|
slaphappynickname posted:Sorry for the cellphone pic, but it's all I had on me at LAX 
|
| # ? Jul 24, 2010 16:51 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2013 09:17 |
|
|
BonzoESC posted:It really is ghastly and disproportionate: too short/fat and it kind of looks like an A318 with smaller windows and a stupider forehead. What's really sad is that while A380 and B787 might make economical sense for the airlines, neither aircraft addresses what we frequent fliers really want- another 6" of legroom, and an empty seat beside us. A decent meal on domestic flights would be nice, too. I do like the 787 over the A380 with one big respect, though- more flights on the same routes, and thus shorter layovers and better chance of getting a seat within a reasonable amount of time if a flight is delayed for whatever reason. Edit: brain fart on the airbus # grover fucked around with this message at Jul 24, 2010 around 19:18 |
| # ? Jul 24, 2010 17:49 |
|
|
dietcokefiend posted:What generally happens when a plane is crashed in the military. Is the entire playing field level... aka crashing an old prop cargo plane has the same disciplinary action as crashing say a brand new F22 or B2 bomber? Is anyone ever giving a pass for a stupid mistake or are you basically hosed no matter who you are when you down an aircraft?
|
| # ? Jul 24, 2010 17:51 |
|
|
grover posted:What's really sad is that while A318 and B7E7 might make economical sense for the airlines, neither aircraft addresses what we frequent fliers really want- another 6" of legroom, and an empty seat beside us. A decent meal on domestic flights would be nice, too. Fly first class like I do (unless it's intra-Florida with Southwest.) More legroom, more horizontal room, and a decent meal on domestic flights. Delta ATL-LAS in 2008:  Continental MIA-IAH in 2009:  Delta MIA-ATL in 2009:  Virgin America FLL-SFO in 2010:  Edit: are you getting A318 (tiny 100-passenger A320) and A380 (massive 800-passenger behemoth) confused? Also, the B7E7 is the B787 now. Cocoa Crispies fucked around with this message at Jul 24, 2010 around 18:20 |
| # ? Jul 24, 2010 18:17 |
|
|
slidebite posted:I don't think it's likely to get a pass for a stupid mistake, but if it is a mechanical failiure (like this one appears to be) I really hope they give him a pat on the back more than anything. There is pretty much no possible worse time for an engine to have problems than when it did for this guy. Low speed, low altitude, high alpha pass doing around 120. Yikes. How do militaries justify the costs of airshows and other times when planes go down for no other reason then showing off maneuvers. Are most classified as training missions and thus not really losing a plane while playing around? Maybe its just that most normal training exercises aren't publicized, but airshows and the like seem to bring out most defects that cause crashes just by the amount of stress or crazy stuff they are doing. Doesn't anyone ever get mad when they go all "hey this airshow brought in like 40,000 in ticket sales but we lost a X million dollar aircraft" 
|
| # ? Jul 24, 2010 18:39 |
|
|
I can't imagine that the military really gets much from the ticket sales at an airshow. I think it's considered more of a recruiting/advertising expense. Plus, it's where old planes go right before they're to be retired. The Blue Angels will be the first to tell you that they fly the oldest FA-18s in the Navy.
|
| # ? Jul 24, 2010 19:06 |
|
|
BonzoESC posted:Fly first class like I do (unless it's intra-Florida with Southwest.) More legroom, more horizontal room, and a decent meal on domestic flights.  All I ever get is cattle coach. Couple hundred thousand miles now, all but about 500 miles of which is coach. Ugh. And yeah, I mean A380, had a brain fart there. I've seen 787 used all over the media, but hadn't realized 7E7 was officially dropped.
|
| # ? Jul 24, 2010 19:23 |
|
|
grover posted:Something is wrong with one of the engines, too, as one nozzle is tight while the other is open. And only one is spouting flames during the impact, but that might be coincidence. I agree. If you look at the video it seems like he's doing the low/slow/high alpha pass, which is a staple of any F-18 performance. When he hits full burners to accelerate out of it, the right engine isn't responding and that much asymmetrical thrust at near stalling speed means instant membership in the Martin Baker Ejection Tie Club. The shots of the sequence are incredible.
|
| # ? Jul 24, 2010 19:24 |
|
|
jandrese posted:I can't imagine that the military really gets much from the ticket sales at an airshow. I think it's considered more of a recruiting/advertising expense. Plus, it's where old planes go right before they're to be retired. The Blue Angels will be the first to tell you that they fly the oldest FA-18s in the Navy. Hell, the Blue Angels still fly F/A-18A's, which I could have sworn were completely phased out for the E/F models until I read Wikipedia. None of the military shows that I have been to charged admission, so I they're eating the entire cost, actually. But it does bring in a lot of business for the local community, so you never hear anyone bitching about their tax money.
|
| # ? Jul 24, 2010 19:32 |
|
|
grover posted:I WISH I could fly first class
|
| # ? Jul 24, 2010 19:46 |
|
|
azflyboy posted:That said, the Chinese students that train in the US have it far worse. Their training is paid for by an airline, but in return, the student essentially becomes an indentured servant for that company. When they sign the contract, those students are required to work for the airline for 20-30 years after finishing training (I've also heard of 99 year contracts as well), and they're automatically required to pay around $300,000 if they try and leave early. Rational actors in a free market! Christ, that's terrible.
|
| # ? Jul 24, 2010 20:49 |
|
|
dietcokefiend posted:How do militaries justify the costs of airshows and other times when planes go down for no other reason then showing off maneuvers. Are most classified as training missions and thus not really losing a plane while playing around? Demonstration teams are a recruiting tool. It's the official mission. Plane crashes happen in training missions all the time, but you can amortize that out. It's not like you crash a plane every airshow. The military will blow your mind sometimes when you think about the costs attached when there's a fuckup. Aviation has that too. I heard the story of a guy who ran out of gas and was forced to ditch in the sound. When they came to pick him up, there his plan was, floating on the water, and he was standing on the wing, calm as can be. Of course he just lost a plane worth a few hundred thousand dollars, but at a certain point, that doesn't matter. The military is wayyyy past that point.
|
| # ? Jul 24, 2010 20:49 |
|
|
Not that this thread really needs something to generate replies, but I've been thinking for a while about which military aircraft has proven to be the best investment over time. To me it's between the C-130 and the B-52, but I'm curious to hear other positions.
|
| # ? Jul 24, 2010 21:06 |
|
|
dietcokefiend posted:How do militaries justify the costs of airshows and other times when planes go down for no other reason then showing off maneuvers. Are most classified as training missions and thus not really losing a plane while playing around? AFAIK, ticket sales at an airshow like this do not share revenue to the military, even foreign powers. This airshow for example, usually has US Military demos and static displays.
|
| # ? Jul 24, 2010 21:11 |
|
|
BeastOfExmoor posted:Not that this thread really needs something to generate replies, but I've been thinking for a while about which military aircraft has proven to be the best investment over time. To me it's between the C-130 and the B-52, but I'm curious to hear other positions. I think you picked a couple of really strong candidates. I would also probably throw the UH1 series in there too. They've been used for everything. Edit: For a fighter, the F16 has got to be in there. Still in production well after 30 years, and I bet various airforces will still be flying them for another 30 years, if not more. slidebite fucked around with this message at Jul 24, 2010 around 21:21 |
| # ? Jul 24, 2010 21:13 |
|
|
slidebite posted:Recruiting tool and make the public aware/proud/open to fund/whatever the military. It's quite valuable, actually. I was joking about the ticket sales going to pay for the planes  This stuff just fascinates me. Any ideas what the yearly loss figures are that are estimated for equipment failures or negligence?
|
| # ? Jul 24, 2010 21:23 |
|
|
dietcokefiend posted:I was joking about the ticket sales going to pay for the planes  In other happy news, 10 years ago this weekend. I did not know this until just recently, but there is a team dedicated to restoring one for flight duty in time for the 2012 Olympics.
|
| # ? Jul 24, 2010 21:29 |
|
|
slidebite posted:I did not know this until just recently, but there is a team dedicated to restoring one for flight duty in time for the 2012 Olympics. God drat loving HELL YES!
|
| # ? Jul 24, 2010 21:38 |
|
|
slidebite posted:I think you picked a couple of really strong candidates. I would also probably throw the UH1 series in there too. They've been used for everything. The KC-135 certainly goes on the list, since it's been in service since 1957, and some of the aircraft may be flying until around 2040, which is also about when the B-52 might finally retire. I'd add the U-2 to the list as well, since it's about the same age as the B-52 or C-130, and managed to outlast both the USSR and it's own replacement.
|
| # ? Jul 24, 2010 22:06 |
|
|
BeastOfExmoor posted:Not that this thread really needs something to generate replies, but I've been thinking for a while about which military aircraft has proven to be the best investment over time. To me it's between the C-130 and the B-52, but I'm curious to hear other positions. F4 and F5 series were pretty stellar. Just think of all the overseas sales.
|
| # ? Jul 24, 2010 22:10 |
|
|
BeastOfExmoor posted:Not that this thread really needs something to generate replies, but I've been thinking for a while about which military aircraft has proven to be the best investment over time. To me it's between the C-130 and the B-52, but I'm curious to hear other positions. slidebite posted:In other happy news, 10 years ago this weekend. InitialDave fucked around with this message at Jul 24, 2010 around 22:47 |
| # ? Jul 24, 2010 22:44 |
|
|
InitialDave posted:No reason why it wouldn't be doable - stopping using the planes was a choice, not a requirement or something that was forced upon those involved.
|
| # ? Jul 24, 2010 22:58 |
|
|
InitialDave posted:I'll put in a vote for the Harrier Jump Jet. How does one 'archive' an aircraft when it goes to a museum or storage? Drain out the hydraulics, take out the batteries... do what to the fuel tanks? How about the oil? Pack stuff with grease? Spray some kind of stabiliser into the intakes on the last run?
|
| # ? Jul 24, 2010 23:04 |
|
|
meltie posted:How does one 'archive' an aircraft when it goes to a museum or storage? For things like AMARC (the huge "boneyard" facility in Tucson, AZ) where the idea is long term storage with a possible return to flight, the process is something like this; After taking out batteries and things that might explode, the fuel and hydraulic systems are completely drained and flushed, and I think some kind of preservative gets run through the lines to keep them from rotting. After that, if the aircraft will be stored outside, it gets shrink wrapped in heavy white plastic that not only covers the windows (to protect them and keep the interior from getting sun damaged), but is used to cover intakes, exhausts, and anywhere else that dirt, water, or wildlife might get in. Airliners can be stored in a similar method for long term storage, but for shorter term storage, they're "unwrapped" and the engines are run up periodically to keep things working. Military aircraft in museums are gutted of electronics, pyrotechnics, and anything that might be classified before the government lets the museum take possession, and what happens after that is pretty variable. Aircraft that sit outside at museums need repainting every so often, and in cases of rare or important aircraft (like the Memphis Belle) the government has "repossessed" aircraft that aren't being properly cared for. Indoor museums pretty much just keep their aircraft away from direct sunlight, humidity, and abusive guests, and they'll rarely need anything more than a dusting or washing. Many of the older aircraft in the Smithsonian are actually still wearing their original fabric coverings and paint, although their Jenny (which has an 80 year old covering) recently had to be taken off display after tourists damaged it by throwing coins at it from a balcony. azflyboy fucked around with this message at Jul 25, 2010 around 01:14 |
| # ? Jul 25, 2010 01:02 |
|
|
So basically you are telling me that they lied in Battlefield Earth with those Harriers 
|
| # ? Jul 25, 2010 01:38 |
|
|
The National Aviation Museum outside Ottawa had a bunch of large rare aircraft sitting outside because they couldn't get the funding to build a big enough hanger. This is what a Canadair North Star looks like when it is parked outside for 38 Canadian winters. It's still wearing the paint job that it had when it was flown in in 1966. The North Star was a DC-4 variant built under license in Canada. Those are Rolls-Royce Merlins. This is the last one of the type still in existence. Indoor storage has since been built and a group of volunteers is working on this airplane. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dis_F5gr0Os http://vintagewings.ca/page?a=543&lang=en-CA Second link has some detail pictures of a Merlin being restored.
|
| # ? Jul 25, 2010 01:53 |
|
|
dietcokefiend posted:What is the average military pilot worth? I figure from a basic training/skill standpoint there has to be some sort of value places on their lives. This also plays into the next question. One of my best friends was at the controls and wrecked a C130 a few years ago, he is still flying today. The mindset of the military is pretty down to earth and basically says "poo poo happens". Obviously they investigate it but usually they won't burn a pilot or crew. Believe me when poo poo like this happens, we get enough training on it to make our eyes/ears bleed so it doesn't happen again. Everyone makes mistakes, and the military invests enough in its people to make sure when poo poo happens there is an explanation and jumping to fry somebody is usually the last resort, contrary to hollywood.
|
| # ? Jul 25, 2010 06:10 |
|
|
Apparently there was no indication that anything was wrong until the engineer saw this on the transit...    
|
| # ? Jul 25, 2010 08:52 |
|
|
tripsevens posted:Well there's your problem right there! drat thing was full of bees!
|
| # ? Jul 25, 2010 14:56 |
|
|
dietcokefiend posted:So basically you are telling me that they lied in Battlefield Earth with those Harriers Seeing as you can't just hover a Harrier or the engine will melt down, yeah. That movie was so horrible I had blocked it from memory. Thanks.
|
| # ? Jul 25, 2010 15:32 |
|
|
ApathyGifted posted:Hell, the Blue Angels still fly F/A-18A's, which I could have sworn were completely phased out for the E/F models until I read Wikipedia. For the 2010 show season Blue Angels number  Edit: I was wrong, it's numbers 1 and 4. Previa_fun fucked around with this message at Jul 25, 2010 around 20:49 |
| # ? Jul 25, 2010 20:43 |
|
|
Late to the party about this; a couple of my co-workers were at Lethbridge Airport when the CF-18 crashed, waiting for the passengers for their next trip leg to show up. From what they described, the aircraft showed the classic symptoms of a massive compressor stall at the end of the pass; whether it was the result of a failure or simply a disruption of airflow isn't clear at this time. It is also unclear whether this occurred at the normal end of the high-alpha pass, where the pilot applies maximum power and climbs + accelerates out of slow flight, or whether he was alerted to a problem and attempted an escape maneuver; basically, climbing out on the good engine to a safe altitude and airspeed.
|
| # ? Jul 25, 2010 21:37 |
|
|
BonzoESC posted:It really is ghastly and disproportionate: too short/fat and it kind of looks like an A318 with smaller windows and a stupider forehead. Around Christmas AI had a thread about the new dreamliner, and of course talk turned to planes in general. The A380 came up, and the theory was floated that the only reason the cockpit isn't in the 747 position is because that would be an admission that the Americans did something right aesthetically, something that is anathema to any red-blooded European. Somebody did an image of the A380 with the cockpit on the upper level, which looked approximately a million times better. I'd post it but I can't find it right now  Anyway, I suspect that if you pushed Airbus enough they would give some sort of dry technical reason for the big forehead look, but I don't buy it. There's a cargo version of the A380 coming out, and one of the reasons the 747 had an upstairs cockpit is because it allows the nose to open in cargo versions to make unloading easier. Having the A380 cockpit where it is seems a major disadvantage for the cargo version.
|
| # ? Jul 25, 2010 21:54 |
|
|
Skyssx posted:Seeing as you can't just hover a Harrier or the engine will melt down, yeah. That movie was so horrible I had blocked it from memory. Thanks. I distinctly remember harriers doing all sorts of hovering in True Lies. 
|
| # ? Jul 25, 2010 22:06 |
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I distinctly remember harriers doing all sorts of hovering in True Lies.
|
| # ? Jul 25, 2010 22:12 |
|
|
grover posted:And while landing on ships at sea. Harriers can hover, but they need water injection under most conditions. The water is used to cool the air (through evaporation) flowing through the engine, allowing you to make more power for a limited period of time. Even with water injection, hovering a Harrier means running at nearly maximum power; most jet engines have operational limits for how long you can run at high power settings, usually in the 2-5 minute range. MrChips fucked around with this message at Jul 25, 2010 around 22:27 |
| # ? Jul 25, 2010 22:22 |
|
|
As I understand it, the auxiliary water cooling on the Harrier engine is good for like a minute and a half at full cooling capacity, but you don't actually need to use that in most instances, so it's not the sole limiting factor, and the jet is good for 5-10 minutes of general hanging about. Also, check this out: 
|
| # ? Jul 25, 2010 22:30 |
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Anyway, I suspect that if you pushed Airbus enough they would give some sort of dry technical reason for the big forehead look, but I don't buy it. There's logic to that; the whole off-brand look of the A320 nose is probably a bit better for fuel-efficiency than the 737's sportier look. Delta B737 from http://www.flickr.com/photos/wbaiv/4342583131/ :  Aeroflot A320 from http://www.flickr.com/photos/caribb/2370874199/ :  I wouldn't be surprised if the mostly-constant slope up the front of the A380 is a bit better aerodynamically than the 747. QANTAS A380 from http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerkstore/2929681155/ :  Sure is ugly though.
|
| # ? Jul 25, 2010 22:44 |
|
|
BonzoESC posted:Sure is ugly though.
|
| # ? Jul 25, 2010 23:00 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2013 09:17 |
|
|
BonzoESC posted:I wouldn't be surprised if the mostly-constant slope up the front of the A380 is a bit better aerodynamically than the 747. I should hope so. The A380's design was done 40 years after the 747. Lots of changes from the early 60's to the turn of the century. But yea it is more ugly than the 747 to me also.
|
| # ? Jul 26, 2010 02:03 |
|
