¿ Jun 19, 2018 19:57

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

LUBE UP YOUR BUTT posted:

Aren�t PPLs allowed to share operating costs with passengers (e.g. going on a trip with friends)? How I understood it was as long as the flight wasn�t turning a profit you wouldn�t need an ATPL. In that case Uber�s/Lyft�s original premise of car pooling would actually work for GA PPLs, just not the modern application of the app where drivers actually make a living off it instead of using it to defray the marginal cos of each journey they would have made anyway

I�m not seeing a legal business model here.

�14 CFR 61.113� posted:

(b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if:

(1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and

(2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire.

Here is the thing you were thinking of, which is separate from the business prohibition on passengers.

�14 CFR 61.113� posted:

(c) A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees.

standard.deviant fucked around with this message at 14:26 on Jul 24, 2018

# ¿ Jul 24, 2018 14:22

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

mlmp08 posted:

Just like if you rammed through the gate of a military installation with a dump truck, the MPs are still going to shoot you dead without waiting for a court date. Right or wrong, the government has decided "due process" doesn't mean time in court in extreme circumstances.

Pretty much. �Use of deadly force authorized� means what it says on the tin.

# ¿ Aug 11, 2018 23:09

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

Ola posted:

I'm guessing the Russian made S-200 operator's interface isn't super helpful and the Syrian operator isn't super clever. It's probably a great missile system with a top notch radar operator in a well controlled environment.
Tactics like that are probably taught as "so dumb and so easy to correct for, it's not worth building a doctrine on", but recognizing a weakness and capitalizing on it is what makes a winner. I bet the Israeli pilots were laughing their asses off.

Quick, someone make a new scenario for SAM Similator!

# ¿ Sep 20, 2018 13:08

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

Platystemon posted:

A skydiving instructor in Maine somehow became separated from his charge during a tandem dive.

Results were fatal.

I'm really confused as to how the student was the one to survive.

# ¿ Sep 30, 2018 12:52

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:

oh you mean unlike the various S-2s subjected to carrier landing cycles, the clapped-out old C-54s, and the P3s?

Totally unlike the C-130s too!

# ¿ Nov 30, 2018 18:36

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

hobbesmaster posted:

Look at the manual trim commands on page 26 - it just stopped responding.

I don�t know anything about the units they�re referencing in the report, but am I correct in assuming that if stab trim ran away and they cut it out but couldn�t manually trim it back then they were going to crash regardless of anything else they did?

# ¿ Apr 4, 2019 22:24

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

Sagebrush posted:

Except even worse than that, apparently, because I guess you're allowed to build the same building again and ignore all the parts that aren't up to code today as long as it still has the same number of doors and windows?

You can change the number of doors and windows too, but it still has to be more or less the same shape and you have to call it the same thing.

# ¿ Apr 7, 2019 13:02

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

e.pilot posted:

C17 also has copious amounts of airspeed compared to the Fairchild incident.

60� is a lot but it isn�t that much, assuming you�re light and not going slow.

Not a C-17 guy but I�ve seen 60�/2g as a common limit for transport aircraft.

# ¿ May 27, 2019 16:36

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

mlmp08 posted:

One of my friends was on a flight where the nose-wheel collapsed, they slid down the runway, fire crew responded, but there was no fire.

The crew explicitly ensured no one inflated the evacuation slides. Their reasoning was that there was no danger of fire and someone was possibly going to suffer a sprain or other minor injury on the slide if the didn't just wait for a riser.

He was pretty bummed out about that.

Also it costs like $20k if you pop the slides so there�s that too.

# ¿ Jun 23, 2019 15:52

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

Sagebrush posted:

Yep, I knew about it because I went to that BBQ place (The Pik-N-Pig) once and wandered up to the plane out front and was like trying to figure it out

Very good BBQ incidentally. I have some relatives in the area so someday I want to rent a plane and fly in.

Pik-N-Pig is amazing. We used to fly in there for dinner before night training sorties from time to time.

# ¿ Sep 12, 2019 04:28

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

TTerrible posted:

Mr Muilenburg you don't have time to be posting here.

For reals though just because the EFB is receiving navigational data from a nav data bus doesn't mean it has the ability to send anything back. I have no idea what the engineering looks like on the airplane in question, but I've seen some systems handle one-way data transfer by using a serial cable with an unpinned return.

# ¿ Sep 15, 2019 17:39

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

e.pilot posted:

"I screwed up. I screwed up at least four times in a row. Don't do what I did. Learn from what I did. Don't risk what I did. I got very lucky."

- Guy who routinely ignored the same lessons from hundreds of pilots before him, many of which who weren't so lucky

I guess for experimental planes there�s no published crosswind limitation, so no obvious black-and-white �don�t try to fly, dummy� check. I don�t really follow this guy, did they do any envelope testing to attempt to build charts?

# ¿ Sep 17, 2019 14:26

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

hobbesmaster posted:

One thing I�ve been curious about, what does a real flight test program actually consist of? There�s clearly some tables that can easily and safely be done, say fuel consumption, best climb for weight, etc but there�s also a lot of numbers that are clearly not experimentally determined. Ie Airbus isn�t going out and finding out what Vne is by diving their shiny new A350 until the wings fall off. Between the two there�s ones that seem like they�d be kinda dangerous to determine like say V1 or Vmc

Military not civilian, but our pilots flew the whole envelope if the mod was big enough. If you�re publishing charts that say it�s safe to do a thing, you have to do the thing and make sure it�s safe. You don�t have to test to failure, you have to test to (or beyond) published maximum.

# ¿ Sep 18, 2019 03:59

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

Elviscat posted:

Anyone who wears a harness close to water should have a knife on them.

The report pointed out several times where hook knives were visible on the passengers, but there was no mention of how to remove the harness in an emergency during the preflight passenger briefing. It�s unsurprising that the passengers all drowned as a result�egress training is important, as it turns out. This reminds me of Ethiopian 961.

# ¿ Sep 27, 2019 04:35

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

It turns out buying a home closer to work is also a way to use money to avoid traffic. Even at SF real estate prices, I'm pretty sure housing is a better way to solve the problem than helicopter drones.

# ¿ Oct 6, 2019 20:51

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

Mortabis posted:

Don't Sink

Glideslope

Pull Up

can you think of anything more romantic?

MINIMUMS

# ¿ Nov 1, 2019 12:11

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

A break from Jerry, Man who threw 'lucky' coins into plane engine fined.

# ¿ Jan 3, 2020 11:20

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

PainterofCrap posted:

I can't even tell that they've left the ramp.

Heck of a bank angle for a plane on the ramp.

# ¿ Jan 6, 2020 17:50

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

Nebakenezzer posted:

Thanks for the answers, friends. It's a nice antidote to the MSM news of "IF ONLY KOBE HAD THIS COLLISION DETECTOR DEVICE HE WOULD HAVE> BEEN FINE"

The finest idea NASA had in the last decade: HAVOC

That�s... a thing, all right. I didn�t understand that it was crewed until the last 1/3 of the video, and I�m still not sure why it needs to be crewed.

# ¿ Jan 30, 2020 02:56

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

BIG HEADLINE posted:

Major Kong wrote a thing about his experience with simulators: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/2/2/1914326/-Practice-Bleeding

During the debrief the ~~sadist~~ instructor tells me that most people just nose over and crash during that one. It�s like the �Kobayashi Maru� no-win scenario from Star Trek.

That�s a cool article, but flight test really does put heavy aircraft into fully developed stalls�that�s probably not extrapolated data. I don�t know about Boeing on the 767 specifically, but I have seen it as part of the normal acceptance test plan for military aircraft (including transports).

# ¿ Feb 5, 2020 12:44

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

aphid_licker posted:

It seems really easy in, sorry War Thunder to rip your flaps off at high speed, does that ever happen irl? I assume that real pilots are much better trained than guys playing pew pew games, but for example in WW2 dogfights in the heat of the action did guys ever panic and rip off their flaps? IIRC there was something about Bf 109s liking to rip off their tails?

I haven�t heard of anyone actually ripping flaps off, but crews over speeding flaps definitely happens.

# ¿ Mar 28, 2020 14:07

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

yellowD posted:

This thread can and should live on at breadnroses.net

I�m on the Slack we�re posting plane butts

# ¿ Jun 25, 2020 01:33

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

vessbot posted:

These gliders probably have none of the above (though I'm not sure what you meant by "crow"... "gear?") but it doesn't matter, once you stop doing the dynamic soaring maneuver, drag will slow it down. Maybe they even zoom up to a high attitude and fly it around like a regular glider for a while.

https://www.flyingrc.net/crow.html

# ¿ Jul 22, 2020 17:31

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

mlmp08 posted:

This is where I consider posting more piston aircraft used for COIN, but why bother, because you�ll discount allies/partners to the US as not counting or say Africa doesn�t count or ignore twin-engines pistons.

I mean, he did specify single-engine, COIN, ISR, last decade in the context of a discussion of manned aircraft.

# ¿ Aug 6, 2020 03:47

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

mlmp08 posted:

This and more openly by partner nations, directly supported by big-state benefactors.

He was replying to this:

Godholio posted:

First off, manned ISR doesn't bottom out there. We've used Cessna 150s/210s for all kinds of poo poo, including in recent years. They're great modular platforms and dirt cheap to obtain and operate. For long-term projects you're more correct, but that's because we already had the drone systems in place to reduce the need for tiny manned platforms. The limiting factor has been sensor size, not people. Yes, for many things an unmanned platform is preferable; but personally I think you're overstating the impact of the disadvantages, particularly in a "we need a jack of all trades platform for everything" era. Flexibility is useful. If we could fund dedicated platforms for mission sets, then hell yeah. Even the AF would want more drones.

Really, he was replying to the first two sentences as a stand-alone strawman, because the rest of the paragraph walks back the initial claim significantly.

# ¿ Aug 6, 2020 04:40

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

Godholio posted:

We were using AC-208 Caravans prior to forcing them on Iraq. There were others with MX15 and similar pods slung underneath on short term contracts.

Edit: My argument was never that hodgepodge bandaid COTS stuff is the answer, just that "manned is bad" is also not the answer.
Edit2: I'll admit that I thought those were 210s or similar, not Caravans.

Turbine engine again. PT6 even, which was part of the acquisitions joke that the requirement for light ISR should just have been "PT6 engine(s), IMINT system, radios."

standard.deviant fucked around with this message at 12:45 on Aug 7, 2020

# ¿ Aug 7, 2020 12:42

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 18, 2024 00:10

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

wzm posted:

Done: PT-6, has an engine, and radios. Plenty of room for any other systems the contract calls for.

But which major defense contractor is ~~bribing~~lobbying for us to buy it?

# ¿ Aug 7, 2020 14:35

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

«‹›5 »