|
ack! posted:When I was a kid I saw the Wings show about the Cobra. It said something about it being only 3 feet wide and therefore hard to spot when head on. So I promptly got out the model I had of it, put it in the trees, and had my little brother try to find it. We then made a game out of taking turns setting it on various branches and seeing if the other could see it. I miss being a kid, watching Wings, and making models. Related note: you can now get the SR-71 in 1/144 scale kit (IE the tiny aircraft scale) if you feel like scratching the modeling itch.
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 17:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 16:32 |
|
|
Looks like SpaceX is GO for ISS launch Saturday morning at 4:55am ET, weather permitting.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2012 00:50
|
|
|
Ridge_Runner_5 posted:So now the question is; what does that L bracket control?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2012 01:58
|
|
|
A Hawker Hunter crashed near the Camarillo airport. http://www.vcstar.com/news/2012/may/18/former-military-plane-crashes-near-camarillo/
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2012 22:24
|
|
|
A student posted:A Hawker Hunter crashed near the Camarillo airport. ATAC has had a pretty terrible year.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2012 04:09
|
|
|
pbpancho posted:Here are some pics of that F-82 I got to see: Dumb question: Why are interior ribs/skeletons of aircraft painted yellow like this? I see a lot of this color when people post photos of wartime assembly lines or the Boeing plant.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2012 08:12
|
|
|
Choco Zulu posted:Dumb question: Why are interior ribs/skeletons of aircraft painted yellow like this? I see a lot of this color when people post photos of wartime assembly lines or the Boeing plant. Probably some sort of anti-corrosion coating since the inside of the aircraft will not see as much maintenance as the outside would
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2012 08:22
|
|
|
Choco Zulu posted:Dumb question: Why are interior ribs/skeletons of aircraft painted yellow like this? I see a lot of this color when people post photos of wartime assembly lines or the Boeing plant. It's zinc chromate primer. By itself, it's enough to protect interior parts from corrosion, and paint sticks to it nicely for the exterior bits.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2012 08:29
|
|
|
http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150974801887812.479355.515207811&type=3 I don't know if you guys will be able to see that, I have it set to public, but I went to an Air Show today and snapped a heap of pictures. If you can't see them I'll re-upload them all on Photobucket after the MotoGP is done. I also got a few videos of the Spitfires and other various things that I'll show up if you can't see them on my profile.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2012 11:07
|
|
|
It says it's unavailable.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2012 19:51
|
|
|
http://www.cargolaw.com/2000nightmare_africa_air.html 707 that landed just a touch short. It's amazing how intact it is considering that its approach speed around the threshold is around 135-140 KIAS. Boeing builds them strong.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 01:20
|
|
|
HeyEng posted:http://www.cargolaw.com/2000nightmare_africa_air.html quote:"An AVweb reader sent in photos of a damaged 707 sitting sadly in the water short of the runway at Mwanza, asmall port city on Lake Victoria in northwestern Tanzania. Apparently,after two unsuccessful approaches at night, the pilot of the Arabian-registered [cargo plane came in low and was duly warned by the tower. The captain replied that he knew what he was doing -- and then proceeded to hit the water a couple of miles short of the runway. Theimpact tore off all four engines and the landing gear, but the fuselage was unpunctured and the crew -- with no injuries -- was picked up by a fishing boat, and the remains of the plane were towed closer to shore. Ironically, the plane was supposed to pick up a load of fish: "Maybe the pilot misunderstood where," our reader speculated". (contributed by our reader Chris Hocking) ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 04:59
|
|
|
That must've been a really lovely airfield or very low ceilings if the dude could not find approach lights, or any lights, on 2 previous approaches.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 05:24
|
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:It says it's unavailable. In that case, here we go ... I'll confine the pictures to just planes although the Album they're in has heaps of warry stuff.                      
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 06:32
|
|
|
So, I'm sure these are old news, but look what I found in Chicago this weekend.  At first I was like, STUKA! Then I saw the Spitfire and was like, Oh, oh man. That Stuka is hosed  Apparently one of two Stukas left in the world. It's in remarkably good shape, but is riddled with bullet holes.  A veteran of the Battle of Britain.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 18:39
|
|
|
I would so love for United to put out a variation of this, complete with tulip logo, on some of their new planes, but there's no way that will happen under new management.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 18:48
|
|
|
Wasn't there a specific reason planes stopped getting bare shiny bellies?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 18:50
|
|
|
EnergizerFellow posted:I would so love for United to put out a variation of this, complete with tulip logo, on some of their new planes, but there's no way that will happen under new management. They have this guy, which is pretty cool. 
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 19:03
|
|
|
First, you're a nut for coming to chicago this weekend. And the airplane collection at MSI is awesome. Sadly they don't tell to much about them. The story of how they got that airliner in there is pretty impressive. Did you visit u505?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 19:06
|
|
|
Preoptopus posted:Wasn't there a specific reason planes stopped getting bare shiny bellies? No, and they didn't. If you paint the whole thing, that's added weight which means you burn more fuel for the same payload. If you don't paint the bare metal, then you either keep it polished or the surface eventually degrades and causes added drag which means either you spend money on maintenance or you burn more fuel for the same payload. It's pretty much a wash unless fuel costs go really high, so some airlines that started going with bare metal back in the 70s have reverted to paint, and others like American Airlines with a long tradition of bare metal have stuck with that.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 19:18
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:No, and they didn't. If you paint the whole thing, that's added weight which means you burn more fuel for the same payload. If you don't paint the bare metal, then you either keep it polished or the surface eventually degrades and causes added drag which means either you spend money on maintenance or you burn more fuel for the same payload. It's pretty much a wash unless fuel costs go really high, so some airlines that started going with bare metal back in the 70s have reverted to paint, and others like American Airlines with a long tradition of bare metal have stuck with that. I see how paint weight can affect fuel economy but never thought it would be drastic enough to determine the paint job! I love learning fun facts like this.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 19:24
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:First, you're a nut for coming to chicago this weekend. Ugh, I know. My wife booked us a hotel and train tickets for our ten year anniversary months ago, well before the NATO thing was announced. It wasn't that bad, we got around okay for the most part. And oh yeah, we did the U-505 tour. It was pretty phenomenal, I had goosebumps the entire time. Our tour guide was pretty great, and I love that story. Boarders away! They did a hell of a job with that whole display. The footage of them moving that sub is pretty amazing, too. I do really wish there was more info about the aircraft. All I know about the 727 is that they landed it at Meigs and then...it magically appeared in the museum apparently.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 19:27
|
|
|
Hey folks, I currently work for a defense contractor that specializes in flight simulation and I just happened on this thread and it's awesome. I have always been really into planes, my father is an aeronautical engineer and I has shown me some crazy poo poo. Right now I am doing graphic design in making function touchscreen cockpits for f-16s and 737s for several different companies. I have been working here a few years now and watched a lot of nerd boner producing stuff pass through this place. I'll probably be back to this thread sometime soon to post more pictures of cool poo poo. Last week while testing a prop assembly there was a malfunction in one of the pivoting controllers and it literally loving blew up. It was pretty nuts. The prop itself was bolted to a 140lbs piece of steel and after the jacket dismantled it was out of balance and was literally vibrating itself across the floor like a spinning wheel of death. There were about 7 people in the room and it was a huge wonder that no one was hurt. Is anyone else here working in the simulation/UAV industry? I was at ITSEC this past november and met a lot of cool programmers and engineers and sat in some of the most incredible sims I have ever seen. Unfortunately no one would let me take any pictures of their sims otherwise I would post em. edit: removed image that was the size of moscow sounds pretty tough fucked around with this message at 20:27 on May 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 20:24
|
|
|
Preoptopus posted:I see how paint weight can affect fuel economy but never thought it would be drastic enough to determine the paint job! I love learning fun facts like this. Look at some pictures of older FedEx jets (before the damned arrow logo), they were big purple jets instead of white. If I recall correctly, either the purple paint ended up costing more because it got degraded by UV quicker (meaning more frequent repaints) or the white paint was cheaper/lighter.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 20:47
|
|
|
Preoptopus posted:I see how paint weight can affect fuel economy but never thought it would be drastic enough to determine the paint job! I love learning fun facts like this. movax posted:Look at some pictures of older FedEx jets (before the damned arrow logo), they were big purple jets instead of white. If I recall correctly, either the purple paint ended up costing more because it got degraded by UV quicker (meaning more frequent repaints) or the white paint was cheaper/lighter. 
InitialDave fucked around with this message at 20:51 on May 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 20:49
|
|
|
movax posted:Look at some pictures of older FedEx jets (before the damned arrow logo), they were big purple jets instead of white. If I recall correctly, either the purple paint ended up costing more because it got degraded by UV quicker (meaning more frequent repaints) or the white paint was cheaper/lighter. White paint also makes it easier to cool the plane, which might be important for a number of cargoes.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 21:19
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:No, and they didn't. If you paint the whole thing, that's added weight which means you burn more fuel for the same payload. If you don't paint the bare metal, then you either keep it polished or the surface eventually degrades and causes added drag which means either you spend money on maintenance or you burn more fuel for the same payload. It's pretty much a wash unless fuel costs go really high, so some airlines that started going with bare metal back in the 70s have reverted to paint, and others like American Airlines with a long tradition of bare metal have stuck with that. Isn't this also the reason you see a lot of painted planes in the early years of ww2, but then as range became more and more of a factor you see a lot of stuff switch to bare metal?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 21:37
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Isn't this also the reason you see a lot of painted planes in the early years of ww2, but then as range became more and more of a factor you see a lot of stuff switch to bare metal? Partly, but the biggest reason why a lot of later WWII aircraft are unpainted is simply because they couldn't afford to paint the aircraft in terms of time, manpower or resources.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 21:53
|
|
|
It's not like they were going to be in the air long enough for it to matter.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 22:19
|
|
|
I was watching something on the Airbus 380 and they said that white paint weighs the most because it need lots of pigment.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 22:47
|
|
|
Cygni posted:They have this guy, which is pretty cool. Flew on this a couple of months back (think I posted about it in the thread). It's pretty cool looking in person.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 01:14
|
|
|
US Airways does a really good job with the four retro liveries. I always see them chillin at DCA. The best is the PSA one obviously but the others are cool too. edit: the wingtip fences on that UAL A320 (?) are cool as gently caress. KYOON GRIFFEY JR fucked around with this message at 01:42 on May 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 01:39
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Isn't this also the reason you see a lot of painted planes in the early years of ww2, but then as range became more and more of a factor you see a lot of stuff switch to bare metal? Don't forget that a lot of planes prior to WWII had fabric skins which need paint (dope) regardless of any other concerns. A lot of those they painted gray/sliver to match any aluminum. See the control surfaces of a DC3 for an example. The cool thing about fabric planes is that if you REALLY want to cut weight you don't actually need a skin. There are Super Cubs running around up here with barely enough skin to cover the pilot (I've seen flying pictures with only the lift and control surfaces covered). Those planes can get darn close to helicopter landings but suck in foul weather or cross country trips. In the case of fabric planes up here you either want to run something bright (easier to find in flight or by search parties) or grey (matches duct tape).
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 01:42
|
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:
Speaking of Super Cubs, not needing a skin, and duct tape: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10434561-1.html
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 01:58
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Speaking of Super Cubs, not needing a skin, and duct tape: Mythbusters tested this and wound up replacing ALL the skin with duct tape and flew the plane around. It was pretty cool.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 02:44
|
|
|
B-29 Frozen In Time "B-29 Frozen in Time follows Darryl Greenamyer and his crew as they try to retrieve an almost intact B-29 from the Arctic Circle" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFdFo9Yo0LI
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 03:16
|
|
|
Knowing how that ends, I can't loving watch it. 
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 03:17
|
|
|
Goddamn I remember the first time I watched that documentary and how awesome it was that they were going to just refurb this plane and fly it home, how loving cool is that and then, well, gently caress . Probably one of the first times I ever actually yelled at the TV out of rage/sadness. Terrible Robot fucked around with this message at 03:53 on May 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 03:50
|
|
|
Preoptopus posted:B-29 Frozen In Time Should have subtitled it Darryl Greenamyer half-asses it and destroys another airplane. But at least this time someone died needlessly.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 04:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 16:32 |
|
|
I brought this documentry up at work last week and basically the entire company (theres about 10 of us) were watching this documentary in the bosses office. Such a sad story, and the fact that one of the guys died... wow
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 07:59
|
|