|
azflyboy posted:Most large aircraft are capable of taking off at weights far in excess of their maximum landing weights, so fuel dumps are common on most large airliners and military aircraft to allow rapid weight loss in the event of an emergency. There was an incident a few years back with an Airbus and a birdstrike where the plane had to loiter for some time before landing since it didn't have the ability to dump fuel.
|
| # ¿ Apr 5, 2010 02:06 |
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 24, 2013 08:02 |
|
|
Axim posted:Maybe you are thinking of the JetBlue flight that tried to emergency land at LAX a few years ago (Airbus A320.) It's nose landing gear was turned 90 degrees sideways and the pilot wanted to get rid of most of the fuel in the plane before landing to minimize risk of fire if he couldn't land the plane without running off the runway or crashing. Since the A320 apparently can't dump fuel, the pilot flew over the Pacific Ocean for a while to burn up the fuel before attempting the landing, which was a spectacular success. That was it. 
|
| # ¿ Apr 5, 2010 15:43 |
|
|
Boomerjinks posted:WB-57, basically the US bought the licensing to produce the British Canberra bomber, it sucked for what we wanted so we gunned it up, made it's engines start with a pyrotechnic charge, and then started using it for high-altitude weather monitoring, reconnaissance, and space program observation. Is the service ceiling on the WB variant any different from the initial airframe?
|
| # ¿ Apr 6, 2010 20:05 |
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:On a related note, I think the reason pilot casulties were the highest is because with either the B-17 or the B-24, if the plane went too far out of control, the G force buildup would make it impossible to move. So often the pilots would have to wait until everybody else was out, then make a break for the escape hatches themselves. Are you saying they were fighting the yoke so their crew mates could get out or that they were pinned in their seat by said yoke?
|
| # ¿ Apr 15, 2010 02:06 |
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Then Beyond 2000 came on and I wanted a robot and didn't do my homework. Wings of the Red Star was my definite favorite. Partially growing up during the Cold War painted the Russians as this mysterious enemy. Also, Beyond 2000 and Next Step were awesome.
|
| # ¿ Apr 15, 2010 03:19 |
|
|
 I wonder if the folding wings prevent tip mounted AIM-120 C's like the F-16.
|
| # ¿ Apr 19, 2010 07:49 |
|
|
Boomerjinks posted:Well, yes, actually. But the XB-70 had drooping wings. How awesome is that? 
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2010 19:56 |
|
|
mlmp08 posted:I saw one of these in person for the first time a few days ago as it buzzed over our SAM site. The one I saw was cammo rather than the gaudy show colors. It is the smallest manned jet in the world. I want one of those.
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2010 03:56 |
|
|
The Ferret King posted:This video perplexes me. It seems like only some of the landings have the wing mounted wheels down. Where are they on the other landings? They might have been fixed on there for practice landings. They fall off at takeoff during missions.
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2010 00:07 |
|
|
2ndclasscitizen posted:Are the 787's wings always bent up that high, or they just under load in that pic? In flight the 787's wings are designed to flex upwards.
|
| # ¿ May 20, 2010 10:31 |
|
|
LOO posted:B-52 acting as engine test bed: This is what I've wondered. I know a B-52 served as an engine test bed for the 747-100's engines, but I've heard is nearly impossible to re-work the B-52 fleet to move from 8 to 4 engines. Are the plumbing/electrical/mechanical connections so complex that the Air Force can't swap out the current layout for four engines with better economy and higher thrust?
|
| # ¿ Jun 1, 2010 17:43 |
|
|
OptimusMatrix posted:They should use four of the GE90 777 engines. That thing would be so beastly. I can't imagine how governed they'd have to be. Four of those at full throttle could rip up the wings.
|
| # ¿ Jun 2, 2010 18:46 |
|
|
MA-Horus posted:Don't you mean rip the wings clean off, like the B-47? Gated throttles so you don't overspeed the airframe? Either or, I guess. I forgot the numbers but the net thrust of two GE90s is the same if not more than eight TF33s. e: Never mind. Two GE90s are 77k lbf whereas eight TF33s are 136k lbf. e^2: Depends on the model. Two GE90s in the 773ER produce 230k lbf net thrust. e^3: I can't read tables. Minto Took fucked around with this message at Jun 2, 2010 around 20:23 |
| # ¿ Jun 2, 2010 19:51 |
|
|
OptimusMatrix posted:Beaten. Goddamn phone calls /\/\/\ Air Force likes to have four engines in their bombers.
|
| # ¿ Jun 2, 2010 20:17 |
|
|
I haven't been in 16 years. I'd love to go again.
|
| # ¿ Jun 5, 2010 02:46 |
|
|
Captain Postal posted:First thought: awesome overload! They've been flying CAP over shuttle launches for a long time. More to keep other aircraft from being damaged by the blast, ramming into the shuttle pre-launch, or magically getting hit by the shuttle as it ascends into orbit.
|
| # ¿ Jun 12, 2010 12:01 |
|
|
grover, did you go posting in LF?
|
| # ¿ Jun 22, 2010 23:59 |
|
|
grover posted:I see your high performance air races, and raise you an X-29: I always thought the X-29 was cool as hell. Would the airframe have any military value? quote:See, LF would probably have actually made it funny. Well that's a shame.
|
| # ¿ Jun 23, 2010 00:14 |
|
|
BonzoESC posted:Some definitions: I'm curious. On a turbofan, whats the typical ratio of air that passes through the fan rather than the combustion chamber?
|
| # ¿ Jun 23, 2010 02:09 |
|
|
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad posted:So maybe it's a Quantas problem rather than an A380 problem? Pretty sure Qantas uses Rolls-Royce engines on their 747s too. Somebody's going to be in trouble!
|
| # ¿ Nov 5, 2010 14:27 |
|
|
azflyboy posted:The B-47 manual also describes the aircraft as having an oxygen system installed, as well as reminding the pilot that "ash trays for the crew are conveniently located", which seems like there was a bit of a potential for disaster. I love that about the 1950s. Ashtrays were everywhere.
|
| # ¿ Nov 29, 2010 19:02 |
|
|
Ola posted:That made me wonder too. There is quite a lot of glass fiber aircraft around, is it very different from carbon fiber? Video ruined by song.
|
| # ¿ Dec 7, 2010 20:50 |
|
|
The Aardvark was so ugly it was cool.
|
| # ¿ Dec 16, 2010 14:42 |
|
|
grover posted:http://seatguru.com is the best resource in the world for picking a good airline seat. Unfortunately, they all still suck. I like browsing SeatGuru and daydreaming about chilling in one of the First Class pods on some trans-oceanic flight.
|
| # ¿ Jan 7, 2011 08:47 |
|
|
The Army used to fly my dad to Japan when he was still active. I'll have to ask him which class he sat.
|
| # ¿ Jan 7, 2011 21:11 |
|
|
I remember the Falcon 4.0 manual stating that GPS can be jammed, hence the inclusion of an INS in an F-16. Take that as you will.
|
| # ¿ Jan 19, 2011 04:20 |
|
|
I want that Corsair pop art like you have no idea.
|
| # ¿ Jan 23, 2011 22:02 |
|
|
The old diesel carriers were something like 12 ft/gal.
|
| # ¿ Feb 4, 2011 02:15 |
|
|
Ford Nucleon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon
|
| # ¿ Feb 4, 2011 04:49 |
|
|
Further proof of that was the A-16 program where they tried to strap an Avenger on to an F-16. It was stupid inaccurate which is why the Air Force dropped it.
|
| # ¿ Mar 1, 2011 03:00 |
|
|
An iPad may also be shielded.
|
| # ¿ Mar 6, 2011 19:21 |
|
|
There's a National Geographic documentary on Flight 447 that basically concludes frozen pitot tubes were the problem. They also show that if the crew was trained to know about the Airbus' auto-throttle, they'd power up to 85% N1 and hold the nose up 5 degrees until the tubes thawed out.
|
| # ¿ Apr 6, 2011 22:26 |
|
|
Seriously, if you have Netflix, watch this: http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/C...6?trkid=2361637
|
| # ¿ Apr 7, 2011 01:59 |
|
|
LobsterboyX posted:I saw one at the airport in Long Beach CA, a few months ago, I called the operaters, they fly freight to catalina, they have 3 of them - they said there is no way i can ride on it. If they won't let you ride with that, they have no heart.
|
| # ¿ Apr 9, 2011 23:12 |
|
|
Boomerjinks posted:I would think that Huntsville would be in the mix there, although aside from their Saturn V display building, everything at the US rocket center is kind of... yucky. I can't imagine where USAFM would put an orbiter, it's so packed already. They were all built in California, but where might they go aside from the desert at Edwards - LA Science Center? Midway? Hornet? I wouldn't be surprised if Wright-Patterson built a new hangar just for the orbiter.
|
| # ¿ Apr 10, 2011 21:09 |
|
|
Ola posted:Have seen that F-15 vid in higher resolution, that shot with the massive amount of flares benefits a lot from it as you can see the poor little Sidewinder go absolutely bananas.  Little Fox Two was so lost.
|
| # ¿ May 26, 2011 01:44 |
|
|
I hate working out in the 'burbs, but the one saving grace is my datacenter is along the SIDS and STARS for 14R and 32L for O'Hare. Nothing like going on a smoke break or sitting in a drive through and have a jet liner fly overhead.
|
| # ¿ Jun 4, 2011 02:24 |
|
|
Preoptopus posted:I am SO loving excited for EAA just a month away. Anyone else going camping? Maybe not camping, but I might be down for the air show.
|
| # ¿ Jun 9, 2011 01:43 |
|
|
I hope the tiger stripe prop covers are standard issue.
|
| # ¿ Jun 12, 2011 03:25 |
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 24, 2013 08:02 |
|
|
Delta's all about the cattle class?
|
| # ¿ Aug 12, 2011 02:00 |
|
