|
ctishman posted:Does anyone know where I can find a decent archive of aircraft sounds effects? Specifically, I'm looking for that nice loud klaxon that Boeing airliners make when they're about to power up the APU. I'm sure it won't have quite the same jolt-of-adrenaline effect as being behind the tail when they decide to run it up, but it'd make for a cool ringtone. What klaxon is that? The fire bell in the flight deck, or the nose gear horn that sounds during the fire test? Those are the only sounds I can think of that you'd hear before apu startup.
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 09:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 00:34 |
|
|
India! http://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india/part-of-fuselage-of-air-india-dreamliner-falls-off-mid-air-29246.htmlquote:Part of fuselage of Air India Dreamliner falls off mid-air, lands safely A bit fell off our airplane but no big deal. Also loving the attempt from the writer to make it sound scarier than it was.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 12:07
|
|
|
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad posted:India! http://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india/part-of-fuselage-of-air-india-dreamliner-falls-off-mid-air-29246.html nothing a bit of speed tape won't fix!
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 12:10
|
|
|
A-10 Thunderbolt II Jet Porn http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCGNJ98LN1M
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 17:39
|
|
|
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad posted:India! http://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india/part-of-fuselage-of-air-india-dreamliner-falls-off-mid-air-29246.html If the experiences of a friend of mine, who's a tech on 747s, are anything to go by, this is an Air India problem and not a Dreamliner problem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 17:54
|
|
|
Linedance posted:What klaxon is that? The fire bell in the flight deck, or the nose gear horn that sounds during the fire test? Those are the only sounds I can think of that you'd hear before apu startup. It definitely wasn't the fire bell. I heard that later as they were working on getting it started again (generator trouble). It might have been at the nose gear, but I was pretty sure it came from near the tail. It was a loud 'Woop-woop-woop'.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 19:40
|
|
|
ctishman posted:It definitely wasn't the fire bell. I heard that later as they were working on getting it started again (generator trouble). It might have been at the nose gear, but I was pretty sure it came from near the tail. It was a loud 'Woop-woop-woop'. huh, never heard that on a 767 or 777. Might be an airline specific option... one too many mechanics roasted...
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 22:27
|
|
|
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad posted:India! http://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india/part-of-fuselage-of-air-india-dreamliner-falls-off-mid-air-29246.html The headline reads like the piece of fuselage landed safely.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 23:01
|
|
|
tactlessbastard posted:The headline reads like the piece of fuselage landed safely. Every passenger that was onboard that particular fairing panel landed successfully in a wheat field somewhere in Madhya Pradesh.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 03:09
|
|
|
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad posted:India! A friend of mine works for a company that does load control at an AI outstation in country N. He tells me that they routinely have captains come by, look at the load sheet, then change the Maximum Recommended Weight and similar masses as needed. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 06:18
|
|
|
My uncle works as an aerospace engineer for Honeywell Canada and happened to mention over the Thanksgiving weekend ( ) that two of his coworkers had to hop on a plane and take off for London with 5 hours notice because of that 787 fire was their fault!http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c04d4f3c-edf3-11e2-816e-00144feabdc0.html Other projects that his crew has worked on. . . tail rotor for the Blackhawk 
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 14:45
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:The Atlantic has a good 'In Focus' section on Dirigible pictures at the moment. Some stuff I hadn't seen, and I seen some blimps in my day Nice. I don't think I've seen a non-prototype shot of the LEMV before. Also glad to see Graf Zeppelin kept up the tradition of crazy ladders on airships.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 22:42
|
|
|
I saw an F-22 land at our local airport today, across the street from where I work. Normally we get little planes like your typical cessnas, some helicopters, twice a week Allegiant flies out an MD-80 but thats really about as exciting as it normally gets. We have Hill AFB about 5 miles SE of Ogden-Hinckley Airport, I'd imagine he meant to set down there. In this picture I was standing where the red dot is, I can't imagine he was more than a few hundred feet off the ground at that point. Closest I've been to an F-22, pretty impressive. I didn't see it take off in the two hours I had left at work though. What kind of issues will they have with landing at a public airport? I was in the USAF but as intel and didn't deal with any aviation stuff so I feel kinda dumb about this stuff. I seem to remember one of our T-38s from Beale landing at Sacramento Intl once and they had to send down some crew chiefs and whatnot. I don't imagine public airports are big about fod walking the flightline either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 01:31
|
|
|
Someone will probably have to stay with it until it leaves, but it's not that big a deal. Could have been an in flight emergency or some other reason the landing would be intentional. If it was accidental, it'd be interesting since the runways aren't closely aligned at all and the airports look vastly different. Though not always, usually inadvertent landings happen at fields where a runway sits right under the approach path of another and they're also pointed the same way. There are routine pavement checks at civilian airports. Both airports I've worked at send a car out twice a day to look for FOD. This happened with a commercial flight coming in to CRP Corpus Christi: NTSB Report Here. And everyone's favorite: A C17 lands at a really really small airport: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkuqsd_tRHw Taking back off (pushes itself back for a full length departure using reverse thrust): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wi58Ds3Krgw Those engines hanging so far over the edge of the runway kick up a lot of poo poo. The Ferret King fucked around with this message at 01:54 on Oct 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 01:41
|
|
|
Pivit posted:I saw an F-22 land at our local airport today, across the street from where I work. Normally we get little planes like your typical cessnas, some helicopters, twice a week Allegiant flies out an MD-80 but thats really about as exciting as it normally gets. When I was stationed at Cheyenne ANG, we'd get A-10s and F-16s/F-15s randomly stopping by to see if we could re-fill their oxygen or fuel. I was always kind of curious why they did that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 01:55
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:And everyone's favorite: A C17 lands at a really really small airport: I almost find it funny how the guy making the video is surprised the C-17 managed to stop on that runway. I mean, it's not like the C-17 wasn't built to drop in on short, unimproved RED HORSE specials anyways.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 02:31
|
|
|
Maybe he doesn't know what C-17's can/can't do? I have family that flew 141's, 130's, and other airframes, but ask them what any of the fast movers can do and they'd tell you they go fast and can probably shoot my plane down. Not everyone needs or wants to be an encyclopedia on aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 03:51
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:I almost find it funny how the guy making the video is surprised the C-17 managed to stop on that runway. I mean, it's not like the C-17 wasn't built to drop in on short, unimproved RED HORSE specials anyways. Not everyone knows airplanes dude.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 03:55
|
|
|
Pivit posted:I saw an F-22 land at our local airport today, across the street from where I work. Normally we get little planes like your typical cessnas, some helicopters, twice a week Allegiant flies out an MD-80 but thats really about as exciting as it normally gets. Heh. I'm about 3 miles away from you, apparently. Someone will have to guard the jet until it leaves...since it's close to Hill it's not a big deal, except for the couple of cops that have to actually sit there and do it. Likewise, whatever specific maintenance is necessary to get it out. Fueling is no problem, and there's not going to be a poo poo ton of paperwork or anything ridiculous involved. Now, I'm assuming it landed there for a good reason...if the pilot just put it down on the wrong patch he's gonna be in a ton of poo poo, but if it was a legitimate divert it's not a big deal. Your assumptions sound pretty much bang on with what I dealt with on diverts with AWACS. We had to land in Puerto Rico, for gently caress's sake, and had to get volunteers from the crew to guard the plane because nobody answered at the ANG facility.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 04:27
|
|
|
So, I decided to go to flight school starting in January. I'm having a lot of trouble deciding if I want fixed wing or rotary though. Realistically, I want both, but I don't have that kind of money. I know we had a goon somewhere that was doing helo training, if you're him, PM me or something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 00:10
|
|
|
Like military flight school? Cheapest route (best route); Fixed wing for 40 hours, license, then add on rotorcraft.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 00:57
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Not everyone knows airplanes dude. Not a bad assumption for someone taking good video at an airport though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 01:06
|
|
|
invision posted:So, I decided to go to flight school starting in January. I'm having a lot of trouble deciding if I want fixed wing or rotary though. Realistically, I want both, but I don't have that kind of money. I know we had a goon somewhere that was doing helo training, if you're him, PM me or something. I'm in rotary wing training (navy though), I can answer questions about that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 01:18
|
|
|
Not mil, I'm doing it through the local college (and hillsboro aviation if that means anything) Granted, I'm not looking at this completely for a ~career~, but it would be nice to know that if something happens with me firefighting that I'd have something to kind of fall back on. I guess a "job market report" on helos vs fixed wing is really what I'm looking for. The people at the school swear up and down its possible to transition to a turbine job after being a CFII for a year or two, but I've also heard the exact opposite of that. Really I just want to fly for enjoyment, but if I could get a job doing it, that's even better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 01:25
|
|
|
Yeah, I guess I won't be much help. All I know is that its expensive, even more so compared to regular fixed wing time. Its enjoyable for sure. I don't know much about the R22 because we start straight into turbines, but it looks like a pretty fun little helicopter. I enjoyed the hell out of my fixed wing time too, so there's also that. That seems to be cheaper too. I don't know how reliable the job market is on either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 01:56
|
|
|
Here's an aviation thread in ask/ tell: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3541387
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 04:16
|
|
|
Pivit posted:I saw an F-22 land at our local airport today, across the street from where I work. Normally we get little planes like your typical cessnas, some helicopters, twice a week Allegiant flies out an MD-80 but thats really about as exciting as it normally gets. Goddammit, I knew I should have gone to work yesterday  What's up KOGD buddies? I teach at one of the flight schools based there
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 05:08
|
|
|
invision posted:Not mil, I'm doing it through the local college (and hillsboro aviation if that means anything) Its a lot easier and cheaper to learn airmanship in fixed wing then when you are learning to fly helis then you can just concentrate on flying that, not trying to learn how to fly in general.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 08:36
|
|
|
D C posted:Its a lot easier and cheaper to learn airmanship in fixed wing then when you are learning to fly helis then you can just concentrate on flying that, not trying to learn how to fly in general. This. It's really expensive to do basic VFR navigation, pattern work, etc, at $300/hr.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 14:09
|
|
|
Butt Reactor posted:Goddammit, I knew I should have gone to work yesterday The goons per capita of SW Weber County is rising to disturbing levels. I used to work over at Swire Coke. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 14:22
|
|
|
Today was a good day, because it was a day that I got to take a picture of this guy: Raytheon's LAX-based testbed 727, "Voodoo One."
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 02:39
|
|
|
I love goofy looking testbeds. I flew on this a few days a week for 2-3 years. I think we are retiring it this year though  
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 03:09
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:I almost find it funny how the guy making the video is surprised the C-17 managed to stop on that runway. I mean, it's not like the C-17 wasn't built to drop in on short, unimproved RED HORSE specials anyways. We had the Evergreen 747 land on our measly 6000' runway and only used about 4500' of it. I was genuinely shocked when I saw that, and I thought I knew aircraft decently well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 03:31
|
|
|
slidebite posted:We had the Evergreen 747 land on our measly 6000' runway and only used about 4500' of it. I was genuinely shocked when I saw that, and I thought I knew aircraft decently well. Empty airplanes can stop pretty fast. It'll have one hell of a weight penalty taking off again though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 03:36
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:I love goofy looking testbeds. I flew on this a few days a week for 2-3 years. I think we are retiring it this year though I'll miss that little guy. Anyway- this is what became of the first 757  N757A by Powercube, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 05:02
|
|
|
On the First of May, 1954, as part of their annual May Day celebrations, the Soviet Air Force held a massive air show to demonstrate, both to the Soviet people and to Western observers, the strength and prowess of their aviation industry. Huge formations of fighters, bombers and transports (both military and civilian) flew past the assembled crowd, interspersed with displays of cutting-edge prototypes and development aircraft. Two aircraft stood out that year; both were large, four-engine aircraft, with swept wings and a purposeful, menacing look that left no doubt of their intended purpose they were bombers...bombers capable of delivering nuclear weapons over American cities via the North Pole. Intelligence analysts from all the major Western nations who were present at this air show collectively gasped at the sight...then proceeded to get it all wrong. On the other side of the story, you have a brash, young engineer locked in a battle of egos with his former mentor as they both fought for the attention (and admiration) of the Soviet government. One would become one of the greatest aircraft designers of the Soviet Union, if not of all time; the other, caught in a perpetual cycle of falling in and out of favour with the powers that be. This is the story of the Myasishchev M-4 Bison. The Beginning As the World War II came to a close, three things were clear about the future of aerial bombardment; first, the jet engine showed the potential to allow aircraft to carry huge payloads higher and faster than ever. Second, with the advent of the atomic bomb, the huge, massed formations of bombers of WWII were a thing of the past – one atomic bomber could do the work of several hundred conventional bombers. Third and finally, the most advanced bombers of the time were not large enough to carry atomic weapons, nor did they have enough performance to be able to carry it any meaningful distance or be able to dodge the defenses of the time. Clearly, new aircraft were needed. Unfortunately for the Soviets, they lagged behind considerably in developing a fleet of aircraft that were capable of just these things – a “bomber gap”, in their minds, had developed. This was a natural outcome of the previous ten years – the Americans had concentrated a considerable amount of resources developing long-range bombers in the lead up to and during WWII, with the mighty Convair B-36 being the ultimate expression of that philosophy. The Soviets, pressed for resources and facing an entirely different threat from the Germans, spent more time designing and building fighter and attack aircraft – long-range bombers fell into the “nice to have were it not for our need for a hundred thousand fighter aircraft” category. As the war progressed, however, the Soviet leadership began to realise that they needed to address this issue at some point, particularly so when they learned of the capabilities of the Boeing B-29 Superfortress then entering service in the Pacific Theater. Upon acquiring a pair of battle-damaged B-29s when their crews flew them to Soviet airfields in the Far East, Josef Stalin personally tasked Andrei Tupolev with reverse-engineering the B-29 for use by the Soviet Air Force. This aircraft, the Tupolev Tu-4 “Bull”, was a near-carbon copy of the B-29, and served in large numbers with the Soviets until the 1960s.  Tupolev Tu-4 "Bull" on display at Monino. While the Bull was in fact a valuable asset, the knowledge acquired during that program was even more so. Shortly after, Tupolev rolled out the Tu-80 and Tu-85, both of which could be considered to be vastly improved variants of the original Tu-4.  Tupolev TU-85 prototype; notice the similarity to the TU-4. However, these aircraft, like their piston-powered American contemporaries, were now viewed as obsolete – clean sheet designs were needed, and needed fast. The Power Struggle In the late 1940s, Andrei Tupolev and his design bureau began studying the possibility of a jet-powered, intercontinental bomber, capable of carrying an atomic weapon from the Soviet Union to the United States. However, with his experience designing the successful Tu-16 “Badger” medium bomber, Tupolev quickly came to the conclusion that while the jet engine offered great potential, it was as yet not ready to power this theoretical intercontinental bomber. Having eliminated the concept of pure jet power, he did determine that a turboprop engine (simply, a jet engine driving a propeller) just might be able to offer the power and efficiency needed for such an aircraft, and devoted the considerable resources his Tupolev design bureau possessed toward this project. Meanwhile, Tupolev’s former protégé, Vladimir Myasishchev, looked upon the problem and determined that it would indeed be possible to design a jet-powered intercontinental bomber. Having demonstrated his considerable talent during WWII, Myasishchev approached the Aviation Ministry for permission to found his own design bureau, away from the domineering and stifling presence of Tupolev. Years of work ensued, and the pressure was immense; intelligence from the United States indicated that the Pentagon had just placed a request for an aircraft of very similar specification to the aircraft that both Tupolev and Myasishchev were working on, and that it would be a great propaganda coup for the Soviets to field one (or both) aircraft before the Americans. The personal conflict came into play too; Myasishchev wanted to demonstrate that Tupolev’s conservative ways were his downfall, and he strove day and night to build the aircraft that Tupolev had dismissed as impossible. In 1952, Tupolev won the race; the Tu-95 “Bear” took its first flight.  Early Tu-95, intercepted by a Convair F_102 Delta Dagger. However, the Tu-95 was fraught with development problems; the prototype was lost to an uncontrollable engine fire very early into the flight test program. Suddenly, it seemed that the cautious Tupolev might have been wrong after all...sticking with a terrifyingly complex propulsion system and an aircraft a hundred miles an hour slower than Myasishchev’s promised machine? Such a foolish old man! The pressure was still on, as in the United States, Boeing had just flown their gigantic, eight-engine bomber, the B-52, whose specifications might even best that of Myasischev’s wonder bomber, to say nothing of the hapless B-60 that Convair was trying to sell!  Boeing XB-52 Stratofortress; the tandem cockpit was dropped for production models. Finally, with Tupolev seemingly on the ropes, Myasishchev rolled out his prototype bomber, designated the M-4, at the end of 1952. Similar in size and weight to the Tu-95, the M-4 differed considerably from the Tu-95 with its four wing root mounted Mikulin AM-3A turbojet engines (two of which powered Tupolev’s Tu-16), and unusual bicycle landing gear, giving the aircraft a very nose-high stance. Small outrigger wheels in wingtip pods tamed this unstable configuration, in much the same way as the B-52.  Myasishchev M-4 "Bison" Three-View; The M-4 "Bison-A" plan view is on top, while the improved 3M "Bison-B" is below.  M-4 inflight. Zhukhovsky, We Have a Problem Flight testing began early in 1953, and immediately, it became evident that the M-4 was unable to deliver on many of its performance promises. Initially, the range of the M-4 was only enough to make a one-way attack on the United States, and only if the aircraft used staging grounds deep in Siberia or the Soviet Far East, neither of which really existed. It was also found the unconventional landing gear layout was a major reason why takeoff performance was so poor, so a hydraulic “jump” unit was fitted to the forward landing gear unit, to spring the nose of the aircraft up at rotation speed. Adding to the insult, Tupolev was making great strides ironing out the initial problems with the Tu-95, and it was shaping up that the Bear could indeed deliver on all of its performance promises; it was even faster than Tupolev had hoped it would be as well! Undaunted, Myasishchev continued development of the M-4; engine designer Dobrynin was working on an engine of the right size for the M-4, but with the promise of much improved fuel consumption. Other improvements were planned too; the Americans had demonstrated that in flight refueling was possible and even useful...why not refuel the M-4 in flight as well? However, by this time the Soviet Air Force had seen enough, and decided that Tupolev’s aircraft was the right aircraft for their needs. At the same time, the political machine of the Soviet Union saw a lot of potential in the M-4; they feared the Americans had more bombers than they did, yet they also recognised that they did not have a jet intercontinental bomber in service at the time, so why not try and scare the Americans into thinking the Soviets had already fielded a heavy jet bomber? A plan was hatched; at the 1954 May Day air show at Tushino airport, they would fly both the Tu-95 and M-4 prototypes in paint schemes that resembled operational aircraft, but without any identification numbers on the sides, so as to hide the true number of aircraft participating. The plan worked perfectly – rather too perfectly, actually. The intelligence analysts present at the show were astounded when a formation of M-4s roared overhead, only to be followed by yet another formation of M-4s a few minutes later (sounds suspicious?), so astounded that they dismissed the importance of the formation of gigantic, turboprop-powered oddities that flew over interspersed with the M-4 formations. Breathless reports were filed; “the Reds have a heavy jet bomber, and they had dozens of them fly over the air show today!”; the gears turned in their collective heads and the reports made their way up the chain of command and all of a sudden, the Soviets have hundreds of M-4s, now designated “Bison”, in service RIGHT NOW. It wasn’t until several years and many U-2 overflights later that the West finally learned that not only were the numbers of Bison thought to be in service were completely false, but that turboprop-powered oddity, the Tu-95 Bear, was actually in service in far greater numbers. Bison-B: More Bisoner...er... So having scared the poo poo out of the West, there really wasn’t much more use for the M-4 Bison; the aircraft was a dog, no two ways about it. That is, until Myasishchev finally got his improved Bison, now designated the 3M, into the air.  Myasishchev 3M "Bison-B" and its revised nose, incorporating an in flight refueling probe. The improved engines were exactly that; fuel consumption was low enough that the 3M finally had something approaching the original range target (it was still substantially short of the goal, however, but in flight refueling helped remedy that), but by this point, the Soviet Air Force was content with their Tu-95 fleet and was starting to look beyond the speed of sound for the successor to both the Tu-95 and the Tu-16. The only arm of the military that had an unfilled need for a long-range combat aircraft was the Soviet Navy, who ordered a number of the improved 3M Bison, designated “Bison-B” by NATO, as well as a number of tanker versions of the Bison. These aircraft served in limited roles until the 1990s. All in all, 93 Bison of all variants were built; a far cry from the 500-odd Tu-95 Bears produced, and a long way off the hundreds of aircraft purported to be in service in the mid-1950s.  3M "Bison-B" at Monino today. Vladimir Myasishchev – Transport  Myasishchev VM-T Atlant with Buran. Buran's vertical stabiliser is removed for better stability. A footnote to the M-4 story that is just too good to leave out is the VM-T. In the late 1970s, the Soviets were caught up in Space Shuttle fever, just like the Americans. Their line of thought was that while the Space Shuttle was ostensibly civilian in nature, it could have any number of military applications and consequentially it was vital that they had one too. The only problem is that to be able to fly the thing with any degree of frequency, they needed a transport aircraft that could carry outsized cargo from the factories dispersed all over the country to Baikonur, and in a pinch, transport the orbiter itself, at least until a dedicated aircraft was ready for the task (this aircraft ultimately being the Antonov An-225). Vladimir Myasishchev, having been stripped of his design bureau and working with the Buran program, saw fit to modify a pair of his beloved 3M Bison. With mounting points fitted to top of the fuselage and new horizontal and vertical stabilisers installed, these aircraft, called the VM-T Atlant, were to carry outsize cargo either in a pod or whole, as the payload dictated. These aircraft served very sporadically until 1999, when both were retired from service; one aircraft is still shown regularly as a static display at the biannual MAKS air show at Zhukovsky air base.  VM-T with cargo pod. Next Infopost: Myasishchev M-50 Bounder; or, Vladimir Writes Cheques his Bureau Can’t Cash
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 09:18
|
|
|
MrChips posted:brilliance A lovely read, thanks! Looking forward to the next one
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 13:43
|
|
|
Powercube posted:I'll miss that little guy. Fun Fact: BAC stopped offering 111 training/certs a few years ago because no one flies them anymore. They basically told our pilots 'you are the only people in the US still flying them so just uh do your own training'. I think we will still have one BAC kicking around for a while. I haven't been involved with our flight test for a while so I'm not sure if the new CRJ is replacing just the one or both that we were still flying. So many memories on that jet, like the time we had a hard landing that dislodged the oxygen mask in my seat...the plastic tube was so old and corroded that it just fell into my lap. Or losing an engine at 500ft over the Chesapeake and the bolted shut shitter door because the flight test mechanics were tired of cleaning it out.  e: Also walking up front to check/troubleshoot LRUS and seeing daylight at the seam the entire way around the main cabin door. That was unsettling the first few times. For people that have no idea what I'm talking about : http://www.bac1-11jet.co.uk/bac1-11jet.co.uk%20Current%20fleet.htm Plinkey fucked around with this message at 17:07 on Oct 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 16:50
|
|
|
About 3 years ago when I was working at Waco Regional Airport, former President G.W. Bush chartered a flight into there on his way to the ranch. It was a BAC-111. I don't recall the company or callsign. The first, and only time, I've seen one in person or on the radar scopes. Nothing all that interesting flies into Corpus Christi International but I occasionally work Twin Beeches, DC3s and a turbo prop Convair on radar down in the Rio Grande Valley area (Mexico has a few older aircraft still running regularly it seems.) Probably the most unique aircraft sightings since working at airports have been at Waco. My favorites The Stemme S10-VT Motorized Glider  Helio Courier  Firefighting Lockheed P-2 Neptune  Nothing all that rare but I enjoyed the variety that came into/out of Waco Regional. Sitting between the largest metro areas of Texas meant we had a lot more opportunity to see a variety of aircraft. At Corpus it's almost all Navy/scheduled itinerant aircraft that we've seen a million times. CRP is supposed to be adding some T-hangers for rent soon, which might increase our general aviation numbers a bit. My guess is that they'll be way overpriced and gas is already outrageous at either of the two FBOs here, so we'll see if it changes much.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 17:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 00:34 |
|
|
MrChips posted:Infodump about a crazy man named Vladimir I love the Bison just because of the bicycle landing gear. I blame Kruschev for the the Bounder, I don't think that the debacle you are writing about next was entirely Myashischev's fault- I blame the political climate of "SOVIET SUPERMEN WILL USE SCIENCE TO PREVAIL" for creating unrealistic goals.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 17:33
|
|