|
Phy posted:Plus even if you could get it into the cockpit in a drinkable state, from what MrChips described the Blinder's handling to be like, you'd want to be as sober as a whole bench of judges if you were in the air and wanted to ever get back to the ground in one piece. "Is fine comrade, I totally E: phone posting, gently caress you BBCode Terrible Robot fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Nov 20, 2013 |
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 21:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 14:39 |
|
|
So why did they use alcohol? I assume it's resistance to Freezing?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 21:35
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:So why did they use alcohol? I assume it's resistance to Freezing? I'm guessing resistance to freezing and low viscosity at low temperature. Starting up hydraulics at -30 C is a total pain in the rear end when you have a big bulky system like a hatch cover, I can't imagine what it's like for something complex like an aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 21:58
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:So why did they use alcohol? I assume it's resistance to Freezing? I am totally guessing here, but it's also light weight, non-conductive, electromagnetically inert (not sure how that helps with radar), relatively easy to manufacture, low viscosity at low temperature and possibly helps prevent contamination of systems by either keeping them clean or evaporating well when spilled. I'm not sure which of those properties were selected for, but I'd bet a density 25% lower than water was one of them if you're talking about half a ton of the stuff on an aircraft, and non-conductive was a bonus for cooling electronics. FrozenVent posted:I'm guessing resistance to freezing and low viscosity at low temperature. edit: and yeah, the Russians used to cut the top off a fuel drum, put the drum under an aircraft engine cowl and light it on fire an hour or two before a sortie to thaw the engine out and melt the lubricant in WWII, so using less oil would probably be a plus Captain Postal fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Nov 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 22:02
|
|
|
Mil-H-5606 and its descendants are good to -40C or lower, and aren't quite as flammable as ethanol, to say nothing of their corrosion-inhibiting properties versus alcohol. I can't think of very many good reasons to use such an aromatic fluid, but then, I'm not a Russian engineer. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 22:39
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Mil-H-5606 and its descendants are good to -40C or lower, and aren't quite as flammable as ethanol, to say nothing of their corrosion-inhibiting properties versus alcohol. I can't think of very many good reasons to use such an aromatic fluid, but then, I'm not a Russian engineer. My bet is that a lot of the engineers had gone through the Great Patriotic War. They knew the next war'd be even harsher, they wanted their aircraft to work long after the factories that made coolant were shadows of their former selves. You can brew up ethanol anywhere, it can just take a bit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 22:58
|
|
|
e: ^^ good point, I didn't think of that.MrYenko posted:Mil-H-5606 and its descendants are good to -40C or lower, and aren't quite as flammable as ethanol, to say nothing of their corrosion-inhibiting properties versus alcohol. I can't think of very many good reasons to use such an aromatic fluid, but then, I'm not a Russian engineer. If the trend holds, the Russian Engineers were probably well versed in what *should* have been used. It's just when they said "we need some of this" the proposal was shot down by GOSPLAN or whoever because that industrial output had to go toward more ugly cement buildings or something, and why not use ethanol, it's much cheaper.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 23:03
|
|
|
Soviet designers operated on the Krusty brand quality assurance program.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 23:51
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Soviet designers operated on the Krusty brand quality assurance program. On the other hand, Russian planes continue operating the same way with some 16 year old farm boy with a sledgehammer maintaining it in the middle of Siberia. US aircraft break if you look at them funny.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 00:06
|
|
|
It wasn't a slight, really. They built workhorses and didn't make things more complicated than they had to be. It wasn't the best poo poo, it was the best poo poo they could get for the least amount of money.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 00:07
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:On the other hand, Russian planes continue operating the same way with some 16 year old farm boy with a sledgehammer maintaining it in the middle of Siberia. I talk a lot of poo poo about the E-3 and had my fair share of maintenance headaches with it but the drat jet was sturdy as all get out. For the amount of abuse put on it by lovely pilots slamming that poor jet onto the runway for hours on end, it held up remarkably well for a 35-year old 707. Basically I love the 707. You should to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 00:09
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:I talk a lot of poo poo about the E-3 and had my fair share of maintenance headaches with it but the drat jet was sturdy as all get out. For the amount of abuse put on it by lovely pilots slamming that poor jet onto the runway for hours on end, it held up remarkably well for a 35-year old 707. Basically this except for the F-15. I remember a dude cutting open a wire bundle and the copper within had eroded to such an extent that the only think keeping it together was the pressure of the wrap. A bunch of wires literally blew away in the wind.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 00:11
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:Basically this except for the F-15. Haha C model F-15's are dumb. Strike Eagle or go home, son.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 00:12
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:I talk a lot of poo poo about the E-3 and had my fair share of maintenance headaches with it but the drat jet was sturdy as all get out. For the amount of abuse put on it by lovely pilots slamming that poor jet onto the runway for hours on end, it held up remarkably well for a 35-year old 707. I was referring more to stealth fighters requiring retarded poo poo like climate controlled hangars and and army of contractors instead of any number of 707 based airframes that have stood up to crazy poo poo over the years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 00:44
|
|
|
Powercube posted:My bet is that a lot of the engineers had gone through the Great Patriotic War. They knew the next war'd be even harsher, they wanted their aircraft to work long after the factories that made coolant were shadows of their former selves. You can brew up ethanol anywhere, it can just take a bit. That doesn't really jibe with engines that need rebuilds after 100 or 50 hours, though. hobbesmaster posted:I was referring more to stealth fighters requiring retarded poo poo like climate controlled hangars and and army of contractors instead of any number of 707 based airframes that have stood up to crazy poo poo over the years. Stealth is a whole special thing that the Soviets had no real equivalent to, your US analog in this technical generation would be something like a Thunderchief that had no issues flying out of a jungle shithole.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 00:52
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:That doesn't really jibe with engines that need rebuilds after 100 or 50 hours, though. Ease of overhaul isn't necessarily a reflection on TBOH?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 00:58
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:That doesn't really jibe with engines that need rebuilds after 100 or 50 hours, though. As I understood it the rationale was to just massively overproduce the number of engines compared to aircraft, and then instead of depot-level servicing you just yanked the whole drat thing out and shoved a new one in. Something that could be done closer to the front by less skilled technicians with less downtime - if you had the resources (ie engines) prepositioned. but I don't know if that's really true or what.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 01:10
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I was referring more to stealth fighters requiring retarded poo poo like climate controlled hangars and and army of contractors instead of any number of 707 based airframes that have stood up to crazy poo poo over the years. The F-22 does not require any of that. They're parked outside, even in the Middle East.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 01:18
|
|
|
Powercube posted:My bet is that a lot of the engineers had gone through the Great Patriotic War. They knew the next war'd be even harsher, they wanted their aircraft to work long after the factories that made coolant were shadows of their former selves. You can brew up ethanol anywhere, it can just take a bit. My understanding is that the ethanol remains a usable liquid at temperatures well below conventional hydraulic fluids would become useless - it freezes at -114 degrees C (and something like -70 when it has 5% water in it). Remember that there are huge parts of Russia that see long stretches with temperatures below -45 degree Celsius, so cold-weather operations are a prime consideration when designing an aircraft there. Psion posted:As I understood it the rationale was to just massively overproduce the number of engines compared to aircraft, and then instead of depot-level servicing you just yanked the whole drat thing out and shoved a new one in. Something that could be done closer to the front by less skilled technicians with less downtime - if you had the resources (ie engines) prepositioned. That is some of it; most of the people working on the flight line would be essentially untrained conscripts, so if anything goes wrong with an engine or any other complex piece of equipment, they would just swap a good part in then ship off the broken/worn unit to a central depot where trained technicians would repair it. Also, don't forget that the Soviets were a very long way behind in terms of the metallurgy and the control units needed to make a jet engine work in something approaching an optimal fashion; either they could build a durable engine, or one that performed as they needed. As such, their need for engine performance almost always overrode the need for the engines to last a long time (as we'll see in my upcoming info post titled "Massandra").
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 01:52
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:So why did they use alcohol? I assume it's resistance to Freezing? I'd also wager that alcohol was used due to it's freezing point. I've flown piston twins in temperatures that would be warm by Russian standards (around -30C at the surface), and even with modern hydraulic fluids, the cold thickened them enough that you could hear the hydraulic pump for the landing gear working harder than it did in warmer temperatures and the circuit breaker for the pump would occasionally trip because the fluid was too viscous to move easily. On some aircraft, alcohol is used to deice areas like the windshield or propeller blades where using bleed air or deicing boots would be difficult or impractical, so the Soviets might have decided that having a fluid with a low freezing point that can also be used for deicing made up for the flammability and corrosive problems from an alcohol based hydraulic fluid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 02:55
|
|
|
Haaaa woopsies! http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/trending/oops-giant-jet-stuck-after-landing-at-wrong-airport-in-kansas quote:The Atlas Air Flight 4241 747 Dreamlifter landed at Colonel James Jabara Airport but had been scheduled to land at McConnell Air Force Base. It was not clear what would happen after that, as the 6,100-foot Jabara runway is about 3,000 feet too short for the huge jet to take off.  I hope they get to keep it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 09:12
|
|
|
God, this kind of poo poo. It's incredible how this happens. It's one of those swiss-cheese model incidents. So many things have to go wrong before you finally commit to landing at an airport that's different from your intended destination, without even realizing it. Here's the map IAB is the destination (blue text south of the yellow shading) and AAO is where they actually landed (north of the yellow shading). The airports aren't THAT close together, but they share a very similar runway configuration and alignment (nearby BEC is also a good candidate for accidental landing). They were probably flying the ILS 19R Approach or a visual approach and made a hasty descent toward AAO airport thinking they were too high on the approach. Confirmation bias kicks in. You see a runway while on an approach, yeah maybe it seems kinda early, but you think "something must be wrong, this is CLEARLY a runway but the instruments don't agree" so you ignore the instruments and put the airplane down on the piece of pavement that sits right in front of you. Meanwhile, neither the Wichita Approach controller, nor the McConnel Tower controller bother to notice that you're WAY LOW on the approach (audible alarms are likely sounding) so no alert is issued verbally. And, before you know it, you're rolling out on a runway and slowly coming to the realization that this small general aviation airport looks nothing like the air force base you were planning on arriving at. This kinda thing blows my mind. At work on Monday I had TWO separate aircraft try to land at the wrong airport. It's a good thing *I* was paying attention (and other coworkers as well). I guess when you fly enough hours you just get complacent. I'm still so new to flying that I actually pay attention to what I'm doing. EDIT: I got super preachy there, and that's not right but I'm going to leave it because it's just the emotion that came out. Humans are error prone. We all make mistakes. Something that's obvious in retrospect was probably not all that obvious in the heat of the moment. But drat, that's a big airplane and it got landed at a small airport. The Ferret King fucked around with this message at 10:00 on Nov 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 09:33
|
|
|
I'm sure they can unload it enough to get it to takeoff... probably. What does an unloaded 747 need? Also, the Denver channel needs to hire an editor, apparently. "Carago jet"
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 11:43
|
|
|
Can one strap a bunch of JATO rockets to a 747?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 11:47
|
|
|
CharlesM posted:I'm sure they can unload it enough to get it to takeoff... probably. I'm sure there will be no problem flying it out again, provided it's empty. An empty 747LCF doesn't weigh that much more than a regular 747-400, and the mimimum takeoff roll required for an empty 747-400 is 5200ft. Tsuru fucked around with this message at 13:24 on Nov 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 12:19
|
|
|
They'll just wait for a really strong headwind
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 12:21
|
|
|
You'd think the lack of a 2nd runway would be a bit telling, too. I'm excited for the take off video. Wikipedia shows 9,199 ft at MTOW for the Dreamlifter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747_Large_Cargo_Freighter#Specifications
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 13:41
|
|
|
Ha, Boeing sent a tug to turn their lost plane around, but the tug broke down on the way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 13:58
|
|
|
I think it'd be hilarious if it actually came down to them having to extend the runway to get the plane off the ground. Then the airport owners would start trying to recreate the conditions that resulted in the errand jet landing there a la Cargo Cult behaviour.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 14:06
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:The airports aren't THAT close together, but they share a very similar runway configuration and alignment (nearby BEC is also a good candidate for accidental landing). Accidentally landing at the Beechcraft factory is only possible thing that could make this funnier.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 14:21
|
|
|
LUBE UP YOUR BUTT posted:They'll just wait for a really strong headwind We're gonna need a shitload of helium
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 15:27
|
|
|
CNN.com posted:But a spokeswoman for the airport authority, Valerie Wise, cited favorable weather on Thursday and the fact that much of the fuel had been used in the flight from JFK -- which lightened the weight of the plane -- for the conclusion that it was safe to take off on the shorter runway. "The engineers have been running calculations all night," she said. Well that's nice. I wonder what disciplinary measures the pilot will face.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 15:49
|
|
|
buttcrackmenace posted:We're gonna need a shitload of helium now that would be cool, fill the cargo bay with a giant air bladder and fill it with helium. Rigid dirigible!
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 16:08
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:God, this kind of poo poo. It's incredible how this happens. It's one of those swiss-cheese model incidents. So many things have to go wrong before you finally commit to landing at an airport that's different from your intended destination, without even realizing it. It didn't sound preachy to me, everyone involved in aviation should be required to take a Human Factors course. Hell, I believe everybody should take a Human Factors course at some point. It probably wouldn't even be a bad idea to make it part of every high school curriculum.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 16:27
|
|
|
Ahahahah this is happening in town and I have no loving clue how anyone lands at Col Jabara instead of McConnell jesus christ
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 16:27
|
|
|
Rick Rickshaw posted:I think it'd be hilarious if it actually came down to them having to extend the runway to get the plane off the ground. Just talked to a buddy at the FAA. They are going to fly it out. "A big oops" is how he described it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 16:28
|
|
|
Here's the ATC, you can hear so much shame in his voice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 16:37
|
|
|
Unicom posted:Here's the ATC, you can hear so much shame in his voice. "Are you sure which airport you're at?" This is beautiful. Wish the recording quality was a touch better though. FrozenVent fucked around with this message at 16:59 on Nov 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 16:46
|
|
|
"There is a twin turbo prop flying over us" "Yeah you're at Col Jabarra"
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 16:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 14:39 |
|
|
Is it usual for there to be three airports so close together?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 17:27
|
|
