|
holocaust bloopers posted:It's actually Lindsey Lohan. Explodes after a short time in service. I totally get that.
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 01:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 22:04 |
|
|
Previa_fun posted:Every early jetliner is great to look at. I'm partial to the Convair 880 though. No discussion of elegant early jetliners is complete without the SE-210 Caravelle:  Late models were fairly awkward looking, but still, those triangular windows. 
StandardVC10 fucked around with this message at 02:32 on May 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 02:29
|
|
|
The technology that makes today's engines able to use so much less fuel while putting out more power than ever nearly whisper quietly is pretty amazing. But drat if those long slender nacelles of the old turbojets and low-bypass turbofans don't just look fast and space agey.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 03:03
|
|
|
Previa_fun posted:The technology that makes today's engines able to use so much less fuel while putting out more power than ever nearly whisper quietly is pretty amazing. I wonder how much throttle the next gen airliners actually use during cruise. I can't imagine its more than 50%. Anyone with the info on that? I'm thinking 777 787 and a400.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 03:16
|
|
|
Previa_fun posted:The technology that makes today's engines able to use so much less fuel while putting out more power than ever nearly whisper quietly is pretty amazing. ...and then you get to the old rear end engines they have on B-52s, JSTARs, and C-130s that smoke like diesels and make power like a hurricane holocaust bloopers posted:707's are beautiful. That's all I got. I must say, the 707's they used for the JSTARs are pretty nice, especially the one that used to belong to a drug smuggler. Just don't stand near them when they do engine runs, smokes up everything. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 03:32 on May 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 03:30
|
|
|
jaegerx posted:I wonder how much throttle the next gen airliners actually use during cruise. I can't imagine its more than 50%. Anyone with the info on that? I'm thinking 777 787 and a400. Around 85-90% N1. You have to keep in mind that rated thrust figures are measured at sea level or close to it. There's a lot less thrust available at 41,000 feet.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 08:12
|
|
|
Here's some airplane porn from the fly-in at my local airport: http://imgur.com/a/Sw3Ia
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 19:51
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:What on earth does that make the 990 and its backwards turbofans? RuPaul?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 23:43
|
|
|
More like Ron Paul.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2013 02:42
|
|
|
Boomer The Cannon posted:Here's some airplane porn from the fly-in at my local airport: Now you have me wanting an Ercoupe again. It is hard to believe that was designed in the early 30's when you look at its contemporaries.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2013 04:03
|
|
|
It is early days yet, but I just bought a flight up to Detroit for Thunder Over Michigan. With the sequester kicking poo poo out of most of the airshows in the country, this stands to be about the best thing going. They've got an ME-262(replica), the worlds only flying Mosquito, and an F-100 Super Saber confirmed, more to come (and some to drop out, the 262 was supposed to be at the last one I saw, and didn't show). I've not been to TOM in about 5 years, and the years previous the price went up and the viewing angles got worse every year. Anybody else got plans? http://www.yankeeairmuseum.org/airshow/
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2013 04:41
|
|
|
I had no idea about the ME262 replicas; those things look amazing. Also, I will now have nightmares about Hitler having J-85 powered ME262s; those replicas seem to have ridiculous performance.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2013 04:54
|
|
|
I didn't know that there was still a flying F-100. Such a sexy plane.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2013 05:08
|
|
|
Polymerized Cum posted:That is an unusually steep landing, especially for an EC-135. There is a phenomenon called "settling with power", where the rotor downdraft literally washes the air out from under the helicopter when conditions are right. The BMF guys and gals are super experienced, but that was riskier than probably necessary. Wasn't BMF, they only have a pair of BK117 C-1s (one at KPYM and one at KBED), an S76 C++ (at KBED), and a Citation II (Also at KBED), all leased, helos from Era Helicopters and the Citation from Boston Air Charters.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2013 05:24
|
|
|
0toShifty posted:The US Airways Dash 8 I was talking about a few weeks ago, the one that double diverted back to Roanoke, yeah well it crashed (belly landing) in Newark this morning with a landing gear failure... Ha... Given that it's Piedmont there is about a 95% chance I've flown on this aircraft before. I always fly out of SBY and they are based out of SBY. Small world! Give it a new coat of paint and send it on its way.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 21:10
|
|
|
I found something cool. Photo archives from the San Diego Air and Space Museum.   I rehosted these three on imgur. There's a lot, I haven't looked through them all yet.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 22:10
|
|
|
Crazy to see a couple 109's parked next to a P-40.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 23:31
|
|
|
dayman posted:Crazy to see a couple 109's parked next to a P-40.  There are BF109s in that photo?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 23:32
|
|
|
Lightbulb Out posted:
I think those are P-51Bs. Or -Cs. The ones without the bubble top. edit: actually only the one closer to the camera, the other is an Allison-powered P-51 of some kind.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 23:33
|
|
|
dayman posted:Crazy to see a couple 109's parked next to a P-40. Those are early-model P-51s. E: f,b. What is also neat is that Noorduyn Norseman hiding out in the back. Though I don't think it needs much "cold-weather testing" 
MrChips fucked around with this message at 23:37 on May 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 23:34
|
|
|
Thanks for the link, Some really awesome stuff! Page 13 of the photostream has scans of a book called "Strategic and Tactical Operations Eighth Air Force". It's pretty    edit: a link to the set dubzee fucked around with this message at 01:02 on May 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 00:52
|
|
|
I had a comment from a friend on my pocket junk holder which is on my shoe rack. When I get home I put my keys, wallet, etc in it. Thought you folks might get a kick out of it.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 00:57
|
|
|
dubzee posted:Thanks for the link, Some really awesome stuff! Page 13 of the photostream has scans of a book called "Strategic and Tactical Operations Eighth Air Force". AI/SAS favorite Smokey Yunick was a B-24 pilot during the Ploesti raid. In fact, I think that very picture is used in his autobiography. He later went on to fly with the Flying Tigers. There can't be too many guys who flew combat missions in both Europe and the Pacific. I mean, I'm sure there's a ton as a number, but compared to the total number of crews the percentage has to be really low.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 01:29
|
|
|
slidebite posted:I had a comment from a friend on my pocket junk holder which is on my shoe rack. When I get home I put my keys, wallet, etc in it. Thought you folks might get a kick out of it. Ah, quite possibly the worst system on that plane.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 03:55
|
|
|
It's interesting how delicate the B-24 looks from above  compared to the B-17. 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 04:27
|
|
|
joat mon posted:It's interesting how delicate the B-24 looks from above What doesn't? Some battleships?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 05:06
|
|
|
joat mon posted:It's interesting how delicate the B-24 looks from above It's all in the B-24's long, high aspect ratio wing. For the time, the B-24 had a very advanced wing design that gave the aircraft a huge performance advantage over the B-17. Unfortunately, it also made the B-24 much more vulnerable to enemy fire (ground-air and air-air alike) as the aerodynamics of the wing were fairly sensitive to battle damage (as was the internal structure). The B-17, in the other hand, was relatively conservative from both a structural as well as an aerodynamic perspective, which is why it is so famous for soaking up an incredible amount of damage yet still be able to get home.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 05:34
|
|
|
dayman posted:Crazy to see a couple 109's parked next to a P-40. The one with the "3" on its tail is most likely an A-36 Apache.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 06:17
|
|
|
slidebite posted:I had a comment from a friend on my pocket junk holder which is on my shoe rack. When I get home I put my keys, wallet, etc in it. Thought you folks might get a kick out of it. Hahaha "World's first self-jamming bomber"
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 07:03
|
|
|
B-17, B-24, C-47s, C-46s, B-25s, P-40, P-51, P-47, C-64, A-36, T-6, And two unidentifieds out on the ramp near the B-25s. I think the small ones parked behind the B-25s are P-39s, but I don't have the slightest idea what the conventional tailed aircraft out in the front row of B-25s is. That picture is awesome. 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 08:37
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:B-17, B-24, C-47s, C-46s, B-25s, P-40, P-51, P-47, C-64, A-36, T-6, And two unidentifieds out on the ramp near the B-25s. I think the small ones parked behind the B-25s are P-39s, but I don't have the slightest idea what the conventional tailed aircraft out in the front row of B-25s is. 2000X1400 for your pleasure.Some background on the cold weather test station at Ladd Field / Ft. Wainwright  P-38  P-40  P-47  P-51  P-63
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 09:37
|
|
|
Well I feel incredibly dumb now 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 13:12
|
|
|
MrChips posted:It's all in the B-24's long, high aspect ratio wing. For the time, the B-24 had a very advanced wing design that gave the aircraft a huge performance advantage over the B-17. Unfortunately, it also made the B-24 much more vulnerable to enemy fire (ground-air and air-air alike) as the aerodynamics of the wing were fairly sensitive to battle damage (as was the internal structure). The B-17, in the other hand, was relatively conservative from both a structural as well as an aerodynamic perspective, which is why it is so famous for soaking up an incredible amount of damage yet still be able to get home. Everyone has probably heard this, but at the beginning of the air war over Germany the US was losing a lot of B-17s to enemy flak and fighters. Many B-17's would come home shot up and the prevailing thought was to add more defensive guns and armour the areas that they were commonly taking damage. An engineer did the exact opposite and armoured the areas that were not taking damage on the B-17s returning, his reasoning being that places that took damage and allowed the aircraft to return were not an issue with its survivability. Also pretty interesting to compare the B-17 and Mosquito's bomb-loads. The B-17 was burdened with extra crew, defensive armament, and all that armour plating, while the mosquito just used night and speed to survive, resulting in a very similar bomb-load with 1/2 the engines and size.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 14:58
|
|
|
Blistex posted:Everyone has probably heard this, but at the beginning of the air war over Germany the US was losing a lot of B-17s to enemy flak and fighters. Many B-17's would come home shot up and the prevailing thought was to add more defensive guns and armour the areas that they were commonly taking damage. An engineer did the exact opposite and armoured the areas that were not taking damage on the B-17s returning, his reasoning being that places that took damage and allowed the aircraft to return were not an issue with its survivability. That's always been one of my favourite engineering stories, and the point it makes is a good one, but at best it's unattributable. (Relevant bit at the bottom)
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 18:08
|
|
|
Phy posted:That's always been one of my favourite engineering stories, and the point it makes is a good one, but at best it's unattributable. (Relevant bit at the bottom) It's attributable to Abraham Wald, and his 1943 paper A Method of Estimating Plane Vulnerability Based on Damage of Survivors. It's my #1 go-to for stories about selection bias.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 18:34
|
|
|
babyeatingpsychopath posted:It's attributable to Abraham Wald, and his 1943 paper A Method of Estimating Plane Vulnerability Based on Damage of Survivors. Here's a copy: http://cna.org/sites/default/files/research/0204320000.pdf  And an explanation of what's going on, for the dummies: http://people.ucsc.edu/~msmangel/Wald.pdf I am whatever is a couple of steps below dummy.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 19:17
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Some background on the cold weather test station at Ladd Field / Ft. Wainwright My dad was stationed there in the late 1980s/early 1990s. You haven't lived unless you sledded off your roof when you were six.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 00:03
|
|
|
Preliminary report on the EagleMed crash came out this week. More stupid pilot tricks, another HEMS accident. http://www.news9.com/story/22212504/ntsb-mid-air-stunt-causes-fatal-eaglemed-crash-lone-survivor-speaks-out 1) Pilot has super-FAA-unapproved drugs in his system, including Vicodin, Valium and Benadryl. 2) Pilot decides to fly UNDER power lines, and maintains 200-300' AGL during enroute phase 3) Door becomes unsecured, and instead of landing to resecure, crew attempts to do so in flight. 4) Pilot acts out "coyote hunting" maneuver, placing aircraft into a steep dive. 4) AS350 plows into a group of trees, and the nurse and pilot die in the fiery crash. Medic somehow survives. This is why my profession is under so much scrutiny, because people feel like being cowboys. And the reason I am ineligible for life insurance, thanks to pricks like this. Polymerized Cum fucked around with this message at 03:02 on May 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 02:58
|
|
|
It's almost like the pilot was a cliche from a bad movie.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 03:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 22:04 |
|
|
CharlesM posted:It's almost like the pilot was a cliche from a bad movie. "Hiiiiigh-waaaaaaay to the DANGER ZONE!"
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 03:47
|
|