|
Terrifying Effigies posted:From a recent trip, they really do look like some sort of mutated Superguppy from the front: Watching you guys discuss "proper" designs for the front of an airlier, I think you're forgetting the best option. 
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 10:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 16:13 |
|
|
Boomerjinks posted:Watching you guys discuss "proper" designs for the front of an airlier, I think you're forgetting the best option. They need to have those at the front of a 747's lower deck. Imagine how cool it'd be to see out! Weather radars are overrated.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 17:19
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Was it all white when it landed or did they do that thing where they paint out all the titles whenever anything goes wrong? That is the airframe that was wetleased to replace the torched 787 under repair at LHR.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 17:35
|
|
|
Mobius1B7R posted:So an Ethiopian 767 landed at a small regional airport instead of its intended one leading to this... Holy poo poo he had the coals burning on that sucker. It almost looks like water injection!
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 18:20
|
|
|
Have a drone survival guide. Pretty simple but pretty neat. I had no idea how many types of drones we have in service. You can pay for it on aluminum or you can download the pdf for free and print it out yourself. http://dronesurvivalguide.org/
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 18:47
|
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:Holy poo poo he had the coals burning on that sucker. It almost looks like water injection! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 18:54
|
|
|
OptimusMatrix posted:Have a drone survival guide. Pretty simple but pretty neat. I had no idea how many types of drones we have in service. You can pay for it on aluminum or you can download the pdf for free and print it out yourself. This is pretty great, sent it to some friends of mine out in DC. Good stocking stuffer for them I think.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 19:29
|
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:Holy poo poo he had the coals burning on that sucker. It almost looks like water injection! Was thinking just that. I don't remember 767s belching like that. Then again, I doubt Ethiopian Air has the highest of maintenance standards...
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 23:41
|
|
|
Barnsy posted:Was thinking just that. I don't remember 767s belching like that. Then again, I doubt Ethiopian Air has the highest of maintenance standards... I bet you didn't know 767 APUs operate a total loss oil system either. I didn't think so either, but Ethiopian proved me wrong...
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 23:56
|
|
|
Barnsy posted:Was thinking just that. I don't remember 767s belching like that. Then again, I doubt Ethiopian Air has the highest of maintenance standards... Actually they have an excellent record. I went to all their safety and security inspections from TSA/FAA for the past two years. They passed all their inspections and field exercises with minimal deficiencies. Ethiopian was a pleasure to work with every time. Their national equivalent of the TSA, on the other hand.....
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 00:25
|
|
|
Ethiopian Airlines is part of the star alliance (with Lufthansa and United, among others) and one of the few (only?) African airlines with stringent enough safety standards to be allowed to fly into Europe. So, I'd imagine maintenance by African standards. How did they compare to other airlines in Africa you've been on?
grover fucked around with this message at 00:40 on Dec 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 00:36
|
|
|
grover posted:Ethiopian Airlines is part of the star alliance (with Lufthansa and United, among others) and one of the few (only?) African airlines with stringent enough safety standards to be allowed to fly into Europe. So, I'd imagine maintenance by African standards. How did compare to other airlines in Africa you've been on? South African flies into Europe don't they?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 00:40
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:South African flies into Europe don't they?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 00:45
|
|
|
grover posted:Ethiopian Airlines is part of the star alliance (with Lufthansa and United, among others) and one of the few (only?) African airlines with stringent enough safety standards to be allowed to fly into Europe. So, I'd imagine maintenance by African standards. How did they compare to other airlines in Africa you've been on? In addition to Ethiopian and South African; Royal Air Maroc, EgyptAir, Air Algerie, Arik Air, Kenyan Airways, Royal Air Maroc, Air Mauritius, Tunisair, and possibly a few others all fly to Europe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 01:12
|
|
|
grover posted:Yeah, they fly to US and Europe, too; forgot about them. Flew JFK to Johannesburg in coach with them, best service I've ever had. Long rear end flight, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 01:15
|
|
|
Linedance posted:In addition to Ethiopian and South African; Royal Air Maroc, EgyptAir, Air Algerie, Arik Air, Kenyan Airways, Royal Air Maroc, Air Mauritius, Tunisair, and possibly a few others all fly to Europe. grover fucked around with this message at 01:19 on Dec 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 01:15
|
|
|
poo poo, Turkmenistan Airlines flies in to Heathrow. Either everyone's standards are lower than you think, everyone's standards are higher than you think, or money talks, depending on your personal biases and perspective.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 01:22
|
|
|
Barnsy posted:Was thinking just that. I don't remember 767s belching like that. Then again, I doubt Ethiopian Air has the highest of maintenance standards... I think that was the runway melting. The internet says "bituminous, oiled" for the surface type. edit: also, if you are operating a newish wide body you either have just paid $200+ mil or have convinced someone to lease you something worth that. Those planes are going to be maintained, unlike a fourth hand DC-8 or whatever. hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 01:36 on Dec 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 01:29
|
|
|
grover posted:Ethiopian Airlines is part of the star alliance (with Lufthansa and United, among others) and one of the few (only?) African airlines with stringent enough safety standards to be allowed to fly into Europe. So, I'd imagine maintenance by African standards. How did they compare to other airlines in Africa you've been on? Well, I haven't flown SAA, which is realistically their main competitor on the continent, but they're well ahead of Kenya airways. In comparison, while I was there entire parts of Comoros were inaccessible because every single airline in the country was either bankrupt, grounded permanently due to maintenance related issues, or deemed to unsafe to fly on. They also maintain a western african shuttle service.... I think it's called Asky or something? I never really followed it because despite being owned my EAL it wasn't in my geographic region, and I'd probably feel less comfortable on that one as I'd assume maintenance is done locally.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 03:37
|
|
|
So uh... https://twitter.com/HarrietTolputt/status/414884728605405184 http://wwww.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5953836/ Apparently happened tonight, British Airways 747 in johannesburg.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 03:42
|
|
|
Frinkahedron posted:So uh... 'Whoops' Looks like they missed the turn off to a taxiway and hit the building just afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 03:47
|
|
|
Barnsy posted:'Whoops' Bet you're right. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 03:59
|
|
|
Frinkahedron posted:So uh... I bet the* guy responsible had a brief moment where he thought, "poo poo! How can I cover this up?" Like I do whenever I break anything. Preoptopus fucked around with this message at 05:45 on Dec 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 04:14
|
|
|
Preoptopus posted:I bet he guy responsible had a brief moment where he thought, poo poo, How can I cover this up? Like I do whenever I break anything. 'That'll buff out right?' Ahh the thought process of someone who's just screwed up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 04:46
|
|
|
"Relax, I saw this once on ice pilots, a guy with an English Wheel just fabs up a new leading edge and we're golden".
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 10:48
|
|
|
IPCRESS posted:"Relax, I saw this once on ice pilots, a guy with an English Wheel just fabs up a new leading edge and we're golden". I read this with a thick south african accent in my head, and I'm pretty sure that's more or less exactly the conversation that took place.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 11:09
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:I took a Dash-8 from Pittsburg to Harrisburg, PA it was a fun 30 minute flight because we never got over like 20k feet. 20k? Bah, I'm lucky to get to 6k on the most common flight I take on a Dash 8 100 from SBY to PHL. http://flightaware.com/live/flight/PDT4298/history/20131223/1240Z/KSBY/KPHL/tracklog
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 14:49
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:They need to have those at the front of a 747's lower deck. Imagine how cool it'd be to see out! You jest but IIRC Juan Trippe actually wanted Boeing to do something like this for a while.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 16:46
|
|
|
Frinkahedron posted:So uh... Ouch. If anyone was in the building I bet they had to change their shorts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 00:22
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:You jest but IIRC Juan Trippe actually wanted Boeing to do something like this for a while. Just put the radar a little higher up in a blister. It'd kind of look like the nose on a C-124.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 00:42
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Ouch. Read a short article on that today (I forget what news agency) that stated 4 ground personnel who were in the building had minor injuries. So there were apparently people in the building, but luckily only minor injuries.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 02:41
|
|
|
*An old ground service guy is telling stories over shots at a bar* "Then there's the time I broke my wrist when I got hit by a 747-400. Dumbass should've blinked first, because I wasn't gonna move."
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 02:47
|
|
|
The Needle – The Story of the Tsybin RSR While aircraft of all shapes and sizes perform a great many roles, arguably no role demands more performance than that of aerial reconnaissance. As reconnaissance aircraft often rely on speed and altitude as their only protection, an aircraft able to operate outside the reach of your enemy’s defenses grants it the ability to fly anywhere with impunity, thus revealing their most closely guarded secrets. The advent of the jet-powered aircraft in the closing days of World War II allowed even more performance; suddenly, reconnaissance aircraft are flying sustainably at speeds in excess of 500 miles per hour and altitudes well above 40,000 feet. By the early 1950s, aircraft with even higher performance were developed; aircraft such as the Lockheed U-2, the Martin RB-57D Canberra and the Yakovlev Yak-25RV could all cruise at altitudes in excess of 60,000 feet at just under the speed of sound; out of reach from fighters and surface-to-air missiles...for now. However, it was becoming clear that even as these aircraft were entering service that the safety afforded by their high altitude alone would be short lived; the next aircraft would need speed to complement their high altitude flight. The Scope of the Problem The Soviet Union was certainly no stranger to the value of high-altitude aerial reconnaissance. Starting in 1949, the United States Air Force, in conjunction with the CIA and the Royal Air Force, conducted a fairly large number of overflights of Soviet territory. Initially flying variants of the Boeing B-29, these flights showed the West just what exactly the Soviets were up to in terms of military and industrial activities. As the program progressed through the 1950s, aircraft with ever higher performance were used – the RB-45 Tornado was the first jet-powered reconnaissance aircraft to perform a Soviet overflight, and these were quickly followed by RB-47s, RB-57s and ultimately, the U-2. The Soviets were not fools; they saw how these aircraft, the U-2 and the RB-57 in particular, were able to fly with relative impunity over their territory. At the same time, they too had an urgent need to monitor Western military activities in Europe and elsewhere – thus, they too embarked on a program to build a high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft. Initially, the Yakovlev design bureau responded, with a heavily-modified version of the Yak-25 heavy interceptor. This new version, the Yak-25RV, had a very large straight wing fitted in place of the Yak-25’s normal swept wing, along with much more powerful engines optimised for high-altitude flight.  Yakovlev Yak-25RV “Mandrake”. The Soviet Union’s largely unsuccessful first attempt at a high-performance reconnaissance aircraft. The Yak-25RV was, by all accounts, a disappointment. It could only reach altitudes in the range of 50,000 feet (much lower than its Western counterparts), and it suffered from serious engine problems (it turns out that high-altitude optimised jet engines are nearly useless at low altitudes – who knew?), vibration issues and incredibly high crew workload. In spite of this, it was the best performing reconnaissance aircraft in the Soviet inventory, and was kept in service until 1974, with a career spanning very nearly twenty years. As in the West, the Soviets knew that if their next generation interceptors and surface-to-air missiles were even half as good as their own (and they largely were, if not better), the Yak-25RV would be a sitting duck. In addition, the Soviets also wanted an aircraft that could reach the mainland United States, even if only on a one-way flight. A specification was hatched for a new aircraft; one with performance far beyond anything the Soviets had ever flown, to say nothing of any Western country as well. This new aircraft would need a cruising altitude in excess of 80,000 feet, a design cruise speed of nearly 1,700 miles per hour and a range in excess of 2,500 miles...a tall order for today, much less 1954. When this specification came out, nearly all the major (and minor) design bureaus of the Soviet Union said it was impossible...all but one; the bureau of Pavel Tsybin. A Missile with a Man Inside (Literally) Pavel Tsybin made his name for himself working under the likes of Andrei Tupolev, Vladimir Myasishchev and Sergei Korolev on a number of aircraft and rocketry-related projects in the days immediately following World War II. On his own, Tsybin was an accomplished designer of glider aircraft and talented glider pilot himself. Never afraid to think outside the box, Tsybin was one of the first designers in the Soviet Union to propose a “composite aircraft” as a solution to the issue of building a successful intercontinental jet bomber. Tsybin’s proposal was thus; a large, subsonic aircraft such as Tupolev’s Tu-95 “Bear” would serve as a mothership to a smaller, faster strike aircraft. The Bear would takeoff, climb to altitude and then cruise toward the target for roughly 2,500 miles. At a pre-determined point, the smaller aircraft, the so-called “mission vehicle”, would be released from the Bear and proceed at tremendous speed and altitude – Mach 3 and 80,000 feet or more – toward the target, where it would drop its payload of a single nuclear weapon, then either continue on toward friendly territory or fly out to sea and ditch at a pre-determined recovery point, with the single pilot being rescued by a Soviet submarine. Effectively, the mission vehicle becomes a very large, manned (and optionally recoverable) cruise missile. Tsybin’s aircraft, rather unimaginatively named the “Reaktivnyy Samolet” ("Jet aircraft", or RS for short), existed on the boundary between revolutionary and downright impossible. The RS was a fairly large aircraft; nearly 90 feet long and with a wingspan of 35 feet. Engine power for the RS was to be two RD-013 ramjet engines from the Bondaryuk design bureau, mounted on the wingtips, and a pair of droppable booster rocket engines to accelerate the aircraft to supersonic speed. The single free-fall nuclear weapon was attached to tail of the aircraft, thus solving the problem of recessed or internal carriage. What is most remarkable about the RS, however, were the techniques used in its construction; unusually for such a high-speed aircraft, a (highly-toxic) beryllium-aluminum alloy was to be used for most of the skin and structure of the RS, with the highest temperature areas being actively cooled with a gaseous propane circulation system. This propane cooling system also served a vital secondary function of inflating the structure like a balloon, very similarly to the Atlas missile, which also derived much of its strength from internal pressure. The net result of all this allowed the RS to carry three times its empty weight in fuel, giving it one of the highest fuel fractions (0.737) of any aircraft ever proposed.  Tsybin RS strike aircraft diagram. The single nuclear weapon is mounted to the very tail of the aircraft. The RS never made it past the drawing board, as it was just too ambitious and too outlandish an aircraft to be built, to say nothing of the fact that it was actually unable to carry the nuclear weapon it was intended for. Undeterred, Tsybin further revised his design and in late 1956 showed the revised 2RS to Soviet leadership. The 2RS was a (slightly) more conservative design; it used a more conventional internal structure (though the exotic alloy and cooling system remained), and was to have provision for both a small nuclear weapon and a set of reconnaissance cameras, making the 2RS a “dual-use” aircraft much the same way that the B-70 Valkyrie was intended to be used. Externally, the 2RS had some minor changes made to it; the canard foreplanes were replaced with a conventional horizontal stabiliser, and the aircraft was given (for the first time) landing gear.  Tsybin 2RS reconnaissance/strike concept. This one is a bit more fleshed out than the RS, but it’s still pretty hare-brained. Impressed by the 2RS, the Soviet government ordered a series of 2RS prototypes to be built, and for Tupolev to convert a single Tu-95 into a mothership for the 2RS – this in spite of many warnings from the other design bureaus about the claims made by Tsybin with regard to his aircraft. Of all the design bureaus to express doubt about the 2RS, none was louder than Myasishchev – and if they of all people are claiming your aircraft is too ambitious, then you’ve got a serious problem on your hands! Mercifully, none of Tsybin’s claims had to undergo the rigour of testing, as the successful launch of the R-7 ICBM in mid-1957 essentially ended the 2RS program. Interestingly, the sole Tu-95N mothership now resides at the Central Air Force Museum in Monino, just outside of Moscow. A Second Chance Though the Soviet government cancelled the 2RS, they still expressed considerable interest in the prospect of a dedicated reconnaissance aircraft based on the 2RS, as its performance largely matched the specification they had drawn up earlier. The Kremlin ordered Tsybin to devise such an aircraft based on the 2RS though if it could take off and land on its own that would be well and dandy thanks. By the end of 1958, the design for the new aircraft, now called the “Reaktivnyy Strategicheskiy Razvedchik” (Jet Strategic Reconnaissance, or RSR for short), kept many of the same features as the 2RS, but swapped the ramjet engines (which are typically useless at speeds below 400-500 mph) for a pair of engines never before heard of anywhere in the world; afterburning turbofans! Specifically, the RSR was to be powered by a pair of D-21 afterburning turbofans from the Soloviev design bureau, who had just finished the ground testing of their D-20 turbofan engine, the first of its kind in the world (and which later powered the Tupolev Tu-124 airliner). Additionally, more conventional materials such as steel and titanium were to be used in the RSR, along with a novel porous material applied to the bottom of the aircraft in an attempt to reduce its radar-cross section.   Tsybin RSR reconnaissance aircraft (above and below). As the aerodynamic design of the RSR was still largely untried, Tsybin built a three-quarter scale, low-speed proof-of-concept aircraft, the NM-1, to work out the handling characteristics of RSR. First flying on the 7th of April, 1959, the NM-1, nicknamed the "Igla" or "Needle" by its crews, performed its task admirably though in doing so, it demonstrated that a fairly major redesign of the RSR would be needed for it to fly properly.  Tsybin NM-1 proof-of concept aircraft. In addition to aerodynamic refinements, the intended D-21 engine was so far behind schedule that it could not be expected to ever run, much less fly. As such, Tsybin was forced yet again to redesign his aircraft to use the Tumansky R-11F turbojet engine from the MiG-21 fighter aircraft. This engine was smaller and less powerful than the D-21 and had much worse fuel consumption which further reduced the theoretical performance of this new RSR version, now designated R-020, to unacceptably poor levels. The R-020 would only be capable of Mach 2.5 (instead of Mach 2.8), 65,000 feet cruising altitude (instead of 83,000 feet) and a range of less than 2,500 miles (instead of 3,600 miles), putting the R-020 well inside the capabilities of Western missiles. It was then decided that to avoid missile shots, the R-020 would be strengthened, adding yet more weight, so that it could perform a rolling zoom climb (OK, basically a really slow barrel roll), reaching as high as 130,000 feet in some circumstances, to avoid enemy missiles.  Tsybin NM-1 on the ground. Sadly for Tsybin, politics did prove to be an issue. By the end of 1959, Tupolev and Myasishchev (in a rare fit of cooperation) made the case to the Soviet government to wind up the Tsybin design bureau and merge it into Myasishchev bureau, then in deep trouble with the M-50 “Bounder” project. The politics, the poor performance and the obsession with all things space-based led to the cancellation of the R-020 in 1961 when the Myasishchev design bureau was wound up by the Soviet government, despite the completion of five R-020s. A few Tsybin loyalists held out hope for a couple more years, but by 1965 it was well and truly over for the aircraft – all that remains today are wing and a stabiliser from the NM-1. COMING NEXT WEEK: We Never Said Anything about UNMANNED Overflights, Did We? MrChips fucked around with this message at 11:36 on Dec 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 08:12
|
|
|
MrChips, will you have my parasite fighters? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 08:36
|
|
|
MAIN POSTS Myasishchev M-4 "Bison" Myasishchev M-50 "Bounder" Sukhoi T-4/Myasishchev M-18/Tupolev Tu-160 "Blackjack" Sukhoi Su-9/Su-15 "Fishpot"/"Flagon" Tupolev Tu-22 "Blinder/Tu-22M "Backfire" Tupolev Tu-128 "Fiddler" Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25 "Foxbat"/MiG-31 "Foxhound" Sukhoi Su-27 "Flanker" family Tupolev Tu-95 "Bear" SHORT POSTS McDonnell-Douglas/General Dynamics F-4X/RF-4X Tsybin RSR
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 11:49
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I think that was the runway melting. The internet says "bituminous, oiled" for the surface type.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 11:57
|
|
|
block51 posted:20k? Bah, I'm lucky to get to 6k on the most common flight I take on a Dash 8 100 from SBY to PHL. Maybe it was more like 10k feet. Not sure it was a few years ago. I don't think anyone flies that route anymore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 16:38
|
|
|
Tsuru posted:For the record, the aircraft in question is 25 years old and Ethiopian is its fourth operator. 767s have been going to the scrapper for years now because Boeing says they are end of life, even though they may be very well maintained. So this old crate probably isn't worth 200 million anymore. Oh I just saw that it was the plane they were leasing in place of the 787 that Honeywell set on fire and assumed it was a recent one. Makes sense it'd be a very old one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 16:45
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Oh I just saw that it was the plane they were leasing in place of the 787 that Honeywell set on fire and assumed it was a recent one. Makes sense it'd be a very old one. Btw, the Ethiopian that had the BBQ in the cabin test flew two days ago. Will be getting some reliability upgrades and back in service soon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 17:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 16:13 |
|
|
One thing I've always wondered about, did the Soviets ever have any overflights of the mainland US like we did to them with the U-2? Not like the probing flights with Bears, but actual deep penetration reconnaissance flights.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 17:44
|
|
