|
Ah the Airtruk. They remind me of something out of Crimson Skies.
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 11:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 23:09 |
|
|
RandomPauI posted:Crimson Skies. Now this is a game in need of a re-release.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 13:42
|
|
|
RandomPauI posted:Ah the Airtruk. They remind me of something out of Crimson Skies. Lets be honest, all Ag planes tend to look awkward. Example: 
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 13:47
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:Lets be honest, all Ag planes tend to look awkward. Does anyone know why they all look like that? Is there a single manufacturer of most agricultural planes, or is the narrow cockpit just to allow the shortest total width of the aircraft while retaining as much wingspan as possible?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 16:24
|
|
|
dayman posted:Does anyone know why they all look like that? Is there a single manufacturer of most agricultural planes, or is the narrow cockpit just to allow the shortest total width of the aircraft while retaining as much wingspan as possible? I think extremely high cockpit visibility in all directions is pretty important when dicking around just off the deck. That's my guess, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 16:25
|
|
|
Tubesock posted:I just came across the goofiest looking plane I've ever seen. It's a Transavia PL-12 Airtruk. Apparently it was designed for crop dusting or whatever but drat is it ugly. It looks like it came out of a cartoon. http://youtu.be/v-asgD0s5Ss
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 16:31
|
|
|
dayman posted:Does anyone know why they all look like that? Is there a single manufacturer of most agricultural planes, or is the narrow cockpit just to allow the shortest total width of the aircraft while retaining as much wingspan as possible? The entire fuselage is a tank of liquid. Weight/CG wise, the cockpit is a total tack on afterthought and the planes generally look 'right' if you pretend the cockpit isnt there. Also yeah, visibility is pretty important when you're splitting telephone poles.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 16:58
|
|
|
Also, I read ages ago that they want to design the thing so that if you do plow into a hill or a telephone pole or a gasoline tanker truck right next to Jimmy Stewart (or was it Cary Grant?) you want the cockpit to be the last thing that hits. Not sure if that's ever been the key factor, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 18:17
|
|
|
Also, no discussion of crop dusters is complete without the PZL-Mielec M-15 Belphegor. (Not my photo.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 18:19
|
|
|
That plane looks fun to fly if it had a new engine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 18:31
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Also, I read ages ago that they want to design the thing so that if you do plow into a hill or a telephone pole or a gasoline tanker truck right next to Jimmy Stewart (or was it Cary Grant?) you want the cockpit to be the last thing that hits. Not sure if that's ever been the key factor, though. Cary Grant. E: That...thing is pretty much the penultimate expression of Soviet engineering.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 20:02
|
|
|
rscott posted:Cary Grant. What's the first expression of Soviet engineering then?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 20:11
|
|
|
front wing flexing posted:What's the first expression of Soviet engineering then? The revolution of course 
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 20:12
|
|
|
That thing is a bit less weird if you consider the fact that turbines run on pretty much anything without twigs in it. A lot of anything, but nontheless, they are far less picky of the type of fuel you feed them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
front wing flexing posted:What's the first expression of Soviet engineering then? A shoebox that kills Germans
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 23:10
|
|
|
Mzuri posted:In the book Chickenhawk, the author tells of military heli flight school in the early sixties. He makes it sound like the instructors cut power completely at least once every flight in the most inopportune moments imaginable, to practice autos. I don't know if it's still that way. Quick side note: If you haven't read Chickenhawk, get ye to the bookstore and grab a copy. Fascinating book. The M-79 story is both hilarious and terrifying.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 06:25
|
|
|
Tsuru posted:That thing is a bit less weird if you consider the fact that turbines run on pretty much anything without twigs in it. The same thing also applies to turboprops, which make a heck of a lot more sense for an agricultural aircraft than a turbofan would. I know the USSR produced small turboprop engines, so I'd love to know why they decided that slapping a turbofan on a biplane made more sense.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 06:44
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Also, no discussion of crop dusters is complete without the PZL-Mielec M-15 Belphegor. (Not my photo.) The more pictures of that thing you look at, the crazier it gets.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 09:55
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Also, no discussion of crop dusters is complete without the PZL-Mielec M-15 Belphegor. (Not my photo.) http://polishsoccer.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=348622 This link has a couple interesting theories about the M-15 from folks at the Museum of Polish Aviation. I had heard the chemical weapons theory before, back in the '80's.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 14:20
|
|
|
PhotoKirk posted:Quick side note: If you haven't read Chickenhawk, get ye to the bookstore and grab a copy. Fascinating book. The M-79 story is both hilarious and terrifying. Chuck Carlock's Firebirds is almost as good as Chickenhawk...it's a fair amount more disjointed (it's really a long series of vignettes strung together in rough chronological order) but the writing and stories are just as good. Well worth reading if you get a chance...just about the same amount of  and  moments as well as plenty of hilarity. I think my favorite is the story about him seeing the case of beer with rubber nipples on the top of the bottles, thinking it was just some weird Vietnamese thing, and popping the top of one and taking a big swig...only to discover it was nước mắm.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 18:32
|
|
|
The best part about operating in an aircraft nearly as old as you are: playing plug-the-leak. Rain, water from washing, snow melt, and ECS condensate will pour in through various orifices, panel gaps, and even power outlets (!). Using an ordinary towel, plug the leak before either you or your patient get soaked. This is a team sport, toss the towel to your partner as the aircraft flares for landing so he can catch water running in aft.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 00:35
|
|
|
Polymerized Cum posted:The best part about operating in an aircraft nearly as old as you are: playing plug-the-leak. At least you dont have lavs. That game is less fun when you add blu-water (Fresh and Soiled!) to the mix of unpleasantness.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 01:11
|
|
|
Polymerized Cum posted:The best part about operating in an aircraft nearly as old as you are: playing plug-the-leak. Is that the BK117? STARS (
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 06:58
|
|
|
Crosspost from the Aviation A/T thread. Took some pictures at the TFP fly in (near Corpus Christi, TX) yesterday. I was disappointed with the turnout, we had WAY more airplanes last year. I don't know if it was the heat or a lack of marketing or what. Fly ins seem to be poorly advertised as it is. It seems like if I don't hear about it from a friend, I won't be able to find information on it. This one actually was on the FBO's calendar, but I guess word didn't get out as much. Anyway, here they are
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 18:04
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:At least you dont have lavs. That game is less fun when you add blu-water (Fresh and Soiled!) to the mix of unpleasantness. Ah yes, the ol' blue stew. I especially love that stuff when it's dribbling out of the belly drains...you just *know* it's going to be a very, very bad day.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 20:16
|
|
|
Acid Reflux posted:Ah yes, the ol' blue stew. I especially love that stuff when it's dribbling out of the belly drains...you just *know* it's going to be a very, very bad day. My favorite is dribbling out of the forward E&E hatch. Or the center E&E hatch. The second one is doubly fun, because our aircraft only had a forward lav. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 21:01
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:Is that the BK117? STARS ( Yeah BK-117-B2. Tough as nails. Tons and tons of powers. Just not exactly the most finely polished. I love the little nuances, like the "BK bounce" right at about 40 knots on final. In the older aircraft, it will occasionally make stuff fall out of the cabinets 
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 02:01
|
|
|
Not a crazy as the polish jet machine, but I always thought that these things were pretty good looking for ag planes. Pacific Aerospace Fletcher FU-24 http://www.airliners.net/photo/Super-Air/Pacific-Aerospace-Fletcher/1658743/L/ http://www.airliners.net/photo/Pacific-Aerospace-Fletcher/2168685/L/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fu24_Fletcher I still see them flying around, I don't know if they still use them for fertiliser spreading.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 04:04
|
|
|
I thought the PZL M-15 was actually the legitimate worst aircraft in history. As in a) it was so bad even the soviets thought it handled too poorly for safety, b) even the soviets thought it was too inefficient fuel-wise, c) it was slower than the piston aircraft it replaced, and was one of the loudest aircraft of its size, and d) unlike those rubbish pre-ww1 death traps, it was built in an era where the designers had the advantages of science, technology and experience, and really should have known better. e: it was the worlds only ag jet, worlds slowest jet, worlds only jet biplane. There is a reason no-one else even tried. The PL-12 on the other hand, was loving gold. And  . It only suffered from being the 2nd ugliest aircraft in history. Functionally it was one of the bet ag aircraft every built. It has twin booms with a short, tall, chemical tank designed so that a truck can back right up to the CG of the aircraft and dump directly (and very quickly), the tanks were removable and you could have a sprayer unit, seeder unit, fertilizer unit, cargo unit, ambulance unit or a 5 seat passenger unit swapped in or out. The only reason they didn't sell more was because the brochure had a photo of the thing in it. And there is no way I would ever get in the 5 seat unit.My vote for the ugliest aircraft in history goes to the PL-12 progenitor, the Bennett Airtruck, brought to you by the good folks of  
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 10:36
|
|
|
Reading up on the M-15 it looks like they hacked an AN-2 to bits and redesigned it into that? The AN-2 is in all ways better!
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 13:29
|
|
|
Started a new aerospace job yesterday and got introduced to ITAR on my first day. My initial reaction is a) dear god how on earth do you get any work done whilst skirting around all its insane restrictions and b) oh god I'm going to be extradited for accidentally mentioning something in passing and be thrown in prison for the rest of time.  I've worked in F1 so I'm used to paranoia r.e. espionage, but this is a whole 'nother level of crazy, it's like the cold war never ended. Do you just get used to it or what?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 00:44
|
|
|
jammyozzy posted:Started a new aerospace job yesterday and got introduced to ITAR on my first day. My initial reaction is a) dear god how on earth do you get any work done whilst skirting around all its insane restrictions and b) oh god I'm going to be extradited for accidentally mentioning something in passing and be thrown in prison for the rest of time. It's funny you post this because for every one of you there are 10 grad students/professors somewhere that are constantly streaming/leaking data all over the place. An old job of mine had severe ITAR stuff (missiles), current one doesn't have much, new one will have a bunch again I think. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 00:49
|
|
|
jammyozzy posted:Started a new aerospace job yesterday and got introduced to ITAR on my first day. My initial reaction is a) dear god how on earth do you get any work done whilst skirting around all its insane restrictions and b) oh god I'm going to be extradited for accidentally mentioning something in passing and be thrown in prison for the rest of time. I have done some work with ITAR stuff, only with vehicle systems. It is not that bad, there was some over classification in the past and recently that was changed. For example they used to consider the whole vehicle ITAR, but it has changed for some vehicles where they only consider the parts of armor, weapon mounts, etc. as ITAR now, not the whole vehicle. You don't have to worry to much, unless you are dealing with foreign nationals a lot 
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 03:24
|
|
|
jammyozzy posted:I've worked in F1 so I'm used to paranoia r.e. espionage, but this is a whole 'nother level of crazy, it's like the cold war never ended. Do you just get used to it or what? I have a family member who has spent a long time dealing with ITAR (as it applies to spacecraft), and they've just learned to deal with the stupidity. In one case, a foreign grad student did a lot of work on developing a scientific instrument, but was banned from seeing any data generated by said instrument because of ITAR.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 03:25
|
|
|
Welp, looks like both the Me-262 and the Mosquito are scratched from Thunder Over Michigan. The A-4 will be neat, but I'm having a hard time getting wildly excited about skyraiders. http://www.yankeeairmuseum.org/airshow/aircraft-list
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 21:34
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:Welp, looks like both the Me-262 and the Mosquito are scratched from Thunder Over Michigan. The A-4 will be neat, but I'm having a hard time getting wildly excited about skyraiders. Are those all going to be flying? Sucks about the cancellations but I'd love to see an F-100 or A-4 demo. It's a shame that (for obvious reasons) they don't really thrash on these older airplanes. I'd love to see an A-4 doing some high-g turns and showing off the 700deg/second roll rate.  I was like a kid on Christmas when I got to see a Phantom demo a few years ago, even though it was mostly just flat passes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 21:41
|
|
|
Arg, that made me check the Geneseo NY aircraft lineup: the Mosquito has apparently been sold & now there's some question as to whether or not it will be there - depends on the new owner. The Lancaster is still supposed to be coming, though. drat, a 262 would be epic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 23:32
|
|
|
Is this real, what engine is this, and why didn't they go this route?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 00:01
|
|
|
That's a JT-9. TF39/CF6s were tested on B-52s as well, but only as a testbed for the engine. It wasn't a compatibility test for the B-52 itself. There's lots of reasons why, but that engine specifically won't fit under the wings on the outboard pylon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 00:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 23:09 |
|
|
Boeing wanted to put 4 Rolls RB211's on it, which never happened because Congress is real real dumb. In reality, since B-52s are going to be flying until the end of time, it would have saved them an absolutely absurd amount of money. Here's a fantasy B-52 with the RB211's. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 00:18
|
|