|
Sagebrush posted:This was super common back in the day, though. If you look through old (1950s ish) magazines you'll frequently come across handy household tips like "spilled grease on your tablecloth? Just soak it in gasoline, then hang it up to dry!" Oh, no, I'm well aware of that. It's still funny, though. StandardVC10 posted:You'll have to go through TSA regardless, I think. I know I had to be totally re-screened along with my luggage when I arrived on a flight from France to MSP before I could board a domestic flight to my destination in California. But LAX isn't really built for connections and I would assume that there's no direct path between TBIT and Terminal 8. Did you have to retrieve/recheck your bags, or were those transferred to the next flight? My flights are all code-share so both flights are the "same" airline.
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 07:17 |
|
|
Ned posted:My local airport here in Fukuoka, Japan has an observation deck and during the summer they set up a beer garden where you can get drunk and watch the planes. It is a pretty busy airport as well so a lot of the time you can't have much of a conversation due the noise of the engines. I think all the Japanese airports have some kind of either indoor or outdoor viewing area at the terminal for plane watching. Like, they actively encourage people to go to and enjoy being at an airport just for the sake of just watching airplanes. It's pretty cool.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:Did you have to retrieve/recheck your bags, or were those transferred to the next flight? My flights are all code-share so both flights are the "same" airline. If you're coming in from outside the country, you'll have to get your bags to go through customs. Otherwise, they should - should - transfer to the next flight on their own.When you check them, see if they've checked them to destination.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
MRC48B posted:It's a rotary-wing aircraft powered by turboshaft engines. "Minimal mechanical complexity" is not really a design parameter. I don't know if I can say how many gearboxes are in the thing but there are a lot. More than you think. Using a turbine instead of a proprotor on the Osprey just wouldn't work. There isn't enough thrust on demand with a turbine because that would require instant spool time-- which doesn't happen. The Ospreys governing system, like any helicopter, changes blade pitch giving you an instant thrust change. Yeah the harrier and the f-35 hover, but not well. They also don't pedal turn and do sideward flight very well. Yeah they are capable of it but I wouldn't want to. The osprey is pretty fricken sweet though. I can try to field any questions on them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:If you're coming in from outside the country, you'll have to get your bags to go through customs. Otherwise, they should - should - transfer to the next flight on their own.When you check them, see if they've checked them to destination. Okay, will do. Thanks for the advice and heads up. I'm coming from Ohio (CLE) going to Incheon (ICN) then onto Taipei (TPE). Bob A Feet posted:I don't know if I can say how many gearboxes are in the thing but there are a lot. More than you think. I think BobHoward was getting at using a traditional pair of turboshafts positioned high on the fuselage, with the actual tilt-rotors where they currently are positioned. Main issue with that I can see, BobHoward, is the configuration might interfere with the fuselage itself in terms of cargo and crew capacity, or you'll end up with one ugly duckling (basically "configuration issues"). Also, the crew chief ain't going to be a very happy man having to crawl up on that wing to fix the engines, not to mention other complexities which wouldn't normally be there on a normal fixed wing or normal rotary wing aircraft. CovfefeCatCafe fucked around with this message at 03:26 on Aug 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 03:19
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:
Oh wow I totally misread that. I understand the question now. The engines are loving massive. That's pretty much the only reason.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:Main issue with that I can see, BobHoward, is the configuration might interfere with the fuselage itself in terms of cargo and crew capacity, or you'll end up with one ugly duckling (basically "configuration issues"). Also, the crew chief ain't going to be a very happy man having to crawl up on that wing to fix the engines, not to mention other complexities which wouldn't normally be there on a normal fixed wing or normal rotary wing aircraft. I dunno. Looks aside, it seems like the configuration wouldn't be any worse than a current turboshaft helicopter. What about the torsion tube required to transfer the torque though? I haven't done any rotary design, but that'd be two monster torque tubes, wouldn't it? Or maybe they wouldn't really care about angular deflection and cycling in those things (no idea what they would be hypothetically made of)
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
For what it's worth, the V-280 Valor, which is one of the main competitors in the big next-gen army helo program, is basically a s-70 and V-22 lovechild looking thing, and while the engines are mounted on the wingtips, they do not rotate like the props/shafts do. As a side note, I think it looks really, really awful. There something to like visually about the V-22 and the S-70, but this thing somehow captures none of it when combined. EDIT: It definitely gets some bonus points though in that one proposal of the armed variant gave it 4 LGBs/SDBs in a cabin bomb bay. Mazz fucked around with this message at 04:05 on Aug 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:I think BobHoward was getting at using a traditional pair of turboshafts positioned high on the fuselage, with the actual tilt-rotors where they currently are positioned. Main issue with that I can see, BobHoward, is the configuration might interfere with the fuselage itself in terms of cargo and crew capacity, or you'll end up with one ugly duckling (basically "configuration issues"). Also, the crew chief ain't going to be a very happy man having to crawl up on that wing to fix the engines, not to mention other complexities which wouldn't normally be there on a normal fixed wing or normal rotary wing aircraft. Yeah that's basically what I was asking. Thanks for the answers everyone, and sorry if I use terminology like turbines vs turboshafts poorly, I are a dumb computer engineer.  Just curious about design tradeoffs like these, aerospace engineering is cool.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
Mazz posted:For what it's worth, the V-280 Valor, which is one of the main competitors in the big next-gen army helo program, is basically a s-70 and V-22 lovechild looking thing, and while the engines are mounted on the wingtips, they do not rotate like the props/shafts do. All the official renders of that thing suffer from being lovely renders more than anything else.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
You mean the real thing doesn't look like a Airwolf minivan with wings tacked on top?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:I dunno. Looks aside, it seems like the configuration wouldn't be any worse than a current turboshaft helicopter. What about the torsion tube required to transfer the torque though? I haven't done any rotary design, but that'd be two monster torque tubes, wouldn't it? There's already a "monster torque tube" running through the middle of the wing. Either engine is capable of driving both rotors should the other one fail.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:There's already a "monster torque tube" running through the middle of the wing. Either engine is capable of driving both rotors should the other one fail. Good point. I realized that as I posted, but I thought that maybe the torque tube might be for one-off emergency use only, and not strong enough for regular use. I can't think of any other reason to go for a rotating engine design. edit: unless they really wanted the high xx,zz,xz moments of inertia for some reason. Captain Postal fucked around with this message at 07:26 on Aug 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 07:22
|
|
|
Worthleast posted:Hanging out in the MSP observation deck. Nice and quiet with a good view of the runway traffic. Any other airports still have one of these? Albuquerque has a nice one with views of the mountain and the fastest free airport wifi I've ever used. A+++ would fly out of again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 08:08
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:"...a mechanic used petrol to clean the ship's gondala." He called it "wing solvent".
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 09:23
|
|
|
AzureSkys posted:I mentioned it a long time go, I think, but when in A&P school the Aluminum Overcast B-17 stopped by our field on her tour. In exchange for cleaning it, our class got free reign to walk through it. One of the crew grabbed a few buckets, rags, and drained fuel from a sump for us to use. Back in the olden days (~2005,) the little airline I worked for would routinely use 100LL aerosolized with a home-built air chuck sprayer to clean cowlings and other greasy, grimy parts of the airplane. It cuts just about everything but hydraulic fluid.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 11:09
|
|
|
I got tasked with cleaning some gross part of a ship once, we found empty bottles of Windex or whatever and filed them with diesel. Worked great, smelled less so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 11:40
|
|
|
On another note, aside from series' like Wings of The Red Star and Great Planes, are there any other documentary series' or non-series documentaries out there worth watching?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
VERTiG0 posted:On another note, aside from series' like Wings of The Red Star and Great Planes, are there any other documentary series' or non-series documentaries out there worth watching? Air Disasters/Mayday
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
There's Wings of Russia https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCx0U4oa1EOYhnujzL8Vvz8g This guy has lots of stuff on his channel.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
VERTiG0 posted:On another note, aside from series' like Wings of The Red Star and Great Planes, are there any other documentary series' or non-series documentaries out there worth watching? A Traveler meets ATC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX66lrGqhOI
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
Man, how far we've come
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 03:16
|
|
|
Aero737 posted:A Traveler meets ATC When I saw the title I was imagining one of these 
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Why did the S-3s get mothballed anyway? I thought they were kinda neat. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
Is 3/4 air traffic these days GA? I thought it would be much lower than that nowadays
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:They still fly around here at Mugu last I checked. I think they still serve as target-draggers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 06:27
|
|
|
United flight gets diverted after a passenger's use of a Knee Defender starts a fight (with water thrown!) http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/aug/26/plane-diverted-as-passengers-fight-over-seat-reclining I'm tall enough to have trouble with economy seats (aim to get the emergency row whenever possible) but this strikes me as a pretty douchey move - seems surprising this sort of stuff hasn't happened before.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
As airlines continue to shrink legroom to non-realistic amounts, these sorts of events are going to become more common. I expect airlines to ban these knee defenders soon, but it's not going to make the problem go away.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
United's economy plus has an extra 4" of leg room but an extra 2" of recline. Math doesn't quite work that way guys.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
Legroom wasn't the issue for me on my last flight and I'm 6'3" Shoulder room was the real problem. I had to fly 4.5 hours from Phoenix to Pittsburgh rotated sideways because there literally wasn't physical room for my shoulders and the shoulders of the person next to me. It was, without hyperbole, the most uncomfortable 4 hours of my entire 35 year old life. I'm generally a calm person and stuff like flying doesn't phase me, but I seriously almost had a panic attack until we got to altitude and the plane cooled off. I just focused on reading as much as I could and spent the next 3 days sore from the contortions necessary to fit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
Goons, I only have iphone pictures so nothing worth posting, but last week I went to the Red Bull Air Race at Ascot. If you get the chance to go to a race near you, take it, it was absolutely awesome.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
revmoo posted:As airlines continue to shrink legroom to non-realistic amounts, these sorts of events are going to become more common. I expect airlines to ban these knee defenders soon, but it's not going to make the problem go away. They're already banned by most airlines.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
Last couple times I've flown my thighbone is exactly the perfect length to wedge in there. They reduce legroom anymore and I'm kinda screwed 
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
I've flown Delta MD-xx, United somethings and ERJs, and Southwest 737-700s in the past month. I thought the Southwest seats were surprisingly narrow. Legroom was acceptable, but the bones in my hips touched both arm rests. ERJs are awesome, though. The "A" seat, where you have both a window and an aisle? Yes, please! Even the B and C seats aren't bad. I really would have liked not to fly United, though. They really suck as an air carrier.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
The Knee Defender™ comes with this bitchin’ form letter:
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:They're already banned by most airlines. I come naturally equipped with two devices that keep the person in front of me from reclining, for that matter I can't even get the tray table horizontal. I don't see how the airline is going to ban my knees. Sounds stressful!
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
Aerial refuelling can be scary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGQDA6MKvkM 
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
xaarman posted:I really have no idea what you're actually saying. Important airplane stuff. Maximum and minimum performance numbers and limits usually aren't pulled out of a designers derriere. Though, it seems, the smaller and slower the airplane, the more likely they are just "uh.. those look right."
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
Nope, the V-280 is just as ugly as you all think it is, official render or not.
thetechnoloser fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Aug 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 07:17 |
|
|
Spaced God posted:Aerial refuelling can be scary I may bet talking out my rear end, but doesn't the boom usually hang out far enough that if the AWACS did continue it would (narrowly) miss the tail of the KC as long as the AWACS didn't speed up/KC slow down? I mean, yeah, aerial refueling can be dangerous, but there is some risk mitigation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 21:46
|
|