|
Cygni posted: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. That looks really good.
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 00:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 05:33 |
|
|
Doesn't the massive stockpile of spare engines and parts mean that even with the fuel savings of new engines, keeping the old ones is still cheaper?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 01:07
|
|
|
NightGyr posted:Doesn't the massive stockpile of spare engines and parts mean that even with the fuel savings of new engines, keeping the old ones is still cheaper? Nothing is going to be cheaper than switching the B-52 over to 747 engines.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 01:13
|
|
|
NightGyr posted:Doesn't the massive stockpile of spare engines and parts mean that even with the fuel savings of new engines, keeping the old ones is still cheaper? You're right about that. The USAF has such a huge stockpile of TF33s kicking around that the stockpile will far outlast the B-52, even if the aircraft flies beyond 2040.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 01:55
|
|
|
Doublepost: Chicks in the cockpit! No, not that kind.  
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 07:31
|
|
|
NightGyr posted:Doesn't the massive stockpile of spare engines and parts mean that even with the fuel savings of new engines, keeping the old ones is still cheaper? It spreads the costs out, rather than requiring massive amounts of funding now. That's pretty much how the AF makes decisions these days. In the long run, using the old engines almost certainly costs more...it does in AWACS.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 15:23
|
|
|
Godholio posted:It spreads the costs out, rather than requiring massive amounts of funding now. That's pretty much how the AF makes decisions these days. In the long run, using the old engines almost certainly costs more...it does in AWACS. Not to mention the immense capability upgrade that new engines would allow. I know you're an AWACS dude, Godholio, how often do you think you guys have to set up an additional tanker, at seven zillion dollars a gallon, because you couldn't depart with a full fuel load, because it's hot as hell outside, and your fifty-five year old engines don't have enough thermal headroom to make anything resembling max power at that temperature? How often would you like to be able to climb direct to your operating altitude, instead of having to step-climb? How would you like the ability to operate at runways that are currently off-limits to you due to performance? Too bad congress is full of people who can just barely get their shoes tied in the morning.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 15:30
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Not to mention the immense capability upgrade that new engines would allow. I know you're an AWACS dude, Godholio, how often do you think you guys have to set up an additional tanker, at seven zillion dollars a gallon, because you couldn't depart with a full fuel load, because it's hot as hell outside, and your fifty-five year old engines don't have enough thermal headroom to make anything resembling max power at that temperature? How often would you like to be able to climb direct to your operating altitude, instead of having to step-climb? How would you like the ability to operate at runways that are currently off-limits to you due to performance? This is a guy who knows what's up. We've had operational missions cancel because it was too hot to take off with enough gas to get to our tanker.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 16:08
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Not to mention the immense capability upgrade that new engines would allow. I know you're an AWACS dude, Godholio, how often do you think you guys have to set up an additional tanker, at seven zillion dollars a gallon, because you couldn't depart with a full fuel load, because it's hot as hell outside, and your fifty-five year old engines don't have enough thermal headroom to make anything resembling max power at that temperature? How often would you like to be able to climb direct to your operating altitude, instead of having to step-climb? How would you like the ability to operate at runways that are currently off-limits to you due to performance? Short story: often. Runway goes wet in the winter? We're hosed by 10-15k JP-8. Hot and high airports? Very hosed. Basically AWACS is terrible. Step-climb isn't something we do usually. Power limitations are a thing during AR after unload or taking gas from a KC-10 since those dudes have power for days. The E-3 will be drat near pegged out at mil rated thrust sooner rather than later taking gas from them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 18:03
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Runway goes wet in the winter? We're hosed by 10-15k JP-8.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 18:44
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Could you explain this for dummies? Ya sure. On a dry runway, all 4 engines are at the same power setting. The jet has a good, grippy surface to accelerate to takeoff or accelerate, experience an (in this instance) an engine failure, then come to a stop. This is predicated on the fact that we haven't accelerated to V1 (decision speed), which if you recall an earlier post of mine, is the minimum speed needed to continue the takeoff safely. Anyhow, so there is the jet accelerating on a dry runway. Engine #1 shuts down, We're down to 3 engines; this puts us in an asymmetric thrust situation where the the wing with the 2 good engines is gonna create a left hand yaw motion. This is OK. The jet is still very controllable with the conditions we have. Now put this same jet on an icy or wet runway--the surface conditions, well the severity, now starts having a serious and tangible impact on the aircraft handling while on takeoff roll. So what Boeing does to mitigate this is have the crew compute what's called a Split EPR takeoff. Essentially, the outboard engines are set to a lower thrust setting than the inboards because physics tell us that losing an engine further from the centerline creates a larger yaw motion. So for simplicity's sake, we're power-limited by our own accord due to the the potential of an engine failure jeopardizing the safety of the takeoff. Less power means we can't launch with as much gas as we'd like to. Now a cold and dry day?!? That is Valhalla.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 19:05
|
|
|
Godholio posted:This is a guy who knows what's up. We've had operational missions cancel because it was too hot to take off with enough gas to get to our tanker. I'm always learnin' stuff in this thread. Y'know, you'd think (if you didn't know anything about where American politics is right now) it'd be an easy thing in a depressed economy to get money for those sorts of upgrades. American Cons are entirely comfortable with stimulus spending as long as it is on defense (witness a bunch of congressmen actually doing work to make sure 100 new tanks are made, even though several thousand M1s are parked in storage out near Reno.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 19:25
|
|
|
 This was my 4th of July, not bad, really.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 21:18
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I'm always learnin' stuff in this thread. In their defense at least part of the reason they keep building new tanks is to keep the production facility in operation so they don't lose the construction specialists.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 21:24
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:
God I LOVE the F4-U 
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 23:20
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:In their defense at least part of the reason they keep building new tanks is to keep the production facility in operation so they don't lose the construction specialists. Geez that is starting to get me thinking about when we would get a NEW tank design fielded. 2050? 2075?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 23:42
|
|
|
ElBrak posted:Geez that is starting to get me thinking about when we would get a NEW tank design fielded. 2050? 2075? I know the British have no plans to make a replacement for the Challenger 2, simply because there's nothing on the horizon that would require it. I suspect it's the same for the Abrams. Content: this thing was chillin' overnight on the tarmac: 
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 00:54
|
|
|
We had one of those at Stewart a few weeks back. Made me misty eyed for the C-5's.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 01:04
|
|
|
Happy 4th, everyone.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 03:43
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:In their defense at least part of the reason they keep building new tanks is to keep the production facility in operation so they don't lose the construction specialists. Of course the tanks being produced in the house majority leader's district has nothing to do with it. I bet the USAF will reengine literally everything to JT9Ds when everyone is ditching 747s at dirt cheap rates. Alternatively, as soon as a 747 is seized as part of a drug ring. (We got a C-137 this way!)
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 03:59
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:[Wet runway stuff] monkeytennis posted:God I LOVE the F4-U
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 04:56
|
|
|
^^^^^ Yessir.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 05:02
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:
Is that Aluminum Overcast? Also, I think that's the F4U that's coming to Thunder Over Michigan.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 05:37
|
|
|
monkeytennis posted:God I LOVE the F4-U F4U, the dash was for the sub variant. ie F4U-5 or F4U-1A did you know that the A-4D was never made to avoid confusion with the A4D? I'm also convinced that the Grumman is the reason that fighter designations went back to teens. They had a pretty good run going on there, no sense in numbering things out of order... F4F  F5F  F6F  F7F  F8F  F9F    XF10F  F11F  F13F = F111 F-14 Had to be the Tomcat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 05:38
|
|
|
Polymerized Cum posted:Happy 4th, everyone. Beautiful, always love your helicopter pictures.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 07:33
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:(We got a C-137 this way!) Can you go into detail? This sounds like a typical crazy aviation story and I'd like to know more. Captain Postal fucked around with this message at 07:54 on Jul 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 07:47
|
|
|
Polymerized Cum posted:Happy 4th, everyone. Sweet!!! I love it. I flew today but it was a bit too early for fireworks.  It would have been cool to fly into San Francisco while it was dark.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 08:44
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:
I see you were also in St. Louis yesterday. I'm about to go to the airport to fly in the B-17. Status: worth it. mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Jul 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 12:55
|
|
|
azflyboy posted: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. Horray for ITAR, we own 2 camera systems that have a controlled IMU, therefor we have to be ITAR certified and also go through the Controlled Goods Directorate inspection to be able to house the things in Canada.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 04:17
|
|
|
Apparently an OZ 777 just crashed at SFO on 28R, looks bad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 19:48
|
|
|
Oh poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 19:52
|
|
|
It's not good. Plane flipped and exploded on landing, apparently. Rescue slides deployed. Looks like this flight http://flightaware.com/live/flight/AAR214
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 19:54
|
|
|
Cygni posted:It's not good. Plane flipped and exploded on landing, apparently. Rescue slides deployed. Didn't look like it flipped but the empennage is gone. There are people alive on that jet for them to have deployed the slides. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dFtmSybpuw
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 19:55
|
|
|
quote:stefanielaine @stefanielaine
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
Well it's upright in that vid.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 20:02
|
|
|
That video's the first I've seen of the plane up close, hard to tell what kind of condition it's in but the nose and such looks relatively undamaged, I wonder if it wasn't a hard landing/tail strike since as you said, the empennage is clearly gone. edit: http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/local/boeing-777-crashes-while-landing-sfo/nYfcx/ quote:According to a witness, around 11:20 a.m. the plane was just about to land -- its landing gear had come down -- when the tail of the plane came off. considering they said it was on its back yet in the picture it's clearly not upside down, I don't know how credible that witness is. PREYING MANTITS fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Jul 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
I have no clue. The impact had to have been tremendous for the rear fuselage to be snapped off like that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 20:11
|
|
|
Either that or a bunch of hard landings over time, yeah?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 20:21
|
|
|
Guess one of the survivors is already tweeting. David Eun @Eunner I just crash landed at SFO. Tail ripped off. Most everyone seems fine. I'm ok. Surreal... (at @flySFO) [pic] — path.com/p/1lwrZb 
PREYING MANTITS fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Jul 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 20:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 05:33 |
|
|
ctishman posted:Either that or a bunch of hard landings over time, yeah? Jets just don't snap without showing massive signs of stress first which will be seen in typical maintenance. That's why composite materials are a maintenance issue because they don't telegraph wear and stress like metals do. Edit: goes to show you that witness accounts can and are highly inaccurate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 20:23
|
|