|
KELLER! posted:He said all of the published specs and limits were low, and they actually flew quite a bit higher than that.
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2010 22:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 00:01 |
|
|
KELLER! posted:My dad's a former fighter pilot, so he has some awesome stories. Recently (as a result of this thread) we were talking about the SR-71 and I mentioned 85,000 ft. He said all of the published specs and limits were low, and they actually flew quite a bit higher than that. That's because there's a difference between maximum performance and cruising. The SR-71 cruises at 85,000 feet and Mach ~3, but anywhere you look has much higher numbers for the maximum performance (Those old Aircraft of the World cards just told me 101,000 feet and Mach 3.5 for maximums.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 06:43
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:It's also natural gas piping, too, right? That's not an oil fire.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 11:32
|
|
|
Revolvyerom posted:Considering our "car fire" training was gasoline piped into car frames, only shut off when the instructor thought you'd done it right...not necessarily. The only reason I say that is it looks like a jet of flame shooting out of something underneath the training frame, it doesn't look like a natural fire at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 12:18
|
|
|
When I was 14 or 15 we had a "work week" at school. I got to spend a week at the airport with the aviation authorities, chilling in the tower and participating in a fire drill. Very cool stuff, the fire engine had a joystick on the dash for shooting water and I got to try it out. They didn't have a metal skeleton of an airframe, just a pile of old cars which they doused in gas and lit up. The guy driving couldn't quite put it out so he had to drive the fire engine around to the other side of the car while saying "bastards put gas in the glove box". Good times.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 12:25
|
|
|
This is the greatest, most amazing pile of airplane porn I have ever seen in one sitting. I CAN NOT miss the next Edwards open house. http://home.comcast.net:80/~bzee1a/Edwards09/Edwards09.html
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2010 18:15
|
|
|
Boomerjinks posted:This is the greatest, most amazing pile of airplane porn I have ever seen in one sitting. I CAN NOT miss the next Edwards open house. drat, that's pretty. Shiny unpainted aluminum looks fantastic. Dumb question: are pyrotechnics common at American air shows? Also:  Strangely enough, it's the Edwards AFB Raptor that's flying. Turned out the demo F-22, AND the backup F-22 both developed some technical problems. Good thing Edwards had a plane ready to fill in! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2010 23:51
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:drat, that's pretty. Shiny unpainted aluminum looks fantastic. Dumb question: are pyrotechnics common at American air shows? They're not uncommon. It depends on the acts-some events use pyrotechnics, some don't. I've been to probably 25 airshows in my life, and probably 10 of them had some kind of fire or explosions involved in one of the events. Now Russian airshows...that's a whole other topic...
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2010 23:53
|
|
|
At the old Hamilton Air Show, when the Lancaster used to do 100-foot flybys of the runways, they had pyro. But the engines were louder than the pyro. God I love that old bird, and I live right under her flight path, so I get Merlin growl about once a week.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2010 03:55
|
|
|
Boomerjinks posted:This is the greatest, most amazing pile of airplane porn I have ever seen in one sitting. I CAN NOT miss the next Edwards open house. This is an awesome shot: 
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2010 04:32
|
|
|
I'll see if I can shoot some photos of the C-130s and the engine shop at work To contribute, I saw this guy take off from our base:  Click here for the full 1300x953 image. Nothing like combined piston and jet engines. Every now and then an F-16, A-10, or F-15 lands, fuels, and takes back off CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 05:18 on Apr 29, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2010 05:02
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I'll see if I can shoot some photos of the C-130s and the engine shop at work Aww look at it's little turbines.  Even if they're probably as powerful as those radials.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2010 05:27
|
|
|
Previa_fun posted:Aww look at it's little turbines. Yeah, I was just confused because I was hearing jets but seeing radials. I thought they were fuel tanks till he turned around to take off and I saw the exhaust and intakes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2010 05:44
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Yeah, I was just confused because I was hearing jets but seeing radials. I thought they were fuel tanks till he turned around to take off and I saw the exhaust and intakes. Are those Westinghouse J34s? Jet engine awesomepost: (  because jet engines fascinate me.)The General Electic God-Damned J-79:  Powered a number of aircraft from the previously mentioned B-58 Hustler, to the F-4 Phantom, to the "missle with a man in it" F-104 Starfighter. It also has powered a number of vehicles attempting to break the land speed record. This was the yardstick for jet engines for decades. It was loud, smokey, and not all that fuel efficient compared to modern engines, but at over 17' long and with 17 compressor stages, it was a monster of internal combustion. The General Electric GE-loving-90:  Currently the largest and most powerful jet engine produced. With a nacelle diameter larger than the fuselage of a Boeing 737, two of these bad boys power the long range varients of the -777. One of the fan blades for this engine is also on display at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City. http://www.geae.com/aboutgeae/presscenter/ge90/ge90_20041116.html The General Electric (notice a trend here?) J-85:  Powers the F-5 Freedom Fighter, T-38 trainer, and a few Learjet variants in it's civilian (CJ610) guise. It's small size and light weight offers it an excellent thrust to weight ratio. This would be the engine I'd like to stuff in an old muscle car to make a completely ridiculous drag vehicle.  While completely impractical for automobiles, in my opinion turbine engines are way cooler than piston engines. You can even build one yourself with an old turbocharger and a little bit of fabrication know-how. Too bad turbines don't sound as good as a well tuned piston engine.  Really though, let's see a piston engine literally sweep a man off his goddamned feet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jxcSY1AwrM That guy actually survived. Despite what you read online (and may have seen on TV) it wasn't because his "helmet jammed" the engine. While his cranial did get sucked off his head and cause major FOD to the motor, he survived on the account of the J58 having stationary guide vanes in front of the first compressor stage. Seeing as it's also a relatively small engine, his body sort of wedged against those and the disrupted airflow and FOD caused a compressor stall. Other victims haven't been so lucky. There are some particularly gory photos of the aftermath of a Chinese engine mechanic getting sucked into a 737-700 motor, and it's not pretty. Previa_fun fucked around with this message at 07:30 on Apr 29, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2010 07:01
|
|
|
Boomerjinks posted:This is the greatest, most amazing pile of airplane porn I have ever seen in one sitting. I CAN NOT miss the next Edwards open house. My god there's some amazing pictures in there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2010 16:02
|
|
|
Previa_fun posted:Are those Westinghouse J34s? (God I'm the eternal question asking child of this thread but) Why are high bypass turbofans more fuel efficient then jet engines with a low bypass? Also Monsters of internal combustion is an awesome phrase
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2010 18:11
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:(God I'm the eternal question asking child of this thread but) High bypass means you can present a large fan dangling off the front of the turbine which performs most of the useful thrusting, while a smaller and more efficient turbine jet drives it. Since you don't have concerns over the speed of intake air being supersonic, you need no ducting on the front of the engine to slow it down, which is what allows you to have that giant loving fan to operate quite efficiently. Take the idea of a turbo-prop, throw it in a duct and trim out all the fat. You end up with a modern high-bypass turbofan. You're effectively taking the shaft of a turbine and hooking it up to a big loving propeller, which is more efficient at converting rotational force into thrust than a turbojet alone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2010 19:22
|
|
|
Sterndotstern posted:High bypass means you can present a large fan dangling off the front of the turbine which performs most of the useful thrusting, while a smaller and more efficient turbine jet drives it. Another large part of the efficiency of turbofans has to do with the fact that they have relatively low exhaust velocities compared to turbojets. For jet engines at subsonic speeds, moving a large volume of air at a lower velocity is much more fuel efficient than accelerating a small volume of air to a high velocity, and it also drastically reduces the amount of noise from the engine. At higher speeds (above about Mach 1.6), the lower exhaust velocity of a turbofan becomes a bit of a disadvantage compared to turbojets, but using a lower bypass turbofan allows for a good mix of subsonic turbofan efficiency and turbojet performance at high speeds.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2010 19:42
|
|
|
Previa_fun posted:Jet engine awesomepost: ( That was an awesome post. I'm not a big enough engine dork to do a proper post on the R-4360, but I reckon somebody here is. What I like is the engines that didn't work out. The Allison V-3410.  Two V-12 engines mated to a common crank case. Was used to power all kinds of aircraft that didn't work out. The Fisher P-75 Eagle, the Lockheed Chainlightning, the XB-39 Superfortress, all names that failed to make their mark on history. Not content to just ruin piston engine projects with their twin engine common crank case designs, they also came out with the T40 turboprop, used to great effect in such wildly successful projects as: * A2D Skyshark (2 × XT40-A-2)  * A2J Super Savage (2 × XT40-A-6) * Convair P5Y (4 × XT40-A-5) * R3Y Tradewind (4 × XT40-A-10)  * Hiller X-18 (4 × T40-A-4) * Lockheed XFV (1 × YT40-A-14) * Convair XFY (1 × YT40-A-14)  * XF-84H Thunderscreech (1 × XT40-A-1) * Boeing Model 466 (XP3B-1) (2 × XT40-A) project only Yeah. Slo-Tek fucked around with this message at 02:17 on Apr 30, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2010 02:03
|
|
|
Pretty Little Rainbow posted:Do you have a high res of this? I'd love it for a wallpaper. I'm afraid I do not, its from my friend's Facebook. I'll ask if he still has the original hi-rez.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2010 23:52
|
|
|
Boomerjinks posted:This is the greatest, most amazing pile of airplane porn I have ever seen in one sitting. I CAN NOT miss the next Edwards open house. gently caress yeah, that's awesome. I need to get my rear end up to Andrews this year.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2010 02:15
|
|
|
My best friend from my last base got an incentive ride in my old jet. I'm happy so happy for him. He also got some amazing photos. 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2010 21:22
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:My best friend from my last base got an incentive ride in my old jet. I'm happy so happy for him. He also got some amazing photos. Hi res perchance? Those are some great shots.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2010 21:53
|
|
|
slidebite posted:This is an awesome shot: What's the plane to the right of the two f16s? is it a skyhawk, or some kind of trainer?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2010 02:37
|
|
|
It's a T-38 Talon. Yup, a trainer...but it's almost identical to the F-5. The Air Force and Navy both use the T-38s for pilot training, and the Navy still uses them as aggressors (the AF just paints F-15s and F-16s in rad "bad guy" paint schemes).
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2010 03:16
|
|
|
Sterndotstern posted:High bypass means you can present a large fan dangling off the front of the turbine which performs most of the useful thrusting, while a smaller and more efficient turbine jet drives it. Since you don't have concerns over the speed of intake air being supersonic, you need no ducting on the front of the engine to slow it down, which is what allows you to have that giant loving fan to operate quite efficiently. Thanks for the through reply, that's been bugging me ever since I read the wiki article on the Concorde, and what drove engine choices. Anyway, to contribute: Two Airliners That Did Not Change the World But are still pretty interesting  The Boeing 314 flying boat had a short career: designed in 1936, it was made obsolete by the great leap foreward in aviation in WW2. But for a brief period, it was the last word in luxury air travel. The luxury was a bit of a nessessity, since flights were bound to be extremely long, more then twelve hours, usually. On a overnight flight, the passanger complement was just 36. But those 36 people were waited on by a full phalianx of wait staff trained in four star hotels, who served them multi-course meals made in a kitchen staffed with master chefs. Then, the stewards would turn the lounges into beds similar to sleeper cars in trains, and you could drift off to sleep to the soothing drone of its four radial engines.  "Unlike the typical rows a seats in most passenger aircraft, the passenger deck was laid out as a series of lounges with couches. As you moved to the back of the plane, there were steps up into the next compartment due to the curvature of the bottom of the plane. The couches were made into beds at night. The main lounge was transformed into the dining room at mealtimes."  Navagation methods was often by our standards ancient; the dome on the top of the fusalage is to allow easy use of a sextant. And speaking of the crew, this is the one place where the Boeing 314 had a large influence. Pilots up to that time dressed something like a cross between a mechanic and a motorcycle racer; due to the upper crust exclusivity on the 314, Pan Am made a new uniform, a cross between a suit and dress navy blues. Commerical pilots have dressed that way ever since.  The luxury career of the 314 didn't end with WW2; both Churchill and FDR were ferried around on the big flying boat at one time or another. By the end of the war, the days of the flying boat were clearly over. Only 12 had been made to begin with, and by 1951, all had been destroyed in accidents or sold for scrap. Tu-144: the Concordeski  I think we've already covered that at one time everybody thought airliners were about to go supersonic. The USSR of course, could not be left behind, so the Tu-144 was comissioned. Though it had a similar layout to the Concorde, it was (naturally) much larger then the Concorde, and also slightly faster (at vastly greater fuel consumption). Soviet tooling couldn't handle the complex curves that the Concorde had, so the canard wings were deployed at low speeds.  Also due to the limitations of the wing design, the Tu-144 had such a high landing speed that it had deployable drag chutes, which is something that you don't see very often in a civillian airliner. A much more serious problem was the assembly methods. quote:In retrospect, the most fatal design decision for Tu-144 was the decision to assemble the Tu-144 from large machined blocks and panels, many over 19 meters long and 0.64 to 1.27 m wide. While at the time this approach was heralded as an advanced feature of the Tu-144 design program, it turned out that large whole-moulded and machined parts were bound to contain non-uniformities in alloy structure that cracked at stress levels well below what the part was supposed to withstand. Furthermore, once a crack started to develop, it spread very quickly across the entire large part, for many meters, with nothing to stop it. The same kind of catastrophic cracks were to develop from fatigue too.[30] In 1976 during repeat-load and static testing in TsAGI, a Tu-144S airframe cracked at 70% of expected flight stress with cracks running many meters in both directions from the spot of their origin.[30][33] This, combined with the political pressures to rush the Tu-144 into production made for a frighteningly unreliable plane. According to wikipedia "Alexei Tupolev, Tu-144 chief designer, and two USSR vice-ministers (of aviation industry and of civil aviation) had to be personally present in Domodedovo airport before each scheduled Tu-144 departure to review the condition of the aircraft and make a joint decision on whether it could be released into flight."  quote:Tu-144 pilot Aleksandr Larin remembers a particularly troublesome flight on or around 25 January 1978 that he piloted. The flight with passengers aboard suffered the failure of 22 to 24 on-board systems. Seven to eight systems failed even before the takeoff; however given the large number of foreign TV and radio journalists aboard the flight, and also some other foreign notables aboard, it was decided to proceed with the flight in order to avoid the embarrassment of cancellation. After the takeoff, failures continued to multiply. While the aircraft was supersonic en route to the destination airport, Tupolev bureau's crisis center predicted that front and right landing gear would not extend and that the aircraft would have to land on left gear alone – at the aircraft landing speed of over 300 km/h. Due to expected political fallout, Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev was personally notified of what was going on in the air. With the accumulated failures, an alarm siren went off immediately after the takeoff with sound and loudness similar to that of a civil defense warning. The crew could figure no way to switch it off and the siren stayed on throughout the remaining 75 minutes of the flight. Eventually the captain ordered the navigator to borrow a pillow from the passengers and stuff it inside the siren's horn. Luckily, all landing gears extended and aircraft was able to land.[28] For some reason, production continued until 1984, even though it was withdrawn from service in 1978. The withdrawal was the end of a nightmare of anexitey by soviet officals, who were so worried another crash would embarrass them that the flights that did go out were often limited to 60 passangers, to lessen the fallout. Of course, since the USSR didn't have to worry about things like environmental regulations, noise concerns, or even cost-benifit analysis, they could have, in theory, churned out lots of Tu-144s and been the only country in the world with a SST network. It's probably a good thing they didn't. 
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2010 06:06
|
|
|
I can't seem to find it now, but there is a picture of the TU-144 with NASA Dryden colors on it. I used to think the 144 was a relic of the Cold War, and was completely inactive beyond the 70s after the SST war was "won" by the Concorde. Imagine my surprise when I saw the 144 with US markings  Also... gently caress, man, 
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2010 07:37
|
|
|
The droop nose on the Tu-144 is really loving clever from a purely intellectual standpoint.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 16:02
|
|
|
More clever than the Concorde or XB70?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 16:37
|
|
|
slidebite posted:More clever than the Concorde or XB70? No? What's your point?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 17:38
|
|
|
slidebite posted:More clever than the XB70? Well, yes, actually.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 17:39
|
|
|
Boomerjinks posted:Well, yes, actually. But the XB-70 had drooping wings. How awesome is that? 
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 20:56
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:No? What's your point? No point, it was a question. You pointed out the droop nose in the Tu-144 as "intellectually loving clever" and not the others. I'm wondering why you singled out the Tu in particular, or if you just mean droops in general are pretty clever and that was just what came to mind.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 21:15
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Easy son. They're clever in general, but discussion was just about the Tu-144 so I figured I'd mention it with the 144 since it was topical.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 21:20
|
|
|
What's more clever is doing away with the windshield entirely and using cameras instead. Saves you a couple tons of machinery that is probably harder to maintain and less reliable than the cameras hooked to LCD screens. Someone will undoubtedly say "well what do you do if the cameras fail?" To which I respond: What do you do if the nose-lowering machinery fails? You still can't see dick because of a giant nose and heat shield in front of you.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 00:35
|
|
|
ApathyGifted posted:What's more clever is doing away with the windshield entirely and using cameras instead. Saves you a couple tons of machinery that is probably harder to maintain and less reliable than the cameras hooked to LCD screens. Its much easier to trouble shoot those type of mechanical problems than electrical problems midflight. You would be surprised at how many passenger jet aircraft that have an emergency crank or pins accessible by the crew to manually lower the gear/nose/whatever.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 00:50
|
|
|
Entone posted:Its much easier to trouble shoot those type of mechanical problems than electrical problems midflight. You would be surprised at how many passenger jet aircraft that have an emergency crank or pins accessible by the crew to manually lower the gear/nose/whatever. But this is countered by how much easier it is to add redundancy to an electronic system. Don't even bother troubleshooting, just switch to one of 3 independent backups.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 01:21
|
|
|
Repost from cell phone thread, there are a bunch of marine VTOL aircraft on the Boston Commons until Friday, you can crawl around in them. They lift off at around 9pm Friday night if anyone nearby wants to go see it. VF-22 Osprey. I asked the pilot about the safety measures and he gave me a 20 minute run down on all the mechanics of the plane, it must have been a whore to design.  (Super?) Cobra. Complete bitch to get in the cockpit if you are 6' tall. The maintenance guy told me to watch the canopy when getting in the pilot seat and then I promptly rammed my head into it.  Super Stallion. 
Muffinpox fucked around with this message at 03:12 on May 6, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 03:10
|
|
|
ApathyGifted posted:But this is countered by how much easier it is to add redundancy to an electronic system. Don't even bother troubleshooting, just switch to one of 3 independent backups. Okay... poweroutage caused by a short or something underneath your instruments. No magnetos or batteries online. How do you navigate. While I have never experienced all those failures at once in my brief history of flying, they train you for it. edit: it would also take some type of ridiculously small focal length lense like 8mm to get your entire field of view. This would also heavily distort the image and make far away objects near invisible to see. Let alone if you wanted to just look out the left wing of the plane to see if you are making the correct distance to the base turn of the airport. Unless you want to play with joysticks/separate camera to see different viewpoints, and that adds a whole different level of possible pilot error during the most vulnerable time for an aircraft. Takeoff/Landing edit2: Also if you have three backup systems(unheard of in aviation, rule is mostly 2 if that)that dramatically increases the weight of the aircraft and reduces the fuel/passengers/cargo you can haul say compared to a thick pane of glass. edit3: VVV That also;although I'm sure he's cooking up laser distance finder you could point through the .. uh. joystick? Entone fucked around with this message at 04:15 on May 6, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 04:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 00:01 |
|
|
What about depth perception?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 04:13
|
|