|
CommieGIR posted:Its probably static 
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 21:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 06:51 |
|
|
I got some pictures of a cut-away 4360 a couple months ago, guess I should finally post it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 22:55
|
|
|
MeatloafCat posted:I got some pictures of a cut-away 4360 a couple months ago, guess I should finally post it. Is that at Chanute?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 23:12
|
|
|
It's from Owls Head Transportation Museum just outside Rockland Maine. Not a very big place but lots of interesting old cars.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 23:24
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Its probably static, I thought that B-36 was actually reassembled from the carcasses of multiple B-36s Pima actually has the last B-36 ever built on display, and I believe there are only a few parts that aren't original to it. The aircraft was originally displayed in Texas, but a combination of climate and lack of upkeep meant that it had decayed pretty badly and the museum there couldn't raise the money to properly restore and display the B-36. As a result, the USAF museum (who technically own the airplane) decided that the Pima museum did have the resources to fix up the B-36, so it was disassembled and trucked to the museum in 2005, and it went on display in 2009 after around 24,000 hours of restoration work. Because the climate in Tucson is so arid, metal aircraft don't really decay when they're stored outside, and as long as the windows are covered to keep the interiors from being destroyed by the sun, all that's needed is new paint after 10 or 15 years when the sun bleaches the old paint somewhat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 23:49
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:A flying B-36 is an unobtanium dream of mine. Just think of the heritage flybys: B-17, B-24, B-29, B-36, B-47 (another dream of mine, and possibly slightly more feasible,) B-52, B-1, and a B-2, all in one (gigantic, obnoxiously loud,) formation. This is my understanding as well: that the B-36 had about as many parts and be as hard to maintain as the equivalent weight of Swiss watches. Kind of surprised there's no flying B-47, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 00:02
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:This is my understanding as well: that the B-36 had about as many parts and be as hard to maintain as the equivalent weight of Swiss watches. There are no flying B-47s because a) Arms limitation treaties and b) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cIgTAtj4E4&t=740s (Actually watch that whole video, if you want to see a wobbly old bomber flown like a fighter  )When the B-47 was retired, the entire fleet was beat to absolute hell because of toss-bombing - tons of them had cracks in the wing spars and a number were lost in inflight break-ups. MrChips fucked around with this message at 00:18 on Oct 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 00:12
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:A flying B-36 is an unobtanium dream of mine. Just think of the heritage flybys: B-17, B-24, B-29, B-36, B-47 (another dream of mine, and possibly slightly more feasible,) B-52, B-1, and a B-2, all in one (gigantic, obnoxiously loud,) formation. As long as we're doing fantasy display this needs to be followed by a low-altitude transonic B-58 flyby.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 03:04
|
|
|
No B70 in these fantasties? drat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 04:28
|
|
|
slidebite posted:No B70 in these fantasties? drat. That's no bomber, that is three heavy interceptors flying close formation! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 06:32
|
|
|
My favorite fact about the XB-70 is that the most important development to come out of it is the F-15.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 07:14
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:My favorite fact about the XB-70 is that the most important development to come out of it is the F-15. As in XB-70 --> MIG-25 --> F-15? It is kind of a funny situation that the F-15 was developed because someone / organization didn't understand what the MIG-25 was for.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 16:00
|
|
|
block51 posted:As in XB-70 --> MIG-25 --> F-15? It is kind of a funny situation that the F-15 was developed because someone / organization didn't understand what the MIG-25 was for. Exactly, although the Soviets looking at the XB-70 and thinking that it was something that was going into production is only a little less questionable. So the mother of invention is completely overestimating the engineering abilities of your enemy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 16:18
|
|
|
drat it, why dont they make cool planes anymore. gently caress drones. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 17:03
|
|
|
Preoptopus posted:drat it, why dont they make cool planes anymore. gently caress drones. Because we've reached the point where cool planes cost more than their weight in gold
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 17:52
|
|
|
On paper, the F-35 -is- a cool plane. Just not so much in practice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 18:19
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:Because we've reached the point where cool planes cost more than their weight in gold  So, the F-35 program would only be able to buy, like, 5 of them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 18:34
|
|
|
grover posted:A solid gold F-35 would cost about $60 billion You could also do the Apollo Space Program 3x over for that cost
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 18:39
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:You could also do the Apollo Space Program 3x over for that cost I'd much rather we do that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 20:31
|
|
|
moon base 
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 21:09
|
|
|
grover posted:A solid gold F-35 would cost about $60 billion  1333($/oz) x 32.15(oz/kg) x 13,500(kg) = ~$520M = ~3.8x an Aluminium/CF one I think you don't comprehend how retardedly overpriced the F35 program is... Yes, to a reasonable approximation, they almost DO cost their weight in solid gold. Captain Postal fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Oct 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 21:54
|
|
|
Maybe instead of buying bulk gold, Grover is buying commemorative Glenn Beck coins at retail then melting them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 01:48
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:
$1333/oz x 427291oz = $570M. Must have missed a decimal point in there :/ Actually, scales for most other modern aircraft. Gold Gripen would be $245M. Eurofighter $471M. Super Tacano $137M. It's not an F-35 problem; modern aircraft are just really expensive. grover fucked around with this message at 02:24 on Oct 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 02:14
|
|
|
I think that (real price)/(gold price) could be a new and interesting metric to measure aircraft procurement by. I made a graph:  My conclusions: 1) The B1 was the pinnacle of aircraft development - production aircraft only (confirms what we already knew) 2) In about 2050, we will no-poo poo hit the "costs its weight in gold threshold", and there will be no going back. 3) There is a VERY good reason why military aircraft procurement is down massively in the last few years, and civil aircraft procurement is on the way up. Get a job at Boeing/Airbus, not Lock-Mart. 4) gently caress stealth. Captain Postal fucked around with this message at 12:33 on Oct 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 04:16
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:I think that (real price)/(gold price) could be a new and interesting metric to measure aircraft procurement by. Is this using the date-appropriate price of gold? I know I think I read B-70 program cost it's weight in gold (1964) per aircraft reported as a true thing, not as hyperbole. Of course program cost divided by two probably helps.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 04:20
|
|
|
It's using today's gold price and the fly-away price at introduction adjusted for inflation to todays US$ I left the XB-70 off because a) It's got an X, b) it'd blow the chart away due to low production runs and c) I won't stand any criticism of the XB-70  And remember, 10 years ago the price of gold was ~$300, not $1300, so I suspect many of the later gen production aircraft would approach the magic threshold using that metric. That'd be interesting to analyse itself, but I've got to go give a class. But that is a surprisingly neat trend line there if you drop the commercials and pure stealths. I love finding random sets of things that all follow the same pattern Captain Postal fucked around with this message at 04:31 on Oct 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 04:24
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:3) There is a VERY good reason why military aircraft procurement is down massively in the last few years, and civil aircraft procurement is on the way up. Get a job at Boeing/Airbus, not Lock-Mart. But, but - you can design the stealth in at no added cost now! Also, I want to see an airline skip their A380 order and just put in for the equivalent weight's worth of F4s. I know I won't be seated next to my wife but I'm willing to make that sacrifice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 04:31
|
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:But, but - you can design the stealth in at no added cost now! "I may be going to Atlanta for the umpteenth time to make a connection, but I'm going there on a towering pillar of smoke and noise."
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 11:55
|
|
|
http://www.galvestondailynews.com/free/article_81fa2d94-3c0f-11e3-b8a4-0019bb30f31a.html Galveston Gal, the P-51D at the Lone Star Flight Museum, crashed yesterday. Both the pilot and passenger were killed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 14:53
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:"I may be going to Atlanta for the umpteenth time to make a connection, but I'm going there on a towering pillar of smoke and noise." Delta still flies tons of MD-90s out of ATL.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 15:11
|
|
|
PhotoKirk posted:http://www.galvestondailynews.com/free/article_81fa2d94-3c0f-11e3-b8a4-0019bb30f31a.html gently caress
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 16:38
|
|
|
Probably not interesting to most, but just another AC piss off. Air Canada throws a tantrum and says "Oh yeah?" to Edmonton Intl Airport authority. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/air-canada-dropped-london-flight-over-spat-with-edmonton-airport-1.2223651 quote:Air Canada suspended its direct flight to London's Hearthrow Airport after the Edmonton International Airport Authority promoted Icelandair's direct flight to Reykjavik. I remember when I lived up north YEG authority advertising the hell out of Air Canadas direct routes out of Edmonton, and now they dare advertise a Westjet code-share from YEG-YYZ-Iceland and they're all pissed off. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 18:02
|
|
|
That seems a bit petty. "Oh, promoting a flight that isn't ours are we?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 18:05
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Probably not interesting to most, but just another AC piss off. It's actually "promoting a flight that's YEG-KEF-XXX" It's extremely petty. Defenders say they were dropping the route because it was a dog and making a fake stand. I have the enplanement data and the average fare data that- well- contradicts that! YEG-KEF keeps getting its frequency upped and start-date pushed up. There is actually a market for both a 767 a day to LHR and a 757 to KEF. There are enough seats O&D to LHR from YEG as well as to onward European and African/Asian stations. The best part is that AC is actually putting their current slots that are used for YEG-LHR at risk of "use it or lose it" confiscation with no compensation. All in the name of spite!
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 18:32
|
|
|
Cocoa Crispies posted:Delta still flies tons of MD-90s out of ATL. Son delta still flies a ton of DC-9-51s out of ATL
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 21:02
|
|
|
Powercube posted:It's actually "promoting a flight that's YEG-KEF-XXX" It's extremely petty. Defenders say they were dropping the route because it was a dog and making a fake stand. I have the enplanement data and the average fare data that- well- contradicts that! If ever there was a company that would cut off its nose to spite its face, it's AC. That being said, I think what's being asserted is not just simply that YEG is promoting a different connection route to Europe, more that they're assisting it's promotion with unfair financial assistance. Obviously the airport authority is going to promote its routes so that it gets more revenue through the door. But if they're doing something like Air Canada pays $$$ landing fees on their LHR route, and in a special deal IcelandAir pays $ landing fees for its KEF route, you can see why AC is taking its ball and going home. What's going to be stupid as hell is if it spirals into a petty tit-for-tat battle where YEG tells AC if it's going to be like that, it can't fly any more Newfies in to work the tar sands, etc etc and everybody loses. If it's like I think, just a financial thing, AC is just using boneheaded negotiation tactics to get the same deal IcelandAir is getting on landing fees or whatever. A similar sort of thing happened with Porter and Toronto Island Airport.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 22:16
|
|
|
Cocoa Crispies posted:Delta still flies tons of MD-90s out of ATL. And it looks like I've got a flight on one of them in June.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 22:41
|
|
|
I worked on a project a few years ago, the intent of which was to turn one of these into an optionally-piloted vehicle. I was handed a whole pile of off-the-shelf stuff (with a Cloud Cap Piccolo II as the brain for autonomous flight) and told, "See if you can make this work." I got as far as actually getting all of the flight control surfaces to respond to radio control, but then the client ran out of money and took his airplane back.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 23:51
|
|
|
n0tqu1tesane posted:And it looks like I've got a flight on one of them in June. MD-90s are fine, but if you get a DC-9-50 don't sit in the exit row unless you like obnoxious high pitched sounds.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 23:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 06:51 |
|
|
Sit in 7D (starboard aisle seat, one row back from the exit row) on the DC-9-50 and you'll have as much legroom as you might ever need. Relatedly: I miss being near a Delta hub. What I get now is UA and two parallel runways technically not far enough apart. Oh and Virgin I guess. (CHORTLES.) ChickenOfTomorrow fucked around with this message at 02:36 on Oct 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 02:32
|
|
