|
Tsuru posted:So which type of Herc is this that it needs a radar display? Its just Low Power Color Weather Radar, it also acts as a display for SKE and TCAS It also does ground mapping and precision mapping. The Pilot and Co-Pilot get color displays however and the Nav only gets a green screen
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 04:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 17:59 |
|
|
Blacknose posted: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. Not mentioned in that article, but #1 also had a fuckup. Once the pilot got the plane on the ground he couldn't shut #1 off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 07:10
|
|
|
When blades start coming off the discs inside a turbine, they get blown out the back or collect in the combustor. Sweeping up compressor blades that went all the way thru a Alison K501 out of the exhaust ducting is fun! When there's a shaft failure or the disc/blisk fails there's not much that can be done to keep it in the engine. It's going to leave and there's nothing you can do about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 07:45
|
|
|
Used Sunlight sales posted:When there's a shaft failure or the disc/blisk fails there's not much that can be done to keep it in the engine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 08:06
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:Not mentioned in that article, but #1 also had a fuckup. Once the pilot got the plane on the ground he couldn't shut #1 off. They really weren't having a good day.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 10:16
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:Not mentioned in that article, but #1 also had a fuckup. Once the pilot got the plane on the ground he couldn't shut #1 off. what's the source of this, from the crew or from the passengers, or the airport/emergency services?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 10:56
|
|
|
Linedance posted:what's the source of this, from the crew or from the passengers, or the airport/emergency services? News, crew, passengers and the airport. You can see in the one picture them spraying foam into the #1 to shut it down.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 12:04
|
|
|
Mobius1B7R posted:News, crew, passengers and the airport. You can see in the one picture them spraying foam into the #1 to shut it down. There's nothing about it I've seen in the print media. From the videos it looks like the FD did what they're trained to do which is arrive instantly and cover everything in foam. I'm not aware of any procedure to leave the engine running, but from what I can see from the video it looks like the pilots didn't even have a chance to run through their postflight checks before the FD were hosing everything with foam. Not that I'm faulting them, that's their MO. It just seems to me to be empty speculation that there was anything wrong with the #1 engine. It's possible that turbine could have severed the wire bundle running out to the #1, if there actually was a problem, but that's just more speculation on my part. -edit; never mind, found something! http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2010/11/05/qantas-raises-a380-design-flaw-possibility/ I'm sure I'll find out in a few days once they've determined what got damaged. Word gets around quick. Finger Prince fucked around with this message at 12:45 on Nov 5, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 12:40
|
|
|
Linedance posted:-edit; never mind, found something! Seriously, I really hate the whole super-mega-transport concept. I'd rather fly direct to my destination in a CRJ or Emraer than fly hours in the wrong direction on 3 hops with lengthy layovers. Basically, why can't everyone be like Southwest? Also, bring back in-flight meals, and stop charging for checked luggage, you assholes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 13:32
|
|
|
grover posted:This seems like a great opportunity for someone to pitch a smaller, more economical jet than the A380, which will do more flights on more point-to-point routes so that travelers have to spend fewer hours in their air towards out-of-the-way "hubs" just so that we can wait many extra hours waiting for a giant aircraft full of middle-middle seats that inevitably flies no less than 99.9% full (or they will find a reason to cancel the flight to ensure the NEXT one flies 99.9% full). You do realise that an A380 is perfectly suited to QANTAS' operations don't you? Sydney <-> Singapore isn't a short-hop, it's a long rear end flight that pretty much anyone flying from Australia to West Asia and Europe has to make (if not Singapore, then Hong Kong, or maybe KL). The gently caress does the 787 or Embraer have to do with A380s doing mass-haul flights have to do with anything?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 14:24
|
|
|
2ndclasscitizen posted:You do realise that an A380 is perfectly suited to QANTAS' operations don't you? Sydney <-> Singapore isn't a short-hop, it's a long rear end flight that pretty much anyone flying from Australia to West Asia and Europe has to make (if not Singapore, then Hong Kong, or maybe KL). The gently caress does the 787 or Embraer have to do with A380s doing mass-haul flights have to do with anything? Even if the small direct flight only went once a day or once every other day, there's no connections or layovers to worry about, and I'd warrant most travelers would much prefer it. The biggest hurdle with a model like this is that smaller planes don't have the legs for intercontinental flights. 787 does, though. As could virtually any size passenger aircraft, if the demand was there for the designers so build it. Even if I did want to go from Singapore to Sydney, I'd rather see 3 planes with 1/3 the capacity leaving every 2 hours than 1 giant plane leaving every 6 hours. Scheduling layovers really sucks; I can't tell you how many times I get a choice of 45 minutes (which means stress and running through the airport and missing my connection a good % of the time if the flight is delayed in even the slightest bit) or 5 hours of dreary boredom. The airlines seem to actually prefer this- they love having a captive audience to sell overpriced "duty free" crap and $10 hamburgers to. grover fucked around with this message at 14:57 on Nov 5, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 14:40
|
|
|
grover posted:This seems like a great opportunity for someone to pitch a smaller, more economical jet than the A380, which will do more flights on more point-to-point routes so that travelers have to spend fewer hours in their air towards out-of-the-way "hubs" just so that we can wait many extra hours waiting for a giant aircraft full of middle-middle seats that inevitably flies no less than 99.9% full (or they will find a reason to cancel the flight to ensure the NEXT one flies 99.9% full). you'll note that Southwest doesn't do long-haul flights. The Southwest low-cost point to point business model works fine for your typical North American/European short-haul market, and there's no end of single aisle planes and companies plying those routes for minimal margins. The logistics of the long-haul intercontinental market is completely different and it's the reason why planes like the a380 exist. That said, I flew on one from London to Paris this year, just for the novelty of it. It was around £99 return, taxes and everything which is pretty good for a flight from Heathrow to CDG. It was a lot roomier than squeezing onto an EasyJet a319 to do the same journey, and cheaper than the train (though I prefer the train).
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 15:11
|
|
|
So maybe it's a Quantas problem rather than an A380 problem? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/05/AR2010110502646.html Another Qantas jetliner suffers engine trouble The Associated Press Friday, November 5, 2010; 10:12 AM SINGAPORE -- Local television stations report that a Qantas jetliner has returned to Singapore with an engine problem shortly after takeoff. Channel 5 station said the Boeing 747 was forced to return to Singapore shortly after takeoff Friday. Channel News Asia station said flight QF6 turned back after a problem with engine one. It gave no other details. On Thursday, a Qantas Airbus A380 superjumbo made an emergency landing in Singapore after one of its four engines suffered a blowout.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 15:17
|
|
|
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 15:27
|
|
|
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad posted:So maybe it's a Quantas problem rather than an A380 problem? It's hard to say really. Qantas has spent the last decade or so moving it's maintenance offshore to the clamouring protests of unions and employees, so every single little problem that ever springs up on one of their flights is big news. That said, I believe they're still the only major commercial airline to have never had a fatal accident, so they can't be doing all that badly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 15:27
|
|
|
So up here in Canada the planned F35 purchase by the current government is making a shitstorm in the media. The opposing political parties are up in arms (of course) and now even Dassualt is saying they were left out. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/11/05/-new-fighter-purchase-complaints.html Actually, I think a competition would have been good, but really, we've been openly planning to buy them for years I don't see why it's a shock. Personally, we should say gently caress 'em all and sign up for Sukhoi PAK FAs just to piss off everyone. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 17:39
|
|
|
2ndclasscitizen posted:It's hard to say really. Qantas has spent the last decade or so moving it's maintenance offshore to the clamouring protests of unions and employees, so every single little problem that ever springs up on one of their flights is big news. That said, I believe they're still the only major commercial airline to have never had a fatal accident, so they can't be doing all that badly. Hull loss accident. They had an incident where they spent more to repair the plane rather than write it off just to save their record a few years back.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 18:04
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Personally, we should say gently caress 'em all and sign up for Sukhoi PAK FAs just to piss off everyone. I for one support the purchase of Sukhois
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 18:51
|
|
|
NightGyr posted:Hull loss accident. They had an incident where they spent more to repair the plane rather than write it off just to save their record a few years back. where is this plane so that I may never fly in it
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 19:27
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:where is this plane so that I may never fly in it Going out on a limb here and guessing Australia. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 19:29
|
|
|
Minto Took posted:Pretty sure Qantas uses Rolls-Royce engines on their 747s too. Somebody's going to be in trouble! Quantas also had an incident earlier in the year where one of their 747's experienced an uncontained engine failure shortly after leaving San Francisco, so it's either an issue with the engines or their maintenance, which means a large company gets in trouble either way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 19:44
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:Quantas also had an incident earlier in the year where one of their 747's experienced an uncontained engine failure shortly after leaving San Francisco, so it's either an issue with the engines or their maintenance, which means a large company gets in trouble either way. Which engines is that 747 running? If it's RB211s, that's not painting the best picture for RR either, but on the other hand, it would be worse if it were another Trent this happened to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 19:51
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:They are, somewhat unsurprisingly, saying they believe the A380 incident is unrelated to their maintenance. The Trent family has never been fitted to a 747, so the aircraft in that incident would have been using an RB211. However, I'm pretty sure some RB211 models use a hot section from the Trent line (I don't know about the engines Qantas uses), so there could be a problem that spans two RR engine lines now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 20:32
|
|
|
Sexual Lorax posted:Going out on a limb here and guessing Australia. Sorry, Bathurst 
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 20:57
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:where is this plane so that I may never fly in it http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/02/25/qantas-gives-new-meaning-to-bracket-creep/
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 21:11
|
|
|
I do not ever want to step on one of those planes
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 21:22
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:where is this plane so that I may never fly in it VH-OJH, S/N 24806 2ndclasscitizen posted:...every single little problem that ever springs up on one of their flights is big news. This. Having said that, there'll be big changes to regulations when Tiger have their crash, it's only a mater of time now. Unless they go bankrupt first. 2ndclasscitizen posted:That said, I believe they're still the only major commercial airline to have never had a fatal accident, so they can't be doing all that badly. This is not true. Qantas have lost lots of aircraft. They've had half a dozen or so crashes with loss of all on board, but none since the introduction of jets. The first bit is conveniently ignored, but almost the entire fleet of DH86's crashed with the loss of all lives Captain Postal fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Nov 5, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 21:25
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I do not ever want to step on one of those planes  But, it didn't crash. That particular airline had been fatal crash free for 6 months when I flew with them, too!
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 21:58
|
|
|
Looks like it goes a little bit of everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 22:42
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:The Trent family has never been fitted to a 747, so the aircraft in that incident would have been using an RB211.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2010 00:41
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:You misunderstand me. While the only Rolls-Royce engines fitted to the 747-400 are the RB211s, that doesn't mean that those are the engines fitted to that plane. It could be GE or P&W units - if it's the longer-range ER plane, it definitely won't be RR ones. All of QANTAS' 747-400s are powered by RB211 engines. On a related note, I wonder how connected the A380 incident is with the (seemingly similar) Trent 1000 failure Rolls experienced on their test stand back in August. IIRC, the Trent 900 and Trent 1000 share a lot of turbomachinery (the ancillary systems are very different, however). My thought is that if there's a problem with one, chances are there's a problem with the other.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2010 02:09
|
|
|
MrChips posted:All of QANTAS' 747-400s are powered by RB211 engines.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2010 10:46
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Actually, I think a competition would have been good, but really, we've been openly planning to buy them for years I don't see why it's a shock. Politically, at least, picking up this issue was a smart move. The Cons saying "don't worry guys, these planes are the best" and then refusing to have any sort of competition or debate to verify that just makes them look like assholes. I expect this issue was also picked with an eye toward financial conservative types that cross party lines. After all, if the government is going to spend this amount of money, you'd think there would be at least a competitive bidding process. Anyway, I hope the competition happens, because I think the F35 is going to be a nightmare to keep flying, if it is not actually just a bad fighter. slidebite posted:Personally, we should say gently caress 'em all and sign up for Sukhoi PAK FAs just to piss off everyone. I'm down with this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2010 03:36
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
Delivery McGee posted:
Have a huge version you're willing to give up?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2010 06:13
|
|
|
MonkeyNutZ posted:Have a huge version you're willing to give up? Personal use only, no sales, please credit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2010 07:03
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:Personal use only, no sales, please credit. Thanks for that. I thought I was going to have to be the first person to admit an unhealthy P40 fetish, then I scrolled down and saw MonkeyNutZ had done it for me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2010 11:46
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:Personal use only, no sales, please credit. That image grabbed me, too. Thanks for the desktop!
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2010 23:46
|
|
|
Rumour has it that the number of F-22's in the world has gone from 187 to 186 One went on a training mission in Alaska and didn't come home. Details to follow.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2010 20:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 17:59 |
|
|
Shiiiit. Never a good sign when a plane just disappears.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2010 21:46
|
|
