|
hobbesmaster posted:Right, 717 vs 707. That military.com article claimed a much higher mishap rate in the 2 man cockpit variants vs 3 man cockpits. Go LeMay. And none of the fatal MD-11 accidents (with the possible exception of Lufthansa Cargo Flight 8460, which is still under investigation) were due to something wrong with the plane itself, all but 1 were pilot error, and that sole exception, Swissair Flight 111, was due to an improperly installed entertainment system, not an actual flight system.
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 23:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 07:22 |
|
|
Kilonum posted:And none of the fatal MD-11 accidents (with the possible exception of Lufthansa Cargo Flight 8460, which is still under investigation) were due to something wrong with the plane itself, all but 1 were pilot error, and that sole exception, Swissair Flight 111, was due to an improperly installed entertainment system, not an actual flight system. So you're saying that IFE created an IFE? Sorry, couldn't stop myself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2013 00:26
|
|
|
Kilonum posted:And none of the fatal MD-11 accidents (with the possible exception of Lufthansa Cargo Flight 8460, which is still under investigation) were due to something wrong with the plane itself, all but 1 were pilot error, and that sole exception, Swissair Flight 111, was due to an improperly installed entertainment system, not an actual flight system. Well, that kinda back up his point though which is that the lack of a FE increases the workload on the pilots and reduces safety. edit: Though not sure how that would prevent you from hitting the slats accidentally. hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 00:39 on Jun 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2013 00:35
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Right, 717 vs 707. That military.com article claimed a much higher mishap rate in the 2 man cockpit variants vs 3 man cockpits. Go LeMay. Well proportional to nearly every metric (hull losses to fleet size, hull losses per flight/flying hours for example), the MD-11 has done pretty poorly. A number of them have nothing to do with the aircraft, there are still a large number of accidents/incidents in which the MD-11's handling characteristics have played at least a casual role. When McDonnell-Douglas designed the MD-11, they opted not to redesign the wing from the DC-10 (apart from slapping on a pair of winglets), which combined with the greatly increased weight of the MD-11, significantly increased approach and landing speeds. The other thing that McDD did was they reduced the size of the horizontal stabiliser (to reduce drag), made possible by moving the centre of gravity back. Both of these have the effect of reducing the longitudinal stability (for the layman; stability of the aircraft in pitch) by themselves. So we have an aircraft the flies approaches faster then normal and is less stable than other aircraft in one axis; it might sound like a recipe for trouble (and it is to a degree), but it's nothing that aircraft-specific training over and above current requirements for a type rating and adherence to proper operating procedures can't adequately address.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2013 01:43
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Well proportional to nearly every metric (hull losses to fleet size, hull losses per flight/flying hours for example), the MD-11 has done pretty poorly. A number of them have nothing to do with the aircraft, there are still a large number of accidents/incidents in which the MD-11's handling characteristics have played at least a casual role. Also, having the main wing gear attached directly to the rear spar was hardly the best idea ever. Having a very hard landing (which you are almost guaranteed to have in bad conditions because your pitch control is hosed) means you're going to tear a fuel tank open, and even snap the onside wing like a twig with the intact wing on the other side rolling the aircraft inverted on the ground in a great big ball of fire, as has happened so many times with the MD-11 and DC-10 alike. If you look at it like this, the majority of the DC-10 and MD-11 losses on landing were caused by these faults in the the aircraft design and many people would not have been killed over the years had they got these two things right. The DC-10 turned out to be fairly good aircraft, but it's almost like tried to pimp-my-ride it, and ending up ruining it. Tsuru fucked around with this message at 15:25 on Jun 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2013 15:21
|
|
|
Just realized that with the A350 flying, when the CSeries has its first flight in few days, that will basically be the last time we see an all new Western airframe take off for the next 20+ years...
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 19:50
|
|
|
Cygni posted:Just realized that with the A350 flying, when the CSeries has its first flight in few days, that will basically be the last time we see an all new Western airframe take off for the next 20+ years... I'm fully expecting Boeing/NASA to design, build and fly a full size BWB tanker/transport within the next 20 years. A new Airbus or Boeing narrowbody could also be in the cards... or a new supersonic bizjet incorporating sonic boom reducing technology. Basically, 20 years is a very long time, far longer than the time it takes from even very basic conceptualization of a major (conventional) design to first flight and even EIS. Provided the world doesn't end there should be something new on the horizon that we don't know of yet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 20:28
|
|
|
I thought Boeing had some 3rd design in the works.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 20:35
|
|
|
Cygni posted:Just realized that with the A350 flying, when the CSeries has its first flight in few days, that will basically be the last time we see an all new Western airframe take off for the next 20+ years... 20 years is plenty of time for Yellowstone Y1 and Y3 to come to fruition.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 20:35
|
|
|
Tsuru posted:What about the Bombardier Global 7/8000? A 50-ton bizjet, how about that. Or the MRJ? Japanese is basically Western, especially compared to the Chinese and Russian stuff coming out. And it seems the world is still not ready for an aircraft from them, seeing as even the SuperJet with all its Western involvement and investment has not managed to chalk up any sales outside of the old Soviet Bloc or south-east Asia. Well I was specifically talking airliners and not bizjets, but I guess the MRJ would kinda count. Boeing and Airbus have told the airlines no new frames anytime for at least a decade and a half, though. Max/Neo for narrow body, A350/787 shrinks and stretches (plus 777X) for widebody... and A380 for megasize. A fresh sheet tanker will definitely not happen, at least not for the US airforce. KC-46 is scheduled to basically fly for a hundred years. Colonial Air Force posted:I thought Boeing had some 3rd design in the works. Cygni fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Jun 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 20:45
|
|
|
I can't wait until my 50s when I am flying in some decrepit 777 or A330 with yellowed interior, harking back to the halcyon days when they were new.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 20:56
|
|
|
Though on the other hand Delta's ancient DC-9s actually have newish interiors and aren't yellowing or anything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 20:59
|
|
|
Kind of unrelated: Calling it right now--a C-130 will fly till the end of this century.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 21:00
|
|
|
Polymerized Cum posted:I can't wait until my 50s when I am flying in some decrepit 777 or A330 with yellowed interior, harking back to the halcyon days when they were new. The future equivalent of getting on an ancient maddog or 737 and it still having ashtray arm rests full of peoples chewing gum.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 21:02
|
|
|
Cygni posted:Well I was specifically talking airliners and not bizjets, but I guess the MRJ would kinda count. I do get your point though, but if it helps, the lifespan of newer designs has decreased significantly. Aircraft designed with slide rules are still flying because they have a wealth of spare parts available and a bit of extra "meat" on the structure allowing more cycles than originally envisaged, while the early examples of computer-designed A320 or 777s have started being scrapped years ago. We might still be flying 777s in 20 years time, but at least the actual aircraft you're sitting in will probably not be older than 15-20 years. Built to spec and highly efficient, but not built to last.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 21:10
|
|
|
CharlesM posted:I went there again yesterday, I decided to go to the museum, which was fun. I've gone from curiosity to confusion. That doesn't look like a US roundel under the rotodome struts, nor France or Saudi Arabia. It's clearly not British or NATO.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 22:15
|
|
|
This incident is a real gem:quote:An Emirates Boeing 777-300, registration A6-EBD performing flight EK-123 from Dubai (United Arab Emirates) to Istanbul (Turkey) with 414 passengers and 17 crew, was in the initial climb through 500 feet out of Dubai's runway 12R in clear skies and daylight, when a United Arab Emirates Hawk fighter jet, not in contact with Dubai however transponding Mode-C, was about to cross the extended runway center line of runway 12R at 600 feet AGL and 353 knots over ground. The Boeing crew, who received a TCAS Traffic Advisory but were unable to visually locate the other aircraft, as well as ATC had no time to react, the fighter pilot however flew a hard left turn avoiding a collision but not without the separation reducing to 100 feet vertical and 0.3nm horizontal. The United Arab Emirates Civil Aviation Authority reported only 3.5 seconds separated the aircraft from collision. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 22:46
|
|
|
Went to the Air Force museum at WPAFB today... I'll leave that until I can get home and sort through everything and post the highlights.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 22:50
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I've gone from curiosity to confusion. That doesn't look like a US roundel under the rotodome struts, nor France or Saudi Arabia. It's clearly not British or NATO. I didn't actually notice that until I looked at the pic. Isn't it RAF? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RAF_roundel.svg
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 23:02
|
|
|
Wright-Patterson is the one good thing about Ohio.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 23:03
|
|
|
I keep trying to find a reason to be in Cincinnati or Lexington again so I can head over there again and finally see the XB-70.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 23:13
|
|
|
CharlesM posted:I didn't actually notice that until I looked at the pic. Isn't it RAF? I dunno...the typical RAF AWACS paint scheme is a darker gray, not white like the US. I've also never seen that roundel there. That said, paint schemes can certainly change and even if you search for USAF E-3s, most of the pictures you'll find are pre-1997 or so (vertical stabilizer paint changed, PDS "cheeks" were installed), so maybe there's just a newer paint scheme than I'm familiar with. Also, what *might* be the refueling probe looks to be a different color...initially I thought it was something in the background. I've got a buddy up there, but of course he's deployed right now otherwise I could clear this up with a text.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 23:26
|
|
|
polpotpotpotpotpot posted:This incident is a real gem: I wonder which limbs the fighter pilot will lose for that one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 23:34
|
|
|
Ola posted:I wonder which limbs the fighter pilot will lose for that one. The only one a fighter jock really values.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 00:02
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:The only one a fighter jock really values. Yes. The right arm.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 00:16
|
|
|
Some guys play volleyball lefty, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 00:33
|
|
|
Ola posted:I wonder which limbs the fighter pilot will lose for that one. None. Something tells me this wasn't a contractor, and a national doing lead-in will have some pull.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 00:48
|
|
|
Cygni posted:KC-46 is scheduled to basically fly for a hundred years. It's a USAF tanker tradition. holocaust bloopers posted:Kind of unrelated: Calling it right now--a C-130 will fly till the end of this century. Not even debatable. Godholio posted:I dunno...the typical RAF AWACS paint scheme is a darker gray, not white like the US. I've also never seen that roundel there. That said, paint schemes can certainly change and even if you search for USAF E-3s, most of the pictures you'll find are pre-1997 or so (vertical stabilizer paint changed, PDS "cheeks" were installed), so maybe there's just a newer paint scheme than I'm familiar with. Also, what *might* be the refueling probe looks to be a different color...initially I thought it was something in the background. Like you said Brit AWACS have the roundel on the forward fuselage, not underneath the rotodome struts. Also they don't wear a standard RAF roundel, it has some bars coming out of the side of it more like a USAF roundel...it's kind of hard to explain but if you google No 8 Sqn it's their squadron roundel. Last time I saw one (last fall) they were still wearing the darker grey paint as well. So yeah, I'm confused.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 17:18
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:
It looks like a RAAF E-3 would look like if they bought them... but they didn't so 
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 17:49
|
|
|
The roundel is in the right place for a French plane, but I don't think they use low visibility markings. http://media.defenceindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_E-3FR_lg.jpg
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 17:53
|
|
|
Plane crashed at Dayton Air Show: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57590586/wing-walkers-plane-crashes-at-dayton-air-show/
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 19:37
|
|
|
It seems there was a plane crash at the Dayton air show. Both the pilot and the lady doing the wing walking acrobatic both were killed on impact with the ground.  http://huffpost.com/us/entry/3483600
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 19:39
|
|
|
It's already on youtube. As the plane was rolling inverted, the 'lower' wing just suddenly drops, reversing the roll just before the plane was level inverted, and at the crazy low altitude, it was over pretty much instantly. Wing stall? The airspeed appeared to be fairly low, but I'm not a pilot, so just speculation on my part.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 19:50
|
|
|
Ola posted:I wonder which limbs the fighter pilot will lose for that one. Koesj posted:None. Something tells me this wasn't a contractor, and a national doing lead-in will have some pull. Haha, yeah. Ten bucks says it turns out to be someone with the word "Prince" before his name and the Emirati aviation authority quickly finds the 777 crew fully at fault.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 19:51
|
|
|
Polymerized Cum posted:I can't wait until my 50s when I am flying in some decrepit 777 or A330 with yellowed interior, harking back to the halcyon days when they were new. I'm 49 and this is exactly how I feel when I get on a 757.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, I just finished reading the whole thread.  Gotta repost this:  Axeman Jim posted:He's got a load more, may much earlier from the 60's and 70's, so when I get hold of some of those I'll post them here - Comets and Britannias and Handley-Page Heralds, oh my. I would love to see these!
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 02:28
|
|
|
polpotpotpotpotpot posted:Holy poo poo, I just finished reading the whole thread. Did you learn anything?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 03:36
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Did you learn anything? That he has far too much free time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 05:33
|
|
|
Here's that Dayton crash from two different vantages. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5e5_1371922689
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 06:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 07:22 |
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Like you said Brit AWACS have the roundel on the forward fuselage, not underneath the rotodome struts. Also they don't wear a standard RAF roundel, it has some bars coming out of the side of it more like a USAF roundel...it's kind of hard to explain but if you google No 8 Sqn it's their squadron roundel. Last time I saw one (last fall) they were still wearing the darker grey paint as well. The only thing I can tell you is I'm pretty sure it had a blue flag of some kind on the tail. Wish I could be more help, I'm surprised I've created such a mystery! Sorry my cell phone camera sucks too, haha.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 07:58
|
|