|
Paired engines seem to have a bit of a problem. In World War II the Germans tried to field a heavy bomber of sorts, the He 177, where four engines drove two propellers with common crankshafts, but it was apparently terribly unreliable and by the time they got it working better German heavy bombing was not a going concern.
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 08:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 06:27 |
|
|
Are we talking about paired engines?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 08:51
|
|
|
i bet maintenance on those was a great time. also engine fires. also if they shoved 4 engines and gearboxes inside each wing, where did the fuel tanks get displaced to?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 14:02
|
|
|
Is that the brabazon? one of the greatest airliners ever designed, except for the whole '100 passengers in luxury is the way of the future of air travel' problem. Have some footage of it flying: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-f-I2SjHRI
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 14:13
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:Is that the brabazon? one of the greatest airliners ever designed, except for the whole '100 passengers in luxury is the way of the future of air travel' problem.  , especially with an aircraft like this. Shame gopros and cell phone cameras weren't so prolific in the 50s; would be incredible to have footage like this of every vintage aircraft in its heydey, gopros in B-17s, etc.Also, how'd Tom Hanks get in this footage at ~6:50? He wasn't even born yet!
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 14:24
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:The USAF museum now has two F-82's. four times as cool.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 15:20
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Paired engines seem to have a bit of a problem. In World War II the Germans tried to field a heavy bomber of sorts, the He 177, where four engines drove two propellers with common crankshafts, but it was apparently terribly unreliable and by the time they got it working better German heavy bombing was not a going concern. Pratt and Whitney disagrees with you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 15:20
|
|
|
If any one is interested in some WWII flight sim-lite mmo action, War Thunder is open beta now, there's a thread about it here: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3519330 I've been playing it for a couple of days now and it's pretty fun, plenty of cool planes with apparently many more to come, including a few uncommon ones!
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 15:31
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Making a pilgrimage to the USAF museum in Dayton is something I've been wanting to do for some time. I'm thinking of riding my bike there this summer or fall. Is there anything else to do in Dayton other than that so I could at least offer the wife to come in a clear conscience? Not a whole lot, I don't think. Columbus is a bit better, in terms of medium-big city stuff, but not sure it is worth a 70 mile bike ride. Might be a better car vacation, really. Also depends on where you are coming from. I grew up in Northeast Ohio, so it is hard to guess what I like from nostalgia, and what is actually cool but I don't recognize it because I grew up with it. Wifes tend to like Amish stuff, so you could head up to Holmes County, check out Lehman's hardware and the Kidron auction, but that is clear on the other side of the state. Ohio has about the standard ration of national and state parks, nothing famously spectacular, but some nice woods and hiking and so on. Ohio isn't bad biking territory, hilly in the southeast near Kentucky, but pretty flat everywhere else. poo poo for bike infrastructure though, not a lot of trails or lanes anywhere. If you are planning a vacation around it, you'll want to arrange it such that you are there over a Saturday, and get on the list a couple months in advance for the restoration/behind the scenes tour. Those slots fill up quick. This is different than the experimental/presidential hangars (those you sign up day-of), and is very cool. Slo-Tek fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Jan 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 16:43
|
|
|
Arse Porn Cage posted:It was also one of the first planes with a ram air turbine, which was deployed on most flights. The T-38 engine was a fairly reliable turboprop. Sticking two of them together to make the T-40 engine was a really bad idea, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 22:12
|
|
|
slothrop posted:If any one is interested in some WWII flight sim-lite mmo action, War Thunder is open beta now, there's a thread about it here: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3519330 Count me in.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 22:19
|
|
|
So I've just started a course in avionics basics (using this book as our text). It's designed to give a high-level overview of the trade to supplement our more general electronics curriculum. Our first assignment is to review the general structure of Title 14 and find/read a few ACs. I'm not asking for homework help, though, just a bit of guidance. • Is it feasible for a student to read all of Title 14? I'm assuming it really isn't at this point, but would it be helpful in the long run if I did, sort of as a running project? • For the scope of a beginner student looking to supplement the curriculum, what are some common points that, when faced with someone who doesn't know them, make you say "God, that's basic, how the gently caress could he not know that?" My focus is going to be on the avionics rather than A&P for now, though from what I'm reading, A&P bleeds over into avionics in more and more systems as we move beyond 1960s levels of technology. ctishman fucked around with this message at 00:36 on Jan 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2013 00:00
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Making a pilgrimage to the USAF museum in Dayton is something I've been wanting to do for some time. I'm thinking of riding my bike there this summer or fall. Is there anything else to do in Dayton other than that so I could at least offer the wife to come in a clear conscience? Not really but there is a lot to do in Cincinnati and it's just an hour or so away down I-75.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2013 00:40
|
|
|
Watching some YouTube videos over the holidays, I stumbled upon a neat series called "Planes That Never Flew". I've only found a few episodes so far: Lockheed L-133 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3viiJ4g5G8 Saunders-Roe SR.53/SR.177 (with bonus Lockheed fuckery https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwR7qMA4Vl8 Nuclear-powered bombers (from which I found a clip I posted before) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-F-RP8Huivo
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2013 00:55
|
|
|
ctishman posted:So I've just started a course in avionics basics (using this book as our text). It's designed to give a high-level overview of the trade to supplement our more general electronics curriculum. Our first assignment is to review the general structure of Title 14 and find/read a few ACs. I'm not asking for homework help, though, just a bit of guidance. I went to college for Avionics. Our first year at the time was shared with the robotics and telecoms guys, so all your basic electrics and electronics stuff like how circuits, diodes, motors, and all that poo poo works carries over. A solid grounding in the basics of circuit theory, ohms law, etc. will go a long way and is essential for troubleshooting and is what separates a good avionics tech from your typical A&P (who most likely thinks electricity is black magic voodoo). You will, however, spend an awful lot of time learning about wheatstone bridges and delta-y circuits and outside your license exams, that poo poo has zero real life relevance in line maintenance. So, I suppose, you could talk to someone like me who's been doing avionics line maintenance for ages and wonder how the gently caress I don't know how the left and/or right hand rule works, but it's because in 15 years, (license exams aside) it's never come up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2013 01:18
|
|
|
Linedance posted:I went to college for Avionics. Our first year at the time was shared with the robotics and telecoms guys, so all your basic electrics and electronics stuff like how circuits, diodes, motors, and all that poo poo works carries over. A solid grounding in the basics of circuit theory, ohms law, etc. will go a long way and is essential for troubleshooting and is what separates a good avionics tech from your typical A&P (who most likely thinks electricity is black magic voodoo). You will, however, spend an awful lot of time learning about wheatstone bridges and delta-y circuits and outside your license exams, that poo poo has zero real life relevance in line maintenance. I was Communications/Navigation systems for 3 1/2 years, and its still my Air National Guard duty, so I can also help as needs be.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2013 01:25
|
|
|
Much appreciated, folks. I'm at a local CC working towards a two-term wiring certificate, and I've already done a term of dc (covering things like Ohm's law, capacitors, superposition, Thévenin equivalencies, etc.), and will be taking ac and basic robotics this term. I imagine that we'll end up covering diodes, inductors and basic semiconductors, as that's what I've been told that it involves. I don't plan on tuning out anything, of course, as I will have to take those exams before I can start actually working. Anyhow, I look forward to tossing you folks questions as they come up. Thanks for the offer of help! One first question, and it's a real basic one: How do you pronounce "GROL" (as in General Radiotelephone Operator's License)? Is it Groll (like VOR) or Gee-Roll (like TCAS or CFIT)?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2013 01:54
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Making a pilgrimage to the USAF museum in Dayton is something I've been wanting to do for some time. I'm thinking of riding my bike there this summer or fall. Is there anything else to do in Dayton other than that so I could at least offer the wife to come in a clear conscience? I really like Carillon Park, which IIRC isn't too far from the USAF museum. It's another museum, but it's spread across a set of buildings along an old canal lock. They have the Wright Brothers' workshop, an old power station with a Corliss in it, and a bunch of other old-timey stuff. Very cool overall.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2013 02:05
|
|
|
Dielectric posted:I really like Carillon Park, which IIRC isn't too far from the USAF museum. It's another museum, but it's spread across a set of buildings along an old canal lock. They have the Wright Brothers' workshop, an old power station with a Corliss in it, and a bunch of other old-timey stuff. Very cool overall. They've got the flight museum at Warner Robins AFB as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2013 02:24
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Watching some YouTube videos over the holidays, I stumbled upon a neat series called "Planes That Never Flew". I've only found a few episodes so far: Nice. Oh my, they are doing Imperial Japan's Amerika bomber...
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2013 04:20
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:They've got the flight museum at Warner Robins AFB as well. Georgia is a bit of a drive from Ohio.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2013 04:40
|
|
|
ctishman posted:One first question, and it's a real basic one: How do you pronounce "GROL" (as in General Radiotelephone Operator's License)? I don't know for sure. But VOR is pronounced VEE OH ARR. I hadn't heard "SEE FIT" for CFIT before but I also haven't heard it spoken out loud at all. "TEE KAHSS" is something I hear a lot though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2013 05:27
|
|
|
Thanks for the ideas. I'd be coming from Alberta and still sounds like it'll be a tough sell for the wife. I'll probably just make it solo if I do it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2013 06:28
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Thanks for the ideas. I'd be coming from Alberta and still sounds like it'll be a tough sell for the wife. I'll probably just make it solo if I do it. Probably a dumb question, but you've been to Nanton, right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2013 08:01
|
|
|
Yes, and I even posted about it in this very thread albeit several months back. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2013 15:25
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Watching some YouTube videos over the holidays, I stumbled upon a neat series called "Planes That Never Flew". I've only found a few episodes so far: Thanks for the links. I've been watching these all morning.I really miss the days when the Discovery/History Channel had interesting and informative documentaries.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2013 17:44
|
|
|
I don't really like to backtrack threads, but... Where does the Tu-95 Bear fall in on the twin prop discussion? It's still in active operation, when it's jet contemporaries have all fallen by the wayside. Is this a particularly good implementation or just Soviet drat-the-cost maintainance procedures? Also, there is a facebook page for the Bugatti 100p project which has some nice photos of a gorgeous plane as well as neat pictures of gears and pins and stuff. good stuff. http://www.facebook.com/TheBugatti100pProject edit: This goes back to the Thunderscreech discussion too! Guess why. Loud faster than sound propellers by design Jonny Nox fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Jan 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2013 22:30
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:Also, there is a facebook page for the Bugatti 100p project which has some nice photos of a gorgeous plane as well as neat pictures of gears and pins and stuff. good stuff. I'm serious about heading down to Arkansas for the maiden flight. A never-flown-before bleeding-edge (for 1937) experimental racer with two engines, a crazy gearbox and made by amateurs out of plywood? I'm thinking the maiden flight has a pretty good chance of being the only flight, if it doesn't burn on the runway. So, I don't think I want to wait to see if they take it up to KOSH.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2013 22:43
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:edit: This goes back to the Thunderscreech discussion too! Guess why. The Bear has subsonic props although it is still hilariously loud. I don't think the 100P had supersonic props. edit: One wiki source says they're supersonic, but I've always heard they were subsonic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 00:18
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:The Bear has subsonic props although it is still hilariously loud. I don't think the 100P had supersonic props. Uhh, whoops, I meant the Bear, not the 100p. I am bad at the internet (and yes I am going by Wikipedia, so am likely wrong about this.  )
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 00:30
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:I don't really like to backtrack threads, but... It's a good question. Because they've revised the original Tu-95 so much but kept the engines, I'm guessing not B. It's also stuck around for the same reason the B-52 does: because it has a number of jobs it is good at, and is probably easy to keep in high operational readiness.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 01:35
|
|
|
It also helps that it's drat fast for a large propeller driven aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 01:41
|
|
|
I forgot to post these lovely cell phone pictures from the photo mission I was fortunate to go on at Oshkosh last year.   
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 02:40
|
|
|
The Tu-95 is quite fast for a turboprop and has pretty good legs, maybe the Tu-160 Blackjack could fly as far but they don't have very many of them. One cool thing about the Tu-95 was that they made an airliner out of it, the Tu-114. They didn't make many but it was pretty quick and was basically the highest-capacity passenger plane in business when it entered service- almost as much as the DC-8 Super Sixty stretches. It was also pretty decent on gas. I've always wondered if that sort of concept could ever resurface as a dedicated civilian freighter, just a giant-rear end quickish turboprop to fill with stuff. Of course, a dedicated civilian freighter isn't something that ever really happens.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 03:11
|
|
|
The Tu-114 was without a doubt the loudest airliner of all time. I would not really want to fly in one for several hours, if accounts are to be believed. I'm sure that with active noise cancelling and whatnot you could do better, but props are definitely louder inside the cabin. For a freighter, why bother when 1) development costs are such a massive portion of the total program costs and 2) used widebody airliners or new dedicated freighters based off of airliners are readily available? KYOON GRIFFEY JR fucked around with this message at 03:23 on Jan 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 03:15
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:For a freighter, why bother when 1) development costs are such a massive portion of the total program costs and 2) used widebody airliners or new dedicated freighters based off of airliners are readily available? This is why I said it would never happen. I just thought a large long-range turboprop would make a good freighter if you were designing something from the ground up for civilian cargo, which for the reasons you list, you would never do. Also, the Tu-144 was a totally different plane, one that I would be even less happy about spending a lot of time in.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 03:19
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Also, the Tu-144 was a totally different plane, one that I would be even less happy about spending a lot of time in. Oopsie, typo. And really? I'd love to take a ride in a Tu-144.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 03:23
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Oopsie, typo. And really? I'd love to take a ride in a Tu-144. Buy a lottery ticket first. Not the best safety record.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 03:45
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:I don't really like to backtrack threads, but... Supposedly, the Bear is actually a pretty reliable aircraft, in spite of the complexity of the powerplants. The Kuznetsov NK-12 is a rather large and complicated gas turbine by itself - the gas turbine incorporates a number of novel features for the time (such as variable guide vanes in the compressor) to increase power and reduce weight, and the reduction/reversal gearbox (which takes the output from the single gas turbine, reduces it to a useable RPM and outputs it on two concentric shafts rotating opposite to one another) must be pretty impressive to behold - must be, because I've never seen a cutaway of the engine, either real or drawn. Anyway, the development of the engines for the Bear, including the NK-12 ultimately used, was definitely not straightforward (also, I might add that information surrounding this aspect of the aircraft is really hard to come by as well). Originally, the Bear prototype used a coupled engine concept very similar to the T40 engine we saw above - that is, two gas turbines driving a common gearbox. This engine, the Kuznetsov-designed 2TV-2F, had its roots in a conceptual Junkers engine (the Jumo 022) under development at the end of WWII. After the war, the designer of that engine (along with most of his team) were brought to the Soviet Union to further refine their engine, and by 1947, the resulting TV-2 engine was running successfully, producing 5,000 shp out of an engine that weighed half of what the similar-powered Jumo 022 would have. As this still wasn't enough power for an aircraft the size of the Bear (then under development), the decision was made to couple two TV-2 gas turbines to a common gearbox, creating the 12,000 shp 2TV-2F engine, which was powerful enough. While the 2TV-2F was not the engine that Andrei Tupolev wanted for the Bear (he wanted the NK-12, but Nikolai Kuznetsov was struggling with a number of issues designing that engine), the decision was made that getting the aircraft flying was more important than having the ideal engines installed (it was the Cold War after all), so the 2TV-2Fs were installed as interim engines, with later models of the Bear getting the NK-12 at some later date. Unfortunately, the 2TV-2F was a troublesome engine, and not long into the Bear's flight test program, an engine fire caused the loss of the prototype. At the time, in Stalinist Russia, this did not bode well for poor Nikolai Kuznetsov, who narrowly missed imprisonment and likely execution over the whole fiasco. Ultimately, it was proven that the fire stemmed from a gearbox failure, on account of improperly heat-treated gears (pity the poor engineer who was responsible for that blunder). Kuznetsov was given a reprieve (or, as much of a reprieve as Stalin could ever give) and was allowed to finish his NK-12 engine design, albeit in a greatly reduced time frame. The new engine ultimately proved successful; the Tu-95 went on to serve admirably for almost 60 years with the engines it was intended to have in the first place, and Nikolai Kuznetsov went on to become one of the most successful gas turbine engine designers in the entire Soviet Union.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 03:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 06:27 |
|
|
Dying would qualify as spending 'a lot of time' on a Tu-144, so what he said could work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 03:49
|
|
