|
Why did the de Havilland Heron have four engines? Was there a regulatory reason or just building upon an existing design? Are there any reasons such an aircraft would be used in pilot training over a two-engine model?
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 10:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 15:56 |
|
|
Linedance posted:Yeah I knew the name, but not what they actually do. So, basically they're a R&D subsidiary for a big military (and related industry) contractor. They pile money and resources in, he comes up with some crazy idea for a spindly gossamer hyperglider (that actually works because he's some kind of savant), N-G says thanks Burt and develops a surveillance drone using gossamer hyperglider tech. Is that about right? I think they worked on the X47A and B. So that's probably a huge pile of money for scaled to play around with. Also that picture is the Proteus which NGC bought before they bought scaled I guess. They use it for payloads testing or some poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 12:48
|
|
|
Groda posted:Why did the de Havilland Heron have four engines? Was there a regulatory reason or just building upon an existing design? At the time you needed 4 engines to fly over oceans. I don't know more specifics though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 15:36
|
|
|
Update on last night's Hanscom crash:
Groda posted:Why did the de Havilland Heron have four engines? Was there a regulatory reason or just building upon an existing design? Judging by the engines' power and the aircraft's weight, I'd say it was due to the fact the engines were rather shittacular. Kilonum fucked around with this message at 15:52 on Jun 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
Yeah I don't think it was doing trans atlantic flights or anything. Probably a safety and performance concession given that they were small piston engines.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
Kilonum posted:Judging by the engines' power and the aircraft's weight, I'd say it was due to the fact the engines were rather shittacular. Wiki implies it deliberately used understressed / shittastic engines to keep maintenance / operating costs low when flown in the middle of nowhere
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
Groda posted:Why did the de Havilland Heron have four engines? Was there a regulatory reason or just building upon an existing design?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:At the time you needed 4 engines to fly over oceans. I don't know more specifics though. How times change. The 787 was just certified to fly on routes 330 minutes from a suitable landing area. Presumably a handle in the cockpit releases the problematic batteries to fall into the sea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
And yes, call me old fashioned. But I just don't like working on single engine aircraft. I know that statistically i'll get gored by a moose and kidnapped by the Basque before the donk above me quits. It's just a lot more reassuring when you're over rural Vermont or New York to have an extra one kicking around.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
Doesn't matter how reliable your engine is; foreign objects will still gently caress it up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Doesn't matter how reliable your engine is;
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
This. Eurocopter had to put out an advisory reminding people that if they park their AS350 or EC130 aircraft outside in the snow and ice without engine inlet covers, the engines will fill with ice and 'splode upon pulling pitch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
My favorite thing to do any time there's a TO change is to go through and look at any warnings, cautions, and notes that changed, and then remember that every single one of those was added because someone did the thing in question and they had to add an instruction telling idiots not to do whatever the idiot in question did. My favorite relatively recent one was a change in the Pred and Reaper TO's that you have to actually tie down the aircraft when you're doing an engine run. I know that might sound strange but these are glorified toy airplanes that don't even have tie downs, so in order to tie them down you have to wrap straps around the landing gear. Anyway, you can do up to a full power (and I use the term "full power" loosely) engine run with just the brakes holding the aircraft and still be well within safety margins, which is why the TO used to just require you to set brakes prior to doing a run. Unfortunately a couple of geniuses managed to perform a run with the brakes not set and put a plane through a hangar door.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:My favorite thing to do any time there's a TO change is to go through and look at any warnings, cautions, and notes that changed, and then remember that every single one of those was added because someone did the thing in question and they had to add an instruction telling idiots not to do whatever the idiot in question did. There's always one guy... 
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
 what's the story behind that?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/violation-of-test-procedures-led-to-toulouse-a340-600-319969/
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:There's always one guy... Funny thing about Airbusses, (and more fuel for the Airbus vs Boeing debate), when you configure them for takeoff, and advance the throttles to takeoff power, it assumes you must want to take off and helpfully releases the parking brake for you. Now, if you're used to running a Boeing, which will happily run at high power with the parking brake on, this might come as a bit of a surprise, both to you, and the people in the hangar in front of you. The moral of this story is always follow the applicable approved documentation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
Tapirs will gently caress your poo poo up as well http://avherald.com/h?article=475305aa&opt=0
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
The 787 is quite big. I'm the nerd standing there for size reference.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
Mobius1B7R posted:The 787 is quite big. The 747 makes them look small still Yeah
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
Mobius1B7R posted:The 787 is quite big. and the -9 is larger  ZK-NZE at the golden hour by Powercube, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
The all blacks livery might be my favorite currently flying. Hadn't seen it in the 789 so thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 07:15
|
|
|
Powercube posted:and the -9 is larger This one looked pretty good even in the typical PNW soup when I took the Boeing factory tour a couple weeks ago, looks even better airborne in the sun 
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 07:29
|
|
|
Why didn't they paint the engine nacelles?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 08:05
|
|
|
Anybody know why the 787 has an oval divot and triangular fairing where the horizontal stabilizer attaches to the fuselage?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 08:46
|
|
|
BobHoward posted:Anybody know why the 787 has an oval divot and triangular fairing where the horizontal stabilizer attaches to the fuselage? I would guess that's the trim system - elevator trim is usually done by tilting the entire horizontal stabiliser. The triangular bit is probably the arc of movement and the accompanying mechanism, and the oval is probably a flattened section to allow for that movement.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 09:00
|
|
|
BobHoward posted:Anybody know why the 787 has an oval divot and triangular fairing where the horizontal stabilizer attaches to the fuselage? I think it's just the paint scheme and lighting highlighting what is actually just the flattened section (of the rounded fuselage) where the THS (trimmable horizontal stab) moves up and down. Here's a slightly better angle so you can get an idea.  (sorry if that's huge, I don't know the resolution as I'm on my phone. I'll edit it if it's breaking too many tables)
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 09:05
|
|
|
Brovine posted:I would guess that's the trim system - elevator trim is usually done by tilting the entire horizontal stabiliser. The triangular bit is probably the arc of movement and the accompanying mechanism, and the oval is probably a flattened section to allow for that movement. Ah, makes sense now. I was confused because a deflected elevator control surface is clearly visible in Mobius1B7R's picture, and assumed that if you had elevators you wouldn't bother with an all-moving tailplane (and vice versa). I guess it's a limited-range all-moving system for trim so that the airplane can be very aerodynamically clean when trimmed for level cruise, and less-clean elevators for full control authority.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 10:14
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Why didn't they paint the engine nacelles? I think it's to spot major fluid leaks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 10:29
|
|
|
BobHoward posted:Ah, makes sense now. I was confused because a deflected elevator control surface is clearly visible in Mobius1B7R's picture, and assumed that if you had elevators you wouldn't bother with an all-moving tailplane (and vice versa). Yup, that's about right. The way it's always been described to me is THS is long term pitch control, elevators are short term pitch control. Something like descending in a pattern is going to be pretty much all THS. Rotation is going to be elevator initially, but as you're ascending, the THS is going to trim out that elevator input so you don't need to keep holding back on the stick as you ascend. Edit-Actually I'm not sure that last one is a very good example. I can say that the THS will trim out an elevator input. Precisely how that comes into practice with regards to stick movement during takeoff and flight; I'm not a pilot so I don't feel confident in that example. I'll let one of the drivers comment on that. Finger Prince fucked around with this message at 10:44 on Jun 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 10:37
|
|
|
Linedance posted:Funny thing about Airbusses, (and more fuel for the Airbus vs Boeing debate), when you configure them for takeoff, and advance the throttles to takeoff power, it assumes you must want to take off and helpfully releases the parking brake for you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 11:05
|
|
|
Tsuru posted:Are you serious? Yeah. I mean it's not so much a "oh I see you want to take off, but left your parking brake on, here let me help you with that" as it is the various valves in certain configurations will relieve the hydraulic pressure being used to actuate the parking brake, as that isn't a system necessary to have powered in that configuration. Which is why, when you're doing a high power run on an airbus, you stand on the brakes and/or use huge fuckoff chocks on all wheels. It's also why, when you see a news item about an aircraft stuffed into a building or blast fence, inevitably it's going to be an airbus, because the guys doing the run hosed up. (Don't worry, Boeing has its own quirks and catch-you-outs if you aren't following procedures and generally being an unsafe. It's just you don't tend to see news items about airplanes sat on their nose in the hangar)
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 11:26
|
|
|
Linedance posted:(Don't worry, Boeing has its own quirks and catch-you-outs if you aren't following procedures and generally being an unsafe. It's just you don't tend to see news items about airplanes sat on their nose in the hangar) A light and aft-loaded DC-10 will fall on its rear end during a power run of #1 and #3 without #2 at equivalent power. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 11:40
|
|
|
baupdeth posted:I think it's to spot major fluid leaks. The 787's nacelles are "unpainted" (they actually are painted) to control aerodynamic drag. Apparently the thickness of the paint has a very significant effect on nacelle drag, so Boeing basically told the airlines that they can have them painted either gray or white. You'll also notice a distinct lack of markings on the 787 nacelles as well; even decals have to be tightly controlled. Whether or not those savings can be maintained long-term remains to be seen...engine nacelles tend to get all gunked up with dirt sticking to various fluid leaks that occur naturally. The natural roughness of that stuff can't be all that good for keeping good laminar flow over the nacelle. E: I recall that Rolls-Royce kicked up a shitfit over the lack of markings on the nacelles, as they wanted 787s flying with their Trent 1000 engines to have Rolls-Royce decals on them...Boeing ultimately relented and allowed them (and GE) a small decal on the nacelle. MrChips fucked around with this message at 12:02 on Jun 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 11:55
|
|
|
Pretty sure I just saw a Lockheed Ventura fly over. Blue twin engine with a ventura like tail and a ventral bubble turret. Seemed too small to be a B-25, and too fat/round to be a Beech 18.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/f-35-60-minutes-david-martin/
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
Powercube posted:and the -9 is larger It was fun seeing that black tail go through the factory while it was being built.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
MrChips posted:The 787's nacelles are "unpainted" (they actually are painted) to control aerodynamic drag. Apparently the thickness of the paint has a very significant effect on nacelle drag, so Boeing basically told the airlines that they can have them painted either gray or white. You'll also notice a distinct lack of markings on the 787 nacelles as well; even decals have to be tightly controlled. We make the cabin window retainers and we have to hold a 63uinch RA and we can't have quality or part marking stamps in a visible location so this doesn't surprise me all that much.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
rscott posted:We make the cabin window retainers and we have to hold a 63uinch RA and we can't have quality or part marking stamps in a visible location so this doesn't surprise me all that much. On a slightly related note: overhead locker doors are visible to passengers on both sides, with no conveniently hidden side. So where do you put the part markings? Boeing's answer: under the decorative laminate. Which makes it rather difficult to identify the drat things, particularly when there's eight different types on a 737 alone, various lengths between 40cm and 80cm long, some with rounded edges and some with straight edges...
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 15:56 |
|
|
Still watching this but my eyes are about to roll out of my head at that Marine (of COURSE it's about the B model) and his "Speed and Maneuverability are no longer relevant metrics for a fighter". More than anything, the clusterfuck of the JSF program is even more infuriating in light of just how sleek the A variant looks. It's a pretty plane, and I want to like it, but it's just impossible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 21:37
|
|
