|
Godholio posted:Buy a lottery ticket first. Not the best safety record. Well aware, but they did manage to fly it semiregularly without hull loss incidents so I'd take my chances on a single flight, especially since now we have way better fatigue detection technology and such things. The "typical flight details" on Wikipedia sound hilarious (and terrifying).
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 04:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 04:24 |
|
|
StandardVC10 posted: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. A high-bypass turbofan is essentially a many-bladed ducted turboprop, though, so maybe things have come full circle after all. grover fucked around with this message at 14:20 on Jan 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 14:18
|
|
|
grover posted:Modern high-bypass turbofans have become incredibly efficient, and have eclipsed turboprops for cost effectiveness and fuel efficiency in all but a handful of small niche applications. There's really no reason to go with a turboprop on much of anything anymore. I see. Your last remark reminds me of the Unducted Fan experiments from the eighties. They never made production but are pretty fun to look at.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 15:47
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Supposedly, the Bear is actually a pretty reliable aircraft... Thread pulls through, again. StandardVC10 posted:I see. Your last remark reminds me of the Unducted Fan experiments from the eighties. They never made production but are pretty fun to look at.  Higher bypass? How much do you want? All of it!Edit:Actually turboprops are heading in that direction, only reversed. http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Navy/Grumman-E-2D-Hawkeye/2088182/&sid=41887b9b123d05b21d40dc0ddc2265d0 http://www.airliners.net/photo/Bombardier/De-Havilland-Canada/2207287/&sid=a2785fca6a6136ac0493da6372b245f6 Jonny Nox fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Jan 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 21:25
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:I see. Your last remark reminds me of the Unducted Fan experiments from the eighties. They never made production but are pretty fun to look at. The Russians (OK, the Ukrainians in this case) have gone a step further once again with the Antonov AN-70:  It is also one of the strangest sounding aircraft I've ever seen/heard. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAafPSWzpOw
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 22:33
|
|
|
About Dayton, come during the air show. http://www.daytonairshow.com/. We have a lot of local history if your into that thing, and good beer around here. Otherwise we are not far from Columbus or Cincinati, as others have mentioned.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 23:07
|
|
|
MrChips posted:The Russians (OK, the Ukrainians in this case) have gone a step further once again with the Antonov AN-70: It sounds like a NASCAR car with an air raid siren on it. Also, no big deal, but theres an AN-225 in that picture too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 06:01
|
|
|
SwimNurd posted:About Dayton, come during the air show. http://www.daytonairshow.com/. We have a lot of local history if your into that thing, and good beer around here. Otherwise we are not far from Columbus or Cincinati, as others have mentioned. Wait, there's someone else in AI from the Dayton area?  Most of the attractions in the area have already been covered (sadly, there aren't that many), but if you're into the museum thing, the Packard museum is a quick drive from Wright-Patt, and while it doesn't take that long to walk through, they've got a great collection and it's pretty affordable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 07:44
|
|
|
Alpine Mustache posted:It sounds like a NASCAR car with an air raid siren on it. '225, '124 and '70, it's like a russian cargo plane lover's (potentially wet) dream. e: Also, fourth plane in the air, probably a L-39 SybilVimes fucked around with this message at 22:49 on Jan 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 22:39
|
|
|
Remember those spitfires that were supposedly buried in a Burma during WW2? They're starting to dig today to see if they're really there. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/01/04/spitfires-buried-in-burma-jungle_n_2409581.html?utm_hp_ref=uk
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 02:33
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Remember those spitfires that were supposedly buried in a Burma during WW2? They're starting to dig today to see if they're really there. If they don't take lots of pictures during the process I'll be irritated.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 03:18
|
|
|
I think these belong in here.  Short Story: Yak 52, one of a couple dozen nosewheel Yaks. After touchdown, the nose gear retracted on its own from his initial hard bounce. The pilot kept it straight, and barely escaped the cockpit alive as it filled with thick black smoke. He had named his bird "Lucky Me".
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 05:03
|
|
|
Thyere had better be a damned good documentary about it too. Here's to hoping that they're in better shape than the 1957 Tulsa time-capsule Plymouth Belvedere http://www.allpar.com/history/auto-shows/time-capsule.html To be fair, they basically dug a hole, dropped in a vault that wasn't waterproofed, and stuck the car in it. Turns out the vault flooded a few times over the years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 05:09
|
|
|
Crosspost from the awesome image thread. Figured it could go in here, too. quote:Imagine you’re aboard a commercial jet as it waits in the queue for takeoff. You look out the window and see a car pull up behind a passenger jet that’s already on the runway. Not just any car, but a rare 1970 Plymouth Superbird. Link
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2013 07:07
|
|
|
PainterofCrap posted:Thyere had better be a damned good documentary about it too. Here's to hoping that they're in better shape than the 1957 Tulsa time-capsule Plymouth Belvedere I don't understand the article about how they're entering the final stage of the search. They've searched and found them, they already dug a pilot hole and sent down a camera on a line and verified that yes, there's airplane there, so they know where a number of them already are. My understanding is that the "final stage" is that they're going to actually start excavating and digging the things up. My big concern is that the Spits used magnesium rivets in aluminum bodies. So basically if any water got in there at all the airplane's probably turned into mud. But at the same time, even getting 124 Spitfire ID plates to turn into a flying reconstruction is a big deal. Mosquito stuff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xvp2AeM68iM Phanatic fucked around with this message at 18:16 on Jan 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2013 15:18
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Crosspost from the awesome image thread. Figured it could go in here, too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2013 18:55
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:I don't understand the article about how they're entering the final stage of the search. They've searched and found them, they already dug a pilot hole and sent down a camera on a line and verified that yes, there's airplane there, so they know where a number of them already are. My understanding is that the "final stage" is that they're going to actually start excavating and digging the things up. The things people would rather have than money. God bless each and every one of them. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2013 19:50
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:My big concern is that the Spits used magnesium rivets in aluminum bodies. So basically if any water got in there at all the airplane's probably turned into mud. But at the same time, even getting 124 Spitfire ID plates to turn into a flying reconstruction is a big deal. Spitfires in general are really susceptible to corrosion; more than most WWII aircraft, actually. The wing spars in particular are vulnerable, as they're built up out of several sections of what amounts to square stock nested in one another. Lots of seemingly good restoration candidates get pulled apart only to find the spars are completely rotted out. Also, that Mosquito is incredible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2013 22:22
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Mosquito stuff: Ungh. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 00:53
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Spitfires in general are really susceptible to corrosion; more than most WWII aircraft, actually. The wing spars in particular are vulnerable, as they're built up out of several sections of what amounts to square stock nested in one another. Lots of seemingly good restoration candidates get pulled apart only to find the spars are completely rotted out. Is it possible to just machine new spars?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:Is it possible to just machine new spars? It is certainly possible (there is even a company in the UK that builds new spars for Spitfires), but as you can imagine, it's astronomically expensive, and the work to rebuild the wing is very time-consuming. A wing spar replacement can easily double or triple the amount of time and money needed to complete a restoration. MrChips fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Jan 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 21:00
|
|
|
Why don't they just rebuild the entire wing. I've never understood this whole 'We built it once and now it's gone forever!' idea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 21:14
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:I don't understand the article about how they're entering the final stage of the search. They've searched and found them, they already dug a pilot hole and sent down a camera on a line and verified that yes, there's airplane there, so they know where a number of them already are. My understanding is that the "final stage" is that they're going to actually start excavating and digging the things up. There is some conflicting stories about that. Yes, they seemed to have sent a camera down there and yes, there is something (although they have refused to release any images for some reason), but they've been reluctant to say for sure that is what they are from what I've read. To be fair though, unless they got really lucky and saw something readily identifiable where they just happened to get into the crate, I don't know if they could tell without getting it out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 21:14
|
|
|
Photo of a spitfire in a shipping crate
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 21:19
|
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:Why don't they just rebuild the entire wing. I've never understood this whole 'We built it once and now it's gone forever!' idea. Wartime and Peacetime economies and the way governments and individuals spend money are very, very different. Spitfires require a phenomenal amount of labour, and to make the cost of tooling and everything else worth it you'd have to produce hundreds of them, for a pretty penny, or very few for an outrageous amount. A company made some flying ME-262s (with modern engines for safety reasons) and the only reason that project was in any way feasible was there were no flying examples in the world and different associations were willing to pay top dollar for them. I think there are enough flying and static spitfires out there that the demand to build "ground up" new ones isn't enough to offset the costs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 21:33
|
|
|
Blistex posted:Wartime and Peacetime economies and the way governments and individuals spend money are very, very different. Spitfires require a phenomenal amount of labour, and to make the cost of tooling and everything else worth it you'd have to produce hundreds of them, for a pretty penny, or very few for an outrageous amount. A company made some flying ME-262s (with modern engines for safety reasons) and the only reason that project was in any way feasible was there were no flying examples in the world and different associations were willing to pay top dollar for them. English aircraft in general, and Spitfires in particular, had extremely labor intensive production processes. That also makes them very labor intensive to restore.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 21:50
|
|
|
Could I interest you all in a recently declassified U-2 Flight Handbook from 1959? It even has cartoons!
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 21:53
|
|
|
I always found it amusing that the RAF had the Spitfire, which was this bleeding edge metal monocoque with stressed wings and all that...and then the Hurricane (essentially started out as a Hawker Fury biplane with the top wing sliced off) and the Mosquito (made out of balsa and plywood).
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 22:00
|
|
|
Itzena posted:I always found it amusing that the RAF had the Spitfire, which was this bleeding edge metal monocoque with stressed wings and all that...and then the Hurricane (essentially started out as a Hawker Fury biplane with the top wing sliced off) and the Mosquito (made out of balsa and plywood). How do you leave the Fairey Swordfish out of a list of British aeronaughtical shenanigans?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 22:10
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:English aircraft in general, and Spitfires in particular, had extremely labor intensive production processes. That also makes them very labor intensive to restore. Is this compared to German and American designs? And if that's true...why? Union rules?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 22:52
|
|
|
I'm a bit late to the party on rebuild costs, but to put things in perspective, a person I know has had a new nosegear assembly made for his Gannet and that item alone was over a million pounds. It can be done but the costs tend to be prohibitive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 23:28
|
|
|
My god, how much do machinists make nowadays?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2013 00:19
|
|
|
smackfu posted:My god, how much do machinists make nowadays? You don't Randy the neighborhood machinist work on landing gear assemblies for a priceless 70-year old aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2013 00:46
|
|
|
That and I imagine that an engineer or two had a look at the thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2013 00:47
|
|
|
Blistex posted:Wartime and Peacetime economies and the way governments and individuals spend money are very, very different. Spitfires require a phenomenal amount of labour, and to make the cost of tooling and everything else worth it you'd have to produce hundreds of them, for a pretty penny, or very few for an outrageous amount. A company made some flying ME-262s (with modern engines for safety reasons) and the only reason that project was in any way feasible was there were no flying examples in the world and different associations were willing to pay top dollar for them. That's the thing; flying Spitfires aren't exactly rare....there's something like 40-50 or so, with another half dozen being restored right now. Beyond that, there are lots of candidates for restoration at any given price level; we aren't at the point, as Blistex said, that it would make sense to rebuild a Spitfire from a data plate only; we're barely past the point where the best statics have already been restored. Nebakenezzer posted:Is this compared to German and American designs? And if that's true...why? Union rules? To American designs, yes, the Brits built very complex aircraft. The Germans, like the cars they build today, built very complicated, highly technical aircraft which required a lot of depot-level maintenance; partly because of their complexity, but also because of their relatively limited pool of skilled mechanics.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2013 02:06
|
|
|
MrChips posted:as Blistex said, that it would make sense to rebuild a Spitfire from a data plate only; we're barely past the point where the best statics have already been restored.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2013 02:19
|
|
|
grover posted:I have a real problem with supposed "restorations" that don't actually include any of the original; it's not so much a restoration as a replica and should be treated as such. Especially when it's all done at once. I never understood this, either, and would love for someone to enlighten me. How does slapping an antique data plate on a newly built plane classify it as a restoration? It would make sense if 51% of the original plane was still intact and they built on that, then called it a restoration.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2013 02:29
|
|
|
grover posted:I have a real problem with supposed "restorations" that don't actually include any of the original; it's not so much a restoration as a replica and should be treated as such. Especially when it's all done at once. That is a huge debate in the warbird community; when does a restoration stop being an original aircraft and becomes a reproduction? In some cases, like the Me-262s, there is simply no other option than building a new aircraft. In the case of anything else, my personal preference would be to keep as much of the original as possible while still maintaining an airworthy aircraft. Really, it's the exact same argument as goes on in the vintage car community; that of rebuild, restore or preserve.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2013 02:33
|
|
|
A lot of it has to do with regulations. "Ah, you have a warbird... with a transponder in it, excellent here are the general avation restrictions." vs "Ah, an experemental aircraft, have fun never leaving line of sight of an airport without filing a flight plan, or over a city or highway until you've jumped through all these hoops."
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2013 02:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 04:24 |
|
|
ickna posted:I never understood this, either, and would love for someone to enlighten me. How does slapping an antique data plate on a newly built plane classify it as a restoration? It would make sense if 51% of the original plane was still intact and they built on that, then called it a restoration. There is always the philosophical problem of originality. "This is my grandfather's axe, I've replaced the head twice, and the handle three times" With wooden ships, it is the keel that makes it a restored original rather than a replica. So, the Cutty Sark burned to the waterline, but that's ok, they've still got the keel, so they can rebuild it, and it is still the Cutty Sark, rather than a replica Cutty Sark. Of course, they can also replace the keel later, that is just a maintenance item.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2013 05:36
|
|
