|
Hey, there's an airplane channel on IRC called #plaens (on irc.synirc.net). Join if you want to talk about things that scoot through the air.
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2010 10:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 21:08 |
|
|
Remote control scale model V-22 Osprey makes a couple Helicopter/Airplane mode transitions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ySVGx71SSI
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2010 12:22
|
|
|
More aircraft cupholder goodness: Cupholder by Radar display at Nav's station:  Click here for the full 2048x1536 image. Cupholder by Co-Pilot's right knee  Click here for the full 2048x1536 image. There was one by the Pilot's left knee
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2010 16:35
|
|
|
Those are the same goddamned cupholders the Army trucks have in our GSA sales. I loving hate those.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2010 16:50
|
|
|
Colonel K posted:I believe this is true AI. Well, here's an update (nothing spectacular): Kenyan homebuilt aircraft followup Even if it's Kenya, they do have laws. Plane must inspected and conform to regulations, and the pilot needs a licence. Not that I think it will keep our DaVinci here on the ground.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2010 17:05
|
|
|
Jeece posted:Not that I think it will keep our DaVinci here out of the ground.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2010 20:48
|
|
|
That report lists the aircraft weight at 800 Kg which is about double the weight of a Cessna 152. I also did't see any sort of control stick and he is using an ebrake lever as a throttle.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2010 17:58
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2010 22:11
|
|
|
2ndclasscitizen posted: Don't have this in higher res do you?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2010 22:19
|
|
|
Tremblay posted:
No sorry  Got it from a comment on Jalopnik.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2010 22:34
|
|
|
Jeece posted:Well, here's an update (nothing spectacular): I'm sort of dissapointed now. I would have loved to see the video of it trundling down a strip somewhere to see if it showed any promise at all. Apparently the elevator is foot operated, so who knows what he's come up with for the other surfaces. In trying to find out more about this chap I came across the Somali contingent, they have decided to go straight to rotocraft. Their cameraman also appears to be completely fearless. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjL6xBBQ8ps& e: A Nigerian has actually made one and flown it on six occasions. It may only fly to a height of seven feet but that's drat impressive. http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hV0rzEDq7TWnlm7tMmr2zeQmiRig Colonel K fucked around with this message at 02:08 on Oct 23, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2010 01:44
|
|
|
Colonel K posted:In trying to find out more about this chap I came across the Somali contingent, they have decided to go straight to rotocraft. Their cameraman also appears to be completely fearless. Holy gently caress. That scared me just watching that thing fart and bang around. Also, is it a diesel?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2010 01:54
|
|
|
Tremblay posted:
success! http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/SR-71/Large/EC98-44817-2.jpg 3000x2690 big enough for you? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2010 12:59
|
|
|
MisterSparkle posted:success!
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2010 14:29
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:More aircraft cupholder goodness:
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2010 16:35
|
|
|
grover posted:Thanks! Q. The caption says it's on max afterburner; isn't that only possible for the SR-71 at supersonic speeds? It acts as a ramjet at high speeds.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2010 16:48
|
|
|
slidebite posted:It acts as a ramjet at high speeds.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2010 17:01
|
|
|
Ramjet effect or not, it doesn't make untrue a photo caption that basically says "SR-71 at balls to wall throttle setting".
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2010 17:12
|
|
|
grover posted:Yeah, that's what I meant. The turbojet doesn't have the same power or compression at low speeds as the ramjet at Mach 3.2. If you're saying it's not making the maximum thrust possible because it's not acting as a ram jet? You may be right as I don't know what the thrust is @ altitude, but the photo isn't saying max thrust, it's saying max burner.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2010 17:31
|
|
|
Ah, OK, that makes sense. Full afterburner, but not necessarily max thrust. Same is true of any engine on a test stand, really.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2010 17:44
|
|
|
Tsuru posted:So which type of Herc is this that it needs a radar display? Probably weather radar.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2010 22:55
|
|
|
MisterSparkle posted:success! Thank you so much! My previous background lasted for almost 6 months, but I think this one has a shot at beating it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2010 21:24
|
|
|
MisterSparkle posted:success! You sir, kick massive amounts of rear end.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2010 23:50
|
|
|
Gabriel is back at it. Prepare for a somewhat dissapointing test run. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-_dsNTZch0&
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2010 07:39
|
|
|
The A380 has had it's first fuckup - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11691197    The engine cowling isn't supposed to do that!
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2010 12:22
|
|
|
Holy hell, that's what you call a proper engine failure. #1 poo poo a big brick in a way that neither Airbus nor Rolls Royce intended brickshitting to happen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2010 12:34
|
|
|
as engine failures go, that's not so bad. Looks a like "just" a simple engine fire.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2010 13:07
|
|
|
I always love the 'eyewitness' and passenger reports in these kinds of cases.quote:Others have spoken of seeing one of the wings "broken", or with a hole in it, but this has not been confirmed. Yes. I'm sure you did. I also love the picture of a 'smoking' engine which is actually a perfectly functional engine that is sucking in a bit of fire retardant foam.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2010 13:12
|
|
|
The engine sucking water is #1, the close up is of #2 - the engine that blew up. Note the kangaroo logo on #1 and then notice how that entire part of the nacelle is missing from #2. Flying debris causing damage to wing:  After it's done loving up the wing, it proceeds to gently caress up a van:  Rumours say that two people on the ground were injuried by debris.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2010 13:21
|
|
|
I couldn't find any pictures of the wing - fair enough. I knew that it was #1 that was sucking foam and #2 that died, it just seemed a bit misleading to show the picture of #1.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2010 13:46
|
|
|
Ola posted:
Hell of a souvenir.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2010 13:53
|
|
|
Aren't most engines designed to blow up and stay *within* the casing? Like I remember watching someone's test video of like a brick or explosion on the first fan, and the entire thing blowing apart, but staying within the case. Anyone remember what engine that plane was on being tested?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2010 16:33
|
|
|
dietcokefiend posted:Aren't most engines designed to blow up and stay *within* the casing? From the picture of the back of that van it looks like this engine threw a compressor disc, which is very hard to contain inside the engine if it fails due to its large weight and consequent high energy. The video you saw was probably a blade-off test, where a single fan blade comes off of the compressor or turbine, and the resulting debris is light enough to be stopped by the engine casing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2010 17:02
|
|
|
dietcokefiend posted:Aren't most engines designed to blow up and stay *within* the casing? I'm pretty sure that the casing is designed to be strong enough that the turbine blades won't fly out in a circular pattern. I don't see how you could design it such that everything stays inside when an engine blows.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2010 17:35
|
|
|
Colonel K posted:Gabriel is back at it. Prepare for a somewhat dissapointing test run. Oh dear god. I love they rough they are with is - tossed haphazardly into the back of a truck. Also, 800kg? Dear god! ursa_minor fucked around with this message at 18:41 on Nov 4, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2010 18:27
|
|
|
Colonel K posted:Gabriel is back at it. Prepare for a somewhat dissapointing test run. Man... even with a perfectly smooth, slight downhill runway that thing would barely get enough speed to take weight off that front tire
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2010 18:55
|
|
|
http://www1.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/0/bd36c747996b02d78625777e00523051/$FILE/2010-16-07.pdfThe FAA posted:We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: Hmm. Might be related, might not be. Certainly an inconvenient coincidence. I'm kind of glad it's not that likely to be one of the fasteners that caused the problem, obviously. I could ask one of the guys at RR for the inside track on what's happened, but I can't imagine they really want everyone and their dog badgering them about it, or accidentally telling someone something they shouldn't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2010 19:45
|
|
|
dietcokefiend posted:Man... even with a perfectly smooth, slight downhill runway that thing would barely get enough speed to take weight off that front tire I feel that's probably very true, or that there'd be so much play in his nosewheel that it'd just shake itself to bits as it increased speed. But I'd love to see him trundling down some form of highway on full chat just for that small chance that he might get just get off the ground a little. preferably coming to the ground with his life intact, I can't imagine the undercarriage surviving any but the finest greaser.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2010 20:34
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:as engine failures go, that's not so bad. Looks a like "just" a simple engine fire. Still, it's not something Airbus wanted to have happen, especially when a carrier publicly grounds their flagship product in response to an uncontained engine failure. Over the last few years, Airbus has had the A380 delivery delays (including being forced to cancel the freighter version), the loss of the Air France A340 and subsequent revelations of icing issues in A340 pitot masts, the constant schedule and budget overruns with the A400M, and changing the A350 design every five minutes in attempt to copy the 787. As screwed up as Boeing's 787 schedule has been so far, they still have yet to reach the "piss off a customer and have to cancel an entire production variant" Airbus hit a few years ago with the A380.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2010 20:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 21:08 |
|
|
Ola posted:The engine sucking water is #1, the close up is of #2 - the engine that blew up. Note the kangaroo logo on #1 and then notice how that entire part of the nacelle is missing from #2.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 00:09
|
|