Nebakenezzer posted:Jesus! There's almost $100k in that camera! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2010 20:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 14:24 |
|
|
Breaky posted:There's almost $100k in that camera! What do you think, a nice f/2.0 lens?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2010 20:35
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Jesus! Manchester airport decided to capitalise on this and have an airport viewing park with 3 dedicated platforms for photographers to snap away at the planes landing/taking off. I popped along and paid to get in when I got my new camera as I wanted something to test it on, there were people there with notebooks and extended-band FM radios to listen to the control tower. They were actually quite friendly and very knowledgable, someones kid wanted to know if they had any 747s and they were able to say who and when they'd be there (2xCathay Pacific Cargo and Virgin Atlantic iirc) You can also go and look at one of the Concordes there 
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2010 21:15
|
|
|
JingleBells posted:Manchester airport decided to capitalise on this and have an airport viewing park with 3 dedicated platforms for photographers to snap away at the planes landing/taking off. I popped along and paid to get in when I got my new camera as I wanted something to test it on, there were people there with notebooks and extended-band FM radios to listen to the control tower. They were actually quite friendly and very knowledgable, someones kid wanted to know if they had any 747s and they were able to say who and when they'd be there (2xCathay Pacific Cargo and Virgin Atlantic iirc) Common sense really as the spotters are the most likely to spot unusual activity around the perimiter of the airport. I went there once and it was pretty cool. Galsia fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Apr 3, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2010 21:25
|
|
|
so a GIS tells me that fighter ace is still around, but also more expensive  https://fighterace.ketsujin.com//Default2.asp
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2010 00:39
|
|
|
My house is under the flight path to Wright-Patterson AFB in Dayton, and earlier today, what looked like an OC-135 (if the paint scheme was any indication) flew over. Wonder if it's the same plane that was in that photograph?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2010 00:41
|
|
|
My sister used to be a KC-10 pilot. KC-10's can refuel each other in flight. She said it's pretty hairy though, a pair of half million pound airplanes flying close formation. I'll bug her tomorrow for pics if she has them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2010 06:57
|
|
|
Why didn't they just make the tankers able to refill off the huge tanks?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2010 07:49
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Jesus! ...He posts in the automotive forum.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2010 14:48
|
|
|
oxbrain posted:Why didn't they just make the tankers able to refill off the huge tanks? What huge tanks? All the fuel these planes carry is internal...they don't use external tanks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2010 15:39
|
|
|
Godholio posted:What huge tanks? All the fuel these planes carry is internal...they don't use external tanks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2010 18:20
|
|
|
Yeah, you kinda figure the tanker would be the last plane to be running low on fuel...
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2010 20:01
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:I think he means why can't tankers be refilled from the refuelling supply they carry, rather than themselves being refuelled by another plane? Ah...they do that. The reason a tanker would refuel another tanker isn't because he doesn't have enough gas to get to his destination (unless there's some kind of maintenance problem, in which case he's going to divert wherever he needs to), it's more for fuel and asset management. Scenario: A KC-135 has been on station for 9 hours. Most of his planned receivers cancelled due to terrible weather at their base. That tanker needs to RTB soon, because the airplane and crew both need to be ready to fly tomorrow. But the plane is still drat near full of fuel. You can't just bring that much gas home...for one thing landing an airplane that heavy will destroy the landing gears. The runway may not be designed to take that kind of impact. Even without those concerns, it's just plain dangerous. So the preferred action is dump the excess fuel. Basically the plane flies over an approved area and opens release valves to dump fuel...this happens high enough that the fuel vaporizes long before it would reach the ground. But that's a LOT of fuel, and that poo poo is expensive. Also, what happens if one of the tankers that's supposed to take off tonight breaks and can't fly? Now you don't have enough gas in theater to fight the war. So the solution is to consolidate what you've got in the air already, and pour that gas from the outgoing tanker into a newer tanker than can accommodate it. This happens on a daily basis. It made my day when we had KC-10s in the air, just because of cases like this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2010 20:03
|
|
Godholio posted:Ah...they do that. Ah cool that's a good explanation, thanks a lot.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2010 21:11
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Ah...they do that. isn't something like this kind of an environmental hazard? I mean, dumping that much hydrocarbon fuel can't be good, can it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2010 01:49
|
|
|
Frank Dillinger posted:isn't something like this kind of an environmental hazard? I mean, dumping that much hydrocarbon fuel can't be good, can it? Well, yeah...but burning it isn't all that great either. It's only used as a last resort. The environmental impact isn't any worse than if the tank is ruptured during landing, which will almost certainly ignite killing everyone on board and anywhere near it. There are requirements for a suitable dump area...I don't know what goes into it besides altitude, honestly. I know the fuel dump area out here isn't far from my house.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2010 01:52
|
|
|
Frank Dillinger posted:isn't something like this kind of an environmental hazard? I mean, dumping that much hydrocarbon fuel can't be good, can it? 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. As an example, the 747-400 has a maximum takeoff weight around 875,000lbs, but a maximum landing weight in the 650,000lb range. Even at low altitudes where turbine engines use a lot of fuel, it would still take hours consume that much gas, so the ability to get rid of fuel in a hurry is a pretty handy safety feature. Most fuel dump sites are located over either uninhabited areas or over water, and the fuel is dumped at a high enough altitude and airspeed that it is dispersed over a huge area to reduce any possible hazard to people on the ground. In the event of a major emergency (a severe birdstrike for example), pilots will dump fuel regardless of where they are, but for emergencies that aren't as critical (shutting down one engine on a 747), the normal procedure is for the crew to fly to a designated point, dump the fuel there, and then return to land.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2010 02:32
|
|
|
On a GSE related note, check out this mammoth towbarless tractor on the bay next to us from my last trip to Kuala Lumpur. It started pissing down rain after I took this video so I didn't pity the driver at all. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Da6W-lcuTY&feature=channel
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2010 02:56
|
|
|
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 03:06
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Well, yeah...but burning it isn't all that great either. Many planes put their dumping valves at the end of the wings, since that's where the fuel is stored. The F-111 for some reason (maybe because of the swing-wings?) puts its dump valve just below the vertical stab, between the engines. Which means that, using its afterburner, it can do this neato trick at airshows.  It's like something I would have drawn in fourth grade.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2010 03:07
|
|
|
Minto Took posted: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. Most short and medium-haul airliners lack the ability to jettison fuel, since they can land at their takeoff weight in an emergency. Since an overweight landing does risk structural damage and can collapse the landing gear, most pilots will elect to burn off the excess fuel in an emergency unless the situation requires an immediate landing for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2010 05:04
|
|
|
orange lime posted:Many planes put their dumping valves at the end of the wings, since that's where the fuel is stored. The F-111 for some reason (maybe because of the swing-wings?) puts its dump valve just below the vertical stab, between the engines. Which means that, using its afterburner, it can do this neato trick at airshows. It's drat near criminal the Aussies are getting rid of these, I'm so bummed I never got to see this in person.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2010 05:09
|
|
|
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. Maximum landing weight isn't a limit that is never to be exceeded. Even if the maximum landing weight is much lower than its maximum takeoff weight, an aircraft is still legally required to be capable of landing safely at maximum takeoff weight. In the case of major fire or a number of other emergencies, it is much safer to make an overweight landing rather than wasting precious time burning or dumping fuel (burning fuel in the engines is actually a very ineffective way of getting rid of fuel in most airliners, surprisingly). Granted, rigorous inspections will have to be performed after an overweight landing, but it is a small price to pay when you weigh the alternatives. Here's an article on the issue, courtesy of Boeing's AERO Magazine: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_3_07/article_03_1.html
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2010 07:18
|
|
|
The shuttle is about to take off, and you can watch it live here: http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2010 11:21
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:Most fuel dump sites are located over either uninhabited areas or over water. Frank Dillinger posted:isn't something like this kind of an environmental hazard? I mean, dumping that much hydrocarbon fuel can't be good, can it? As an Army environmental compliance officer, I will interject that gasoline contaminates water at a ratio of 1:1,000,000 so it's insane to think someone would dump fuel over water as a matter of precaution. It would also have to be reported to the EPA. I can vaguely sympathize with field dumping, though the site would need to avoid run-off and be subjected to close monitoring.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2010 12:03
|
|
|
Minto Took posted: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. 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. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JetBlue_Flight_292 Wikipedia posted:The pilots flew the aircraft, which can carry up to 46,860 pounds (21,255 kg) of aviation fuel, in a figure eight pattern between Bob Hope Airport in Burbank and LAX for more than two hours in order to burn fuel and lower the risk of fire upon landing. This also served to lighten the plane, reducing potential stress on the landing gear and dramatically lowering landing speed as well.[2][3] The Airbus A320 does not have the mechanical facility to dump fuel,[4] despite various news agencies reporting that the aircraft was doing so over the ocean. Axim fucked around with this message at 15:24 on Apr 5, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2010 15:21
|
|
|
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 16:43
|
|
|
What about bombers returning with a full load of stores, do they ever have to jettison before they can safely land? (i'm guessing there's an emergency procedure, that Boeing report was interesting to read)
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2010 16:48
|
|
|
Mr.Peabody posted:As an Army environmental compliance officer, I will interject that gasoline contaminates water at a ratio of 1:1,000,000 so it's insane to think someone would dump fuel over water as a matter of precaution. It would also have to be reported to the EPA. I can vaguely sympathize with field dumping, though the site would need to avoid run-off and be subjected to close monitoring. Our legal fuel dump area is over a lake, so yes it happens. At 20,000 ft, none of it is landing in the water. Manny posted:What about bombers returning with a full load of stores, do they ever have to jettison before they can safely land? (i'm guessing there's an emergency procedure, that Boeing report was interesting to read) In general, no. The landing weight should be enough to include armament...they just can't be full on gas too. For aircraft landing on carriers, they jettison prior to landing on the ship. In theater, if we had the option of using Navy aircraft for a mission or Air Force, we'd give it to the Navy guys so hopefully they wouldn't have to waste their ordnance when they went home.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2010 17:35
|
|
|
Just got to see a 22 take off at my base. I was eating lunch when I heard a really loud engine. I assumed it was a pair of 18s until I saw the canopy and rear. drat that plane is awesome.. wish I could see it more often. It has a small howl like the 35s when it first launches. Much quieter, but still there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2010 17:43
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Our legal fuel dump area is over a lake, so yes it happens. At 20,000 ft, none of it is landing in the water. Yeah I remember reading somewhere that since the planes are so high up it doesn't really matter what is below them; all the fuel vaporizes and disperses before it reaches the ground. e; it also says this in that Boeing article Boeing Article posted:The ecological aspects of fuel jettison have been most closely studied by the United States Air Force (USAF). These studies have shown that, in general, fuel jettisoned above 5,000 to 6,000 feet will completely vaporize before reaching the ground. Therefore, Boeing’s general recommendation is to jettison fuel above 5,000 to 6,000 feet whenever possible, although there is no restriction on jettisoning at lower altitudes if considered necessary by the flight crew. DethMarine21 fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Apr 5, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2010 19:17
|
|
|
Hughmoris posted:Might as well spend it on the things that bring you joy, you can't take it with you when you go. True. And I certianly can't cast any stones at the guy, being a person with too much knowledge of airships and whatnot. It just blows my mind sometimes, is all. The Mi-24 Hind:   The designer envisioned a flying APC, the Soviet command wanted a gunship; the Hind was the result, a gunship with some troop carrying capabilities. Armored like a ACP, the Hind was built to be safe from all small arms, up to a .50 cal /12.7 mm machine gun bullet. Like the A-10, the gunner and the pilot get a armored bathtub surrounding them, good for protection against anti-aircraft shells. It's also looks almost insect like with it's unique double-bubble canopy, which I've seen pop up as the basis for a few spaceship designs in sci-fi tv shows and movies. More of that Russian anti-eyestrain aqua   Like the T-72, it was exported to everybody the Soviets were friendly with, and remains popular in the third world today. Also like the T-72,( or the for mustang for that matter) the cheapness and popularity of it has created a vibrant aftermarket upgrade industry. Here's a South African 'Superhind' upgrade kit:  also like old vans they sometimes have elaborate airbrushing  This one instead of a machine gun turret has four 30mm cannons  The biggest conflict it saw service in was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Pilots preferred to use it as a straight gunship instead of a troop transport, letting Mi-8s ferry troops while the Mi-24s provided cover The preferred use of the cargo area was to carry rocket reloads, or a mechanic, who could man additional guns added in the field. Pilots also discovered that the winglets provided so much lift that maneuvering in combat could be somewhat tricky; sharp turns would cause altitude loss.  Oh, and cool airship I came across:  The round things on the bottom are landing, um, things. They are like inverted hovercraft: instead of riding on the cushion of air, a fan creates a vacuum to hold the airship to the ground. Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Apr 5, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2010 19:48
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:This is what you were after, I think: I saw this demoed once. It was totally badass.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2010 19:54
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Oh, and cool airship I came across:
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2010 20:10
|
|
|
Godholio posted:This happens on a daily basis. It made my day when we had KC-10s in the air, just because of cases like this. There's another reason for tankers refueling tankers: Oceans. If you have some sort of operation where large planes with a limited range are trying to get halfway across the world, they're gonna need to refuel in mid-air. But we don't have KC-10's and KC-135's parked on every island along the way there. So instead they have a sort of refueling pyramid. You may only need 1 KC-10 to refuel a flight of 4 F-16's, but that KC-10 needs enough fuel to get to the F-16's, refuel them, and get back to base. So it may get refueled by another KC-10 on the way to the F-16's, and refuel again on the way back. And the KC-10 that's refueling it may need to do the same. I actually had a diagram at some point showing the refueling plan of some really big operation on a map, and it was basically 90% KC-10's and 10% warplanes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2010 00:46
|
|
|
To spite Canada for not joining the Iraqi crusade, the USA changed its refueling plans for all the planes heading to the mideast. Instead of having them refuel in Canada, the USA spent three times as much money refueling all their planes in midair.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2010 03:30
|
|
|
Based on personal experience, I think it had more to do with how our planes have a tendency to break. We had a recent tail swap to replace a jet overseas...drat thing was stuck at Mildenhall for almost a MONTH thanks to an ops-stop because there weren't any tankers available. Those refuelings offer valuable training, and come out of the bucket of flights available for that training. Repairs in foreign bases, even US bases that don't have that airframe stationed there, is an absolute NIGHTMARE.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2010 03:46
|
|
|
This is a good argument. I heard this with the connection to the millitary buildup in 2003, so I don't think it's offical policy, or even policy still implemented. Just some petty jab from those would-be Caesers of the Bush era.dangerz posted:I've seen this thing at our ADP plant. It is as awesome on the ground as it looks in the air. The reason they did the vacuum bottom part is so it can land virtually anywhere. Nice. Can those fans thrust vector in any direction? Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 10:11 on Apr 6, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2010 04:38
|
|
|
Well, I wouldn't call it impossible that it had some political motivation, but that wouldn't be my first guess. Especially against Canada.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2010 05:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 14:24 |
|
|
The school I work at had a visit the other week from the local Police Eagle unit. Eurocopter AS355 F1. According to the crew, the FLIR is worth more than the chopper.                   
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2010 07:33
|
|