|
Fort Smith regional airshow is taking place this weekend and I'll be going Sunday. My buddy is bringing his DSLR; he's a pretty competent static photographer...we'll see how he does focusing on aircraft racing across the sky.  I'll try to post up some pictures here as soon as I can.
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2011 22:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 10:57 |
|
|
I don't even know where to ask, but I need some advice on appraising a plane to sell (and holy poo poo it's hard to search the internet for this stuff..I have no idea what's reliable). My dad has had a stroke 2 years ago and is selling his 1965 Cessna 172. I'm not sure how to appraise it. It's been sitting in the hangar unflown for about 4 or 5 years almost. My brother and a prospective buyer took it out and got it running good enough to taxi it around. The buyer wants to pay 7 grand as he feels he will have to put a substantial amount of work into it (he's probably right). My dad is okay with that, but his reasoning isn't the best and I want to double check to make sure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2011 22:54
|
|
|
I'd check out other aircraft on aircraftdealer.com or in the Trade-A-Plane. $7k sounds way low, I would think that if it were in flyable condition it would be worth in the $20k range on the low side, given the other aircraft of that vintage for sale.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2011 23:11
|
|
|
Considering what it will need to safely(and legally) fly after being parked for 6 years, something in the $7k range might be about right. It wont need a full restoration, but it will need more than just an annual.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 01:46
|
|
|
BonoMan posted:I don't even know where to ask, but I need some advice on appraising a plane to sell (and holy poo poo it's hard to search the internet for this stuff..I have no idea what's reliable). Depending on the condition of the airplane, how much time is on the airframe and engine, as well as what types of avionics are installed, 7k seems on the really low side. Some quick looking online turned up 65 Skyhakws going for anywhere from $20-40k, with most of them being priced in the mid to upper 20's. Other things that come into play with an aircraft that age are whether there's any damage history, how complete the maintenance records are, and whether there are outstanding airworthiness directives (like recalls for a car, but mandatory, and the owner pays for them) that need to be done. Since the aircraft sat for several years, it'll need an annual inspection done before it's legally airworthy. An annual on a 172 will run around $12-1500 if there aren't any issues discovered, but costs can be significantly higher if there are problems found during the inspection. I'd recommend talking to an A&P (a local flight school should know a good one) about what's needed to get the airplane airworthy, since you might be able to get another $10K out of the airplane by spending a couple thousand bucks getting it airworthy again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 03:55
|
|
|
BonoMan posted:I don't even know where to ask, but I need some advice on appraising a plane to sell (and holy poo poo it's hard to search the internet for this stuff..I have no idea what's reliable). Gimme some numbers (like tachometer and hobbs) plus what's installed avionics-wise, I could probably get you an exact estimate courtesy of Vref. Of course, it doesn't hurt doing what AZ says and getting a A&P to look at it. It's kinda like having a car mechanic inspect a used vehicle for pre-purchase inspection.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 07:10
|
|
|
Thanks guys. The plane is a few hours away so it'll take a bit for me to be able to get away from work and get somebody to come look at the plane, but I'm gonna see what I can do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 14:53
|
|
|
^^ That does sound insanely cheap. Glad you're doing some more research. Crosspost from the GBS NASA thread. This could potentially be something else: Doctor J posted:
slidebite fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Sep 30, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 19:05
|
|
SpaceX Just Announced a Bunch of Crazy poo poo
|
slidebite posted:^^ That does sound insanely cheap. Glad you're doing some more research.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 19:22
|
|
|
How much would a parachute package for something that size weigh? It may be a nearer thing than you'd think. I'm pretty jazzed about the prospect of being able to put the stages down where they will be getting refurbished, rather than having to have a ship to collect them from wherever they land under parachute, hose all the saltwater out, then truck/fly it back to the factory. If it worked, it would speed/cheapen things amazingly. But the speed and cheap would come at a cost in lift capacity. Could be they have rocket scientists work on this poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 19:35
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:How much would a parachute package for something that size weigh? It may be a nearer thing than you'd think.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 19:44
|
|
|
But this is so much more badass than a parachute. Plus I think part of the rationale behind this is that this way they can control precisely where it lands; they can send it up, and then all the pieces can return themselves (via computer control I would imagine) to the facility where they can be inspected and then sent up again! As was mentioned above, locating a bigass rocket stage in the ocean, then getting a boat to go out and pick it up, then transporting it back to the factory probably costs a fair amount.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 21:25
|
|
|
Right, but if you had a rocket do adjustments near apogee, it could get "in the ballpark", ride a chute for 90% of the way down and then use a bit of power for fine adjustments as it gets closer. Edit: At least, in my total layperson mind that kinda makes sense 
slidebite fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Sep 30, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 21:45
|
|
|
I refuse to believe that you can lower something from space by thrust power.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 22:15
|
|
|
Preoptopus posted:I refuse to believe that you can lower something from space by thrust power. You know what Id Software's (Doom, Quake, etc.) John Carmack has been up to in his free time? Figuring out the hard part of precisely that, which is to say, the parts of it when you're close to the ground. Armadillo's news section is filled with photos and videos of their progress. If you dig private space biz, I just destroyed your entire afternoon. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 22:27
|
|
|
Preoptopus posted:I refuse to believe that you can lower something from space by thrust power. You're not lowering it all the way by thrust power. Anyone know how fast, say, a Soyuz RV is traveling when it pops its chutes? I looked for a specific figure for the Apollo RVs but couldn't find anything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 22:55
|
|
|
Sexual Lorax posted:You know what Id Software's (Doom, Quake, etc.) John Carmack has been up to in his free time? Figuring out the hard part of precisely that, which is to say, the parts of it when you're close to the ground.  Im literally freaking out.http://www.youtube.com/armadilloaerospace#p/u/20/k_Xiq3dYJlM edit this one is super trippy http://www.youtube.com/armadilloaerospace#p/u/11/-ADKbHB-BO0 also, I'll take my jet pack please. Preoptopus fucked around with this message at 23:07 on Sep 30, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 23:02
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:I'm pretty jazzed about the prospect of being able to put the stages down where they will be getting refurbished, rather than having to have a ship to collect them from wherever they land under parachute, hose all the saltwater out, then truck/fly it back to the factory. How is lifing an extra few tons of fuel (+ unnecessary engines?) into orbit @ $4,500/lb cheaper than a truck? Even one of those big oversize ones? Maybe NASA is starting to do some serious design work on their new launch system and maybe spacex sees an opportunity to win some contracts, but maybe they need to get support from budget makers who don't know poo poo about space flight but know a lot about electoral maths. If only spacex can come up with some bullshit never-happen-but-gets-attention proposal to make them look good so congress can tell NASA to outsource and declare they're saving costs... I bet  the only money spacex spends on this is the $500 that animation cost. That armadillo video is really cool, but going up and back is a relatively easy party trick compared to doing it from orbital velocity
Captain Postal fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Sep 30, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 23:07
|
|
|
It's a fun what if, and that's about it. Good attention grabber. Rocket VTOL in the current world is still a bad idea. It would make a hundred times more sense to just make each stage a lifting body design and have them deorbit via friction and autonomously glide back to earth, but that's not quite as fun in videos. Still sad to think that the US has no domestic manned lift ability, and somewhere the X-33 prototype weeps alone, even though we could fix its problems now. (I know it's tech is going into other projects, but i was being dramatic ok) Gratuitous linear aerospike! 
Cygni fucked around with this message at 23:28 on Sep 30, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 23:24
|
|
|
The reentry for the booster seemed doable, second stage maybe. Lot of wasted weight, but it could happen. But the idea of the capsule descending with thruster braking alone is just not happening. Remember Phoenix, the Mars lander? It landed under thrusters, but only from a fall of a few hundred feet. The parachutes did most of the braking effort - and that's in an atmosphere which is so thin it makes Arnold's eyeballs pop out. To be fair, the heatshield does the most of the speed scrubbing in both Phoenix and this SpaceX capsule's mission, but it is not an improvement in any way of what dudes with pipes, slide rules and white short sleeve shirts did many years ago. One Apollo landing had a parachute failure, one of the three canopies ruptured or didn't fully develop during landing. No problem, they designed in redundancy - it landed just fine with two chutes. But are the thrusters in the SpaceX capsule redundant? There are 4 clusters of 2 non-vectorable thrusters in the animation. If it has something as complex as 8 individual fuel tanks and supply plumbing, it is already a highly complex which weighs more than the parachutes. If one of those thrusters fail, the differential thrust might flip it over. So in order to maintain at least one level of redundancy, the remaining three clusters have to reduce thrust risking a hard landing. Or you could design in redundancy in thrust and have the remaining thruster on that side increase power, but that means you have to carry a lot more fuel (to account for failure in any of them, meaning you land with a load of spare fuel which is probably very toxic and flammable) Why? Apollo carried their chutes to the moon and back, it is proven as a weight effective, reliable, redundant solution. And since they don't jettison the heatshield - which even if it was reusable would be just as reusable if it descended under its own parachute, the thrusters have to point 45 degrees out completely wasting half their thrust which means even more fuel need to be carried to feed bigger motors cutting even further into the now pretty much unusable return payload. Gonna have to agree with Cygni's post, a what-if, but not that fun. "WHAT-IF we ignored payload-to-orbit demands, the false economy lessons of reusability learned during the shuttle program and most things ever learned about safety in redundancy vs economy of weight".
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2011 00:17
|
|
|
I'm really curious about how they intend to cool the skin of the second stage during re-entry. Wouldn't the flow around the heat shield converge far too soon, leading to the plasma stream contacting the stage skin? I'm assuming that the heat shield will be the same diameter as the stage itself.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2011 21:01
|
|
|
Snapshot posted:I'm really curious about how they intend to cool the skin of the second stage during re-entry. Wouldn't the flow around the heat shield converge far too soon, leading to the plasma stream contacting the stage skin? I'm assuming that the heat shield will be the same diameter as the stage itself. I'm sure that'd be one of the technical problems they'll have to face, probably by making the heat shield pop out a bit in all directions or something similar. Hell, if you still have liquid fuel on board, well liquid whatever happens to be a pretty drat good coolant, so just make it so the final fuel tank circulates on the outside of the rocket and you can find some serious leeway for overall heat. Going to be a tricky balancing act though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 01:09
|
|
|
Went to the Udvar-Hazy Center (Smithsonian Air & Space Museum Annex) out at Dulles Airport, near Washington, D.C. last week. PM me if you want full resolution or additional pictures. I have many more.                              I swear, that place is designed to not be able to take decent photos at all-- every really sweet angle is blocked by a display, and the lighting is DARK in the whole place. Really really worth a trip though. I enjoyed it more than the 'actual' A&S museum. thetechnoloser fucked around with this message at 01:10 on Oct 3, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 00:53
|
|
|
They removed the upper engines of Enterprise, are they already getting it ready to move out?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 01:06
|
|
|
Boomerjinks posted:They removed the upper engines of Enterprise, are they already getting it ready to move out? That's the word. Heard people rumbling about it when I was there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 01:08
|
|
|
Got back from a long day at our regional airshow this afternoon. The weather today was beautiful for flying and there was a huge turnout as always. I would have liked to have seen more modern military demos (only jet demo was an F-15E and drat did he really throw it around the sky) but it was a lot of fun. Highlights include: Matt Younkin flying aerobatic maneuvers in a Beech 18. I was fortunate enough to see his father, the late Bobby Younkin, fly a similar routine in his Learjet in 2003 and I had never seen anything like it before. Matt's routine in the Beech doesn't disappoint. It's breathtaking to see an aircraft never built for aerobatics doing half-cubans and a roll on takeoff. The Aerostars: an aerobatic team made up of three pilots flying Yak-52s. Skip Stewart put on a HELL of a show in his modified Pitts; he hung himself in the air on his propeller for what seemed like almost ten seconds, at which point my friend turned to me and said "Congratulations, you're now flying a helicopter." The bottoms of his maneuvers were also right on the deck. And a ton of your usual airshow fare: lots and lots of  . I'm still going through pictures so hopefully I can do a photodump later.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 02:16
|
|
|
Previa_fun posted:Matt Younkin flying aerobatic maneuvers in a Beech 18. I was fortunate enough to see his father, the late Bobby Younkin, fly a similar routine in his Learjet in 2003 and I had never seen anything like it before. Matt's routine in the Beech doesn't disappoint. It's breathtaking to see an aircraft never built for aerobatics doing half-cubans and a roll on takeoff. I'm sure most of us have seen the videos before, but if you haven't Bob Hoover's energy-management routine is worth watching. He does all of that...but with the engines off.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 02:40
|
|
|
Boomerjinks posted:They removed the upper engines of Enterprise, are they already getting it ready to move out? I was told this summer that they're moving it out for Discovery, as they wanted a shuttle that had actually been into space. And you can't really top 39 trips up! Udvar-Hazy is So drat cool, it doesn't look THAT big when you're walking up, but when you get inside you keep finding these amazingly huge aircraft everywhere. My personal favorite was the un-restored Komet right in front of the shuttle exhibit. Oh, and having gone with no prior knowledge of the place, it was a real shocker to find myself looking up at the Enola Gay. Worth. The. Trip.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 03:20
|
|
|
thetechnoloser posted:I enjoyed it more than the 'actual' A&S museum. Yeah the actual air and space museum was a bit of a let down and packed with people when I went a few weeks ago. Here are a few pictures I took. Ultraflight lazair. I bought one of these last week. I'll try to make a thread about it next spring once flying season starts.            
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 03:31
|
|
|
helno posted:Yeah the actual air and space museum was a bit of a let down and packed with people when I went a few weeks ago. I thought so too. I was really looking forward to visiting it on my trip to D.C. last year but came away feeling it was a bit half-assed for such a big name museum at our nation's capital. Oh well, I can't complain when it was free. Great pictures, I'll definitely make it a point to check that out if I get a chance to go up there again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 03:42
|
|
|
I really need to see a picture of all three orbiters together. Facing each other. Maybe tails all together? Flying V configuration. Or just lined up. I've seen pictures of two together, but come on. Let's do this while we still have the chance!
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 03:47
|
|
|
Previa_fun posted:I thought so too. I was really looking forward to visiting it on my trip to D.C. last year but came away feeling it was a bit half-assed for such a big name museum at our nation's capital. I think the NASM suffers from being a pretty old building that has to display things that are inherently bulky and fairly large. It doesn't help that many of their display galleries date from the 1970's, and most of those are showing their age pretty badly at this point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 05:03
|
|
|
thetechnoloser posted:Hey, I know a bit about that airplane. My mom was a project manager on the second round of restoration; she headed up a lot of the skin and spar stuff. Fun NC19903 facts: - There's an extra wing rib in there! The original blueprints specify 17; it was built with 18. This caused huge headaches when it came time to certify the plane as airworthy, even though it had been flying just fine that way right up until it ran out of gas. They definitely played faster and looser back then. - Papa Doc added a little modification of his own. There's a compartment accessible only from the outside, behind the port wing root. It's about 5' x 2' x 2', nicely sized for some guns or bundles of cash. Needless to say, this is also not part of the original blueprints, although it was kept in the restoration. It's juuuuuust out of frame in one of the pictures. You can see the latch if you know it's there, but it's pretty well concealed. I'd be interested to know whether the Smithsonian points this particular feature out. - It is, I hear, a fantastic place for the fanciest of parties. In all seriousness, I understand why they can't let people inside, but it's still a shame. Boeing and the volunteer crew put an astounding amount of effort and money into the interior, and by all accounts and pictures, it's absolutely stunning.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 05:26
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:I think the NASM suffers from being a pretty old building that has to display things that are inherently bulky and fairly large. It doesn't help that many of their display galleries date from the 1970's, and most of those are showing their age pretty badly at this point. Right, you can tell that all their time has gone into the new place for the past few years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 12:43
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:- It is, I hear, a fantastic place for the fanciest of parties. I imagine it might be a bit cramped, but KLM had a dance party on a MD-11 once: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sHY7xrB2Ac I went to a party under the rocket at the Saturn V center at KSC once, that was cool. Cocoa Crispies fucked around with this message at 13:59 on Oct 3, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 13:53
|
|
|
Russian aeroplane cemetery. Kind of sad to look at actually. http://englishrussia.com/2011/10/03/view-of-the-plane-cemetery-from-your-apartment/#more-69924 
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 20:39
|
|
|
SouthLAnd posted:Russian aeroplane cemetery. Kind of sad to look at actually. I always loved that very "bulbous" design. Part 2 of "how do I sell my airplane?" My brother and a pilot friend of his took the plane up yesterday and flew it around for a half hour or so. I called a local mechanic around there who is going to take 2 days and do a full Pre-Buy on it. He thought $7000 was way way too low (and my dad delivered his kids so he's very "protective" of my dad) and that, especially since it's flown, you could probably get in the 15k-20k range. But he won't really know until he gets to take a look over it. He also said people have been hovering around that plane for the past 6 years constantly trying to buy low and sell high (since they knew he didn't fly it anymore). Now the tricky part...my brother has all but said it was a done deal to his boss at 7 grand which is - unfortunate. Granted nothing is in writing, but they have a good relationship and the boss has already put a little bit of money and time into the plane. So now begins navigating the waters of "sorry he promised it to you for so low, but it's not going to sell for 7 grand...but we can still negotiate" territory. Naturally I'm initially just saying gently caress it and it'll go to the higher bidder, but goddamnit now I have to make sure he doesn't get poo poo on because a premature deal backfired. Ugh.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 21:11
|
|
|
Love the huge cruise missile / target drone pointed right at the brand new highrise.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 21:22
|
|
|
SouthLAnd posted:Russian aeroplane cemetery. Kind of sad to look at actually. The pride of the DPRK air force!
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 22:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 10:57 |
|
|
Epic Fail Guy posted:The pride of the DPRK air force! But what about this? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 23:07
|
|
