|
PCjr sidecar posted:Unsurprisingly hard to get in and out of when holding a drink. Isn't that what enlisted men are for?
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 18:40 |
|
|
drgitlin posted:There's also a blackbird cockpit you can sit in: Yeah, I have that picture of me too. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
anyone who goes and doesn't is a fool. You can say, in all honesty, "yeah I've sat in the cockpit of an SR-71" and leave out the part where the rest of the plane is missing. On the other hand it's also kind of depressing to learn that you are, in fact, too drat tall for the thing. Unless there's a lot more seat adjust than I think there is, at any rate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
I've sat in the one at March ARB's museum, and it was actually attached to the thing. So there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
I tried to sit in our Uni's Harrier, but my knees hit the panel. I could get bum on seat or feet on pedals but not both. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
I sat in a F104 when I was 8... I was too tall even then, I can't have been more than 5'0, wtf Lockheed?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
They've got a Viper and an F8 cockpit over at Selfridge, and I'm way too big for either of them despite being pretty average sized. Makes me feel a little better about failing at my dream job of being a Viper pilot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
I wanted to be an astronaut when I was a kid, then my grandma told me that when they measured my femur at birth I'd grow up to be 6'4" and those dreams were quickly dashed
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
Army Tells Karem, AVX To Take A Hike. Big companies win bids, little guys told their technology is "interesting."
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
My dad's cousins flew CF-104s and he is definitely over 6', I think he is 6'3" even. Not sure how that happened. Perhaps it is torso height or leg height dependent? He lived too, and went on to fly for Canadian/Air Canada.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
The F18 cockpit felt tight to all 5'9" of me, but I'm extremely broad shouldered for my height. College buddy who just recently took his last F18 flight before becoming an instructor at PNS NAS is about 2" taller. Can't imagine how someone much taller than that could fit in one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
You guys haven't experienced small work spaces until you've sat in sixties Russian tanks and IFVs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
I'm 6'5" and I tried to get into a Mercury capsule at KSC. How do you think that worked? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
Spaced God posted:I'm 6'5" and I tried to get into a Mercury capsule at KSC. How do you think that worked? If it's anything like the time I tried that one, your head stuck out. I had a hard time getting into a C-130 simulator a few years ago.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
Aviation is a short man's/moderate height woman's game  Being tall is not a benefit to anything military related either as far as I can tell (I'm over 2m)
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
drgitlin posted:There's also a blackbird cockpit you can sit in: Then when you get in you realize how beat to poo poo it is from years of kids/fatties/meatheads. Also, last time I was there the drat Shuttle Landing "simulator" was broken. That display had been open for like two months and it was already F'd up. sofullofhate posted:Yeah, I have that picture of me too. hah, same.   
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
priznat posted:Aviation is a short man's/moderate height woman's game FSU equipment is nuts. I'm above average height, but not huge. 71". I can't fit in any FSU closed top equipment save some aviation stuff and basic trucks. My head sticks out of tanks even without a helmet. The Russian stuff after the fall is a bit better, but still bad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
rscott posted:I wanted to be an astronaut when I was a kid, then my grandma told me that when they measured my femur at birth I'd grow up to be 6'4" and those dreams were quickly dashed Were they right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
I sat in a bunch of stuff and thought it was pretty cool that my 73" self could possibly have a shot at things until I got to helicopters. Cobras are TINY. Apaches: TINY. Hueys? TINY. H-60s were alright, though. H-53s are huge. Chevy Suburban huge, with ashtrays and everything. And rear-view mirrors. H-53s rule.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
Madurai posted:Army Tells Karem, AVX To Take A Hike. Big companies win bids, little guys told their technology is "interesting." I literally lifted this from the Karem website for their entrant, the "Optimum Speed Tilt Rotor."  I can't even tell if they're serious, or are just trolling the DoD.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 04:27
|
|
|
 It... it looks like a birth defect. The stabs look like they were never fully developed in the womb. Seriously, go google image search all their poo poo renders for Karem Tiltrotor.  Also the Bell V228 looks like A Dumb Thing I've tried to make in KSP.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:I literally lifted this from the Karem website for their entrant, the "Optimum Speed Tilt Rotor." WTF. Are they using differential thrust to compensate for the fact that there is no yaw stability? Tilting the rotors because the elevators are cosmetic? How can a single-engine procedure work when you have no rudder authority? Total engine loss? Good luck getting the elevators to make that airframe move.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
I'm just confused how those stick wings could possibly support a c130 size airframe full of fuel. Structurally they seem way too thin nevermind providing lift.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 05:41
|
|
|
MRC48B posted:I'm just confused how those stick wings could possibly support a c130 size airframe full of fuel. Structurally they seem way too thin nevermind providing lift. Wings are sized for takeoff and landing performance, which is kind of a moot point in a tiltrotor; cruising you actually want as small a wing as possible for drag reduction. If anything, that's the least stupid thing about that Karem proposal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 06:27
|
|
|
What's the advantage of the pusher propeller design over a conventional rotor setup in that Boeing proposal?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 06:34
|
|
|
Because mechanically speaking, from an engineering perspective, the gains of a pusher propellor are up to 10% over the more conventional puller rig layout when correcting for the constants and variables which are inherent in the values of awesome and even, to a limited degree, radical.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 06:36
|
|
|
So the Melbourne Air Show is tomorrow, my family over there have been posting updates the last few days about the Thunderbirds doing practice runs over the airport. I'm gonna head over tomorrow and watch with my dad; he has a perfect view of the air stage from his porch, but we may end up getting tickets anyway to see the other stuff up close. All I have is my camera phone so no shots of the performance most likely, but I'll snap pictures of anything interesting that may pop up. E: Air and Space show, because Brevard County; wonder if there'll actually be any spaceflight stuff there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 06:43
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:What's the advantage of the pusher propeller design over a conventional rotor setup in that Boeing proposal? Coaxial is good for lift. Twice the disk swept while rotor tips remaining approximately subsonic. The problem is when you want to actually move (which many helicopters are designed to do) The big problem is the rotor disk tilting at high speed. You will obviously tilt forward to direct thrust forward and go forward, but you also get lateral problems. Like in a normal helicopter, the advancing blade generates more lift than the receding one, so the receding one has to have higher alpha, which will then gently caress up the torque balance, so one side (I can't remember which) has to sweep up slightly and effectively also tilt the disk to the side as well as forwards. Then you have the other coaxial rotor moving the opposite direction and doing the opposite (and tilting the other way as a result), so where the lower disk is at the highest part of its plane, the higher disk is at or near the lowest part of its plane. This is made worse because the alpha of the two rotors is different (as in the advancing blade of the lower rotor has a higher alpha due to down-wash from the upper blade), so the lower disc will tend to flex up further than the upper disc. Chaos ensues when the two planes cross. This is what governs the top speed of coaxial helicopters, not the engine. If they go too fast the rotor discs tilt too far and cross, and that's A Bad Thing. There is an explanation of this in one of the DCS Black Shark game manuals. The solution Boeing is using is a pusher. Captain Postal fucked around with this message at 07:15 on Oct 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 07:04
|
|
|
Madurai posted:Army Tells Karem, AVX To Take A Hike. Big companies win bids, little guys told their technology is "interesting." Big companies give flag officers cushy low-  jobs when they retire. Little companies (provided they don't go bankrupt after all-inning on the failed bid or have themselves and their 'interesting ideas' bought on-the-cheap by the big contractors) hire the flags who didn't 'play ball' as 'consultants.'
BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 08:42 on Oct 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 08:30
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnBr3enzW1I 747 waves goodbye
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 11:49
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnBr3enzW1I Make sure The Media and their associated soccer mom viewers never catch wind of this video and maneuver or they'll never get to do this again. It'll be 787-9 Farnborough 2014 all over again. That's legitimately awesome.  ed: oh my god the comments in that are the best. Duke Chin fucked around with this message at 12:58 on Oct 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 12:54
|
|
|
The 'wing wave' is mostly done to say goodbye as the airplane will never see the home airport again (where it was made). 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 13:02
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Were they right? I've got a pretty bad case of scherumann's kyphosis so not quite (I'm 6'3.25" w/o shoes), but I'd be probably 6'5" or so without it, so yeah, doctors are pretty good at that poo poo
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:Make sure The Media and their associated soccer mom viewers never catch wind of this video and maneuver or they'll never get to do this again. It'll be 787-9 Farnborough 2014 all over again. That's legitimately awesome. Does no one commenting on the video realize the plane is empty so it has a thrust-weight ratio of approximately a bunch? Fake edit: Oh right, Youtube comments.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
E-2s tend to be a dumping ground for people who are too short or too tall for jets, so we get a very wide variety of body types. I was really jealous of the 5'1" NFO who could walk around without crouching over and turning sideways to get in the back.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
babyeatingpsychopath posted:I sat in a bunch of stuff and thought it was pretty cool that my 73" self could possibly have a shot at things until I got to helicopters. Cobras are TINY. Apaches: TINY. Hueys? TINY. H-60s were alright, though. H-53s are huge. Chevy Suburban huge, with ashtrays and everything. And rear-view mirrors. Now imagine those tiny cockpits when you're not just wearing street clothes, but a plate carrier, ALSE vest, helmet and NVGs, lead brick of a survival radio, 6 M4 mags, M9 and 3 mags, survival equipment, kneeboard, gps, etc. Also you're 6'4" and you've been trapped in there for six hours and you have to figure out how to pee in the gatorade bottle you brought without knocking the cyclic too bad. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
bitcoin bastard posted:Does no one commenting on the video realize the plane is empty so it has a thrust-weight ratio of approximately a bunch? Fake edit: Oh right, Youtube comments. Well it isn't that empty; they loaded enough fuel to get to Luxembourg nonstop, which is about 240,000 pounds of fuel. With all the goodies they carry on a delivery flight, the takeoff weight for that flight is probably in the 700-725,000 pound range; not near MTOW, but certainly not light either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnBr3enzW1I Got into a huge argument about this on another board. These guys aren't airshow pilots and they're not flying a pitts. It's a 375 million dollar whale and wagging the wings that severely and that low could very well have caused a crash. Had that crew not almost certainly been some kind of training/management pilots they would have gotten fired over that poo poo. Don't believe me how dangerous that is? Go troll youtube for guys dying by playing around at low level in heavy, roll spoiler equipped aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
Tide posted:The F18 cockpit felt tight to all 5'9" of me, but I'm extremely broad shouldered for my height. College buddy who just recently took his last F18 flight before becoming an instructor at PNS NAS is about 2" taller. Can't imagine how someone much taller than that could fit in one. I'm 6'2" and pretty broad shouldered and I didn't have too much trouble with the Hornet. The toughest one for me is what I'm flying in right now, the T-45. First time I strapped in the maintenance guys got a good laugh because I was visibly uncomfortable. I've gotten used to it but its tight. I flew in F5 once before and when I got the seat brief the pilot giving it asked me how much I weighed. I told him and he said "well, you're in limits but if you have to eject its probably going to be more like the jet pushing away from you rather than the seat leaving the jet." Now that was a complicated seat to strap into.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 06:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 18:40 |
|
|
47 years ago today the airspeed record was set in the X-15. The SR-71 holds the record for an air breathing aircraft, 3745km/h slower than the X-15. http://alert5.net/2014/10/02/47-years-ago-today-the-fastest-manned-aircraft-flight-ever/ Here is a minute of footage of the X-15 at the start of the first episode of When We Left Earth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDOLHClNTOI
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 14:37
|
|
