|
I spy Pepsi Air in that set!
|
#
?
May 25, 2012 17:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 00:40 |
|
|
Helado posted:Any idea when/where this is?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2012 17:43
|
|
|
Speaking of airplanes with an odd number of engines...   Aviation Week's cover makes it look like the derpiest airplane  
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2012 23:15
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure a flight engineer I worked with is the FE on that 747.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2012 23:26
|
|
|
galliumscan posted:Lucky enough to get to see (and hear and feel) this fly over every month or so... Fifi is the best, I go see her whenever she's in town.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2012 23:31
|
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:Where do you live? Since last summer, FiFi has a new home at the Cavanaugh Flight Museum at Addison Airport in north Dallas. I live about 1/4 mile south, and about one mile east of the end of the runway, right under the departure path for winds from the south (about 80% of the time).
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2012 00:14
|
|
|
Why would they go through all the trouble of making an extra little winglet and a fifth engine instead of replacing one of the four original engines with the new engine?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2012 03:03
|
|
|
Craptacular posted:Why would they go through all the trouble of making an extra little winglet and a fifth engine instead of replacing one of the four original engines with the new engine? Swapping out engines isn't easy or quick. It's about a 6 hour job to drop and replace a motor on a 707. Then you gotta think about all the internal plumbing like bleed air, fuel lines, cable linkages, bolts and mounts, is the area of the wing stressed for the weight and power of the engine, etc. Pratt & Whitney may use a generic mount on their test bird that contains lines for all of that poo poo so it's as plug and play as you can get without being overly specialized to the jet/engine.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2012 03:16
|
|
|
Since they'll probably use the testbed for little babies even smaller than that, it makes sense for it to have a mount so the 747 is completely airworthy (especially for take off) regardless of what the want to try.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2012 03:19
|
|
|
Terrifying Effigies posted:
It's been posted before, but you should see its predecessor:  
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2012 04:47
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Haha, I will honestly be surprised if anyone gets #1, #12, and #20 because between all three airlines they own a grand total of 14 aircraft. All but one of the other unknowns are flag carriers, and the one that isn't a flag carrier owns over 100 aircraft so it isn't some mom and pop low cost carrier or anything. 1 is Business Air. 12 is T'way Airlines. 14 is MIAT Mongolian Airlines. 16 is Shenzhen Airlines. 19 is Qatar. 20 is Jin Air. 28 is Hainan Airlines.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2012 05:01
|
|
|
Mobius1B7R posted:1 is Business Air. Well done.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2012 05:52
|
|
|
The more things change... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I4gIj8n7M8
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2012 06:07
|
|
|
"Communication here at Baltimore absolutely stinks." Dude owns. e- I always kinda liked TWA  I hope they don't go out of business like that one guy says.e2- ground crew guy is awesome too, everyone is griping about sales and treatment and he's like "My truck ain't got no heat!" Seizure Meat fucked around with this message at 11:54 on May 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2012 11:46
|
|
|
That pallet doesn't go there, you fool!
Seizure Meat fucked around with this message at 18:19 on May 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2012 12:09
|
|
|
The low level drop of what looked like a piece of military construction equipment that breaks the straps and starts rolling downfield has to be one of the most  things I've seen in a while.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2012 16:03
|
|
|
MrChips posted:It's been posted before, but you should see its predecessor:  What on Earth...
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2012 17:02
|
|
|
xaarman posted:PHX is the worst airport ever. Old, overpopulated, and no good restaurants. If you are only flying SouthWest or US Air it isn't bad, since you will be in Terminal 4. But if you get stuck in T2 or T3, or worse, need to transfer between terminals, ugh. The designers made no provision for transfer between terminals at all (not even a sidewalk for the intrepid that want to brave the heat), so you have to catch a shuttle bus. They are in the (slow) process of tying everything together with a train system now, but of course step 1 wasn't tying the terminals together, or even connecting to the rental car facility. Nope, step 1 was connecting Terminal 4 to the east parking garage and the light rail north of the airport. The mind boggles. The 'master plan' had both terminal 2 and 3 (and the old non-existent terminal 1) replaced with shiny new terminals nicer than terminal 4, but that plan has never materialized.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2012 18:47
|
|
|
Any insurance claim that opens with "The vehicle left the C130 at an altitude of..." is going to be a good one. I do like the bit where the side-by-side or whatever it is breaks free of its pallet and runs off.  "gently caress you, I've escaped! I am not a number!"
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2012 19:23
|
|
|
The Locator posted:If you are only flying SouthWest or US Air it isn't bad, since you will be in Terminal 4. But if you get stuck in T2 or T3, or worse, need to transfer between terminals, ugh. The designers made no provision for transfer between terminals at all (not even a sidewalk for the intrepid that want to brave the heat), so you have to catch a shuttle bus. This. Terminal 4 isn't half bad and it's basically the most used one IIRC. If I have to pick up someone from SH I basically tell them to get to 4 or find a taxi because 1 (lol) 2 & 3 are crapshoots even externally. I'm not well traveled like some of you but for worst airports I'd say it's a toss up between ATL and LAX. Both unique in how awful they were for me.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2012 21:05
|
|
|
Late to the trijet porn, but at least I took all these:   
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2012 21:26
|
|
|
KC-10 is nicknamed "Aluminum Overcast"
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2012 21:54
|
|
|
I currently work with a 2T2 (AF aerial transportation guy, among other things they do rigging and recovery for drops) so he has all sorts of funny stories about poo poo like that happening. Speaking of pallets and aircraft loads, here's a good tip...when downloading a loaded ISU 90 from a C-130, stay the gently caress out of the way once that fucker starts rolling/sliding. Almost saw a Polish AF dude get his head bashed in last week because he tried to slow down the ISU as it was sliding onto the AT forklift tines. I don't even know what the gently caress.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2012 22:45
|
|
|
The most frightening airport I've ever been in is easily Livingstone, Zambia. Because they had added a requirement to fly to South Africa requiring yellow fever inoculation I had to go out of the check in desk (which is after security) twice in order to have a vaccination certificate forged (a service the airport doctor provided for a quick $50). Both times I walked past the security desk without anyone noticing. Worst airport is probably either Gatwick or Schipol. And I only include Schipol because I always have to run to my next plane and I always lose my luggage. Worst airport experience was at Johannesburg but that wasn't the airports fault, it seemed all right. That was BA overbooking the only flight of the day to Zimbabwe. So really it is Gatwick, what a poo poo hole. Coolest airport is either Ko Samui, Kruger Mpumalanga or Hong Kong.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 14:45
|
|
|
Thee airport at Mazatlan used to have a traffic light at the entry to the security area. If you walked through the gate & it turned red, you & your luggage got thoroughly searched. Usually it stayed green. This was pre-9/11, btw.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2012 01:40
|
|
|
I went through Mazatlan in December/January 2001/2002. I was pat-down searched 5 times, once at two ends of a really long straight hallway with no entrances or exits along the way. The people searching me were the same at both ends. I have no freaking idea how they got to the end before I did!
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2012 20:15
|
|
|
 bigger  bigger  bigger  bigger
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2012 23:42
|
|
|
What sort of aircraft is this?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2012 23:48
|
|
|
Adam A500
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2012 23:52
|
|
|
What's going on here?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 19:51
|
|
|
Dr. Klas posted:What's going on here? F-111 doing a fuel dump, which is then being ignited by the engines, at low altitude. It was kind of an airshow standard, though it was usually done higher up.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 19:55
|
|
|
MooseChief posted:What sort of aircraft is this? Who was at Wings Over the Rockies? Also, this thing was flying around under a Skycrane near Boulder on Tuesday, pretty cool!   Dream Chaser
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 22:37
|
|
|
Well I just got my flight info from the company im travelling with. IAD to Amsterdam on an a330 on KLM, so no dice on the a380  .
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2012 05:27
|
|
|
The F22 avionics test bed is a pretty crazy looking aircraft too.  However, if you imagine it as something Russian, then it doesn't look quite so crazy..
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2012 11:40
|
|
|
Aero737 posted:The F22 avionics test bed is a pretty crazy looking aircraft too. Ok, someone needs to explain this to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2012 15:50
|
|
|
So yea, I found out that I can pay to do a "flight training" in a P-51C    quote:The Collings Foundation will be offering flight training in the world’s only fully dual control P-51C. Participants can actually fly the Mustang on half hour or hour long introductory flights. Special training flights allow a true once in a lifetime opportunity to fly the most recognizable fighters from WWII. Holy gently caress. I have to find $3,200 for a full hour flight. I don't think I can get my credit card out fast enough right now. Best money I will ever spend.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2012 16:00
|
|
|
Blistex posted:Ok, someone needs to explain this to me. F-22 nosecone and wing sections (presumably both where some RADAR and other radio components live) bolted on to a 757 (which has been demonstrated to be reliable, safe, and not nearly as expensive to operate as an F-22) for the purposes of testing the avionics without also testing the F-22's airframe.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2012 16:26
|
|
|
Blistex posted:Ok, someone needs to explain this to me. Flying a real F-22 is very expensive. Flying a 757 is pretty cheap in comparison. If you just want to see how an F-22's radar and other avionics actually work in the air, it comes out cheaper to put them on a 757 and test that. Since the shape of the nose has an effect on the performance of the radar and other sensors jammed up there, you need to use a real F-22 nose; that in turn means you need to put other aerodynamic surfaces to compensate for the way it screws with the 757's design. There's a 737 flying around with an F-35 nose, but it just has a pair of canards instead of that funky structure on top of the cockpit. It's still pretty weird-looking, though: 
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2012 16:30
|
|
|
Boomerjinks posted:Also, this thing was flying around under a Skycrane near Boulder on Tuesday, pretty cool! That's fantastic. Dyna-soar lives. I hope they're able to pull it off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2012 16:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 00:40 |
|
|
Aero737 posted:The F22 avionics test bed is a pretty crazy looking aircraft too. Does its oxygen system kill pilots as well?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2012 16:40
|
|