Aeronautical Insanity: switching to secondary tolerances

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

«‹›48 »

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

Tekne posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_fmy3xwjbM The LEMV has finally taken flight. I can't believe only one person taped it, so hopefully we'll see more videos pop up over the next couple days.

Insert irrational UAV fear here. :ohdear:

# ¿ Aug 8, 2012 12:47

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 4, 2024 21:20

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

MrChips posted:

Or better yet, wait for evening/the next morning to fly out. Supposedly, the aerodrome elevation there is 6400' ASL, and with the temperature that day, the density altitude would have been between 8500' and 9500'. He'd have been hard-pressed to get out safely by himself, much less with two passengers aboard.

Also, I doubt the explanation of "hitting an air pocket"...forests create areas of sinking air above them, on account of the cooling effect they have.

The "air pocket" was between his ears.

# ¿ Aug 9, 2012 06:22

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

CommieGIR posted:

I saw two of these in Bagram, had US Army on them.

The army wants em bad, because its a hell of a lot safer to put stuff in a C-27 and fly it around, than it is to move it by ground convoy through ground that may or may not be full of people that want to kill you.

The air force bought em to keep the army from getting its claws into fixed-wing tactical lift, just like the Caribous in the sixties.

Basically, "You can't have it, but its not a shiny jet, so we don't really want it."

# ¿ Aug 29, 2012 01:50

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

Godholio posted:

That's where they do a lot of their "current airframe, future system" testing. AWACS testbed, and E-737 programs are both up there, and the Airborne Laser used to be.

But there's probably a bunch of airplanes on sticks, so who knows.

A B-1 would need one hell of a stick...

# ¿ Sep 9, 2012 01:07

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

Colonel K posted:

...as well as managing to land on the beach with one flap fully down and one retracted. Extremely good work on his part.

Which also explains why the Hussna yawed violently to the left when they... Copulated.

# ¿ Sep 10, 2012 21:58

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

NightGyr posted:

50 GPH? Has anyone tried reengining it with something a little more efficient?

It's a 1000hp radial, not an O-320.

# ¿ Sep 19, 2012 19:05

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

azflyboy posted:

Like Colonel K said, fuel burn in cruise is about 45gph, which works out to about $270/hr for fuel alone. Since the normal cruise speed on an AN-2 is only about 100kt, using a lower power setting would lower the fuel bill, but would probably result in an airplane that's slower than just driving.

When you consider the other costs of operating an airplane, I don't think AN-2's are terribly afforable to operate, even by airplane standards.

Efficiency is for capitalists. :ussr:

# ¿ Sep 20, 2012 18:27

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

MrChips posted:

I don't know if I'd go that far. The An-2 was designed to operate off of very short, unimproved airfields in very harsh conditions, at which it excels. However, like everything in aircraft design, compromises inevitably work their way into the design; as a result of its simplicity and an emphasis on takeoff and landing performance, the An-2 is not a very good cross-country aircraft. If you look at equivalent Western aircraft (specifically, the Twin Otter), you'll see that they are similarly compromised in many performance aspects.

Completely agreed, I'm just not patient enough to type all of that out. It could still be argued that the AN-2 compromised a bit too far.

Seperate line of thought: why does the US Coast Guard not operate these, or something like them?

I'm thinking an HU-16 with turboprops and a glass cockpit. Something between an HC-130 and an HH-60.

I know they have lots of helicopters, but twin turbine helicopters are HILARIOUSLY expensive to operate, and have comparatively short ranges and loiter times. They take forever to get on station, as well.

It's always seemed to me that the USCG made a mistake, retiring their amphibians. (I'm thinking of their HH-52s, as well, here.)

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ¿ Sep 20, 2012 20:16

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

Styles Bitchley posted:

CH-53E is indeed a beast, but just wait for the CH-53K

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_CH-53K

The CH-53K: Because congress will only allocate funding if it looks like the same aircraft, regardless of the fact that it is almost a clean-sheet design.

# ¿ Oct 7, 2012 15:24

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

dayman posted:

The engines and other steel hardware might be toast but the airframes should be okay. Aluminum oxide is a much more effective passivation layer than rust.

Edit: So a little research reveals that aircraft alloys typically have low corrosion resistance and require coating, but surely they must be more robust than the typical vehicle frame. Perhaps just wishful thinking.

I'm going to generalize a bit here, but most aircraft structures are built from clad aluminum alloy. The cladding is pure aluminum, forming a sacrificial oxide coating. It's great, as long as there are no surface imperfections, and as long as we're talking about an infinitely large flat sheet. The moment it has edges, holes, or any other material poked through it (bolts, rivets, etc,) aluminum alloy becomes incredibly corrosion-prone.

Buried, in the godamned tropics? I'm not holding my breath. I'd love to see pictures that prove me wrong, though. Best of luck to them.

# ¿ Oct 18, 2012 21:20

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

dayman posted:

You would think they would clad the pieces after they have been drilled for bolt holes. Aluminum oxide is corundum, also known as sapphire which is second only to diamond on the Mohr scale in hardness. It's also an excellent electrical insulator so you shouldn't see corrosion from dissimilar metals.

I would think the planes should be stable IF they did not get submerged. Like you said, hoping for no water infiltration in a place like Burma is probably just wishful thinking.

In the center of this image, you can see the results of uncontrolled intragranular (exfoliation) corrosion, around the two rivet shop-heads.

I'd put dollars on this stemming from moisture getting between the rivet shank(s) and the stringer, either from age and stress widening the holes, or because the rivets were improperly bucked in the first place.

Airplanes corrode, just from ambient humidity, sitting on the ramp. It's only frequent, detailed inspections that keep them from failing in flight.

This is also why they get sent to the desert for storage.

# ¿ Oct 19, 2012 18:38

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

ApathyGifted posted:

To the public maybe, but working for a company that used to be part of Boeing and knowing a lot of old-timer Boeing people, they call it the triple-seven.

All other Boeing aircraft still being made/were made in their times are the "four-seven," "five-seven," "six-seven," and so on.

The 747-8 is, for some reason, just "dash 8" and nothing else.

Everyone I've ever come across calls it triple-seven. Generally, other products are referred to as seven thirty seven, or seven three. I've never, ever heard someone in the industry call a Boeing product a seven three seven, except perhaps over the radio, for clarity. The triple seven is the exception to this rule.

# ¿ Oct 27, 2012 01:30

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

MrChips posted:

^^^My understanding is that the first E-8s drove the military absolutely nuts from a maintenance perspective, as the 707s they were based on had so many dissimilar parts that it was a nightmare even before we get to the varying levels of maintenance the aircraft received over the years. Aren't the current E-8s built almost exclusively on ex-Canadian Forces CC-137s?

There is a lot of commonality between the 757 and 767 systemwise (and of course the common flight deck and type rating), but they still have the problem that you can't swap engine makes, and a lot of the LRUs are not interchangeable between specs. For example, Delta might be able to swap a radio between their 757s or from a 757 to a 767, but it might not work in one of the ex-Northwest 757s, despite being ostensibly the same aircraft.

My old airline had 7 DC-10s and 4 MD-11s. I'm not certain, but I think they were from 11 different airlines.

N602GC was an ex-Lufthansa bird; best of the bunch. That airplane ALWAYS left on time, and never came back with ridiculous problems.

N607GC was originally ordered by Wardair Canada, then sold to Finnair. What a flying pile of poo poo. It was also different in every imaginable way; even the doors worked differently. Amusingly, the same motion of the door handle that activated the door motor on every other airplane in our fleet, would fire the door open bottles on 607. 607 was special.

two_beer_bishes posted:

I saw something at JFK a week or two ago that I can't find any info on. It looked like an A330 painted all white except for a section (maybe 5') of the fuselage between the wings and the cockpit that was bare metal, like a fuselage extension or something. It wasn't at a terminal, it was parked by the hangars on the north end of 13L. There were absolutely no markings on it that I saw, no reg # or anything. I could be wrong as I wasn't exactly right next to it. Likely a diplomat's plane but I have no idea.

Did the bare metal ring go all the way around the fuse? That sounds a lot like a main-deck cargo door installation in an ex-passenger bird.

# ¿ Oct 28, 2012 03:40

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

two_beer_bishes posted:

As far as I could tell it did.

Goddamn, the internet is an amazing place.

It belongs to the emir of Qatar.

http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=A7-HHM

# ¿ Oct 28, 2012 14:44

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

slidebite posted:

Browsing Airliners.net, I came across some private 737-200s that go all over the world. Are they certified to do ETOPS or would they just cross the oceans with a route to keep airports as close as possible?

I guess to a similar extent, how do smaller private aircraft typically do it?

ETOPS only applies to twin-engine part 121 and part 135 passenger operations in the US. If you're part 91, youre only risking your own skin.

# ¿ Oct 28, 2012 17:20

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

Polymerized Cum posted:

The Trident had a similar style, too. It was just an early jet-era T-tail thing.

IIRC, the actuators for the elevators and horizontal stab trim are in the central pod.

# ¿ Oct 29, 2012 21:38

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

Captain Apollo posted:

Holy cow, seriously? On my phone otherwise I'd look up how much fuel it can carry.

Internal fuel capacity for an AV-8B is around 7500lbs, or around 1100 gallons.

# ¿ Oct 31, 2012 18:55

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

azflyboy posted:

When you throw in afterburners, those numbers get even more absurd.

On takeoff, the fuel burn for an F-16 is somewhere in the neighborhood of 36,000lbs (~5,300 gallons) per hour, in an aircraft that carries about 12,000lbs of fuel with two external tanks fitted. For a B-1, the takeoff fuel burn can reach 250,000lbs (just under 37,000 gallons) with all four engines in full afterburner.

poo poo. A DC-10 or MD-11 burns 1800-2000 pounds an hour, at ground idle. About four and a half gallons a minute.

# ¿ Nov 1, 2012 14:06

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

I love 150s. 40� of flap is great for making the first turn-off. :clint:

# ¿ Nov 5, 2012 03:12

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

The Locator posted:

Got linked this from a friend. Flickr album of the DC-7 that flew Lady Bird Johnson around. It's been sitting on the tarmac at the Goodyear airport since 1976 waiting for restoration (guessing it's never happening given the 36 years it's been waiting now).

Some great photos, both exterior and interior.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pyrat_wesly/sets/72157632003404478/

Given the location and length of time it's been there, there's honestly not much restoration to be done, other than stripping and repainting the exterior. She's been well taken-care of. :3:

# ¿ Nov 14, 2012 14:58

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

kmcormick9 posted:

Because Airbus.

A flight of 4 SNJs just flew over my house at 1000 feet. It sounded.... different.

The word you're looking for is "glorious."

# ¿ Nov 18, 2012 04:25

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

Slo-Tek posted:

Cleveland Air Races 1948 by Kemon01, on Flickr

That is a lot of B-29's

The superbowl needs flyovers like this.

# ¿ Nov 19, 2012 04:22

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

dubzee posted:

Bonanzas are cool as hell. Fun fact: they have no rudder pedals, some kind of pulley system that makes it work with the yoke only.

Or like the owner told me, "You fly it like a car!"

You're thinking of Ercoupes.

# ¿ Nov 19, 2012 06:02

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

The only grass I've ever flown from is Indiantown (X58.)

And I don't think it counts, because the goddamned field is 6300ft long. You can spend more time taxiing to the transient tie-downs than you spent getting there in the first place.

# ¿ Nov 19, 2012 15:08

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

No Your Other Left posted:

What is this beauty? Reverse image search turns up nothing.

Dude, thumbnails.

Avro Anson.

# ¿ Nov 20, 2012 18:02

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

Captain Apollo posted:

I took this picture yesterday after flying it for around 10 hours this Thanksgiving weekend.

Love this Mooney.

IMG_3525.jpg by Apollo, on Flickr

Scroll around in my Flickr set to see more from a variety of angles.

127kts at 4.6 gal/hr?

Yes please.

# ¿ Nov 27, 2012 01:11

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

There was a pilot regularly featured on this series whose call sign was FUNGUS.

gently caress you New Guy yoU Suck. My personal favorite.

# ¿ Nov 28, 2012 15:37

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

Kilonum posted:

Jimmy Carter got a sub named after him.

But then again, he served in subs when he was in the Navy. Same argument can be made for George H. W. Bush with the carrier named after him.

Gerald Ford served on USS [i[Monterey[/i] CVL-26, during WWII.

I still dislike the practice of naming major warships after individuals, but at least those three have some connection to the Navy, unlike, say, John C. Stennis.

# ¿ Dec 3, 2012 17:40

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

StandardVC10 posted:

The 990 was also pretty fast, though I'm not sure if you need to make a distinction between the two. Speaking of which, if you're in the area of MHV they've got at least one sitting around still.

CJ805-23s are badass. The fan section is on the aft end of the engine.

# ¿ Dec 4, 2012 13:52

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

iyaayas01 posted:

And Carl Vinson. I'll give the Navy some credit, at least all the politicians who got ships named after them (so far) had some connection to the Navy...Stennis, Vinson, and Reagan were all friends of the Navy in that they advocated for increased shipbuilding/higher ship numbers/etc., and all the others served in the Navy. Even if Stennis and Vinson were racist pieces of poo poo when it came to domestic policy.

Still doesn't justify there not having a Yorktown, Lexington, Saratoga, or Wasp currently commissioned though. At least there will soon be another Enterprise, that's something I guess.

Naming ships after politicians/cities that pushed for increased funding for your service is pretty slimy. See: The entire 688 class.

# ¿ Dec 4, 2012 13:53

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

IIRC, most aircraft power carts are 110vac 400hz, capable of doing about 200 amps.

Linedance posted:

don't forget the 3 phase 400hz.
I wonder how tolerant of bad ground power the 787s are going to be? It's got to the point where we run the APU on 777 turns just because the fault clearing you have to do when the lovely gate power drops off causes no end of headaches.

At my old airline, our DC-10s would happily chug along on whatever ancient, barely running POS power unit we could find. 380hz? Thats cool. 415hz? Also OK. Just plug that poo poo in.

An inbound MD-11 however, would cause a mad rush for a newer, electronically controlled GPU...

# ¿ Dec 7, 2012 15:48

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

Every brand new, state-of-the-art airliner flight deck is not complete without the aircraft type stickers printed in all caps with a 1998 Brother P-Touch.

# ¿ Dec 11, 2012 04:57

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

Phanatic posted:

6 .50s firing real bullets inside a hangar.

Blanks, even 50 cal blanks, don't have quite the compressive shock wave as real cartridges do.

# ¿ Dec 11, 2012 15:49

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

Linedance posted:

Thankfully I never had to deal with them, but the old guys still have nightmares.

No more. Never again. DC-10s are loving covered in the godamned things.

front wing flexing posted:

Do those tighten only?

If the last rear end in a top hat that put them in over-torqued them, then yes. Extra fun when they're made of titanium, or stainless. Drilling titanium screws is one of those things they don't prepare you for in trade school.

# ¿ Dec 14, 2012 15:54

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

Colonial Air Force posted:

Like most fasteners, it holds things together.

E: Well poo poo, I didn't want my stupid, sarcastic comment to be top-of-page.

Have a picture:

Continental meatball livery best Continental livery.

And now: A G spot.

# ¿ Dec 14, 2012 16:20

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

Godholio posted:

Because we don't always operate in the same location, and jamming is IMPORTANT. I'd be more than happy if the AF decided to adopt the Growler, or worked out some kind of deal with the like with the F-4s, but the best solution is the EB-52.

It's not going to get any closer, because the 707 is going to be there too...it has to, in order to do its job.

Here's my theory: a replacement for the F-15C was absolutely needed. The F-22 was designed as a god among fighter jets, so why not play off its anticipated success and pitch a successor to the F-16 too? But there's no way the AF will have enough money to fund both...let's tie the multirole jet to the Navy and pitch it as a Hornet replacement too! By the time it turned into a fiasco, everyone was hooked and couldn't get out of it. There are no other options. No service wants to walk away after how much effort and money they've pumped into this program. They're all on record talking about how it's crucial to their future success.

Except here's the thing: ITS NOT. Not for any of them. The Air Force could have gotten away with affordable new-build F-16s for another 40 years. The F-16 is not an offensive fighter, it will not be leading the way when we run into an advanced IADS if another major war kicks off. F-22s will do that, and they'll be backed up by ancient F-15s (new F-15s cost only slightly less than F-22s). The F-16 is a tactical bomb truck with self-defense capability, which at most would be used in a DCA CAP if we were short on 22s/15s. The Navy could make an argument for wanting a fifth-generation fighter, and the F-35 will have higher combat survivability than the F/A-18...but the Super Hornet is very advanced and very capable, and aside from a conventional RCS it's not really obsolete at all. This jet has another 20 years or more of useful front-line service. The Marines were in a tough spot. They need a replacement for the Harrier. I get that. And there was no way they were going to get a purpose-built aircraft that actually met their needs. They had no choice but to jump on the F-35 bandwagon, and what they ended up with is an aircraft tailored against their needs. Can it serve as a bomb truck? Yeah, but no better than a 4th-generation aircraft...which is what it will look like on radar because for the Marine mission it's going to be loaded with external stores. So what the gently caress is the point? How much would it have cost to throw a ski-ramp on the LHDs so they could just operate C models?

All of this is pretty spot on.

Godholio posted:

How much has been dumped into the F-35B, an aircraft in search of a role?

And how badly has the B model's unique requirements compromised the already-problematic design decisions forced on the program by the differing requirements of the A and C models?

The F-35 is an amazing aircraft, from a technical standpoint. The fact that LockMart has been as successful as they have been is impressive. That doesn't mean that the program is successful. F-35 as a single-variant, ground based CTOL replacement for the F-16 made sense. The extra money could have funded quite a lot of more-capable F-22s, and the Navy could have started a proper carrier based fifth gen fighter program. (SEA RAPTOR LOLOLOLOL)

Single-engine carrier operations are something the Navy got away from, probably for a reason. Additionally, single-engine powered lift, at sea, is a SPECTACULARLY poor idea, as evidenced by the Harrier's obscenely high accident rate. Whether the Corps actually NEEDS supersonic, stealthy, VTOL attack jets that operate off their mini-carriers is a seperate, but equally important question. You could certainly argue against it, for a multitude of reasons.

# ¿ Dec 14, 2012 19:45

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

ctishman posted:

For those of you with a chemtrail nut in your regular orbit, this fabulous tee-shirt will absolutely get you into amazing and fascinating conversations that will last for hours!

Those are amazing.

# ¿ Dec 14, 2012 21:05

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

Phy posted:

Comedy option: Gripens.

I'm all for abandoning all current programs and developing an airframe that its nose opens up and lasers pour out.

The USAF already has, and has already mothballed it.

# ¿ Dec 14, 2012 21:13

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

Needs Moar Air Tractor.

# ¿ Dec 15, 2012 15:03

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 4, 2024 21:20

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

mlmp08 posted:

A guy trying to beat the skydivers he drops off in the air back to base: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=20a_1355531018

The real action starts about 2:25 in. It's pretty awesome how smoothly he pulls this off, but all I can see is completely unnecessary risk.

The moment the jumpers are out, there's nobody paying for the airplane. It's in jump operators' best interests to get back on the ground right this instant.

It looked like be was carrying lots of extra speed during the turn to final, in case of an engine out, which is the only part of the video that kindof raised the hairs on my neck.

# ¿ Dec 15, 2012 16:04

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

«‹›48 »