|
I would've yelped like a bitch had it been me flying that day.
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2012 19:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 15:40 |
|
|
I assumed that the 40 second mark wasn't as drastic a maneuver as it looked because both aircraft would be climbing/diving. Played it again and focussed on the landmarks in the background.  What kind of G's would those pilots be feeling?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 17:48
|
|
|
Less than 2.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 17:50
|
|
|
Godholio did youlike any of the checkertail pictures I emailed you?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 18:11
|
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:Godholio did youlike any of the checkertail pictures I emailed you? Uh yeah, like ALL of them. Nice work man. I haven't gotten to look closely at them all yet. I didn't notice it was in my junk email folder until today. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 20:13
|
|
|
Question for you guys. A friend of mine, another goon, brought this weird terrain feature to my attention. It's a big arrow on the ground pointing west somewhere in Alcona, MI. Apparently Camp Grayling is 80 miles due west from that... whatever it is. Is this some sort of navigation aid from the WWII era or something? Big Arrow Highlighted Big Arrow
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2012 04:14
|
|
|
My first instinct is that it's an Indian mound. They built lots of large structures like that through the midwest.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2012 07:03
|
|
|
Well, it's not an arrow. There's another line moving to the west from the "center" point. Either a mound as mentioned or maybe there's irrigation under there and the growth is denser?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2012 08:04
|
|
|
Clearer image from the past.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2012 09:15
|
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:Hey - Why do P-51 mustangs whistle? They don't know the words? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2012 15:13
|
|
|
CharlesM posted:Clearer image from the past. Is the bottom part cut across that little road there, or is the road cut over it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2012 16:36
|
|
|
CharlesM posted:Clearer image from the past. Weird that looks like everything in that square except that arrow shape was clear cut.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2012 19:53
|
|
|
This is the most Aeronautically Insane thing I've seen today. (That's a C-5 Galaxy and a Minuteman ICBM)
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2012 22:07
|
|
|
NightGyr posted:This is the most Aeronautically Insane thing I've seen today. It's in glorious color in youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It7SQ546xRk
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 10:51
|
|
|
karoshi posted:It's in glorious color in youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It7SQ546xRk That reminded me to check out this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msXtgTVMcuA
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 20:07
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8tqCrMWCQE
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 05:30
|
|
|
Christ, I'd hate to be the one to have to clean those air filters
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 05:51
|
|
|
DC-6s fuckin rule, also I thought them nearly skimming that tree was an optical illusion until the shadow passed over. Holy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 08:00
|
|
|
Prop planes? For wimps. Let's land 727s on cow turd runways? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sl-bIic774g&t=73s Surely for cowards! Let's load them with fuel tanks before: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sl-bIic774g&t=463s
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 08:37
|
|
|
Weak sauce. http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2012/10/how-was-this-plane-even-able-to-take-off-in-this-sea-of-mud/ Try that in your Q400.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 19:58
|
|
|
Polymerized Cum posted:Weak sauce. http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2012/10/how-was-this-plane-even-able-to-take-off-in-this-sea-of-mud/ Just picturing the engineer furiously recalculating CG as they plow towards V2
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 01:34
|
|
|
Polymerized Cum posted:Weak sauce. http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2012/10/how-was-this-plane-even-able-to-take-off-in-this-sea-of-mud/ Jesus christ 
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 03:46
|
|
|
Polymerized Cum posted:Weak sauce. http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2012/10/how-was-this-plane-even-able-to-take-off-in-this-sea-of-mud/ Almost as dirty as an Air France jet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 03:57
|
|
|
I did that once in a King Air. We were out at Illinois Creek Mine, which is a bit southwest of Galena if you ever look at a map of Alaska. The runway for the mine was built to handle the C-133 (you read that right) they used to airlift the ENTIRE mine in (one of the reasons they were never profitable). Anyways, it was freaking wide. And at the top of a mountain. That means you could only see about half of the runway, because they other half was on the other side of the mountain. We were socked in for several days waiting for a plane to make it in and finally had a clearing. Let's just say it went away by the time our plane got in. We never actually saw the plane until it taxied over to our end of the runway, COVERED in mud. Like, mud-bogging covered. Much thicker mud than that Antonov was going through. We loaded up and off we went. Once the pilto hit the throttles we immediately went sideways. There was a crosswind and the pilot just left the plane lined up with the crosswind instead of the runways, since it was nothing but mud and the wheels probably wouldn't roll anyway. It's really weird doing the takeoff roll facing trees.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 04:19
|
|
|
If you're looking to kill a few hours, here's a ~5 hour documentary detailing the 777, from concept through delivery. Ep1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01PjWv7eqAk 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZ8kSqOS_H4 3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOy4RU3GlaA 4 21st Century Jet - Making the Boeing 777 1-4 5 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjEWESFYp54 FYI It's pronounced "triple seven" by the way, not "seven seven seven" 
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 05:47
|
|
|
You bastard. I have work to do, deadlines to meet!
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 13:14
|
|
|
Gullous posted:FYI It's pronounced "triple seven" by the way, not "seven seven seven" That's how Boeing pronounces all of their models; the "seven seven seven", or "seven four seven", etc. Even more goofy is what they call the variants; "seven seven seven dash three hundred ER" - it's like that for all their products.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 23:50
|
|
|
MrChips posted:That's how Boeing pronounces all of their models; the "seven seven seven", or "seven four seven", etc. Even more goofy is what they call the variants; "seven seven seven dash three hundred ER" - it's like that for all their products. To the public maybe, but working for a company that used to be part of Boeing and knowing a lot of old-timer Boeing people, they call it the triple-seven. All other Boeing aircraft still being made/were made in their times are the "four-seven," "five-seven," "six-seven," and so on. The 747-8 is, for some reason, just "dash 8" and nothing else.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2012 00:47
|
|
|
ApathyGifted posted:To the public maybe, but working for a company that used to be part of Boeing and knowing a lot of old-timer Boeing people, they call it the triple-seven. Yeah, I've never heard anyone at Boeing call the 777 anything but the triple seven. The 747-8 is the "dash eight" because it has a unique dash number. The same thing happened with the 367-80 - it was, is, and forever will be the "dash eighty," and nobody even remembers the 367 part.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2012 00:59
|
|
|
ApathyGifted posted:To the public maybe, but working for a company that used to be part of Boeing and knowing a lot of old-timer Boeing people, they call it the triple-seven. Everyone I've ever come across calls it triple-seven. Generally, other products are referred to as seven thirty seven, or seven three. I've never, ever heard someone in the industry call a Boeing product a seven three seven, except perhaps over the radio, for clarity. The triple seven is the exception to this rule.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2012 01:30
|
|
|
777 is either triple seven, or triple, or just "trip" for brevity's sake. Other boeings are either seven-four or forty-seven, etc. 767 is "piece of poo poo" or "I can't wait till they park these heaps in the desert". Finger Prince fucked around with this message at 02:11 on Oct 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2012 02:08
|
|
|
Hay guys, what's going on in this thread?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2012 02:49
|
|
|
Linedance posted:777 is either triple seven, or triple, or just "trip" for brevity's sake. I thought it was always the first two number of the type, then the model number. So a 777-300ER would be a 773ER
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2012 04:40
|
|
|
Linedance posted:767 is "piece of poo poo" or "I can't wait till they park these heaps in the desert". Why?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2012 06:37
|
|
|
Here's a BRILLIANT Man, I remember sitting on the NASA website on dialup when I was 16-17, reading transcripts and listening to a little realplayer file, trying to hear as much of the real, actual process instead of just the same tiny snippets that was in every documentary. This isn't the full mission of course, but it's the entire powered descent and landing of Apollo 11 with mission control on the right side and capcom on the left, video in the middle. Incredible! http://www.firstmenonthemoon.com/ I could watch the entire mission like this, from launch to splashdown. Entire space program actually.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2012 10:14
|
|
|
Ola posted:Here's a BRILLIANT
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2012 11:55
|
|
|
Well, I'm alive.... I have an effort post about Air Koryo coming that will blow your minds. The things that airline does are things no one should ever do. In the interim have some photos of ZKPY  FNJ... terminal and tower by Powercube, on Flickr  The Ramp at FNJ by Powercube, on Flickr P.S. There is nothing worse than doing a go-around in a Tu-134 that you know has fatigue issues.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2012 12:45
|
|
|
CharlesM posted:Why? they're old and tired, and more than a few of them have had multiple not-so-careful owners. They were also built by Boeing before they had any sort of cohesive design philosophy* so everything is a hodgepodge and nothing makes any sense. They're workhorses, I'll give them that, but at this point they're broken old nags that need to be put out to pasture. And when they break they loving break good. Nothing will ruin your day quite like an AOG on a 767. *I put this down more to the very long production run and the changes in technology and design concepts during that run than any shortcomings in Boeing's engineering.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2012 13:20
|
|
|
Powercube posted:Well, I'm alive.... I have an effort post about Air Koryo coming that will blow your minds. The things that airline does are things no one should ever do. Looking forward to it 
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2012 17:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 15:40 |
|
|
Linedance posted:they're old and tired, and more than a few of them have had multiple not-so-careful owners. They were also built by Boeing before they had any sort of cohesive design philosophy* so everything is a hodgepodge and nothing makes any sense. They're workhorses, I'll give them that, but at this point they're broken old nags that need to be put out to pasture. And when they break they loving break good. Nothing will ruin your day quite like an AOG on a 767. Preaching to the choir here I know, but i'll expand on this a bit. The worst part of a second-hand fleet is that there are enough differences between individual aircraft that it seems like nothing is the same. Each airline specs their aircraft slightly different to one another (or really different to one another, if you're dealing with ex-TWA aircraft), so you'll find yourself in a situation where an LRU in one aircraft doesn't work in another aircraft, or a certain system has a special maintenance procedure that could be unique to that one particular aircraft, which creates nothing but hassle, even if you know about it beforehand. This is one reason why Boeing has gone to great lengths to make everything on the 787 work on a common architecture, regardless of supplier or options. As an example, swapping engine makes in the 787 is a job that could be done in a night's work, as both makes use a common pylon and a common "language" to communicate with the aircraft. In previous models, it is basically impossible to swap engine makes, as it would have required thousands of man-hours of engineering work, plus all the regulatory headache to go along with changes that dramatic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2012 17:13
|
|