|
Bugsmasher posted:Lufthansa only has them in cargo ops too, I think you are thinking of KLM that still use them in pax service. If you're at the airport at the right time, KFC flies their DC-10F in here fairly frequently. Also, if you wake up at 4 am like I do, Southern Air Cargo's 747-200 makes a pretty good alarm clock when they make their tech stop.
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 00:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 19:01 |
|
|
MrChips posted:If you're at the airport at the right time, KFC flies their DC-10F in here fairly frequently. Also, if you wake up at 4 am like I do, Southern Air Cargo's 747-200 makes a pretty good alarm clock when they make their tech stop. Unfortunately I'm never around the airport to catch the KFC DC-10F, however I have grabbed a few shots of Southern Air when they made the odd daylight stop, still need to catch Korean Cargo one of these days, they tend to come through every 2-3 weeks.  Lined up 34 by BigtimeAa, on Flickr  What an office by BigtimeAa, on Flickr Bugsmasher fucked around with this message at 01:50 on Oct 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 01:48
|
|
|
  The baby DC-9 automotive part mules are pretty much all we see around here Douglas wise at MQY, though they've become more uncommon as of late and it seems like IFL/Kalitta 727s have replaced them. In other news it's getting to be about the time when 747SP P4-FSH comes back to MQY for it's winter hibernation. Got some good contacts this time so I'm hoping to get some nice shots of it. They don't allow photographers on board anymore because apparently some group was invited on, were told by the crew not to take photos and then of course they went and tried to sneak a few and got upset when told to stop so they were escorted off by airport police and the crew hasn't been friendly toward cameras since.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 03:04
|
|
|
MrChips posted:If you're at the airport at the right time, KFC flies their DC-10F in here fairly frequently. Also, if you wake up at 4 am like I do, Southern Air Cargo's 747-200 makes a pretty good alarm clock when they make their tech stop. I'm giggling thinking of a DC10 in a Kentucky Fried Chicken color scheme
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 14:09
|
|
|
slidebite posted:I'm giggling thinking of a DC10 in a Kentucky Fried Chicken color scheme Perhaps we should explain for our non-Canadian friends that KFC is actually Kelowna Flightcraft, an operator here in Canada? drat, I just took all the fun out of it didn't I? Here is their DC-10F in YYC, taken by one of the YYC Flickr posters:  C-GKFD Sept 07 2011 by alevik123, on Flickr  C-GKFD Sept 07 2011 by alevik123, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 14:18
|
|
|
slidebite is Canadian  Kelowna also owns several type certificates, including a huge Convair 580 variant, the 5800. They're capable of doing some serious airframe modifications.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 16:07
|
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:slidebite is Canadian Thirteen foot stretch!  I love the 5800 and used to see them occasionally around Vancouver when I worked out at the airport.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 16:16
|
|
|
1952 Life on the need for a new strategic bombing force. e: It takes 43 people to maintain one B-36, apparently e2: Never mind, it's a two page ad. dissss posted:As a New Zealander the whole affair just makes me sad, they should have at least been realistic about the sale value of the planes when they were decided to stop using them. I'm surprised NZ gave up fighter planes. I guess you guys don't get a lot of Bears goosing your air defenses... Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Oct 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 19:49
|
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:slidebite is Canadian Oh yeah, I knew that (the Ralph Klein avatar was a dead giveaway). I just thought I'd explain it for others.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 22:05
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:1952 Life on the need for a new strategic bombing force. I had no idea about that google books link!  Thanks ahead of time for wasting hours and hours of time. I love looking at that old poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 00:44
|
|
|
Two pages back, but thanks to Google's reverse image search, I was able to find a 1280x991 version of this awesome image, and took out the watermark. Not sure it's any better than PREYING MANTITS' version, but here you go anyhow: click for 1280x991
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 01:34
|
|
|
Boat posted:Two pages back, but thanks to Google's reverse image search, I was able to find a 1280x991 version of this awesome image, and took out the watermark. Not sure it's any better than PREYING MANTITS' version, but here you go anyhow: That's weird, I did the same thing and only came across 1024 as the largest. But I had a suspicion that it wasn't the largest. You have won the scavenger hunt.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 02:01
|
|
|
Speaking of A-4s, they are some of my favorite planes in Strike Fighters 2 to fly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 03:34
|
|
|
slidebite posted:I had no idea about that google books link! Excellent! I've read from the start of (American) WW2 till about 1952 now. WW2 is amazing through Life. There's nothing like reading stuff like "how the battle for Australia would go down" or "horse meat: it's unrationed!" to put your own worries and problems in perspective. I've also amassed quite a few images. Here's some old timey Life images of possible interest to the thread:  Airliner, 1938:  I didn't realize this before, but the people during the Blitz sleeping in the subways? They did not bring much stuff to sleep on.             Not to restart an old discussion, but they could use these things for close air support.     Sadly I ripped these two photos due to nerd-interests because "wow, look at all that good weathering"        Me110 damaged, plunges through a B-17's fusealage. The B-17 makes it back to base.  
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 04:21
|
|
|
Boat posted:Two pages back, but thanks to Google's reverse image search, I was able to find a 1280x991 version of this awesome image, and took out the watermark. Not sure it's any better than PREYING MANTITS' version, but here you go anyhow: Awesome photos, Nebakenezzer! Digging each one of them. Nebakenezzer posted:Airliner, 1938: Flying boats/Clippers manage to be both cool and crazy to me. My best friend's mom and grandmother were on one of the B-314s that needed rescuing at sea (Bermuda Sky Queen, which was originally the Cape Town Clipper) 64 years ago due to strong headwinds/exceeded weight limits which exhausted their fuel too quickly. It had to land in very rough sea conditions and then they had to wait for a nearby USCG Cutter (Bibb) to come to their position. At one point there was a collision between the wing of the plane and the ship which permanently damaged the plane in a way it couldn't take off. According to her mom everyone on the plane thought they were going to die and prepared for such. Thankfully that wasn't the case and after they were successfully rescued from the plane it was declared a navigational hazard and the gunner on the Bibb sank it. The pilot went on to have a successful career with Delta and the passengers/rescuers have stayed in touch to this day, writing and emailing each other all the time. Pretty cool. Here's the whole report: NC18612. Pretty impressive how far we've come since then. PREYING MANTITS fucked around with this message at 05:21 on Oct 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 05:13
|
|
|
It's too bad the super-luxo airliners and airships never became viable. On one hand it's easy to see why air travel is so relatively cheap these days: the cattle car like conditions for economy class passengers. If you don't like it, pay more to get business or first class. On the other hand it'd be nice to have a real "flying hotel" with bars, lounges, private rooms, etc. Kilonum posted:Speaking of A-4s, they are some of my favorite planes in Strike Fighters 2 to fly. Would you mind doing a quick review or a pros/cons post about this game? I have eyed a lot of Third Wire's products (Strike Fighters 2 and Wings over Vietnam specifically) and never could bring myself to pull the trigger. The graphics look good but something about the site leads me to think it might be a cheap sim. My basis of comparison is Free Falcon 5 if I want to fly fast stuff and Microsoft FSX if I want to fly slow stuff. I've heard good things but I don't want to pay for a sim where all the planes fly the same. Previa_fun fucked around with this message at 08:02 on Oct 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 07:52
|
|
|
Boat posted:Two pages back, but thanks to Google's reverse image search, I was able to find a 1280x991 version of this awesome image, and took out the watermark. Not sure it's any better than PREYING MANTITS' version, but here you go anyhow: Thank you, now I can have this on my laptop and desktop! Relevant:  Also a Moonbat, just because. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 09:31
|
|
|
Previa_fun posted:Would you mind doing a quick review or a pros/cons post about this game? I have eyed a lot of Third Wire's products (Strike Fighters 2 and Wings over Vietnam specifically) and never could bring myself to pull the trigger. The graphics look good but something about the site leads me to think it might be a cheap sim. My basis of comparison is Free Falcon 5 if I want to fly fast stuff and Microsoft FSX if I want to fly slow stuff. It's very easy to get in/out of and the planes don't fly the same unless you set the flight model to Easy (I fly with the "Normal" model, so all of the planes feel different but at the same time it's more forgiving on spins and stalls). It also has a pretty decent campaign generator and a host of add-ons. The only real con is a lack of multiplayer (unless you get the first gen SFP1/WoX games, which are not compatible with Vista/7) as the game is fully DX10, which means there is no Direct Play and TK pretty much works on this by himself from his home and doesn't have the time/resources to devote to making a custom multiplayer. The only other real con is the price ($170 if you get all the games and expansions at once unless they're on sale) but it is balanced out by the fact that there's a new patch just about every month and as I said before, there are LOTS of add-on aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 12:41
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I've also amassed quite a few images. Here's some old timey Life images of possible interest to the thread: That was fantastic. Good mixture. Thanks. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 14:08
|
|
|
PREYING MANTITS posted:That's such an awesome photo it can't be posted enough anyways so don't worry about it. Thanks for the larger source shot! Same plane, different flight. It's been repainted in the color picture (The flag on the nose is bigger with a shorter pole).
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 21:58
|
|
|
PREYING MANTITS posted:Flying boats/Clippers manage to be both cool and crazy to me. My best friend's mom and grandmother were on one of the B-314s that needed rescuing at sea (Bermuda Sky Queen, which was originally the Cape Town Clipper) 64 years ago due to strong headwinds/exceeded weight limits which exhausted their fuel too quickly. It had to land in very rough sea conditions and then they had to wait for a nearby USCG Cutter (Bibb) to come to their position. At one point there was a collision between the wing of the plane and the ship which permanently damaged the plane in a way it couldn't take off. According to her mom everyone on the plane thought they were going to die and prepared for such. Thankfully that wasn't the case and after they were successfully rescued from the plane it was declared a navigational hazard and the gunner on the Bibb sank it. The pilot went on to have a successful career with Delta and the passengers/rescuers have stayed in touch to this day, writing and emailing each other all the time. Pretty cool. Pre-WW2, Boeing 314s were the last word in Luxury. Post WW2, they were sold to privateer firms in the Caribbean who wrecked/scrapped them. I think that sorta luxury would come back only if air travel becomes the province of the rich again. Like, fuel becomes too expensive for all but the richers to fly. Everybody else is back on giant ocean liners (which wouldn't be totally bad, they could get across the Atlantic in a few days.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 00:19
|
|
|
I think it's actually more fuel efficient to fly. It's certainly more labor efficient. Assuming fuel doubled without a corresponding increase in fuel efficiency, I think flying would still be fairly popular. I fly more than the average American, and from a VERY expensive locale, and it's still not really a large percentage of my discretionary income. From here to, say, LAX is about $800 round trip average but that's still less than half the cost of a vacation for two. You'd probably see a whole lot less kids flying and much better ground transportation options but flying would still be common.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 01:31
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Pre-WW2, Boeing 314s were the last word in Luxury. Post WW2, they were sold to privateer firms in the Caribbean who wrecked/scrapped them. I think that sorta luxury would come back only if air travel becomes the province of the rich again. Like, fuel becomes too expensive for all but the richers to fly. Everybody else is back on giant ocean liners (which wouldn't be totally bad, they could get across the Atlantic in a few days.) It still exists. Ever see the inside of a gulfstream?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 02:35
|
|
|
Nothus posted:It still exists. Ever see the inside of a gulfstream? Yeah, privately/fractionally owned execu-jets replace the hell out of sky-liners. Nobody would choose to fly on a schedule to get one of 30 suites in a widebody when they could get just as much elbow room and brandy in a G5, and not have to share it with anybody.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 04:17
|
|
|
dubzee posted:Sweeeeeet, I can work with that! Thanks! It was some gay dick measuring contest AMC did to see if they could do a 17 ship C-17 airdrop. http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123013672
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 04:29
|
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:I think it's actually more fuel efficient to fly. It's certainly more labor efficient. Hm. So in order to get most people to stop flying, I have to pick a huge fuel multiplier, don't I? Like, 1000%? I'm thinking back to flying boats now, and the speed boost you got from flying might be more analogous to taking the Concorde instead of taking regular passenger plane (Taking a ship instead of flying for 40 or so hours.) Hm, point taken. Nevermind, then.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 04:33
|
|
|
xaarman posted:It was some gay dick measuring contest AMC did to see if they could do a 17 ship C-17 airdrop. Yeah, they just did something semi-similar with the C-5s where they had like 20 C-5s or something flying over the course of a couple days, which is apparently a world record for FRED. Fake edit: Okay, I guess it was 41 aircraft over 4 days. My extremely sarcastic comment about FRED's MC rate still stands. The best thing about that article is that it can barely put a positive spin on the reality of the situation, which is that they're throwing their scheduled maintenance plan into the trash can and creating a shitload of extra work for the maintainers just to create a dog and pony show so a general somewhere can brag about how awesome the C-5 is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 04:39
|
|
|
There was a plane crash at Vancouver airport today  . It sounds like a King Air had something go wrong and turned back part way enroute to Kelowna.http://flightaware.com/live/flight/NTA204/history/20111027/2230Z/CYVR/CYLW Pictures of the wreck: http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/gallery/html/bc_crash_111027/photo_0.html It sounds like one person died, but there were 7-8 people who walked away.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 05:00
|
|
|
That would have been something to see. Pity there was a fatality, but 8 walking away is pretty drat good and probably a tribute to the pilot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 05:34
|
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:I think it's actually more fuel efficient to fly. It's certainly more labor efficient. Fuel efficient maybe...on that scale certainly. But I can drive home to see the fam (1700 miles or so each way), spend two weeks dicking around with friends and family, then drive back and the cost of the entire trip - food, gas, hotel, etc - will be around the cost of airfare. And I'll have my car the whole time. Obviously that's very situation-dependent.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 12:31
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:(which wouldn't be totally bad, they could get across the Atlantic in a few days.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 14:22
|
|
|
Bugsmasher posted:Perhaps we should explain for our non-Canadian friends that KFC is actually Kelowna Flightcraft, an operator here in Canada? drat, I just took all the fun out of it didn't I? I happen to be one of the ones to work on those planes, we've got 3 of them parked out here in YHM, with another one flying each night. It's a very maintenance heavy plane.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 16:15
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Fuel efficient maybe...on that scale certainly. But I can drive home to see the fam (1700 miles or so each way), spend two weeks dicking around with friends and family, then drive back and the cost of the entire trip - food, gas, hotel, etc - will be around the cost of airfare. And I'll have my car the whole time. Obviously that's very situation-dependent. Remember that I said more people would be using ground transportation. Personally, I'd rather cough up and fly than drive 3400 miles, but I also count my time into the equation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 16:31
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Like, fuel becomes too expensive for all but the richers to fly. Everybody else is back on giant ocean liners (which wouldn't be totally bad, they could get across the Atlantic in a few days.) If fuel becomes too expensive for most people to fly, they just won't go. Air travel is fantastic on a miles-per-gallon basis, but it really sucks when you consider that a three hour plane ride from Chicago to Miami burns way more gas than just not going.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 20:12
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:If fuel becomes too expensive for most people to fly, they just won't go. Air travel is fantastic on a miles-per-gallon basis, but it really sucks when you consider that a three hour plane ride from Chicago to Miami burns way more gas than just not going.  In other news, I finally had a chance to visit the Museum of Flight at Boeing Field in Seattle. I know it's been featured in here before, but it's worth a redux.Boeing Factory exhibit, in the original Boeing Factory:  BAE S.E.5 Fighter:  I took a bunch more photos of their WWI fighters if anyone's interested. Gee Bee:  P-47:  F4U Corsair:  And a cutaway of the bad boy that powered it:  P-38:  Yak-9:  I'm still waiting for my own personal Aerocar, dammit!  Air Force One:   
grover fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Oct 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 21:31
|
|
|
I've seen several SR-71s in person, but the Museum of Flight's mothership is, so far, my favorite as it's the most accessible. Since we haven't had any new SR-71 photos in a few days, have some J58 porn:    Tailpipe:  Landing gear: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 21:36
|
|
|
grover posted:P-61: P-38. You can tell by the lack of rear end-cockpit. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 22:01
|
|
|
ApathyGifted posted:P-38. Here's a 135hp Beardmore engine common in early WWI British fighters to make up for it: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 22:07
|
|
|
I like my aeronautical parts hand beaten out of sheet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 22:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 19:01 |
|
|
grover posted:Also, you can tell because it's clearly a P-38! I even named the photo P-38.jpg not 5 minutes before posting this. Serves me right for composing a post while talking on the phone... It's all good, I enjoyed the opportunity to say "rear end-cockpit."
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 22:18
|
|