|
LUBE UP YOUR BUTT posted:what happens now? if past events are any indicator, they clean it up and then leave for the night then overnight it goes off again
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 07:49 |
|
|
LUBE UP YOUR BUTT posted:what happens now? I don't suppose you have to disassemble the helicopters to clean the poo poo up? They'll spray them down with a de-icer truck, then probably will have to do some minor inspections on the electrical side, but no harm done other than a massive mess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
simplefish posted:The morning after an Ibiza foam party in a club this just cemented my dream of having my 30th birthday there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:They'll spray them down with a de-icer truck, then probably will have to do some minor inspections on the electrical side, but no harm done other than a massive mess. No harm done other than a massive mess, you say to the small group of junior enlisted airmen for whom this hangar will be a prison for the next couple weeks
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
Prop Wash posted:No harm done other than a massive mess, you say to the small group of junior enlisted airmen for whom this hangar will be a prison for the next couple weeks  You're telling me. They did this to our ISO hanger, took 3 days to clean up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
Nah mang, Blackhawks/Pavehawks are just spray and pray. Freshwater rinse, maybe some soap for some hard-to-reach areas, them things is golden. There's a reason that a blood/body-fluids rinse is named a CARWASH in Afghanistan. E: of course I don't have some weird second-hand PTSD from cleaning that out of helicopters for a tour, why do you ask? spookykid fucked around with this message at 04:54 on Aug 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 04:51
|
|
|
Dannywilson posted:Nah mang, Blackhawks/Pavehawks are just spray and pray. Freshwater rinse, maybe some soap for some hard-to-reach areas, them things is golden. There's a reason that a blood/body-fluids rinse is named a CARWASH in Afghanistan. Jesus that sounds brutal
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 06:07
|
|
|
Dannywilson posted:Nah mang, Blackhawks/Pavehawks are just spray and pray. Freshwater rinse, maybe some soap for some hard-to-reach areas, them things is golden. There's a reason that a blood/body-fluids rinse is named a CARWASH in Afghanistan. Yeah, but you're not cleaning out the cockpit. You know those lovely electronics are hosed. They're going to be chasing electrical gremlins for months. When were you there? I called for lots of carwashes in the summer of 2012. Jumpingmanjim posted:Jesus that sounds brutal I remember being asked by my pilot one day if we needed a car wash, and responding with "yep. Jesus, this dudes blood looks like a cherry slushie." That's CASEVAC for you. Riot Carol Danvers fucked around with this message at 12:56 on Aug 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 12:53
|
|
|
WAR CRIME SYNDICAT posted:Yeah, but you're not cleaning out the cockpit. You know those lovely electronics are hosed. They're going to be chasing electrical gremlins for months. Funny enough, if you're gentle, the cockpit can be sprayed out too, as almost all of the control heads are environmentally sealed to some extent, and most everything else is a rag and some water/iso-alcohol away from being "clean" again. e: and any water that gets into anything gets out in a hurry too in 110° weather with <5% humidity. WAR CRIME SYNDICAT posted:When were you there? I called for lots of carwashes in the summer of 2012. Got it in one, Camp Bastion/Leatherneck over the summer of 2012, was there for that mess with the Afghanis going all Fury Road with green spraypaint and blowing up the AV-8's.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 13:06
|
|
|
Dannywilson posted:Funny enough, if you're gentle, the cockpit can be sprayed out too, as almost all of the control heads are environmentally sealed to some extent, and most everything else is a rag and some water/iso-alcohol away from being "clean" again. I was at Kandahar watching that go down live on Pred Porn. Could only imagine having been there in person. Surreal watching Cobras lighting up their own airfield. Did get to watch a US responder throw a grenade into a generator tent where a dipshit was hiding, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 13:12
|
|
|
WAR CRIME SYNDICAT posted:I was at Kandahar watching that go down live on Pred Porn. Could only imagine having been there in person. Surreal watching Cobras lighting up their own airfield. What the gently caress happened? Sounds crazy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 13:37
|
|
|
Evil brown persons broke into a marine aviation base, killed a bunch of dudes, scrapped a bunch of planes, then got smoked https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_2012_Camp_Bastion_raid evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 13:42 on Aug 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 13:40
|
|
|
The most US aircraft lost in a single day since the Vietnam war E:fb
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 13:43
|
|
|
Chiwie posted:4K would be awesome! Let me know if this works for you guys: 
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
Leviathor posted:Let me know if this works for you guys:  neat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
The video was removed before I got a chance to see it, but some firefighters from my home county who'd been deployed to fight fires in central California almost got hit by a load of retardant. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 07:50
|
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:The video was removed before I got a chance to see it, but some firefighters from my home county who'd been deployed to fight fires in central California almost got hit by a load of retardant. Those guys are some of the ballsiest pilots around. Can't imagine what it's like to fly one of those at low speed at that height with a full load. The turbulence must be butt-clenching with all the heat coming off the forest.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 12:37
|
|
|
Could we fly from London to New York in an hour? http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-33786999  Gorgeous. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 14:14
|
|
|
Inacio posted:
Thunderbirds are Go!
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 14:45
|
|
|
quote:The patent application for the new jet does address the issue of sonic booms. By climbing almost vertically the new design's sonic boom would be dissipated in all directions and not reach the ground. That's not how sonic booms work. It's continuous as long as the plane is going supersonic. This plane still wouldn't be able to go over land due to noise concerns.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
Inacio posted:Could we fly from London to New York in an hour? Executives, worried that the aircraft may be deemed too phallic, instructed designers to draw inspiration from products that appeal to women, and have thus designed to world's first flying tampon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:That's not how sonic booms work. It's continuous as long as the plane is going supersonic. This plane still wouldn't be able to go over land due to noise concerns.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 15:26
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Sonic booms are generated around Mach 1, so as long as the cruising speed of the aircraft is significantly above Mach 1 you're primarily worried about sonic boom noise generated after takeoff and before landing. You'd be right in the case of a jet flying over land at like Mach 1.1. The Concorde flew at ~Mach 2 and wasn't quiet, but it was also a very primitive design and a large aircraft.  No, sonic booms will be generated by anything doing more than Mach 1. Even at Mach 2 or 3 you're going to be generating a shockwave behind you. Now, it's probably not going to be very loud at ground level since it's going to be Super loving High, but there's still a boom.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_boom
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Sonic booms are generated around Mach 1, so as long as the cruising speed of the aircraft is significantly above Mach 1 you're primarily worried about sonic boom noise generated after takeoff and before landing. You'd be right in the case of a jet flying over land at like Mach 1.1. The Concorde flew at ~Mach 2 and wasn't quiet, but it was also a very primitive design and a large aircraft. No, booms are generated continuously by an object traveling greater than Mach 1. It's akin to the wake of a ship, except since the plane is going so fast the entire "wake" is concentrated into a single* shockwave. The path of this wake is called a "boom carpet" and has a width of about a mile per 1000 ft of altitude. The higher you are the less energy (overpressure) hits the ground. I want to see what g forces passengers would experience during flight. That straight up thing followed by a pitch over and what I assume would be a continuous descent for the rest of the flight seems like it'd be pretty brutal. *well two depending on geometry
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:
hobbesmaster posted:No, booms are generated continuously by an object traveling greater than Mach 1. It's akin to the wake of a ship, except since the plane is going so fast the entire "wake" is concentrated into a single* shockwave. The path of this wake is called a "boom carpet" and has a width of about a mile per 1000 ft of altitude. The higher you are the less energy (overpressure) hits the ground.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
Inacio posted:Could we fly from London to New York in an hour? How you know it's summer and a dull day - someone hands the intern a copy of KSP and say 'make a fast looking plane'.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
Alereon posted:I think we're talking past eachother. The shockwave is generated continuously by a supersonic object, but also diminishes in intensity as speed increases past Mach 1. So for an aircraft with a crusiing speed significantly above Mach 1 like we're talking about, the times it spends passing through Mach 1 from below and above (take-off and landing) will be when you're most concerned about sonic boom noise. Wait - I might be misunderstanding you here. Are you saying that an airplane going mach 3 makes a less intense sonic boom than an airplane going mach 1? How does that work? I understand the shock wave is going mach 1, but why would the intensity decrease?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
Alereon posted:I think we're talking past eachother. The shockwave is generated continuously by a supersonic object, but also diminishes in intensity as speed increases past Mach 1. So for an aircraft with a crusiing speed significantly above Mach 1 like we're talking about, the times it spends passing through Mach 1 from below and above (take-off and landing) will be when you're most concerned about sonic boom noise. The Space Shuttle produced a fairly impressive double-crack sonic boom when it passed over the US at or around mach 20 and 100-200kft. What's the sweet spot in altitude/speed to diminish this sonic footprint? Keeping altitude constant and 80kft (for instance), would this craft be better off going mach 5 or mach 3? Why does the shock wave diminish in intensity with increasing speed? Isn't the craft putting more energy into the atmosphere by going faster?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
Speaking of sonic booms, anyone have a link to the flight path Air Force One took following 9/11 assuming that was ever fully released? After 9/11 when all airliners were grounded I was outside playing basketball when we saw fighters of some type fly by high and unusually fast followed by sonic booms. A short while later what sure as poo poo looked like a 747 or at least 4-engine airliner flanked by fighters flew overhead. I've never really looked into it closely enough to figure out if I was watching Air Force One fly back to Washington across the Midwest after the detour to Nevraska or if it was some other plane.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Speaking of sonic booms, anyone have a link to the flight path Air Force One took following 9/11 assuming that was ever fully released? Found the attached small image. quote:While Air Force One was overflying the Gulf of Mexico trying to escape a potential threat, the radio operator got a message from the Vice President at Washington: “Angel is next”, meaning that the Air Force One (Angel was at that time its classified callsign; the subsequent investigation found the original claim to be a result of miscommunication).
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
Apparently that flaperon piece found on Reunion Island has been officially confirmed to be from MH370.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
fknlo posted:Apparently that flaperon piece found on Reunion Island has been officially confirmed to be from MH370. Link?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Link? http://i.imgur.com/PL4VejM.jpg
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
You son of a bitch  I just wanted some actual news source I could share.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
dietcokefiend posted:Found the attached small image. Thanks. If that's accurate I guess I did see Air Force One and its escorts. I was in a suburb north of Indianapolis at a time of day that lines up with when it was returning to DC. It was pretty eerie.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:You son of a bitch Complete with drift graphic
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
No serial numbers on it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
Hopefully that meant "easily readable" but I'm not familiar with 777 flaperons to know where the serial(s) would be. This is interesting: quote:Their doubts were based on a modification to the part, known as a flaperon, that did not appear to exactly match what they would expect from airline maintenance records, according to the person, who requested anonymity because the person was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
That will be more than enough for the conspiracy theorists to latch onto when anomaly hunting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 07:49 |
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Wait - I might be misunderstanding you here. Are you saying that an airplane going mach 3 makes a less intense sonic boom than an airplane going mach 1? How does that work? I understand the shock wave is going mach 1, but why would the intensity decrease? babyeatingpsychopath posted:The Space Shuttle produced a fairly impressive double-crack sonic boom when it passed over the US at or around mach 20 and 100-200kft. What's the sweet spot in altitude/speed to diminish this sonic footprint? Keeping altitude constant and 80kft (for instance), would this craft be better off going mach 5 or mach 3? Why does the shock wave diminish in intensity with increasing speed? Isn't the craft putting more energy into the atmosphere by going faster? quote:The power, or volume, of the shock wave is dependent on the quantity of air that is being accelerated, and thus the size and shape of the aircraft. As the aircraft increases speed the shock cone gets tighter around the craft and becomes weaker to the point that at very high speeds and altitudes no boom is heard. The "length" of the boom from front to back is dependent on the length of the aircraft to a power of 3/2. Longer aircraft therefore "spread out" their booms more than smaller ones, which leads to a less powerful boom.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 21:30
|
|