|
I see he used a modified form of "Watch this", I think the judges can allow it.
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 03:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 14:31 |
|
|
Blistex posted:"Hiiiiigh-waaaaaaay to the DANGER ZONE!" Lana....Laaaana....LAAAAANNNAAAA!!!!!!! 
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 05:48
|
|
|
Polymerized Cum posted:
I have a feeling that this kind of stuff really isn't all that uncommon. Maybe not along the lines of Vicodin, but things like Benadryl and Nyquil would probably come up in a lot of tests if they were looking for it. fknlo fucked around with this message at 06:11 on May 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 05:57
|
|
|
fknlo posted:I have a feeling that this kind of stuff really isn't all that uncommon. Maybe not along the lines of Vicodin, but things like Benadryl and Nyquil would probably come up in a lot of tests if they were looking for it. The guidelines for allowable medications for holders of medicals is eye-opening.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 06:35
|
|
|
I'm sure you all have gotten this exact question a million times but... is it even possible to invert a mad dog like Denzel Washington does in "Flight"? I've found conflicting answers online.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 20:49
|
|
|
The crew of Alaska 261 tried but still didn't have enough control of the aircraft to save it.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 20:58
|
|
|
Polymerized Cum posted:Preliminary report on the EagleMed crash came out this week. More stupid pilot tricks, another HEMS accident. O Ye of Little Faith... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4CQfaBGWSo
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 22:23
|
|
|
Bishop posted:I'm sure you all have gotten this exact question a million times but... is it even possible to invert a mad dog like Denzel Washington does in "Flight"? I've found conflicting answers online. If you can maintain positive G (ceiling to floor), you can fly in any attitude in an airliner indefinitely. The thing is, maintaining inverted flight does not allow this condition by its nature. While there is no aerodynamic reason why an airliner couldn't fly inverted, there will be a number of other problems that will cut your experience short. The engines will starve themselves of both fuel and oil after a short period of time (in the order of a minute or so), at which point you would need to start trading altitude for airspeed - in other words, you're no longer maintaining inverted flight.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 22:27
|
|
|
MrChips posted:The engines will starve themselves of both fuel and oil after a short period of time (in the order of a minute or so), Is that really the case in a modern aircraft? WWII aircraft that relied on carburetors for gas and gravity to feed oil to the engine, sure, but in a modern engine? I can't see the fuel delivery system in a gas turbine caring about what orientation the airplane's in.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 22:32
|
|
|
Bishop posted:I'm sure you all have gotten this exact question a million times but... is it even possible to invert a mad dog like Denzel Washington does in "Flight"? I've found conflicting answers online. I dunno about the mad dog, but it's technically possible to fly inverted in a crj. At least the simulator has no problem with it, and the fuelling system is capable.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 22:36
|
|
|
Thanks for your responses. I'm just a dude that flies a lot so I wanted some better opinions.MrChips posted:The engines will starve themselves of both fuel and oil after a short period of time (in the order of a minute or so), at which point you would need to start trading altitude for airspeed - in other words, you're no longer maintaining inverted flight. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sAxrWl5DGU
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 22:41
|
|
|
The DC-10 can fly inverted, as it did so during the fight aboard fedex 705. If the DC-10 can, it's probably reasonable to believe the DC-9 can (since things like the fuel pumps are likely to be similar), and there are at least anecdotal stories of DC-9s flying inverted without crashing.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 22:46
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Is that really the case in a modern aircraft? WWII aircraft that relied on carburetors for gas and gravity to feed oil to the engine, sure, but in a modern engine? I can't see the fuel delivery system in a gas turbine caring about what orientation the airplane's in. Most of the turbines I've seen have to be specifically designed for dry-sump operation. Otherwise, there's an oil tank on the bottom with an oil pump in it. Fuel dip tubes are also bottom-fed, so even though all the pumps and whatnot work in any attitude, fuel is only at the input in a limited range.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 22:55
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:The DC-10 can fly inverted, as it did so during the fight aboard fedex 705. I Holy poo poo. What a crazy story...
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 22:59
|
|
|
I forgot about that one. Pretty intense.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 23:16
|
|
|
babyeatingpsychopath posted:Most of the turbines I've seen have to be specifically designed for dry-sump operation. Otherwise, there's an oil tank on the bottom with an oil pump in it. Fuel dip tubes are also bottom-fed, so even though all the pumps and whatnot work in any attitude, fuel is only at the input in a limited range. Most civil gas turbines are dry-sump (in fact, I'd be somewhat willing to go out on a limb and say all of them are), but the scavenge systems are rarely designed to pull oil from anywhere but the bottom of the bearing housings. So in the inverted scenario, the bearing housings will fill with oil until the pickup tube in the oil tank (which is typically right at the bottom of the tank, as most civilian gas turbine oil systems use the tank itself to allow any entrained air to separate out) is no longer immersed in oil. After that, it's anyone's guess what happens; the bearings and seals are usually designed to be sprayed with jets of oil, not to be submerged in it. The fuel issue is, I agree, the limiting factor. There are provisions to maintain fuel supply for a limited amount of time during zero/negative-G situations (and these vary by engine and aircraft alike), but there typically isn't enough fuel in these systems to run for much more than a minute or two.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 23:49
|
|
|
polpotpotpotpotpot posted:Holy poo poo. What a crazy story... Holy gently caress.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 00:22
|
|
|
polpotpotpotpotpot posted:Holy poo poo. What a crazy story...
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 05:59
|
|
|
polpotpotpotpotpot posted:Holy poo poo. What a crazy story... Holy poo poo indeed 
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 15:30
|
|
|
Reading about the film, the failure appears to be based on Alaska Airlines 261; they flew upside down for a little while. wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Airlines_Flight_261 Kinda sad that they made such an unrealistic film based on that failure; there was some incredible piloting down on 261 but the plane was completely unrecoverable. hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 15:59 on May 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 15:56
|
|
|
Vitamins posted:An Airbus A319 has just had to pull an emergency landing at Heathrow after an engine fire Turns out the maintenance crew forgot to latch the engine cowl  http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/special_bulletins/s3_2013___airbus_a319_131__g_euoe.cfm
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 16:21
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Kinda sad that they made such an unrealistic film based on that failure; there was some incredible piloting down on 261 but the plane was completely unrecoverable.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 16:32
|
|
|
Bishop posted:What was unrealistic about the scene? Honest question. From my point of view as a layman I kind of facepalmed when they inverted the aircraft, but that's apparently doable as long as you are OK with oil and fuel pressure dropping and destroying your engines very quickly. The movie got that part right too. Which parts do you find unrealistic? That the co-pilot wasn't an alcoholic as well.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 17:40
|
|
|
Bishop posted:What was unrealistic about the scene? Honest question. From my point of view as a layman I kind of facepalmed when they inverted the aircraft, but that's apparently doable as long as you are OK with oil and fuel pressure dropping and destroying your engines very quickly. The movie got that part right too. Which parts do you find unrealistic? That that airplane's Vmax was apparently ~330 knots. Also, when you pull the extinguisher handle on an engine, engine's killed. They did that with both engines and then still kept moving throttles around like they'd do anything with both engines dead. Also, that anyone still hires stewardesses who look like that.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 18:14
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Also, that anyone still hires stewardesses who look like that. Foreign airlines still do!
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 18:29
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:When you pull the extinguisher handle on an engine, engine's killed. They did that with both engines and then still kept moving throttles around like they'd do anything with both engines dead. I'm a boater and I've got a big red button that floods the engine room with CO2 if there is a fire down there. It ruins everything but hey, you are no longer on fire. Do aircraft have a similar system?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 18:37
|
|
|
Bishop posted:Yeah that makes sense. They seem to kill the left engine and then intentionally burn it up while rolling back. It almost seems like an editing error because they do make sure to show that the engines won't last long while inverted. When you pull on the big red engine fire handles, (and the exact operation varies by aircraft, of course,) the first movement (generally pulling the handle down, out, or up,) closes the fuel and hydraulic fluid cutoff valves, opens the generator field circuit (sometimes it just disconnects the constant speed drive/IDG from the accessory gearbox,) and arms the fire bottle(s) for that engine. You can then (generally,) turn the handle left or right to fire individual fire bottles to that engine, which bathe the inside of the cowling with a generous application of firefighting foam. Sometimes its a seperate switch or handle to actually fire the bottles.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 18:53
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:When you pull on the big red engine fire handles, (and the exact operation varies by aircraft, of course,) the first movement (generally pulling the handle down, out, or up,) closes the fuel and hydraulic fluid cutoff valves, opens the generator field circuit (sometimes it just disconnects the constant speed drive/IDG from the accessory gearbox,) and arms the fire bottle(s) for that engine. You can then (generally,) turn the handle left or right to fire individual fire bottles to that engine, which bathe the inside of the cowling with a generous application of firefighting foam. Sometimes its a seperate switch or handle to actually fire the bottles. Not foam, halon.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 18:56
|
|
|
Illuminati by Nature posted:Turns out the maintenance crew forgot to latch the engine cowl There's a reason cowl latches are a dual signature on our aircraft. It's easy to latch them incorrectly if you aren't being careful, but it's equally easy for someone else to spot they aren't latched correctly if they double check.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 19:00
|
|
|
Linedance posted:Not foam, halon. My mistake... Ya, Halon 1301, in fact. 
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 19:00
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:When you pull on the big red engine fire handles, (and the exact operation varies by aircraft, of course,) the first movement (generally pulling the handle down, out, or up,) closes the fuel and hydraulic fluid cutoff valves, opens the generator field circuit (sometimes it just disconnects the constant speed drive/IDG from the accessory gearbox,) and arms the fire bottle(s) for that engine. You can then (generally,) turn the handle left or right to fire individual fire bottles to that engine, which bathe the inside of the cowling with a generous application of firefighting foam. Sometimes its a seperate switch or handle to actually fire the bottles. Can you try to restart the engines after you do that?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 20:57
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Can you try to restart the engines after you do that? Returning the handle to the original position (in some aircraft) reopens the fuel and hydrualic shutoffs, but who in their right mind would open the fuel shutoffs to an engine that was just potentially on fire?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 21:01
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Returning the handle to the original position (in some aircraft) reopens the fuel and hydrualic shutoffs, but who in their right mind would open the fuel shutoffs to an engine that was just potentially on fire? This is in context of a movie where the pilot is high on cocaine. edit: since we're in fantasy land anyways, I do that in DCS A-10 because uh: 1. its a simulator. 2. you have an ejection seat. 3. its a loving a-10 the only thing thats going to kill you is the ground hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 21:13 on May 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 21:09
|
|
|
So uh, is this a big deal? KOKC 010026Z 33046G62KT 1/4SM R35R/1800VP6000FT TSRA FG SQ FEW022CB BKN027 OVC100 18/17 A2956 RMK FUNNEL CLOUD B2355 W MOV E FUNNEL CLOUD E06 AO2 PK WND 33062/0021 WSHFT 2355 FRQ LTGICCCCGCA OHD-ALQDS TS OHD-ALQDS MOV E P0009
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 01:45
|
|
|
 Nah, it's fine. Grab a camera though. I swear, with all these twisters OK is getting, my house needs to loving disappear so I can get that insurance check and cut my ties.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 01:50
|
|
|
xaarman posted:So uh, is this a big deal? It is a pretty nasty time of year. These two sets of pictures were taken two minutes apart. Then things go nasty.    
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 03:06
|
|
|
True story, as Alaska 261 was crashing into the Pacific, I was sitting in the Alaska Airlines boarding room at SeaTac, waiting for my flight back to Juneau. I was somewhat relieved to know that the aircraft was a Mad Dog, since Alaska Airlines never operated them SE Alaska.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 04:44
|
|
|
SyHopeful posted:True story, as Alaska 261 was crashing into the Pacific, I was sitting in the Alaska Airlines boarding room at SeaTac, waiting for my flight back to Juneau. I was somewhat relieved to know that the aircraft was a Mad Dog, since Alaska Airlines never operated them SE Alaska. I've always wondered - in circumstances like that where an aircraft on an airline you're about to fly on crashes, how many people just look around, look at the terminal door, and quietly back away and not fly? Is the airline even allowed to fly without a safety audit?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 05:40
|
|
|
SyHopeful posted:True story, as Alaska 261 was crashing into the Pacific, I was sitting in the Alaska Airlines boarding room at SeaTac, waiting for my flight back to Juneau. I was somewhat relieved to know that the aircraft was a Mad Dog, since Alaska Airlines never operated them SE Alaska. You still in J-town?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 06:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 14:31 |
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:This is in context of a movie where the pilot is high on cocaine. Another quick question. Do airline pilots usually use "port or starboard" instead of "left or right?" It makes all the difference in the world on boats if you are not facing the same direction as the person you are talking to. Since airplane jagon seems so similar I was a little confused about that. Especially when they were putting out fires on engines while inverted. PS: From this thread and others I'm under the impression that mad dogs own. This is correct, right? Bishop fucked around with this message at 07:12 on Jun 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 06:44
|
|