|
Cygni posted:Virgin is quite honestly my favorite airline. I fly it LAX-JFK and LAX-SFO a few times a year and its seriously just the best. But of course my work only pays for American and United. Wait, really? Sometimes people have a "YOU HAVE TO USE THIS AIRLINE" but typically if I go on corporate travel, find the lowcost preferred fare, print it out and then buy on my preferred carrier which is significantly cheaper, nobody has an issue.
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 03:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 09:46 |
|
|
LET'S TALK ADVERTISING https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hbib-A6NpW8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hbib-A6NpW8 A taut and sexy ad from Virgin Atlantic featuring a Michael Bublé song. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpie7-lhok8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpie7-lhok8 Some maudlin things about customer service and groundspeed vs. airspeed from Delta. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2Ltz8d16kE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2Ltz8d16kE Clever editing from Delta. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tCR1dcKEPE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tCR1dcKEPE Did you hear? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqXyt0dbbuw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqXyt0dbbuw Bags fly free! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9N06KXIwwlg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9N06KXIwwlg !~On Southwest~!
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 03:20
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Wait, really? Sometimes people have a "YOU HAVE TO USE THIS AIRLINE" but typically if I go on corporate travel, find the lowcost preferred fare, print it out and then buy on my preferred carrier which is significantly cheaper, nobody has an issue. The last corporate job I traveled for just had a low price policy, and was in TPA, which has every airline but nobody dominates, so I have handfuls of miles all over the place. The last couple years have been self-employed, so I've been on SkyTeam & Southwest quite a bit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 03:22
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Wait, really? Sometimes people have a "YOU HAVE TO USE THIS AIRLINE" but typically if I go on corporate travel, find the lowcost preferred fare, print it out and then buy on my preferred carrier which is significantly cheaper, nobody has an issue. Federal travel. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 03:29
|
|
|
Cygni posted:Virgin is quite honestly my favorite airline. I fly it LAX-JFK and LAX-SFO a few times a year and its seriously just the best. But of course my work only pays for American and United. The LAX-JFK service on any airline is usually their top-notch US domestic first class service. AA uses that tier of service on MIA-SFO too, and it's amazing (for domestic first class).
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 04:01
|
|
|
Cygni posted:Federal travel. oh man sorry buddy
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 04:26
|
|
|
Ropes4u posted:Look around the base board there are some people making really really low openings with wing suits, forward momentum allows you to open lower that pure vertical. I would like to hear more it you care to type.. My original statement was a bit incorrect. I can see how the forward drive from a larger suit could make a difference. In terms of altitude lost during snivel there are so many variables that it's pretty much impossible to specifically say how much. This would also need to be a fairly high jump. By that I mean something higher than 300ft (thats a guess). You'd need enough delay to generate goodly forward speed. BASE canopies differ from skydiving main canopies in a few ways: Most BASE are 7 cell Most BASE canopies are trimmed far steeper (nose is much lower than the tail) Larger ports Ported bottom skins Smaller sliders/ported sliders No deployment bag The time it takes from releasing the pilot chute to full inflation depends on speed at deployment time, altitude, humidity, temperature, packing style, etc. The point is that BASE canopies have to deploy faster than a skydiving design. They also need to open on heading. The down side is that quick openings beat the crap out of you. Like in extreme cases break bones and knock you out. Flight characteristics are really an after thought compared to opening speed. When I say quick, a skydiving main canopy will usually take 600-800ft to fully open and inflate. A reserve skydiving parachute is required to open in 300ft or 3 seconds, which ever is quicker (iirc). A BASE canopy would be open well before either. I'm a skydiver, I do not BASE jump yet. Quite a few of my friends do and I'm happy to pass along questions I can't answer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 05:20
|
|
|
One of these Trijets is not like the other. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 08:43
|
|
|
Is that man trying to put a fire out..........with a briefcase?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 08:48
|
|
|
Aero737 posted:One of these Trijets is not like the other. Holy poo poo North Korea, Ladies and Gentlemen. North Korea in a nutshell.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 08:56
|
|
|
Aero737 posted:One of these Trijets is not like the other. Three engines on the rear end-end of the aircraft? How about four, comrade? The Ilyushin Il-62  Also, engine test aircraft look like they were born with an extra ear or a tumor. At the air shows, parents tell their kids, "Don't stare, it's not polite."   And sometimes, even a propeller gets grafted onto the nose: 
benito fucked around with this message at 10:10 on Sep 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 09:59
|
|
|
 The Tristar would look a lot less horrible if they all had 2 engines under the wing. Also, you mention the IL-62 without mentioning it's awesome airbrake capability.  Capitalists had their quad jet too! 
Aero737 fucked around with this message at 11:31 on Sep 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 11:19
|
|
|
All this cattle car chat needs a counterpoint. Here's my new kitplane dream. Europe is adapting LSA regs (without speed limit thank goodness) and I'¨ve fallen in love with the CH750. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCIGQ1tZjPM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIRssbcUZbg Amazing visibility and STOL performance with adequate space and speed for touring. You could buy a farm (literally, not the crash metaphor) and fly it off a grass field quite easily. http://www.zenithair.com/stolch750/ Also, the NTSB has a new and quite funny 404-page: 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 11:38
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:LET'S TALK ADVERTISING Ok! Virgin Australia just re-launched (they used to be Virgin Blue) and they're pushing for the business market. This is one of their ads and I think it's pretty swank. Also, quote:A taut and sexy ad from Virgin Atlantic featuring a Michael Bublé song. Nam Taf fucked around with this message at 11:54 on Sep 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 11:43
|
|
|
How can you mention Virgin's ridiculous advertising without their 25 year anniversary? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIqwUV-qOiU
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 12:58
|
|
|
Welp, seems like an entire KHL team was wiped out in Russia today,in a Yak42D. Including one of the best Swedish goaltenders; Stefan Liv  If someone got more information, i would gladly hear it. the chic in psychic fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Sep 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 16:25
|
|
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14822582 Edit: My country never fails to make me proud. Preoptopus fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Sep 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 16:44
|
|
|
Collision with antenna mast during take-off. Ugh.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 17:05
|
|
|
Ola posted:All this cattle car chat needs a counterpoint. Here's my new kitplane dream. Stolch, Storch 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 17:44
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Stolch, Storch It's an Ikea kitfox!
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 18:59
|
|
|
Mobius1B7R posted:Is that man trying to put a fire out..........with a briefcase? That's the Juche way! Crazy news about the Yak-42 crash, will be interesting to see what the cause(s) were.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 19:02
|
|
|
Got to see a Corvalis TT today, god drat that is a sexy kite. Almost Lancair sexy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 19:02
|
|
|
Well it was a Lancair, so that explains the sexiness.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 19:14
|
|
|
Aero737 posted:And Lets see what our communist friends came up with in the east.. http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/09/07/russia.plane.crash/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 lovely thing to happen, but I just noticed the Yak-42 mentioned and instantly remembered this thread. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 21:03
|
|
|
The problem with all those old Tu-154s, Yak-40/42, Il-86, Il-76 etc isn't their design nearly as much as it's their maintenance and training. A lot of those airframes have absurd reps on them, and they are still storing them with a tarp over the windshield for months at a time on Siberian tarmacs. Cut rate charters are scary enough in the states, Eastern bloc cut rate flights is just a recipe for... well, this sort of thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 21:21
|
|
|
I just re read Airframe by Michael Crichton and I guess it hit me way harder today than back in highschool how hosed the relationship between plane makers, airlines and the FFA really is in this country alone. I shutter to put "Russian" and "safety standards" in the same sentence. Edit: Ment FAA obviously... Preoptopus fucked around with this message at 23:17 on Sep 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 21:51
|
|
|
Preoptopus posted:I just re read Airframe by Michael Crichton and I guess it hit me way harder today than back in highschool how hosed the relationship between plane makers, airlines and the FFA really is in this country alone. I shutter to put "Russian" and "safety standards" in the same sentence. Really? I seem to recall the book mostly being about how hosed the media narrative about air travel is, and how much manufacturers (or at least, the engineers at the manufacturers) loving hate airlines for how much they piss all over the safety practices they suggest for their products.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 22:26
|
|
|
ApathyGifted posted:Really? I seem to recall the book mostly being about how hosed the media narrative about air travel is, and how much manufacturers (or at least, the engineers at the manufacturers) loving hate airlines for how much they piss all over the safety practices they suggest for their products. Use the designed lifting device for this engine? Fuckit, the forklift works fine! For reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191#Engine_separation Bondematt fucked around with this message at 23:16 on Sep 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 23:11
|
|
|
Cygni posted:The problem with all those old Tu-154s, Yak-40/42, Il-86, Il-76 etc isn't their design nearly as much as it's their maintenance and training. A lot of those airframes have absurd reps on them, and they are still storing them with a tarp over the windshield for months at a time on Siberian tarmacs. The TU-154M has a pretty good safety record undone by its tendency to get flown in lovely weather and now frankly the overall age of the airfame is getting dangerous. It's a shame, I think it's one of the prettiest airplanes ever. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 23:12
|
|
|
Edit: woops carry on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 23:15
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:It's a shame, I think it's one of the prettiest airplanes ever. Tu-154 porn time! Thrust reversers are coool  Probably my fav Tu-154 scheme  Top view  I wonder if the ticket came with an iPord or a Magnetbox TV. Don't worry, hunny, i booked it on Continental, not some shady Russian airline!  In case anyone thought i was joking about the storage, here's a Tu-154 employing the excellent soviet bloc storage strategy of 'parking it on some snow until we need it' 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 23:53
|
|
|
Cygni posted:In case anyone thought i was joking about the storage, here's a Tu-154 employing the excellent soviet bloc storage strategy of 'parking it on some snow until we need it' There are more then a few An-124s sitting in storage like that. slidebite posted:This is kind of cool. I know there has been a lot of talk about new gen airships being built for heavy lifting, but this one sounds like it might actually happen. I saw this article too; it'd be fantastic if it actually happened. Reading the article, I *thought* Discovery Air was getting a license to manufacture from HAB, which is why they were located in Quebec, but I guess they are just buying the things. MrChips posted:I honestly can't see this happening. Beyond the issues surrounding Discovery Air, there are all kinds of issues, technical and otherwise, that work against airships operating in the environment up north. I'd be interested to hear about this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2011 00:52
|
|
|
Cygni posted:Probably my fav Tu-154 scheme This thing rules. I think this was posted already in the thread but it's worth watching. TU-154M with a couple... issues. Sorry bout the backing track. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKcXkUYqT4g The anhedral of the wings is supposed to reduce dutch roll but there are a few moments when that thing is all over the place
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2011 01:28
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I'd be interested to hear about this. Discovery Air is in no position financially to be doing anything like this. It was only a year or two ago that they were bailed out by the NWT government - their financials have only improved slightly since then. If it weren't for the fact that their subsidiaries are jointly owned by various First Nations (and are some of the largest employers of said First Nations) in the area, they'd have been left for dead. As for the technical issues, the climate in northern Canada is extremely harsh (duh). Not just extreme cold (which would play havoc with any airship's envelope and rigging - ever blown up a balloon in -30 weather?), but blizzards and other powerful wind events can whip up with little to no prior warning. Airframe icing is a fact of life in this climate all months of the year; as far as I can tell, nobody has ever certified any kind of lighter-than-air aircraft for either flight into IMC or into known icing conditions. From a pilot's perspective, an airship is a lumbering, unwieldy contraption that is extremely susceptible to shifting, gusty winds - just the thing I wouldn't want to be flying in an environment known for shifting, gusty winds, and especially not if I was asked to be slinging heavy loads. Even beyond that, Transport Canada has virtually no regulations pertaining to lighter-than-air commercial operations, so they would have to draft up a least three annexes to existing rules (if not create an entirely new section of CARs from scratch) before any company would be allowed to fly an airship for hire. While straightforward, this is a process that could conceivably take years to complete. EDIT: It just occurred to me, since this is a hybrid airship, that means it derives some of its lift from engine power. That raises yet another regulatory question; is this an airship, a helicopter, or both? That might sound like a simple problem, but that has implications on certification and airworthiness regulations. MrChips fucked around with this message at 02:16 on Sep 8, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2011 02:04
|
|
|
ApathyGifted posted:Really? I seem to recall the book mostly being about how hosed the media narrative about air travel is, and how much manufacturers (or at least, the engineers at the manufacturers) loving hate airlines for how much they piss all over the safety practices they suggest for their products. Bondematt posted:Use the designed lifting device for this engine? Fuckit, the forklift works fine! Counterpoint to this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2011 03:17
|
|
|
One could also argue that this is a design fuckup: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_232_Heavy not to mention the rudder issues of the A300 etc. IN THE AIR TRAVEL SYSTEM, CUSTOMERS ARE PROTECTED BY TWO SEPARATE, YET EQUALLY IMPORTANT GROUPS: THE COMMERCIAL AVIATION COMPANIES, WHO DESIGN PLANES, AND THE AIRLINES, WHO IGNORE THE PROPER MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES. THESE ARE THEIR STORIES. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2011 03:55
|
|
|
Preoptopus posted:I just re read Airframe by Michael Crichton and I guess it hit me way harder today than back in highschool how hosed the relationship between plane makers, airlines and the FFA really is in this country alone. I shutter to put "Russian" and "safety standards" in the same sentence. That's because the FAA is literally in bed with the manufacturers and airlines. One of their stated goals is to "promote air travel", which can be directly at ends with achieving safe air travel. See also: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/flying-cheaper/
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2011 05:12
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:This thing rules.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2011 05:44
|
|
|
Epic Fail Guy posted:That's because the FAA is literally in bed with the manufacturers and airlines. One of their stated goals is to "promote air travel", which can be directly at ends with achieving safe air travel. Of course we want to promote air travel, our jobs depend on it. Hearing stories from some of the old timers here at the academy really shines a light on how much they've actually done to improve safety at least as far as the ATC aspect is concerned. Granted it's all completely reactive, but hey it's something!
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2011 06:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 09:46 |
|
|
Anybody with a passing interest in turbine engines needs to check out this YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/AgentJayZ He works at a turbine engine overhaul shop and makes a lot of videos really detailing the inner workings of these engines. He's also very responsive to messages and has answered several questions I've sent in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2011 06:30
|
|
