|
Reminder, we can buy EIGHT HUNDRED NH90s for that price.
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 15:28 |
|
|
A Melted Tarp posted:that won't be ready until long after the last IMPEACH OBAMA bumper sticker fades into a pale white rectangle. Bullshit, I still see Bush/Cheney 2000 stickers pretty often down here, and even the occasional Bob Dole sticker. Then again, it's Florida; it may be different in a first-world state.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
A Melted Tarp posted:Reminder, we can buy EIGHT HUNDRED NH90s for that price. I imagine part of the problem is that every person who ever touches so much as a rivet on those things must be paid the special "secret stuff contractor" rate.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
They also contain so many defensive electronic warfare and countermeasure packages that they barely have room for the president.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Here we go again... I presume these helicopters get transported around the US via C-17 or the like yeah? Does a V-22 fit in a C-17 for transport? Also what the intended life is for that airframe? With all the secret sauce that presumably goes into those, plus the aforementioned "secret stuff contractor" rate, surely $20 billion isnt that much? Then again I'm Australian, so I'm not even slightly fussed that they're spending $20 billion on that program.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
Can you land a V-22 on a perfectly manicured lawn and have it still be photo-op ready when the thing leave?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Can you land a V-22 on a perfectly manicured lawn and have it still be photo-op ready when the thing leave? I doubt it. They had problems with the loving thing buckling steel deck plating with the hot engine exhaust...grass wouldn't stand a chance.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
I can't take anyone seriously when the bitch about Obama having some sort of input on this process (not saying anyone here is doing that). All I hear is dog whistle racism.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
A Melted Tarp posted:Reminder, we can buy EIGHT HUNDRED NH90s for that price. And don't even get me started on how many Fiat Pandas we could buy for the cost of 1 presidential limousine 
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
The CF procurement of the S-92 based CH-148 has been quite the slow motion shitshow but I guess it hasn't hurt potential sales by Sikorsky!
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
KingPave posted:Then again I'm Australian, so I'm not even slightly fussed that they're spending $20 billion on that program. Well if the Daily Mail can get up in a druthers about it I can't see why the rest of the Commonwealth should hold back
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:I can't take anyone seriously when the bitch about Obama having some sort of input on this process (not saying anyone here is doing that). All I hear is dog whistle racism. You can't be loving serious. But it can't be just a Republican versus Democrat thing, right? Its just impossible to be that simple? If he were to nix the order, Republicans would bitch he's costing jobs. One side will always bitch about the other, racism has nothing to do with it Tide fucked around with this message at 05:31 on May 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
Geoj posted:And don't even get me started on how many Fiat Pandas we could buy for the cost of 1 presidential limousine Actually, zero, because the Fiat Panda isn't for sale in the US. Also, not surprised Sikorsky found some way to sell the S-92 to the DoD; they've been trying for at least the past two decades. Probably why it costs $20 billion, "You wouldn't buy them earlier when they were half the cost, so we'll jack the price up as a 'stupid tax'". Government went along because they like taxes. Tide posted:You can't be loving serious. But it can't be just a Republican versus Democrat thing, right? Its just impossible to be that simple? If he were to nix the order, Republicans would bitch he's costing jobs. One side will always bitch about the other, racism has nothing to do with it Everyone will blame everything on the President in power, always, regardless of party or fault. Getting into the actual who-to-blame is too far into the weeds for most people. Unfortunately gets too easy for people to play racism because "you don't like the black President." I get that crap all the time from my college pot-smoking hippie friends on Facebook.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 12:49
|
|
|
You could probably develop a suborbital spaceplane for $20 billion- get anywhere in the world quickly then just take a regular helicopter from the airport.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 14:12
|
|
|
Again, we probably don't need to jump to too many conclusions about American domestic politics based on the rantings of a British tabloid. Especially one that seems to have gotten practically every number wrong. The $20B number seems to come from some estimates about the old, massively-cost-overrun Lockheed / AW variant was cancelled, and even then I'm not sure where that specific value came from. The actual contract is for 1.2B for six prototype birds + simulators and training. Sikorsky got it because Bell and AugustaWestland withdrew, not because they were the only company asked for submissions. If you look at the numbers, the expense is practically the same for retrofitting the existing helos or buying fancy new ones, which implies the expenses are coming from some newfangled whizbang accessories and features deemed necessary for the role, and not the actual airframes at all. (I'd also really question if you could build a modern-day Air Force One for anything remotely near $400m, considering a base 747-8 is over $350m already.) And, of course, the funding is approved by Congress, not the executive, but drat near nobody ever lays the blame right for that stuff.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 14:15
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Can you land a V-22 on a perfectly manicured lawn and have it still be photo-op ready when the thing leave? Those things set the ground on fire A LOT. It would be pretty badass looking, though, and the dead spots in the lawn would make a nice visual reference for approach.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 14:16
|
|
|
Ambihelical Hexnut posted:Those things set the ground on fire A LOT. It would be pretty badass looking, though, and the dead spots in the lawn would make a nice visual reference for approach. Assuming the V-280 isn't vaporware, doesn't it solve the ground-scorching problems?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 14:19
|
|
|
It is one thousand percent vapoware at the moment.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 14:30
|
|
|
Ambihelical Hexnut posted:Those things set the ground on fire A LOT. It would be pretty badass looking, though, and the dead spots in the lawn would make a nice visual reference for approach. Yeah and watching it knock over photographers and important people as it lands near a crowd would be kinda funny.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
The Locator posted:Bucket. Play this back on a sound system with a subwoofer and try to tell me you don't pop a serious horsepower boner. If you don't call 911 because you're probably dead. Fake edit for content: Here's a video taken at one of my favorite air museums of a replica Fokker D.VII. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNkD7ANwRg4 The museum is the Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome which is just south of Poughkeepsie, NY and does weekly demonstrations throughout the summer. Arishtat fucked around with this message at 16:44 on May 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Assuming the V-280 isn't vaporware, doesn't it solve the ground-scorching problems? Yes, but it'll probably be an utterly unreliable deathtrap if you're running the prop drive shaft through a 90 degree rotation every time you land/take-off. It's probably for the best that it's vapourware at this point.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
Regarding the Flying Legends trailer: I went to that a couple years ago, it's only half an hour up the road for me. Was pretty cool. Don't hate me. 
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:Actually, zero, because the Fiat Panda isn't for sale in the US. I was pointing out the absurdity of suggesting a European made helicopter for the presidential fleet with the Panda reference.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:Yes, but it'll probably be an utterly unreliable deathtrap if you're running the prop drive shaft through a 90 degree rotation every time you land/take-off. How do you figure? Presumably each prop is just gonna have a gearbox driven by a bevel gear off the shaft connecting the two engines, why would rotating the output gear between vertical and horizontal affect anything? It's essentially what the spider gears in a differential do, just at higher power levels.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
Also the osprey has an immensely complicated gear system so one side can drive both screws.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 14:47
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Also the osprey has an immensely complicated gear system so one side can drive both screws. Isn't it the case that in such instances it doesn't actually have enough power to stay airborne? I seem to remember that in the case of an engine out, they have to do a rolling landing with the rotors at a 45 degree angle (forward to provide enough thrust to keep the air going over the wings for lift, but not all the way forward so you don't smash the blades all over the runway).
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
So I guess there's a little more information on the ERAM story now. Apparently, the U-2/ER-2/whatever had a more complex than average flight plan (nearing the size limit of what the system could handle), but was missing altitude data. When a controller manually input an altitude of 60,000 feet, it bumped up against the size limit and the system ignored it. ERAM then attempted to calculate the flight path for all possible altitudes, which pretty much immediately caused the system to poo poo the bed as it ran out of memory trying to figure that nonsense out.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Here we go again... You know these already exist, right? 
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
ApathyGifted posted:Isn't it the case that in such instances it doesn't actually have enough power to stay airborne? I seem to remember that in the case of an engine out, they have to do a rolling landing with the rotors at a 45 degree angle (forward to provide enough thrust to keep the air going over the wings for lift, but not all the way forward so you don't smash the blades all over the runway). Well it's better than a helicopter.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
ApathyGifted posted:Isn't it the case that in such instances it doesn't actually have enough power to stay airborne? I seem to remember that in the case of an engine out, they have to do a rolling landing with the rotors at a 45 degree angle (forward to provide enough thrust to keep the air going over the wings for lift, but not all the way forward so you don't smash the blades all over the runway). Most dual engine rotary wing aircraft at combat weight or high DA aren't going to be able to hover single engine, and would do a roll-on/run-on landing with speed with one engine inop. Since you don't want to smash those blades unless you have to, landing in the semi-helicopter config probably gives them the best drag profile to do that.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:The fun part about Cirrus parachute deployments is the ensuing arguments on various pilot forums about how Cirrus pilots "pull first and ask questions later." To quote my check-ride examiner: "Step one in Cirrus spin recovery: reach behind your head and pull the handle." I know I wasn't there on the plane, but it sounds like the guy suffered engine failure and then nearly or actually did spin the plane. Not sure how you can get it so wrong that you spin the plane while trying to maintain best glide speed, but like I said, I wasn't there.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
ApathyGifted posted:Isn't it the case that in such instances it doesn't actually have enough power to stay airborne? I seem to remember that in the case of an engine out, they have to do a rolling landing with the rotors at a 45 degree angle (forward to provide enough thrust to keep the air going over the wings for lift, but not all the way forward so you don't smash the blades all over the runway). Yeah its pretty much that. Most profiles for flying don't have you in conversion mode (45 degree on the nacelles) or helicopter mode very much at all. Its almost all airplane. So encountering an engine problem you'd stay in airplane and then just convert when in a position to land. The system to do this involves three transmissions-- one at each engine and one in the center of the wing. Lose one of those and an engine, which is extremely unlikely, you're probably toast unless you have a lot of airspeed (aka not in a hover) and a field in front of you. The alternative to that is that if a helicopter lost even the transmission, let alone an engine and a transmission without any forward airspeed, it'd be equally toast. I say this because I'm pretty sure you aren't supposed to autorotate with transmission related issues because you risk locking it up and losing rotor energy and a 0 airspeed auto is probably pretty darn hard to, not to mention if you are carrying a load. So the outcome isn't more bleak than anything that isn't already out there. Theres triple redundancy on almost every system in the plane so its pretty safe as far as systems. Most of the incidents involving it I'm pretty sure have come from teething issues in the style of flight involved-- mostly low airspeed, low altitude stuff where it is neither a helicopter or an airplane or its converting from one to another.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
charliemonster42 posted:Not sure how you can get it so wrong that you spin the plane while trying to maintain best glide speed, but like I said, I wasn't there. Very easy: 99% of the time pulling on the stick/yoke and raising the nose makes the airplane go up, so that response gets hard wired into our muscle memory. And when the engine quits, when you're in full panic mode, it's hard to overcome that hard-wiring and put the nose down to maintain speed when every fiber in your being is screaming "I want to go up" and your hand reacts in the normal "go up" mode.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
The V-22 had a significant problem with vortex ring state that crashed a couple of them while they were transitioning to helicopter flight. I think the fix was to make pilots not fly in that particular area of the flight envelope. Or make the computers not let the pilot put it there.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
vessbot posted:Very easy: 99% of the time pulling on the stick/yoke and raising the nose makes the airplane go up, so that response gets hard wired into our muscle memory. And when the engine quits, when you're in full panic mode, it's hard to overcome that hard-wiring and put the nose down to maintain speed when every fiber in your being is screaming "I want to go up" and your hand reacts in the normal "go up" mode. Oh, I know, maybe it's just that I'm so fresh out of training that it seems obvious. Also, I have the benefit of reading about it from my hotel room, not actually being in it. That reminds me - I need to practice simulated engine failure next time I'm up.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
AFAIK there were only so many casualties because stuffing prototypes full of troops was the oooah thing to do.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
SocketSeven posted:The V-22 had a significant problem with vortex ring state that crashed a couple of them while they were transitioning to helicopter flight. Helicopters have exactly the same problem though. The issue in the case of the V-22 was that it was thought of as a whiz-bang aircraft and it couldn't possibly have that kind of problem and why are we still descending we've got 'er firewalled and *CVR recording ends*
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
charliemonster42 posted:Oh, I know, maybe it's just that I'm so fresh out of training that it seems obvious. Also, I have the benefit of reading about it from my hotel room, not actually being in it. Well it's not like his stall warning wouldnt work or he wouldn't feel the buffet of a stall. And its not like planes just spin either. So you're right. MrChips posted:Helicopters have exactly the same problem though. The issue in the case of the V-22 was that it was thought of as a whiz-bang aircraft and it couldn't possibly have that kind of problem and why are we still descending we've got 'er firewalled and *CVR recording ends* Or because it has significant disk area above the wing which spoils lift even further. So it suffers from VRS more. Bob A Feet fucked around with this message at 01:05 on May 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
ManifunkDestiny posted:You know these already exist, right? Sure but I don't think POTUS is actually allowed to fly on it. Maybe that restriction doesn't exist anymore.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 15:28 |
|
|
SocketSeven posted:The V-22 had a significant problem with vortex ring state that crashed a couple of them while they were transitioning to helicopter flight. No, only one of the crashes was due to VRS. And it turns out in the final analysis that the V-22's more forgiving of VRS than helicopters are; it's harder to get into and easier to get out of once you're in it. The "fix" such as it was a crew alert that goes off when they reach 50% of the vulnerable sink rate when they're at susceptible airspeeds. The crew in the case of that mishap was greatly exceeding the operational restrictions on the airplane.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 01:27
|
|
