|
BIG HEADLINE posted:I made the mistake of reading his "About" page on Youtube: I bet he enjoys quality time with a large circle of caring friends.
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 13:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 22:35 |
|
|
Very disheartening info about Air Asia. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/20/air-asia-crash-plane-climbed-rapidly quote:An AirAsia plane that crashed last month with 162 people on board was climbing at an abnormally rapid rate, then plunged and disappeared from radar, Indonesia’s transport minister has said. Another pilot confused by a computer which was confused by weather impeded sensors will be worse than terrorism. There are of course other possibilities, it could have been a desperate zoom climb as they entered the cell, uncommanded climb/loss of control in severe updrafts, unintentional but commanded climb during severe turbulence etc etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
"An Airbus spokesman said it was too early to comment on possible similarities between the two crashes."
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
Ola posted:I hope future aviation incidents happen far away from him. I hope one happens directly on top of him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
Inacio posted:What is he SMOKING? Jealous Cow posted:Stop blustering me, wind! I'm witnessing something! Imagine this guy in the airline seat next to you just doing running commentary on every aspect of the flight
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
ctishman posted:Delta 777 ATL-NRT makes a fuel dump, emergency landing and hilarious commentary. Seriously, if anything can generate a new thread title, it's this dude's voiceover. I actually work that aircraft on a regular basis! We were questioning a trainee on where RJAA was just a couple of days ago when they were coming through.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
The Locator posted:I would think it's up to the airport authority, like most other things, but I'm sure the FAA could mandate it. I was recently at Sky Harbor picking up a family member, and as I got there somewhat early, I wandered up to the top of the parking garage to watch airplanes. One of the things I noticed, because it has been years since I've been there watching airplanes, so it stood out as different - there is a line of red lights that come on at the edge of every runway, across every taxiway, when there is an aircraft on short final, or on a takeoff roll. These lights go off as soon as the aircraft on the runway passes the taxiway. I assume that this is the same system referred to, and I though it was pretty neat. They are indeed automated! Pilots observing the "STOP" lights will disregard ATC instructions to proceed onto a runway. Though, the absence of the stop lights is not a clearance to cross/enter the runway. The lights go off a little early, to allow anticipating separation between airplanes on the runway. Here's a neat video: Runway Status Lights https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLKLd7kGSVA Generally, the airport authority is responsible for lighting on the runways/taxiways. The FAA is responsible for the approach lighting systems. The Ferret King fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Jan 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Ola posted:Very disheartening info about Air Asia. A crazy ascent like that -- what are the chances of the elevator getting stuck in a position that would cause it? Surely if it was as simple as the pilots pulling up into a stall, there would have been tons of warnings going off and telling the pilots to back off. Or maybe even pushing the yoke forwards automatically -- I don't know what sort of safety features are in these planes. Also lol @ “[a 6,000 ft/min climb] can only be done by a fighter jet.” We've all seen the video of the empty 777 at the air show  (and those posts yesterday about the Streak Eagle being able to climb at a theoretical 87,000 feet per minute)
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I'm witnessing something!
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
I'm guessing it had to have been a mechanical failure. Getting 6k feet/minute climb at cruising altitude doesn't even seem possible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
revmoo posted:I'm guessing it had to have been a mechanical failure. Getting 6k feet/minute climb at cruising altitude doesn't even seem possible. Sustained obviously not but thats "only" a 60 knot vertical component. Severe thunderstorms have updrafts about that speed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:A crazy ascent like that -- what are the chances of the elevator getting stuck in a position that would cause it? An elevator trim runaway is certainly possible, but safe money is still on thunderstorm penetration. You really can't underestimate a strong thunderstorm. They're serious loving business.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:A crazy ascent like that -- what are the chances of the elevator getting stuck in a position that would cause it? Surely if it was as simple as the pilots pulling up into a stall, there would have been tons of warnings going off and telling the pilots to back off. Or maybe even pushing the yoke forwards automatically -- I don't know what sort of safety features are in these planes. I have read comments from experts which said that judging from pictures of the debris the aircraft hit the water at a very low forward speed, and that it took around 3 minutes from cruise altitude to the water. We're almost certainly looking at a repeat of AF447. Regarding trim runaway: remember that the stab on the Air France flight was also trimmed fully up due to nose up input of the pilot flying. As a result of this the aircraft reached over 40 degrees AOA, and fell from FL380 in 3.5 minutes. The A320 and A330 share the same basic control system logic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
"An Airbus spokesman said it was too early to comment on possible similarities between the two crashes."
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
Yes you've posted that twice. Are you saying they're wrong? They haven't even finished analyzing the recorders yet, so anything at this point is pure speculation, and a multibillion dollar company would have to be staffed by complete idiots to speculate, in public, without grounds on the nature of a disaster that could have massive implications for their worldwide fleet and their stock price.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
How far does this conspiracy go? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Yes you've posted that twice. Are you saying they're wrong? They haven't even finished analyzing the recorders yet, so anything at this point is pure speculation, and a multibillion dollar company would have to be staffed by complete idiots to speculate, in public, without grounds on the nature of a disaster that could have massive implications for their worldwide fleet and their stock price. They haven't even finished analyzing the recorders yet, so anything at this point is pure speculation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
Huh? I can't tell if you're trolling or not. Are you surprised that Airbus is not saying anything until they have actual data one way or another? Yes they are going to be guarded about saying anything that suggests the crashes might be related to a common design flaw, but they're perfectly within their rights to behave the way they are right now. It's like you're pointing at some military spokesman saying "I can neither confirm nor deny our involvement in that area" as some amazing earth-shattering gotcha evidence of evildoing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
And even if it was the exact same thing it wasn't a design flaw per se, pilots that don't understand airplanes are perfectly capable of stalling Q400s into the ground or 777s into seawalls.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Huh? I'm not surprised that Airbus is tight-lipped with speculation that may bring liability on themselves. I am surprised that people here would say anything is "almost certain" based on such uninformed speculation. That's so stupid as to be tantamount to the quality of that spotter's observations of the Delta emergency return. OH MY LORD AIR ASIA 8501, WHAT ARE YOU CLIMBING? STOP THAT BLUSTERING!
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
Oh, I see. I entirely misinterpreted your posts and thought you were trying to bring attention to that line as like a "hahaa look at what this idiot said!" kind of thing, not emphasizing that people should pay attention to it. I agree with you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
vessbot posted:[Streak Eagle effortpost] Jesus, 400-foot takeoff roll. That thing goes like the proverbial sexually assaulted simian. Kinda surprised Boeing hasn't hot-rodded another one to take the records back. Surely the engines have been improved in 40 years. Though I guess all the existing F-15 fighters are spoken for and nobody wants to lean on 'em too hard outside combat. But they're still making the Mudhen, just rip out the backseat and pull off the CFTs (are they the removable version offered for the C-model, or are they more built-in?) Though with 11-odd thousand pounds more thrust, maybe they can leave the tanks on and just tape over the bomb racks for aero.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 23:52
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
Delivery McGee posted:Jesus, 400-foot takeoff roll. That thing goes like the proverbial sexually assaulted simian. Feh, Credible Sport did it it under half that length.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Well if we're allowing bullshit like that in our competition, I submit this for the time-to-climb record: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZZV464z9g8 It accelerates at 100g and reaches 30,000 meters in under 15 seconds.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:Jesus, 400-foot takeoff roll. That thing goes like the proverbial sexually assaulted simian. I think it's because the records that P-42 set are so far out of reach that the F-15 just couldn't come close. If you think that the Streak Eagle was heavily modified, P-42 was even more extreme; the aircraft was basically purpose-built for the task and only superficially resembled an Su-27. As a result, it had a thrust-to-weight ratio well north of 2 to 1 
MrChips fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Jan 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
So... ...they're no longer flying the presidential successor in VH-60s. I had one V-22 fly at about 150-200 feet over my place, followed by two more flying in formation at a slightly higher altitude. The first one shook the poo poo out of the ground. It's gonna wake babies and drive dogs insane when they fly him back later tonight after the speech. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 01:02 on Jan 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
MrChips posted:I think it's because the records that P-42 set are so far out of reach that the F-15 just couldn't come close. If you think that the Streak Eagle was heavily modified, P-42 was even more extreme; the aircraft was basically purpose-built for the task and only superficially resembled an Su-27. As a result, it had a thrust-to-weight ratio well north of 2 to 1 Do you have a source for that? It seems unlikely. http://www.fai.org/record-powered-aeroplanes Here is the FAI browser for the record database, if you can navigate the crappy interface (The category is C-1 Landplanes).The 12,000 meter record, for example, was set at at 59.383 seconds in the Streak Eagle, and beaten a decade later at 58.10 seconds in the P-42 (by Victor Pugachev, as in Pugachev's Cobra) and improved a year later at 55.54. "Basically purpose-built" sounds like an exaggerated telling of "heavily modified," and the increment of the record increase is moderate. From these specs of the earliest production Flanker, the empty T/W is 1.53. Of course by itself that number is meaningless since it doesn't account for the fuel load or performance mods, but we can compare it to the F-15A under the same stipulations, which is (thrust,weight) 1.76. So it doesn't add up. vessbot fucked around with this message at 02:20 on Jan 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
Didn't one of the altitude-record jets (maybe an F-104?) have a Sidewinder motor in the tail for a little extra kick, or was that just the one land speed record car? Put 8 AMRAAMs (without warheads) on a Mudhen and volley-fire those fuckers without letting 'em leave the rails, it could probably make LEO  Of course it wouldn't work, but a boy can dream. Speaking of The Missile With a Man in it: Wikipedia posted:[Lockheed test pilot Darryl Greenamyer] built the Starfighter by collecting and putting together a myriad of parts over a 13 year period.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ws-_syszg84 vessbot posted:"Basically purpose-built" sounds like an exaggerated telling of "heavily modified," and the increment of the record increase is moderate. Also beating a Saturn V to 50,000 feet isn't http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/expeditions/expedition30/tryanny.html much of a feat -- the thing weighed six and a half MILLION goddamn pounds (that's near enough to three MILLION loving kilograms, for those for you who speak SI) when they lit the candle. Even Newton could tell you it's not gonna win any drag races. Aaaand that's why the rocket equation is often referred to as "tyranny". (And NASA can't spell, apparently) Edit again: VVV Yeah, that's the one I was thinking of but couldn't find. Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 02:03 on Jan 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:Didn't one of the altitude-record jets (maybe an F-104?) have a Sidewinder motor in the tail for a little extra kick, or was that just the one land speed record car? Put 8 AMRAAMs (without warheads) on a Mudhen and volley-fire those fuckers without letting 'em leave the rails, it could probably make LEO Well there was the rocket-equipped NF-104 used in early spaceflight research.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
vessbot posted:Well there was the rocket-equipped NF-104 used in early spaceflight research. Which is really just an excuse to post the end of The Right Stuff http://youtu.be/1Cq7hf4ylvY
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Well if we're allowing bullshit like that in our competition, I submit this for the time-to-climb record: It always seemed like the Sprint straddled the line between "fuel burning" and "fuel exploding in a controlled manner". It just makes me happy that it's actually possible to build something like that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 06:39
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:It always seemed like the Sprint straddled the line between "fuel burning" and "fuel exploding in a controlled manner". It just makes me happy that it's actually possible to build something like that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvZGaMt7UgQ Far better film showing the body of the missile *glowing* as it slices through the air.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 07:27
|
|
|
vessbot posted:I'm not surprised that Airbus is tight-lipped with speculation that may bring liability on themselves. I am surprised that people here would say anything is "almost certain" based on such uninformed speculation. That's so stupid as to be tantamount to the quality of that spotter's observations of the Delta emergency return. OH MY LORD AIR ASIA 8501, WHAT ARE YOU CLIMBING? STOP THAT BLUSTERING! next time, it would help if you'd said this in the first post instead of just emptyquoting the Airbus rep twice before someone had to drag out of you what you actually meant like four posts later. e: for what it's worth I agree too, but your first two emptyquotes were exceptionally easy to misread Psion fucked around with this message at 08:35 on Jan 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 08:13
|
|
|
vessbot posted:Do you have a source for that? It seems unlikely. It does sound like the claim that P-42 was custom built were a bit of an exaggeration, but at the same time it was far more heavily modified than the Streak Eagle. First of all, they deleted almost the entire electrical system, save for the flight controls and enough nav/com equipment for the flight. The wings were extensively modified; the wingtip missile racks were removed, as were all the underwing pylons and the internal structure associated. The leading edge devices and the flaperons were replaced with fixed structures. The speedbrake on the spine of the aircraft was removed and the fuselage was extensively reprofiled. The ventral fins were removed and the end fairings on the vertical stabilisers were removed. The radar and radome were removed and replaced with a lightweight metal structure. Finally, the air inlet variable ramps were locked into their optimum position and the actuation system was deleted. The net result of this was that P-42 tipped the scales at just under 31,000 pounds. Additionally, the engines were uprated to produce an additional 5,000 pounds of thrust, giving a total of just over 62,000 pounds of total thrust, and a thrust-to-weight ratio of 2 to 1.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 08:30
|
|
|
Protesters in Egypt shining lasers at a military helicopter overhead Gif from pilots perspective, crazy rave party going on: http://imgur.com/gallery/79vutGp
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 13:11
|
|
|
drunkill posted:Protesters in Egypt shining lasers at a military helicopter overhead I mean, they're doing it in support, which should be added, not to hamper the pilot
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 14:46
|
|
|
simplefish posted:I mean, they're doing it in support, which should be added, not to hamper the pilot The first thing that comes to my mind when I think of trying to help a pilot, is obviously pointing lasers at him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:The first thing that comes to my mind when I think of trying to help a pilot, is obviously pointing lasers at him. you are not a guy in Cairo lighting up highlighting a military helicopter for helping overthrow your dictator. Hell, they probably don't realise it's going in a pilot's eyes because if we shone a laser at the bottom of a car it'd be cool
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:It always seemed like the Sprint straddled the line between "fuel burning" and "fuel exploding in a controlled manner". It just makes me happy that it's actually possible to build something like that. There was a successor program called HIBEX that reached 400G or so! The later KITE program hit about 200G. Those terminal-defense anti-ballistic missiles required crazy good performance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 22:35 |
|
|
http://www.liveleak.com/ll_embed?f=0ff19736f5c2 Here's a fun little jaunt around the old course. I'm a big fan of the tree line directly at the end of the finish line and the real flat and fast landing on the main straightaway of the racetrack. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 16:27
|
|
