|
CroatianAlzheimers posted:How'd they manage to get the C-17 home? Defueled down to min fuel, towed it to the end of the runway, and took off. Remember, it's a C-17 we're talking about, not a C-5 or something...they're pretty nimble. So much so that they had about a 1,000 ft to spare when they took off. Here's the landing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkuqsd_tRHw And here's the takeoff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=an-UgwM1V8g Unrelated, here's a C-17 doing some formation flying with a C-47: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nBEGGxRyZM
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 23:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 14:06 |
|
|
^^^ I'd bet my last dollar that pilot was saying poo poo poo poo poo poo as he stood on the brakes and reversed thrust. babyeatingpsychopath posted:So that article is from 2005, and now there's a 16C in between. Is this still a problem? I like the caution note about the taxiway. Nostalgia4Infinity fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Feb 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 23:50
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:^^^ I'd bet my last dollar that pilot was saying poo poo poo poo poo poo as he stood on the brakes and reversed thrust. Apparently according to the HATR, the crew didn't realize they were at the wrong airport until they were halfway down the runway...so yeah. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 00:08
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Apparently according to the HATR, the crew didn't realize they were at the wrong airport until they were halfway down the runway...so yeah. Gotta give them credit, they still stopped it safely.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 00:16
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Like the article says: Ahh, that explains it. Are the closer VFR vs. ILS intervals due to some quirk in the regulations, or what?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 01:11
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Defueled down to min fuel, towed it to the end of the runway, and took off. Ah, right on. I just figured that if it landed on a small municipal strip it wouldn't have room to take off again or would require some kind of heroic effort to do so. And, yeah, honestly I was thinking of the Galaxy's performance and applying it to the C-17.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 01:25
|
|
|
ctishman posted:Ahh, that explains it. Are the closer VFR vs. ILS intervals due to some quirk in the regulations, or what? Separation varies based on many factors, but requirements can be replaced with visual separation rules in certain conditions. Plus, aircraft don't have to as far out from the airport as they would have to begin an instrument approach.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 01:34
|
|
|
KBOS just painted TAXI in massive letters on the taxiway between the 04's to avoid this. http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=42.358901,-71.011913&num=1&t=h&z=17 A very elegant and effective system
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 03:32
|
|
|
Connies at war:    Banshees on maneuvers?  Sort of AI: Weird Tractor    
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 04:46
|
|
|
Hell yeah son, burn that suburb.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 14:31
|
|
|
Oh well:quote:The English farmer who claims there are more than 100 Spitfires buried in Burma vows to continue his search for the aircraft even though his financial backer has pulled out. David Cundall says the reason the six-week effort to find some of the Second World War aircraft has failed is that the government won't allow him to dig in the right place. He said it now seems the aircraft, which eyewitnesses have told him were packed in grease paper and enclosed in crates, may be near or even under a runway at Rangoon's international airport. The airport used to be RAF base Mingaladon. "The authorities will not give us permission to dig because of the risk of undermining the active runway," he said in an email to AVweb. He declined to be interviewed. Cundall says he has heard from eyewitnesses who said they saw large crates being buried at other locations and Cundall wants to dig there. "Getting permission will take months," he said.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 17:43
|
|
|
I have it in my mind that I someday want to own a small single engine aircraft. I envision something like a Skylane, is that something realistic? Do we actually have pilot goons that own aircraft that can chime in? Edit: how hard is it to get a private license?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 23:30
|
|
|
QuiteEasilyDone posted:I have it in my mind that I someday want to own a small single engine aircraft. I envision something like a Skylane, is that something realistic? Do we actually have pilot goons that own aircraft that can chime in? Everything you're looking for can be found here: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3475276
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 23:37
|
|
|
QuiteEasilyDone posted:I have it in my mind that I someday want to own a small single engine aircraft. I envision something like a Skylane, is that something realistic? Do we actually have pilot goons that own aircraft that can chime in? Depends on how much money you make. Used aircraft vary greatly in price depending on model and age. If no one in this thread has personal experience check with the Aviation thread in Ask/Tell. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3475276 Getting a private pilot's license in the US takes at least 40 hours of flight time. It's expensive and challenging. It's best to train frequently without taking breaks where your skills can lapse. For ideas of aircraft pricing, check out https://www.controller.com or https://www.barnstormers.com Fixed costs like insurance and hangar rental, along with maintenance and gas greatly add to the cost of ownership. The Ferret King fucked around with this message at 00:00 on Feb 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 23:54
|
|
|
A guy I know owns a Cessna 182 and he said it's beginning to approach $300 an hour to fly when you factor in fuel, insurance, tie-down fees, and everything else. This is in Canada, so fuel might be a little cheaper in the US or some other countries, and taxes a little easier. A lot of people have moved to ultralights because they can actually afford them. My mom used to have a 172, but sold it in 1999 due to the costs and the fact she wasn't flying it that much any more. If you have to ask, then the odds are an actual assembly-line airplane is too much and you might have to go the kit or ultralight route.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 02:36
|
|
|
I rent a 172 for ~$110 and hour once you add in fuel. And that is about as cheap as you will get in a certified aircraft rental. I own a very basic ultralight. It costs about ~$10 an hour to run but has some rather serious disadvantages as far as range/speed/weather are concerned. However there is no cheaper way to get your rear end off the ground. Aircraft are relatively cheap to buy but expensive to operate. Your best bet is to partner with someone else if you want a certified aircraft. The less you fly the more it costs per hour.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 03:04
|
|
|
helno posted:I rent a 172 for ~$110 and hour once you add in fuel. And that is about as cheap as you will get in a certified aircraft rental. I ran the numbers for myself about a year ago, and figured that buying a VFR-panel 172 with no frills, parking it in a covered shelter instead of a hangar, and doing a good deal of the maintenance myself (I'm an A&P,) it would be roughly $500 a month in fixed costs, plus about forty bucks in dry costs per flight hour, plus fuel. Those were pretty loose and worst-case numbers, though, including a 2000hr engine overhaul fund that may or may not be needed, and a pretty sizable set-aside for oh-poo poo items on the annual. Probably still cheaper than a nice offshore fishing boat. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 04:13
|
|
|
I should ask my dad what his yearly costs on a boat are. Dad and grandpa used to own a Cessna 420. ... this is going to be an amusing discussion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 05:37
|
|
|
Battery 101:  Rumor has it the party at fault was charged with being too negative  Edit: I found a video of that E-6B's 5 mile antenna: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tWjX-xiVVI&t=120s GI Joe jobs fucked around with this message at 06:10 on Feb 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 06:08
|
|
|
Gullous posted:Battery 101: Maybe they rode the short buss?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 16:00
|
|
|
PhotoKirk posted:Maybe they rode the short buss? I just got this. Wow. Seriously though, I love awful puns.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 21:00
|
|
|
Goshdang Piaggio makes some purty planes. Here's their latest, a drone supposedly for the Italian air force. Sure, it's a derivative of the Avanti, but still:
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 22:34
|
|
|
this is my new home:  this is some of the stuff I've been doing:     In the two center holes and the first wing stations   and that's not even half of it. it takes about 4 days in the jig to seal up the wing for the challenger. FullMetalJacket fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Feb 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 00:22
|
|
|
ManifunkDestiny posted:Goshdang Piaggio makes some purty planes. Here's their latest, a drone supposedly for the Italian air force. Sure, it's a derivative of the Avanti, but still: Avantis make me tingle in all the right places. Somehow, the haze gray paint makes it even better. EDIT: FullMetalJacket posted:this is my new home: Being a larger gentleman mostly kept me out of tiny holes like that when I turned wrenches... You have my respect. MrYenko fucked around with this message at 00:51 on Feb 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 00:48
|
|
|
FullMetalJacket posted:this is my new home: Thats dope! Is the atmosphere relaxed or is it all about rivets per min with management glaring at you?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 01:09
|
|
|
MrYenko: I swear they assigned me to the wing box because of the fact that I'm a slender 135lb dude. Getting in and out is a bit of a contortionist act and you have to do it more then a few times. Also, the fasteners go all the way down the butt line splice so not only do I have to sit in there upright, but hang from my waist with my torso and arms inside from the very same hole. Its a wet wing design, so all the HiLite fasteners need sealant caps and all the seams are fillet sealed as well. lots of time spent hanging out in there. preoptopus: Helicopter supervisor syndrome is non-existent. QA has more power then the supervisors do. Overall its quite relaxed. You're expected to perform quality work, know what you're doing, what each task requires and to help the dudes beside you. So far my feedback is super positive and I'm more then happy to spend my day around all the hardware.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 01:47
|
|
|
FullMetalJacket posted:MrYenko: I swear they assigned me to the wing box because of the fact that I'm a slender 135lb dude. Getting in and out is a bit of a contortionist act and you have to do it more then a few times. Also, the fasteners go all the way down the butt line splice so not only do I have to sit in there upright, but hang from my waist with my torso and arms inside from the very same hole. Its a wet wing design, so all the HiLite fasteners need sealant caps and all the seams are fillet sealed as well. lots of time spent hanging out in there. How has this not been taken over by robots? It seems incredibly repetitive.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 02:31
|
|
|
FullMetalJacket posted:MrYenko: I swear they assigned me to the wing box because of the fact that I'm a slender 135lb dude. They did. At least you work in assembly, and not maintenance. The skinny/short/generally little guys always get hosed, first.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 03:02
|
|
|
NightGyr posted:How has this not been taken over by robots? It seems incredibly repetitive. Low production volume to match a low demand. It doesn't matter how fast you can churn out airplanes, there aren't that many people that can afford the real expense of flight: fuel and maintenance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 03:04
|
|
|
NightGyr posted:How has this not been taken over by robots? It seems incredibly repetitive. Probably for the same reason why most things are hand assembled in China. It takes less time to teach a person a new thing than to reprogram a robot and a person can detect errors better than most robots. Watch a few episodes of how its made and you will see just how little stuff is automated.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 03:38
|
|
|
EightBit posted:Low production volume to match a low demand. It doesn't matter how fast you can churn out airplanes, there aren't that many people that can afford the real expense of flight: fuel and maintenance. Put another way, if you add up the total number of aircraft built in a year by all the major manufacturers, it wouldn't even add up to the number of cars GM builds in any given eight hour period. In aircraft manufacturing, only jobs that need a high level of precision (like building up a wing box) or are simply too complicated for humans to do with any degree of accuracy (like winding a 787 fuselage barrel) are candidates for extensive automation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 04:33
|
|
|
So, is the Avanti drone a good idea? They going to get useful performance out of it? Or do the aerodynamics of not having to make room for 6 executives make purpose-built stuff a lot better? Should Beachcraft be kicking themselves for not painting the windows out of a King Air and selling it as a long range mid-payload UAV? Who can Piaggio sell to that isn't already bought by Northrop or Lockheed?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 05:20
|
|
|
It's an interesting idea, but nobody really knows what they want from a UAV right now, just that they really want them. A civilian plane is built with different operational needs, so I can't really see them being as efficient as something from General Atomics, but hey... never know.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 18:45
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:So, is the Avanti drone a good idea? They going to get useful performance out of it? Or do the aerodynamics of not having to make room for 6 executives make purpose-built stuff a lot better? Beechcraft is already building the MC-12 Liberty, which is essentially a King Air with the Predator's sensor package. I don't know if there are still plans to make it "optionally-manned."
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 19:23
|
|
|
MrChips posted:In aircraft manufacturing, only jobs that need a high level of precision (like building up a wing box) or are simply too complicated for humans to do with any degree of accuracy (like winding a 787 fuselage barrel) are candidates for extensive automation. For example, practically the only automated part of Airbus A330 production is the fuselage section join riveting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 19:40
|
|
|
FullMetalJacket posted:preoptopus: Helicopter supervisor syndrome is non-existent. QA has more power then the supervisors do. Overall its quite relaxed. You're expected to perform quality work, know what you're doing, what each task requires and to help the dudes beside you. So far my feedback is super positive and I'm more then happy to spend my day around all the hardware. God I wish it was like that where I work. Left and right I get project managers bitching at my department because their parts are so hot (just like everything else in this god drat shop) and they need them done right this minute!!! Maybe the three new Mazaks we're getting this week will remove at least some of the bottlenecks in production but with 3500 FAI's to write and Spirit/Boeing's new policy of rolling part numbers instead of rev changes we're just undermanned and out of space. 533 work orders waiting on part buyoffs...  e: always cool for me to see the poo poo I inspect in their larger sub assemblies.  
rscott fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Feb 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 20:57
|
|
|
rscott posted:God I wish it was like that where I work. Left and right I get project managers bitching at my department because their parts are so hot (just like everything else in this god drat shop) and they need them done right this minute!!! Maybe the three new Mazaks we're getting this week will remove at least some of the bottlenecks in production but with 3500 FAI's to write and Spirit/Boeing's new policy of rolling part numbers instead of rev changes we're just undermanned and out of space. 533 work orders waiting on part buyoffs... How does part numbering work in aerospace, are there different certifications etc. for a new part number vs. a revision?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 21:02
|
|
|
Doesn't seem like there's a rhyme or reason to it for me, at least as far as production goes. Sometimes parts will rev because a part that we make that goes on an assembly manufactured by someone else had a revision change and there's nothing on our end to change except to update the part mark. Rev changes are easier because we just have to do Delta FAI's that document the changes to production. For a new part number we pretty much have to go through the full FAI process which is time consuming and tedious.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 21:09
|
|
|
jammyozzy posted:How does part numbering work in aerospace, are there different certifications etc. for a new part number vs. a revision? Some parts are numbered only, some have revisions noted, manufacturer IDs or CAGE codes, serial numbers etc, it really depends on what the people who designed it say you have to do. Some parts are only labelled on the packaging, you get a variance in what info must be permanent or temporary, and so on. So we get a certain manufacturer's part that says [SPEC] with suffix -11 or -24 for the human readable data, we'll dot peen that on it, but there might be a second note saying a 2D data matrix to suffix -8, so that goes on the packet the part is shipped in. Dealing with this stuff isn't that complicated, in one sense, because you can just brute-force your way through tiers of requirements until you hit something that tells you what to do, and you have a prioritisation of what documents override each other in case of conflict (purchase order beats amendment sheet beats drawing beats manufacturing specification beats sub-specification and so on). However, I am mainly a specs/documents guy, so I'm geared toward that. It only becomes a problem when you encounter unclear or contradictory information and have to kick it back up the chain, at which point people often develop a strong case of Not My Call disease and don't want to give you an answer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 21:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 14:06 |
|
|
I went on a 737 factory tour in Renton and the widebody factory tour in Everett. It is incredible how many 737s they are churning out up there. They said they hope to be at 36 a month in the next couple weeks or so. The Everett factory was a ground floor tour and the factory there is absolutely massive. We saw the 747 line, the 777 line and the 787 surge line. I got the opportunity to walk around a 777-300ER. Even though I am around planes all day at work, walking around the 77W was amazing. The GE90 is a MASSIVE engine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2013 01:29
|
|
