|
I went to the Everett plant when I was in elementary school on a field trip. Blew my god damned mind how absolutely massive that complex and the building is.
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2013 01:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 11:28 |
|
|
Mike-o posted:I went to the Everett plant when I was in elementary school on a field trip. Blew my god damned mind how absolutely massive that complex and the building is. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2013 02:38
|
|
|
rscott posted: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. Its so much easier for me and the airlines when a part number is revised if a change is made. If you don't rev the part number we cant track properly (serial numbers are much harder to track by then you would think). Oooh tr blocker doors. nice. Everett getting full right now. Lots of 787s going nowhere fast. And we need to get ZA005 in the air to do some testing!
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2013 03:16
|
|
|
Mobius1B7R posted: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. I understand the 777 engine shroud diameter is roughly the same as the original 737's fuselage diameter (and the 737-100/200 wingspan is similar to the 777's horizontal stabilizer's span)  With the deets    Regarding part numbers... That's most definitely IP... But I can say it's pretty amazing when everyone follows the rules. The demands of that world are insane - the data has to last the life of the fleet (think spares and crash investigation), handle the frequent revisions, work with tons of systems and disciplines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_data_management GI Joe jobs fucked around with this message at 04:09 on Feb 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2013 04:07
|
|
|
GE90-115B has a 128" fan. (10.6667 feet) 737-800 interior cabin width is 11' 7'. Still pretty drat big. GEnx-1B and Trent 1000 is 112" fan diameter for 787.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2013 04:30
|
|
|
Outside diameter is 12'4"... And the engine shroud probably adds ~2' to the OD. But like you said, close enough. http://www.b737.org.uk/techspecsoriginals.htm I incorrectly thought the Originals/Classics had a smaller diameter than the NGs... Apparently it's just a stretch.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Msb448pb07c
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2013 04:41
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:A military crew flying a C-17 managed to land at the wrong loving airport several miles away from their intended destination...and not just any airport, they landed at a sleepy municipal airport with a runway several thousand feet shorter than the runway at the MILITARY INSTALLATION they were planning on landing at. Yup all that. This is something I constantly beat my students up on. Check, check, and check again, especially when landing somewhere you aren't familiar with. Usually I'm talking about low level and radar navigation stuff but it applies to all facets of flight including the approach phase. I can't remember all the details but sometime in the recent past a Navy pilot landed at Norfolk International instead of NAS Chambers Field. Oops. fake edit: Why do you guys always talk about this stuff when I'm too busy to keep up with the forums?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2013 05:45
|
|
|
Is that a Concorde? (upper right) I thought it would have been bigger that that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2013 17:28
|
|
|
buttcrackmenace posted:Is that a Concorde? (upper right) That is Seattle's Museum of Flight, so it's a Concorde right next to the first-ever 747! Inside is an M-12, too. I didn't notice the Dreamlifter in the upper left for a second. That is a GREAT picture.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2013 17:31
|
|
|
I work at the Renton plant and it's always fun taking new people into the factory Not many see buildings like these. I'd like to see their eyes when going to the Everett factory for the first time. Regarding part numbers in my job, we just had a slight change for one and all that denotes it is a dash number at the end. It went from, for example, 1A1234B56-01 to 1A1234B56-03. Not sure what the paperwork side is as it just showed up and we noticed. The rate change for 737 goes to 38 a month in March. It's amazing how much is constantly changing and being constructed. And, for a fun factoids, the paint for a typical 737-800 weighs about 250 lbs, takes about 3 days to paint, and the whole 737 is assembled in about 7 days. This has been posted before, but in case some have missed it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKnsyYbfC60
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2013 19:22
|
|
|
Ultralight refueling and taking off at a highway gas station. http://www.wimp.com/russianstation/
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2013 19:37
|
|
|
Gullous posted:I incorrectly thought the Originals/Classics had a smaller diameter than the NGs... Apparently it's just a stretch. Just a stretch. I find the couple inches noticeable when compared to an A320.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 02:11
|
|
|
Boomerjinks posted:That is Seattle's Museum of Flight, so it's a Concorde right next to the first-ever 747! Inside is an M-12, too. I didn't notice the Dreamlifter in the upper left for a second. That is a GREAT picture.  I need to go back now that they've got a space shuttle, too. It's an awesome museum.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 02:54
|
|
|
Yeah, I definitely need to too. I literally spent all day long there when I went and it STILL wasn't enough time for me to sperg out about all the cool poo poo they had there. Now that I have more of an appreciation for WW1 planes I really want to spend more time in that section. In other news, meth-heads steal copper wire from the approach lighting at Sea-Tac: http://www.king5.com/news/aerospace/Copper-wire-stolen-from-Sea-Tac-runway-lighting-system-192058141.html
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 03:40
|
|
|
vulturesrow posted:Yup all that. This is something I constantly beat my students up on. Check, check, and check again, especially when landing somewhere you aren't familiar with. Usually I'm talking about low level and radar navigation stuff but it applies to all facets of flight including the approach phase. I can't remember all the details but sometime in the recent past a Navy pilot landed at Norfolk International instead of NAS Chambers Field. Oops. Just to add one more thing to this, I was reading a news article that was discussing the HATR from the incident, and apparently as the aircraft was approaching the MacDill area the pilot thought he saw MacDill...the co-pilot corrected him and said that was Peter O. Knight. However, THAT airport was actually a third airport, Tampa Executive, and this contributed to the thought process of "oh, that must be MacDill" when they saw Peter O. Knight because they had already mentally identified and dismissed what they thought was that airport a few minutes earlier. Channelized attention is a bitch. \/ See earlier comments...fancy schmancy systems of positioning that are global still aren't worth much if the pilot goes "gently caress it I'm VFR" and ignores them. \/ iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 05:17 on Feb 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 04:26
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Just to add one more thing to this, I was reading a news article that was discussing the HATR from the incident, and apparently as the aircraft was approaching the MacDill area the pilot thought he saw MacDill...the co-pilot corrected him and said that was Peter O. Knight. However, THAT airport was actually a third airport, Tampa Executive, and this contributed to the thought process of "oh, that must be MacDill" when they saw Peter O. Knight because they had already mentally identified and dismissed what they thought was that airport a few minutes earlier. If only there were some kind of technology that tracked your exact position accurate to within several meters and it also contained a database of navigation points in the United States and you could program that system to give you lateral and vertical guidance and maybe even the aircraft could automatically pilot itself based on the navigation solution you programmed. Actually, that sounds kind of crazy when I read it back. We're like 50 years out from utilizing such technology in the air force.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 05:12
|
|
|
Confirmation bias - killing and humiliating pilots since 1903.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 05:22
|
|
|
grover posted:I need to go back now that they've got a space shuttle, too. It's an awesome museum. It is an awesome museum, but they have a space shuttle now? That is news. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 05:52
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Just to add one more thing to this, I was reading a news article that was discussing the HATR from the incident, and apparently as the aircraft was approaching the MacDill area the pilot thought he saw MacDill...the co-pilot corrected him and said that was Peter O. Knight. However, THAT airport was actually a third airport, Tampa Executive, and this contributed to the thought process of "oh, that must be MacDill" when they saw Peter O. Knight because they had already mentally identified and dismissed what they thought was that airport a few minutes earlier. Despite a warning on the ATIS, and a requirement to tell each pilot about the airport that may cause confusion, we still get aircraft trying to land at the wrong airport when we're in a Runway 31 flow (Corpus International, KCRP). The aircraft are usually air carriers too. We're seldom on such a runway flow, but in the winter months, and with our other runway closed, it has been a lot more common. If we're saying things correctly, here's what the pilot should hear for a visual approach call: quote:7110.65 7-4-3 g. EXAMPLE- And yet it still gets mixed up. It's even less excusable when they're on the localizer approach (still happens). But if you have enough operations, eventually someone is going to mess something up. Just gotta keep our heads up and look out for one another.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 06:14
|
|
|
slidebite posted:It is an awesome museum, but they have a space shuttle now? That is news. Not an actual shuttle: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 15:29
|
|
|
grover posted:Sorry, shuttle trainer. I saw the giant-rear end nose of a shuttle in a photo when I was looking for a good photo of Air Force 1, shot and got myself confused for a second. They'd built that building specifically to house a shuttle and were really pimping it up last time I was there. At least they got the shuttle trainer out of it, I guess. Still an awesome museum. I hope NYC is taking notes on how to properly display a shuttle. /still bitter
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 16:27
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Ultralight refueling and taking off at a highway gas station. FBO fuel pricing is a bitch
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 17:07
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:And yet it still gets mixed up. It's even less excusable when they're on the localizer approach (still happens). But if you have enough operations, eventually someone is going to mess something up. Just gotta keep our heads up and look out for one another. I haven't heard of anyone landing at Cabaniss by mistake recently, but a Continental 737 actually landed there on May 11, 1997. Craptacular fucked around with this message at 06:15 on Feb 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 01:57
|
|
|
The rest of the events were saved by the flight crew or ATC. It's the attempt the happens often, on that flow.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 02:03
|
|
|
Well surprise surprise the F-35 has been grounded yet again for cracked fan blades. http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/22/u-s-military-grounds-f-35-fighter-jets
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 02:33
|
|
|
Which is more of a liability, I wonder - this plane or the F-22 Stranglehawk?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 02:50
|
|
|
Are we seriously unable to make a fighter that's worth a drat anymore? Are these fighters terrible, or have all fighters been terrible and we just hear about it more with 24/7 news?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 04:17
|
|
|
CroatianAlzheimers posted:Are we seriously unable to make a fighter that's worth a drat anymore? Are these fighters terrible, or have all fighters been terrible and we just hear about it more with 24/7 news? It honestly used to be a lot worse. For reference, 37 F-14s had crashed in the first 8 years of its operation; some of them were literally spontaneously exploding. Harriers were even worse- fully 1/3 of US Harriers were lost in accidents. Can you imagine if F-35s were falling out of the sky like that? Pretty sure this exploding F-14 has been posted before: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HG_myJ1fZJY grover fucked around with this message at 04:44 on Feb 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 04:41
|
|
|
CroatianAlzheimers posted:Are we seriously unable to make a fighter that's worth a drat anymore? Are these fighters terrible, or have all fighters been terrible and we just hear about it more with 24/7 news? While some of the problems on the JSF program are the kinds of things you'd expect to crop up in developing a very complex aircraft with lots of new technology, I think most of the issues come down to Lockheed being "too big to fail", and some really stupid decision making by the Pentagon. For some reason, the Pentagon set the program up so that Lockheed could start rolling production aircraft off the assembly line before all of the required flight testing had been completed, with the idea being that whatever minor issues cropped up in the remaining flight testing could be easily fixed on the aircraft that had already been delivered. In reality, there have been numerous issues discovered during testing (ranging from the Navy version having a tailhook that couldn't catch arresting cables, to major structural components developing cracks), and Lockheed keeps rolling aircraft off the assembly line despite the steady stream of problems being discovered as the test program continues. It's been estimated that it might actually be cheaper to just scrap some of the early production models and replace them with new airplanes, because the "to do" list for them has gotten so out of hand. Publicly, the Pentagon is furious at Lockheed over their handling of the program, but because so much money has been thrown at the program already and the Pentagon has put all of their eggs in the F-35 basket, Lockheed knows full well that they're not going to have the contract cancelled or given to someone else, so the Pentagon has no real choice but to keep shoveling money at Lockheed until the aircraft are something resembling ready to operate. azflyboy fucked around with this message at 05:03 on Feb 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 05:01
|
|
|
What's almost funny is that a lot of analysts and think-tanks were, and probably still are, pretty bearish about Russian and Chinese advanced fighter development. Pre 2010/11 it was all "nahh PAK-FA and J-20 are vaporware" but lo and behold they pushed out what seems like decently managed programs without too many extraneous requirements. They stuck to what they know best, so no hyperstealth or pie-in-the-sky jointness.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 05:24
|
|
|
Yeah, those are all fair points. I know both are super advanced and that birthing/growing pains are inevitable, especially with these kinds of crazy moon technology fighters. And, yeah, I've heard about the Pentagon having their panties in a twist and Lockmart being all  about it, but man, it's depressing. I never did understand the whole JSF idea. I mean, it sounds good on paper, but trying to make an aircraft that's good at everything ultimately makes an aircraft that's good at nothing, aside perhaps from looking good sitting on the tarmac at air shows.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 05:47
|
|
|
I'm certain there was a NASA T-38 flying around Rocky Mountain Airport this morning. Unmistakable T-38 body, white, blue line from nose to tail, but the tail didn't have the NASA meatball, just red lettering. I could be wrong, but even if I am it was a thrill to see one so far from home.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 05:54
|
|
|
CroatianAlzheimers posted:I never did understand the whole JSF idea. I mean, it sounds good on paper, but trying to make an aircraft that's good at everything ultimately makes an aircraft that's good at nothing, aside perhaps from looking good sitting on the tarmac at air shows. The really sad part is that there was an attempt at a JSF in the 1960's, which went very badly but ended up producing the F-111 In 1961, the USAF and US Navy were pushed into developing a joint use aircraft by defense secretary Robert McNamara, despite both services wanting separate aircraft to fulfill very different roles. The USAF wanted a long range low-level strike aircraft, while the Navy wanted a smaller, shorter range, high altitude, high speed interceptor to shoot down bombers at long range. The only common ground between the two requirements were that both branches wanted two seats, two engines, and probably variable geometry wings. After a competition between General Dynamics and Boeing (during which the Navy said neither proposal would meet their needs), the selection board chose the Boeing design and recommended it for production, at which point McNamara stepped in and decided to give the contract to General Dynamics instead, since their design shared more common parts between the two versions. Development of the Air Force version of the F-111A went relatively smoothly, but the Navy's F-111B turned into a complete disaster. Because the F-111 airframe had to fulfill two completely different roles, the F-111B ended up being massively overweight for carrier use, and the addition of a heavy crew escape capsule during the design process meant that it was impossible to get the weight down to an acceptable level for carrier operations. Some of the performance issues were offset by changing the wing design to provide more low speed lift, but it was obvious that a significantly more powerful engine was going to be needed for the F-111B. Although the Navy originally intended the F-111 to replace the F-4, the F-111 was outperformed by the Phantom at low-medium altitudes, and lessons being learned during the Vietnam War made it clear that the Navy needed a fighter that was capable of engaging other fighters at close range, which the F-111 had never been designed for. By 1968, the Navy had decided that the F-111B was a hopeless cause, and shut down the program in favor of a new design from Grumman. The Grumman replacement ended up being the F-14, which met the same requirements as the F-111 (the Tomcat's AN/AWG-9 radar and AIM-54 Phoenix missiles were originally built for the F-111), but in a package that could operate off of carriers as well as engage in close in dogfighting if need be.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 09:14
|
|
|
I've spent the last two weeks working nights in Bossier City and kept getting woken up at noon by B-52s screaming over the hotel on short final. It really is a religious experience, seeing a BUFF up close.   (not my photo; I was too slow to actually see them most times, and only had the cellphone camera anyway.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 10:26
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
Gullous posted:I incorrectly thought the Originals/Classics had a smaller diameter than the NGs... Apparently it's just a stretch. That -100 model with the ADF antenna running between the tail and fuselage is really weirding me out. It reminds me how old a design the 737 actually is 0_o
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 10:27
|
|
|
Mobius1B7R posted: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. Did you do the public tour or a "VIP" tour?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 13:20
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:For some reason, the Pentagon set the program up so that Lockheed could start rolling production aircraft off the assembly line before all of the required flight testing had been completed, with the idea being that whatever minor issues cropped up in the remaining flight testing could be easily fixed on the aircraft that had already been delivered. This is common to all aircraft programs. The first passenger-carrying A350 is well down the pipeline right now, and they've yet to have a first flight of the test aircraft (The first test aircraft isn't even 100% finished right now, I don't think) nor have the run any experiments on the static load test aircraft. If you stopped production after the first few test units were built and didn't start again until testing was complete, you'd be furloughing thousands of workers and putting yourself and all your suppliers out of business, not to mention the absolute hell of having to get everything geared up on production lines a second time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 13:27
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:The really sad part is that there was an attempt at a JSF in the 1960's, which went very badly but ended up producing the F-111  And then you get the F-15 and "not a pound for air-to-ground" mindset where no compromises whatsoever were made, but even that became obsolete once technology progressed to the point where basic "air to ground" capability was pretty much just a software upgrade. A few years later, and we're specialized ground-attack F-15Es sharing lots of commonality with the F-15C. The F-18E/F is the real proof that a fantastic modern all-capability aircraft is possible. The Super Hornet does everything, and does it extremely well, and didn't break the bank in development, either. There's no reason F-35 can't do all the roles it's meant to do, and do them well. The only real folly was assuming it would be cheap. grover fucked around with this message at 14:20 on Feb 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 14:13
|
|
|
CharlesM posted:Did you do the public tour or a "VIP" tour? If he was on the ground floor it's likely VIP. I was able to drive a VIP cart around the Everett factory - soooo fun. Normally you see airline execs (foreigners wearing suits) on these carts. I got a lot of odd looks from the machinists.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 18:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 11:28 |
|
|
grover posted:And then you get the F-15 and "not a pound for air-to-ground" mindset where no compromises whatsoever were made, but even that became obsolete once technology progressed to the point where basic "air to ground" capability was pretty much just a software upgrade. A few years later, and we're specialized ground-attack F-15Es sharing lots of commonality with the F-15C. The whole "not a pound for air-to-ground" was sales bluster and nothing more. As much as they claimed otherwise, McDonnell-Douglas did spend a fair bit of time making sure the F-15 could excel in the air-to-ground role if asked to do so. They saw how successful their F-4 was as it evolved new roles and they figured they could perhaps repeat their sales success if they gave other roles some consideration during the design of the F-15. Besides, as you mentioned, the characteristics that make a good air-to-air aircraft are basically the same as what makes a good air-to-ground aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 19:12
|
|