|
OptimusMatrix posted:I remember seeing some video or page about the 777 and it's engines and development and how they strapped one on the wing of a 747 and it made more power than the two on the other side combined and that said it could handle such and such amounts of water before it shut down. Does anyone have the slightest clue on what I'm talking about? a test like this one? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xlObdXF8VE&feature=player_detailpage#t=72s
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2011 22:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 03:13 |
|
|
Revolvyerom posted:Considering how many years he's no doubt been flying (I assume somewhat consistently since the plane's introduction to the public market), wouldn't he be doing his own 'chute packing? Bailout rigs have to be packed every 180 days by an FAA certified rigger. It's unlikely that he's doing his own pack jobs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2011 22:15
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:It's my understanding that the whole C-5 fleet is being phased out. The C-5s here are between 41 and 43 years old, the C-17 that got here is 14. Like half of the C-5s are getting a modernization pack with 767 engines, turning them into C-5M's, and keeping them around into the year 20 billion basically.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2011 22:36
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:^^^ That's what I was hoping for. Only some of the C-5 fleet is being retired, mostly the older "A" models. Thirteen C-5A's have already been retired, and there are plans to retire at least 22 more (the ones at Wright-Patterson are among them), which will be replaced with C-17's. The remaining C-5A's are slated to get new cockpits installed at some point, while the C-5B fleet will get re-engined (among a host of other upgrades) to convert them to C-5M's
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2011 23:42
|
|
|
C-130s are even older, the new J model is pretty boss. I don't see them dropping the C-5 entirely as it'd be difficult to rapidly deploy heavy armor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 00:10
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:
The good thing is that it should only be currency items...basically individual flight items rather than overall "mission ready" items. Seems like a minor difference until you actually have to deal with the differences. Currency is EASY to regain, going non-mission ready is a pain in the rear end for everyone involved. I suspect they'll waiver the most experienced instructors and evaluators, and do something like fly one of those guys to monitor a 4-ship so they can all regain their currencies. Every airframe has slightly different instructor-student ratios and requirements to maintain/regain currencies, but I can't imagine they'd refuse to waive some of this stuff. Skyssx posted:C-130s are even older, the new J model is pretty boss. I don't see them dropping the C-5 entirely as it'd be difficult to rapidly deploy heavy armor. Most of the flying C-130s aren't really that old, relatively speaking. We're not still using A-model airframes that have been refurbished. They're mostly (maybe all?) 1980s and newer. They take a lot of abuse though, so they probably age in dog years compared to most heavies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 00:31
|
|
|
Tremblay posted:Bailout rigs have to be packed every 180 days by an FAA certified rigger. It's unlikely that he's doing his own pack jobs. Yup. Plus a lot of old guys who wear bailout rigs only because they are required pretty much neglect the poo poo out of them. Other riggers I've talked to have seen some gnarly poo poo brought in for inspection and repack from pilots. I'm a senior parachute rigger, back type, only for my skydiving rigs and my friends rigs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 00:53
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Most of the flying C-130s aren't really that old, relatively speaking. We're not still using A-model airframes that have been refurbished. They're mostly (maybe all?) 1980s and newer. They take a lot of abuse though, so they probably age in dog years compared to most heavies. v0v My uncle was a loadmaster instructor for the 130. I forget if he was flying 60's vintage planes out of Ramstein or at Little Rock. He bitched a LOT at that time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 00:56
|
|
|
Skyssx posted:v0v My uncle was a loadmaster instructor for the 130. I forget if he was flying 60's vintage planes out of Ramstein or at Little Rock. He bitched a LOT at that time. Actually it looks like we still have about 70 C-130E models, which mostly date to the mid-1960s. I thought the -E was 70s/80s vintage. The few hundred others are all newer, like -H (1974 and newer). So I was way off.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 01:26
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:Only some of the C-5 fleet is being retired, mostly the older "A" models. Don't forget that we have to be only the country where politicians can force the military to keep certain jets in service so constituents don't lose jobs at the bases where said jets are based. I know this happened to the C-5A at Dover in the past, I think they just pulled this poo poo on the B-1 too. So:  Hey, we're retiring some T-65As, we don't need them for the mission and they're getting old and painful to maintain:downst: NO IF YOU RETIRE THOSE 200 JOBS IN MY DISTRICT WILL DISAPPEAR. <insert "research" by page who read Jane's for 15 minutes here> 
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 01:34
|
|
|
Thought I would post some photos from a air base near me during the mid 1980's. Sorry for the crappy quality of some, I own a crappy printer and some of the photos are not that good of shape after 26 years or so of storage. Also I know you guys might call BS on this and I dont blame you, but I almost got to fly in a B1 Lancer as a kid. My old man served on the base and the B1 was at the air show. He talked to the air crew and they agreed to sneak me on and take me up with them on a demonstration flight. I didnt get to go cause a pompous general declared that he and his wife would be going up with the crew. I remember being so disappointed watching the general and his wife board the bomber and my dad cussing out the general to no one in particular.. The B1 spooled up but shut right back down and off the general and his wife got. Apparently they had a engine problem and no one got to go up. A couple days before the air show the same bomber blew a bunch of porta potties all over the place because the were improperly placed near the taxi way. I kind of wonder now if the pilots had a poo poo eating grin on their face when they did it. I dont know what model the F4 is, but I assume F4C. I remember a lot of the F4's still had gun pods on them, and a lot of them also had red stars painted on from the Vietnam war. I remember getting to go out and watch the F4's take off with full afterburner at night. It was such a sight to see those magnificent jets and the dual purple flames shooting out the back. Nothing sounds like a F4 either. When the base transitioned to F16's it just was not the same. Anyway here are some photos.       
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 01:58
|
|
|
Godholio posted:The good thing is that it should only be currency items...basically individual flight items rather than overall "mission ready" items. Seems like a minor difference until you actually have to deal with the differences. Currency is EASY to regain, going non-mission ready is a pain in the rear end for everyone involved. I suspect they'll waiver the most experienced instructors and evaluators, and do something like fly one of those guys to monitor a 4-ship so they can all regain their currencies. Every airframe has slightly different instructor-student ratios and requirements to maintain/regain currencies, but I can't imagine they'd refuse to waive some of this stuff. Yup, that jives with what I've heard. Godholio posted:Most of the flying C-130s aren't really that old, relatively speaking. We're not still using A-model airframes that have been refurbished. They're mostly (maybe all?) 1980s and newer. They take a lot of abuse though, so they probably age in dog years compared to most heavies. The only ones I've heard that have serious issues are the ancient (like you said, no exaggeration Vietnam era) -E models which are dealing with fatigue cracks in the wings/wing boxes (something like 100 airframes were grounded); they already had their wing boxes replaced in the '60s after fatigue cracks were discovered back then. The -H models aren't spring chickens but they're still going strong.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 04:09
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:The only ones I've heard that have serious issues are the ancient (like you said, no exaggeration Vietnam era) -E models which are dealing with fatigue cracks in the wings/wing boxes (something like 100 airframes were grounded); they already had their wing boxes replaced in the '60s after fatigue cracks were discovered back then. The -H models aren't spring chickens but they're still going strong. New Zealand is still flying H models that went into service in 1965 (apparently we got the first batch). We're also still using UH-1s and P-3 Orions that date back about the same amount of time. I'd love to know how many hours the Orions have done in that time it must be staggering. Just goes to show how long equipment can last depending on usage patterns.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 04:19
|
|
|
greenscag posted:God, I love the Phantom. Beautiful airplane, in my opinion. Great pics.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 05:21
|
|
|
ursa_minor posted:He pops the canopy almost immediately, you can see it fluttering behind the Mustang - and then yeah, old cat had to physically stand up and jump out of a rapidly falling airplane, only a few hundred feet off the ground. The more I really try to put myself into that position, the more gently caress, that man is all balls.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 06:40
|
|
|
Skyssx posted:v0v My uncle was a loadmaster instructor for the 130. I forget if he was flying 60's vintage planes out of Ramstein or at Little Rock. He bitched a LOT at that time. These stories bring up great memories. I grew up in a neighborhood right beside Memphis International Airport. In addition to the civilian traffic, there's an Air National Guard base there. Dad has worked at the airport in various capacities and for various airlines since the sixties, and back when security was more lax I got to do things like go see the Concorde land or hang out in the tower while fighters were passing through on the way to an airshow or something. During the 80s, I saw a C-130 almost every day, buzzing low and slow around the neighborhood. When they switched to C-141s it just wasn't the same. Sure, it's cool to see the odd C-5 groaning its way up, but I miss the old Hercules.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 08:39
|
|
|
Jesus christ, this American Airlines order is redonk. RIP MD-80. 100 737-NGs 100 737's with new engines, 100 options (American apparently forced Boeings hand, and they're going to make em) 130 A320 130 A320neo, 365 options The firm orders or options alone would be the 8th largest airline fleet in the world.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 22:06
|
|
|
It always blows my mind a little when an airline formerly near bankruptcy orders a bazillion new planes. Well, not that I don't understand that fuel is a huge cost of airlines and it probably makes sense financially, but still.Cygni posted:The firm orders or options alone would be the 8th largest airline fleet in the world. Jesus H Christ.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 01:08
|
|
|
benito posted:During the 80s, I saw a C-130 almost every day, buzzing low and slow around the neighborhood. When they switched to C-141s it just wasn't the same. Sure, it's cool to see the odd C-5 groaning its way up, but I miss the old Hercules. There's one going over my house as I type this, in Smyrna, TN.  They fly out of Nashville and do touch and goes for hours at the Smyrna airport as part of the AETC's C-130 training program. They like to use an old WC-130H (65-0984) for their flights and it sounds great.That American Airlines order is crazy, I hadn't heard the numbers. drat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 02:01
|
|
|
movax posted:Don't forget that we have to be only the country where politicians can force the military to keep certain jets in service so constituents don't lose jobs at the bases where said jets are based. I know this happened to the C-5A at Dover in the past, I think they just pulled this poo poo on the B-1 too. This was tried at Stewart with the C-5 and failed miserably. It is costing a few hundred jobs, though. It's kind of hilarious to see this loving miles long runway being used by large cargo planes with short take offs and regional carriers, though. Just empty tarmac from horizon to horizon. We won't even get a shuttle emergency landing now 
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 03:02
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Well, the first C-17 landed at Stewart yesterday to start replacing the C-5s. I got to watch it come in which is historic or something, but don't take my C-5s away How do you replace a C-5 with a C-17? The C-5 is literally twice the capacity. When we did the Afghanistan troop surge, we were running heavy rotations on the C-5s just to move enough gear out to them and trying to move things like container housing units with C-17s was a pain in the rear end in comparison. I think we did like 3 missions using C-17s before we dumped them entirely for C-5s. Granted stuff like that is typically moved by sea, but isn't like a strategic mission of our armed forces to improve our mobilization capabilities? I know the C-5 loves to break, but I think it's the best transport plane we've got in our fleet, especially when comparing pax configurations. The bottom line is you don't want a heavy lift scenario to materialize in war and be forced to shrug your shoulders and say "we don't have that kind of capacity anymore."
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 04:53
|
|
|
Mr.Peabody posted:How do you replace a C-5 with a C-17? As I understand it, there will still be around 50 C-5's flying until at least 2040, and each of the retired C-5's was supposed to replaced by something like 10 C-17's.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 05:04
|
|
|
Mr.Peabody posted:The bottom line is you don't want a heavy lift scenario to materialize in war and be forced to shrug your shoulders and say "we don't have that kind of capacity anymore." From what I've read, the C-5M is a huge jump in capability over the previous models. With the C-5M flying regular missions a part of its evaluation process, they found that it could do the work of up to three C-5Bs. The new engines and systems fitted to the -M make the C-5 into the aircraft it should have been all along.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 05:22
|
|
|
How is the C-5 advantageous over something like a 747-400? Just curious why a 747 isn't reworked for military ops like the P-8/737-800 is as it seems cheaper than developing a whole new airframe (like the 707/kc-135 and 767 tanker in the works). The C-5 is sure neat, though. I was amazed when I got to go in one at an airshow as a kid. I know some of the capabilities of the c-17 regarding it's landing/short take off stuff wouldn't be found on any commercial airframes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 15:36
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:This was tried at Stewart with the C-5 and failed miserably. It is costing a few hundred jobs, though. Until the next TriStar diverts there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 15:50
|
|
|
ack! posted:How is the C-5 advantageous over something like a 747-400? Just curious why a 747 isn't reworked for military ops like the P-8/737-800 is as it seems cheaper than developing a whole new airframe (like the 707/kc-135 and 767 tanker in the works). The C-5 is sure neat, though. I was amazed when I got to go in one at an airshow as a kid. I know some of the capabilities of the c-17 regarding it's landing/short take off stuff wouldn't be found on any commercial airframes. As a layman's guess, I'd say it's because the C-5 is designed to go into unprepared destinations, where as other commercial options are designed around having a certain level of infrastructure waiting for them. I think the 747 needs a lift to get things out of the nose, where as the C-5 fuselage is so low, you can just use ramps and roll stuff straight off. Also I guess the C-5s are better suited for landing on rough/hastily prepared runways, again because of the fuselage/undercarriage layout. I don't know if 747s load from the back and the front too?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 16:21
|
|
|
ack! posted:How is the C-5 advantageous over something like a 747-400? Cause you cant do things like this:  747F's are fantastic at what they are designed for, which is moving pallets and LD-1's. And all the branches of service use plenty of contract 747's to move poo poo around. But The C-5 and C-17 are military lifters, built to do military lifting that a 747 just wasn't designed for. It takes a pretty different design to move Strykers AND pallets, versus just pallets.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 16:51
|
|
|
Mr.Peabody posted:How do you replace a C-5 with a C-17? It was already answered, but I should have been more clear. They are replacing the C-5s attached to the 105th Airlift based at Stewart ANG with C-17s. C-5s will operate elsewhere for the time being. eeeeeeeeeaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAaaaaaaoooooooooooooooooooooo that's a C-5 flying over my house as I type this e- also a 747 can't take off and land in the distance a C-5 can, in addition to loadout. If you've never seen a C-5 pull a short take off, landing, or combat approach, add that to your bucket list. It's amazing, and will illustrate why a 747 is woefully inadequate in regards to replacing the Galaxy. e2- I've posted this before, but here's the 105th in action Epic Fail Guy posted:Until the next TriStar diverts there. I'm dumb, and have no idea what you're referring to. Help! Seizure Meat fucked around with this message at 17:18 on Jul 21, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 17:01
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:I'm dumb, and have no idea what you're referring to. Help! Most likely referring to the L-1011 Tristar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_L-1011_TriStar
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 19:16
|
|
|
Bugsmasher posted:Most likely referring to the L-1011 Tristar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_L-1011_TriStar That's what I thought, I know the plane, but the phrasing made me think one had diverted there before and I can't recall ever seeing one. It's a design that kind of stands out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 19:26
|
|
|
I was on an ATA TriStar that lost an engine in a spectacular ball of flame over the Pacific, halfway back from Hawaii. Had to do a low level return, fuel dump, and emergency landing at Honolulu. Pretty cool to see the fire trucks pacing the plane out the windows. Pretty uncool to see the cabin filled with smoke at 35,000 feet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 19:28
|
|
|
Internet says the Russians are putting the Pak-FA up to bid on a South Korean procurement against the F-15SE, Eurofighter, and F-35. Pretty excited to see how that comes out, and to see what they are actually going to cost.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 19:28
|
|
|
As a Canadian I would have loooooved to see a competition that put the F35 against the Pak-FA or, well, pretty much anything else for that matter. That said, we'd never go any other way than  but a competition would have been awesome. It would at least make Red Flag and William Tell pretty interesting if we went a different route. slidebite fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Jul 21, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 20:27
|
|
|
Cygni posted:I was on an ATA TriStar that lost an engine in a spectacular ball of flame over the Pacific, halfway back from Hawaii. Had to do a low level return, fuel dump, and emergency landing at Honolulu. By "uncool", do you mean screaming and making GBS threads yourself convulsively at 35,000 feet?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 14:06
|
|
|
Saga posted:By "uncool", do you mean screaming and making GBS threads yourself convulsively at 35,000 feet? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 14:19
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:I was rather hoping he meant "Oh, I say, that's a bother" Well, I was just thinking of what I would do in the circumstances. I'm assuming he was calm, cool and collected.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 15:30
|
|
|
Whats really odd is honestly, nobody was freaking out to that level. Lots of people gripping their arm rests for dear life, but zero screaming, nobody running down the aisles, none of that. Full L-1011, everyone pretty much silent with their seatbelts on as the stewardess raced around with fire extinguishers looking for fire. It's like everyone realized it was completely out of their control and the only way they could help was to get the hell out of the way. Restored a little faith in humanity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 16:47
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:That's what I thought, I know the plane, but the phrasing made me think one had diverted there before and I can't recall ever seeing one. It's a design that kind of stands out. Sorry, it was a FedEx DC-10. Wrong heavy Trijet. And I seem to recall a pilot friend saying that a couple of his fellow 757 drivers have had to divert there due to a holding point for EWR being nearby.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 20:32
|
|
|
gently caress me, I get to experience one of the pride of Delta's MD-90s next week 
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 23:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 03:13 |
|
|
Epic Fail Guy posted:Sorry, it was a FedEx DC-10. Wrong heavy Trijet. Yeah, we do get a few heavies in now and then. One of the Saudi princes had theirs impounded there for years for something or other. If you're talking about the DC-10 that burned, I saw that happen because it occured a few hundred feet from the refurbish shop I worked on at the time. Gave me the day off of work, because it was apparently carrying millions in treasuries, gold and whatnot.....or it had undeclared hazmat on board, depending on who is telling the story. Thanks FedEx! Also what is it with FedEx and UPS cargo pilots yanking the stick back super hard on full throttle and climbing pretty radically? Is that a cargo pilot thing? Every morning I get to see the two of them take off like SAC scrambled them, and it's awesome. Seizure Meat fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Jul 22, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 23:20
|
|