|
Lobster God posted:
 61-7976 SR-71A, National Museum of the USAF
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 23:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 00:10 |
|
|
Lobster God posted:
Smithsonian SR71 is the best SR71.  SR71 From the Front by beastofexmoor, on Flickr  20100913-SR71 From Behind and Above.jpg by beastofexmoor, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 00:19
|
|
|
Anybody going to Reno? We're starting to plan a trip for the 2012 races, but I'm not sure how many days to plan for or how much to spend. Pit passes are obviously a must, are reserved seats?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 03:26
|
|
|
Well I wasn't... but now maybe...
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 03:51
|
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:Anybody going to Reno? We're starting to plan a trip for the 2012 races, but I'm not sure how many days to plan for or how much to spend. Pit passes are obviously a must, are reserved seats? Never been to Reno, but I've been meaning to go for a long time. Based on what friends have told me, there's five days of racing (Wednesday - Sunday), with a brief airshow after the last race each day. Personally, I'd love to stay all five days, but I would guess that the weekend could be enough for many people. Since it isn't that much more money, I'd say reserved seating is worth it, especially if you go for all five days. Pricing info can be found here. As for how much to spend, it's Reno aka Baby Las Vegas. I imagine you can spend as little or as much as you want on food, lodging and whatnot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 05:08
|
|
|
Tentative plans are Fri-Sun, maybe stay at the Peppermill (which is disturbingly affordable) since the shuttles stop there. I'm curious how the reserved seating works, since I didn't really see any seating charts online. My wife isn't nearly the nut I am, so that's why only 3 days. Would 2 days be a better bet with a non-nut wife in tow?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 06:16
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 19:44
|
|
|
GnarlyCharlie4u posted:loving hell that is EPIC. Imagine the noise! Not to mention the ground shaking.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 19:57
|
|
|
monkeytennis posted:loving hell that is EPIC. Imagine the noise! Not to mention the ground shaking. I've had a B-29 (Fifi) and B-24 fly over me at that level and I can't tell you how epic it is. You have no idea.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 20:19
|
|
|
BOEING 737 NEWS ZONE OLD BUSINESS: Some Canadian bush airline crashed one of their half-dozen 737-200s. NEW BUSINESS: Delta ordered a hundred 737-900ERs to replace their old-rear end 757s; while not as big as AA's 460-plane order a few months ago (an order bigger than all but seven airlines), it's still goddamn enormous, and they're all one model. Since they're an existing model, they can start getting them in 2013, while AA's order includes models of plane (A32x NEO) that won't be ready until 2017. Also: no Airbuses; they're probably going to be the red-headed PMNW stepchild of the fleet going forward.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 21:27
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvDDDKnNhuE Probably a repost but pertinent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 22:02
|
|
|
ack! posted:Here's a SU-35S doing some nifty flying: That is incredible. Absolutely incredible. Do we (the US) have anything that can compete with that sort of manueverability? Granted it seemed relatively low speeds and the pilot was probably Russia's absolute best they have and it had no armament (adding weight), but it just seemed so effortless.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2011 16:01
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:BOEING 737 NEWS ZONE
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2011 17:38
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Those are old aircraft. A lot of them are hand-me-downs from Westjets original fleet, and some of those were from CP-Airs fleet I wouldn't be surprised if I rode on that plane as a 5 year old. I won't be terribly sad if I never see another -200; I was waiting at MIA once, watching planes go by, and a Bahamasair took off. The low-bypass engines look kind of cool in a retro way, but god drat are they loud, and the visible trail of pollution from them is ghastly.  http://www.airliners.net/photo/Bahamasair/Boeing-737-2K5-Adv/1905873/L/&sid=09d2b01b9a385a874e5925581ffe7340 For comparison, a 737-900:  http://www.airliners.net/photo/Alaska-Airlines/Boeing-737-990/0856344/L/&sid=b3123b0bba8cfea9c79ea059e0049117
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2011 17:51
|
|
|
Alaska Airlines had a few -200 combis until about 5 years ago. They were cargo planes that could carry cargo containers or pallets with seats. You could have up to 6 containers, full seats, or a combination of both. They were interesting to load. http://www.airliners.net/photo/Alaska-Airlines/Boeing-737-210C-Adv/0104386/L/&sid=b1ed2bf9ddb6eff8639279f84de86908  The tube thing on the front-bottom of the engine and the thing behind the nose wheel are anti-FOD equipment. The engine tubes blast air to push dirt and rocks out of the intake path and the nose wheel attachment abates stuff from getting kicked up by the wheel since it often was operated on dirt and low quality runways. I loaded horses in one once which was a really crazy experience. edit: just found this: http://www.tomsnome.com/akjets.html AzureSkys fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Aug 25, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2011 19:04
|
|
|
ack! posted:The tube thing on the front-bottom of the engine and the thing behind the nose wheel are anti-FOD equipment. The engine tubes blast air to push dirt and rocks out of the intake bath and the nose wheel attachment abates stuff from getting kicked up by the wheel since it often was operated on dirt and low quality runways. Thank you for this photo. I read a description of a similar device years ago in a book about gas turbine engines and never really could visualize it and never saw one as far as I knew. Another interesting passage from the same book was something like, "...In 1943 Michael Daunt realized it was possible to get sucked into a Meteor inlet..."
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2011 19:10
|
|
|
Previa_fun posted:Thank you for this photo. I read a description of a similar device years ago in a book about gas turbine engines and never really could visualize it and never saw one as far as I knew. http://www.b737.org.uk/737original.htm#737-200%20Convertible quote:This was an option available for the 737-200 from Feb 1969 and included:
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2011 19:16
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Those are old aircraft. A lot of them are hand-me-downs from Westjets original fleet, and some of those were from CP-Airs fleet I wouldn't be surprised if I rode on that plane as a 5 year old. As far as I know, none of First Air's 737s are second-hand from Westjet; their fleet is a hodge-podge of whatever gravel-kit equipped "Combi" aircraft they could find. As these aircraft are not only uniquely capable but fairly rare as well, they basically have to make do with whatever they can find on the market. Yes, First Air's 737s are old, but they are probably some of the best-maintained aircraft in the country, flown by some of the best pilots in the country. Considering the challenging environment they operate in, their safety record is nothing short of remarkable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2011 20:04
|
|
|
What is the average age of a GA aircraft in this country now, 30 years? 40?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2011 20:33
|
|
|
ack! posted:Alaska Airlines had a few -200 combis until about 5 years ago. They were cargo planes that could carry cargo containers or pallets with seats. You could have up to 6 containers, full seats, or a combination of both. They were interesting to load. Yeah the crazy combi layout & gravel kits never got to the Classic or Next Generation series of 737, so they still use -200s in the frozen North. Alaska never flies theirs to Miami though; they'd have to make at least one refueling stop on the way to Alaska.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2011 20:48
|
|
|
GnarlyCharlie4u posted:any bigger version of this?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2011 21:54
|
|
|
Tide posted:That is incredible. Absolutely incredible. Do we (the US) have anything that can compete with that sort of manueverability? Granted it seemed relatively low speeds and the pilot was probably Russia's absolute best they have and it had no armament (adding weight), but it just seemed so effortless. grover fucked around with this message at 00:04 on Aug 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2011 00:02
|
|
|
The clamshell thrust reversers on the low bypass engines on the -200 are pretty neat. Thank God people are ditching the 757s. I'm on a BOS-LHR AA 757-2 next month without AVOD 
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2011 00:31
|
|
|
grover posted:F-22 could fly circles around it, even with a full combat load and a mediocre pilot who was drunk at the time, possibly even still drinking. Discounting the fact that if it happens in the real world, it will be a stripped down version with a barely trained pilot. Against a 2nd gen F-22 with full air dominance. Fun to watch, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2011 00:31
|
|
|
Bonus is they will never even see each other.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2011 00:37
|
|
|
Honestly by then we probably will have lasers on everything, so who cares. Russia is way better at selling dumb poo poo to small countries, I have to hand it to them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2011 00:41
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:I won't be terribly sad if I never see another -200; I was waiting at MIA once, watching planes go by, and a Bahamasair took off. The low-bypass engines look kind of cool in a retro way, but god drat are they loud, and the visible trail of pollution from them is ghastly. Alaska is "special" but, smug afro nixon? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2011 01:02
|
|
|
karoshi posted:Alaska is "special" but, smug afro nixon? Eskimo!
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2011 01:07
|
|
|
Alpine Mustache posted:Eskimo! Nope, Afro Nixon. Actually it's even more like that actor that played Nixon in Dick with an afro,
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2011 01:07
|
|
|
I say its happy afro Mel Brooks, and nobody will change my mind.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2011 01:09
|
|
|
732's are things of goddamn beauty. I'm glad we still see them in YYC with Canadian North.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2011 03:15
|
|
|
Bondematt posted:Nope, Afro Nixon. Cygni posted:I say its happy afro Mel Brooks, and nobody will change my mind. Welp, won't be able to look at their aircraft the same way again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2011 03:32
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:I won't be terribly sad if I never see another -200; I was waiting at MIA once, watching planes go by, and a Bahamasair took off. The low-bypass engines look kind of cool in a retro way, but god drat are they loud, and the visible trail of pollution from them is ghastly. Ah, so that's what they are! The beach I spent a lot of time at on my Bahamas vacation was directly in the flight path to the airport, and good god, those things are easily 2x as loud as every other jet that came over.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2011 04:25
|
|
|
Considering those low-bypass engines have a lag time measured in months, I imagine go-arounds at some Caribbean destinations can be interesting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2011 14:01
|
|
|
Epic Fail Guy posted:Considering those low-bypass engines have a lag time measured in months, I imagine go-arounds at some Caribbean destinations can be interesting. Wouldn't a high-bypass engine with more rotating mass have an even longer lag? And at the same time, isn't the throttle opened up a bit before landing to spool up the engines for reversing or go-around?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2011 20:06
|
|
|
Boat posted:Ah, so that's what they are! The beach I spent a lot of time at on my Bahamas vacation was directly in the flight path to the airport, and good god, those things are easily 2x as loud as every other jet that came over. And those low bypass turbofans were a huge advance in sound compared to what came before. I'd give a nut to see/hear an old 707 or DC-8 still equipped with turbojets fly over. I've read the DC-8s equipped with the Rolls Royce Conway turbojets were LOUD.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2011 20:24
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:And at the same time, isn't the throttle opened up a bit before landing to spool up the engines for reversing or go-around? With the flaps, slats, and gear hanging out the aircraft needs to have a higher thrust setting to maintain the proper rate of descent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2011 21:00
|
|
|
Previa_fun posted:And those low bypass turbofans were a huge advance in sound compared to what came before. I'd give a nut to see/hear an old 707 or DC-8 still equipped with turbojets fly over. I've read the DC-8s equipped with the Rolls Royce Conway turbojets were LOUD. We haven't had any this year, but over the last few years Calgary would get in the RAF VC-10's. Those were LOUD, setting off car alarms all along the departure path and if you were close enough giving your stomach that queasy rumbling.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2011 21:01
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:Wouldn't a high-bypass engine with more rotating mass have an even longer lag? And at the same time, isn't the throttle opened up a bit before landing to spool up the engines for reversing or go-around? I don't know the exact technical reason, but modern high-bypass engines have almost no lag whatsoever when compared to the old low-bypass ones like on the 707. Final approach on early heavy jets like the 707 and DC-8 were responsible for creating "stabilized" approaches as we know them. The plane is "dirtied" as much as possible with gear out and flaps extended, allowing the engine to be spooled up slightly to maintain airspeed. This is because if the engine is left in flight idle and a go-around is required, the engine will take so long to spool it could lead to some dented airplanes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2011 21:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 00:10 |
|
|
BonzoESC posted:Wouldn't a high-bypass engine with more rotating mass have an even longer lag? And at the same time, isn't the throttle opened up a bit before landing to spool up the engines for reversing or go-around? The lag on older jet engines is largely the result of the fairly primitive fuel controls in use at the time. On older turbojets and turbofans, the fuel controls had to limit engine acceleration at lower RPM settings in order to keep the engine from surging. Newer engines have several advances that let them spool up faster than older models. Most modern jet engines have a higher "flight idle" speed that they shift to when there's no weight on the landing gear, which keeps the RPM out of the lower range where engine response tends to be the slowest, and their fuel controls are able to monitor engine pressures which allows them to adjust fuel flow during acceleration to prevent surging. In addition to the fuel controls, modern turbofan engines also have a series of "surge valves" installed near the compressor sections that are automatically opened to bleed off excess pressure buildup in the compressor in order to keep an engine surge from happening, or to quickly stop one if it does start. Also, keep in mind that the core section of modern turbofans are lighter and more powerful than on older models, which allows them to spool up quickly even with the extra mass of the fan to drive. azflyboy fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Aug 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2011 21:49
|
|
