|
Bacarruda posted:Crossposting from Aeronautical Insanity Badass, I have such an irrational love of that plane.
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 00:07 |
|
|
And they say Robinsons aren't sexy... http://i.imgur.com/7dlE4sh.jpg
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
I wanna fly a C17 simulator 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
slidebite posted:I wanna fly a C17 simulator Seriously - I'd pay a reasonable amount of  to get a good couple hours on one of those.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
I'd like to be wealthy enough to have my own 737 sim.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
I just want a Viperwing F-16 cockpit with the F-16 flight controls from Aerotronics
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 03:06
|
|
|
had an interview with Air Canada this afternoon for stuctures, hope I get it! Airplanes > wind turbines.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
A Melted Tarp posted:And they say Robinsons aren't sexy... If you want to impress me, show her getting back up without grabbing any buttons or leaning on the foot pedals. What if she got her hair caught in the pedals 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 05:25
|
|
|
Here's a vid on flex wing tech with hingeless flaps from earlier this year that's gone in to testing recently. It got brought up at my work. Searched, but didn't see it mentioned. http://youtu.be/9ZpAHxMj5lU http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2189/ And the NASA Langly YT channel puts up archive test footage. Given the recent Osprey chat, they have a silent film of various VTOL/Rotor/Tilt Rotor aircraft from the 40s to 70s. http://youtu.be/rttdKYszLwk  12:57Also never saw the Bell X-14 before in video before.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 08:33
|
|
|
Qantas has taken delivery of the 75th and final B738, painted in the retro livery with the old flying kangaroo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 11:44
|
|
|
FullMetalJacket posted:had an interview with Air Canada this afternoon for stuctures, hope I get it! Airplanes > wind turbines. Good luck! Tin bashing or engineering? Either way, you'll be busy!
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 13:27
|
|
|
They had quite the event for its delivery with John Travolta himself coming to our little delivery center to participate. http://www.airlinereporter.com/2014/11/john-travolta-comes-seattle-celebrate-qantas-retro-737-livery/
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 13:31
|
|
|
AzureSkys posted:They had quite the event for its delivery with John Travolta himself coming to our little delivery center to participate. No no, that hair is real. Honest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 13:33
|
|
|
Kilonum posted:I just want a Viperwing F-16 cockpit with the F-16 flight controls from Aerotronics Seems like you'd really need a full 270 degree projector setup. Also, if its a fully realistic cockpit does it have the 5' 11" or whatever restriction on it the real F-16 does?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Seems like you'd really need a full 270 degree projector setup. iirc, the F-16 restrictions are based mostly on the ACES II and whether or not you can fit in it. So body proportions are as important as overall height (although obviously Shaq isn't gonna be a fighter pilot anytime soon). As long as you're not freakishly ill-proportioned you can still be 6 foot+ and fly the Viper.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
One more thing about Von Braun. His SS officer's commission allowed him to cut orders. At the end of the war, his orders got all his people and trainloads of his entire program, multiple V-2's, all the files, everything, moved to a location where they could hook up with the Americans. Without him being an officer, the Russians might have got him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
Schindler's Fist posted:One more thing about Von Braun. His SS officer's commission allowed him to cut orders. At the end of the war, his orders got all his people and trainloads of his entire program, multiple V-2's, all the files, everything, moved to a location where they could hook up with the Americans. Without him being an officer, the Russians might have got him. Kind of, SS General Hans Kammler was in charge of the V-2 project overall and had issued orders for them to be moved to Central Germany, while at the same time Von Braun had received orders from a Wermacht General to join the Army and fight. He actually fabricated orders using Kammler's orders to get them moved nearer to the Western front. It also helped that shortly afterwords Kammler was more focused on cleaning up the slave labor and classified equipment than actually following up on what Von Braun was doing. Had Kammler actually been aware what he was doing, I suspect he would have shot Von Braun as a traitor. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Nov 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:iirc, the F-16 restrictions are based mostly on the ACES II and whether or not you can fit in it. So body proportions are as important as overall height (although obviously Shaq isn't gonna be a fighter pilot anytime soon). As long as you're not freakishly ill-proportioned you can still be 6 foot+ and fly the Viper. As someone who's 1.90m tall this pleases me
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
Linedance posted:Good luck! Tin bashing or engineering? Either way, you'll be busy! Tin bashing dash 8 classics. I get the feeling DHC products will end up being my type certificate after licensing. I'm ok with that 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
MrChips posted:You're still messing around with warbirds, right? I'm going to be checking out in a T-28 sometime in the next few months (basically, as soon as we get a stretch of not freezing our asses off weather) that I will hopefully be flying semi-regularly next summer; if you have any tips, I'd love to hear them. Not for long. I'm balls deep in my pre study material for class at my new job at Ameriflight, which is coming up in a few weeks. That's why it's taken me so long to reply (in combination with planning a cross country move), sorry. The main tip about flying warbirds is mostly null in this case, since we're talking about a tricycle plane: gobs and gobs of tailwheel experience, in all of its modes... 3 point landings, wheel landings, crosswind landings (3 point and wheel), all of the above with and without flaps if your plane has them, etc. This still holds some truth even for a tricycle in the development of positive, accurate, and confident aircraft control. You can't let the airplane bully you. You have to fly the airplane, and not the other way around; but at the same time, those positive inputs have to be accurate and toward a particular goal. Thrashing the controls around like a madman won't help you if those inputs are for the wrong place; and so often, they are. Other than tailwheel takeoff/landing ops, the other way to develop this type of confidence is aerobatics... come to think of it, that'll mostly involve tailwheel airplanes anyway. At least do some stall/spin flights until kicking the rudder around to the stops and shoving the nose down is as routine and boring as dialing a radio frequency. Pretty much my favorite exercise is the prolonged stall, or falling leaf stall, where you bring the airplane to a stall and then suck the stick back firmly to the aft stop, and then use the rudder to keep the wings (more or less) level. The plane (depending, of course) goes through a series of nasty wing drops, each of which is an incipient spin, and the correction from each one often leads to a nasty wing drop in the opposite direction (roll instability). This is combined with the pitch attitude gyrating up and down in a series of stalls and self-recoveries, each of which quickly varies the plane's roll response to rudder inputs. Basically, the airplane flies nasty as poo poo, and punishes you for holding the stick back. Then, the moment you let it forward, the wing unstalls, and the plane "snaps" into normal, stable flight mode, and rewards you for putting the stick forward. Thus, it gives you an actual, tangible, in-your-gut punishment and reward for doing the right and wrong thing, respectively. Too many pilots, depending on who they learned with, have never been in an actual stall ("first indication" recovery at the horn, buffet, etc.) and therefore the knowledge of what's the right thing to do in a stall is only academic. And the first time they get into an actual stall, it may be for real and the instinctive gut reaction to move the nose up the way it's normally done may not be overcome in a timely-enough manner, in the face of it dropping uncontrollably down... for the first time in their life. Combine this with a wing drop and the instinctive response of how unintentional rolling is normally stopped, and you have the recipe for a spin. Read up on radial engines, which have some unique operational characteristics. The most unusual one (especially on the 1820) is that it's bad to have too little power. Whereas people normally worry about too much manifold pressure for the RPM, here additionally you have to worry about too little manifold pressure for the RPM, especially at high speeds. Reversing the torque (i.e., letting the prop windmill) = death for the master rod journal. Randy Sohn's Warbird Notes article index John Deakin's Pelican's Perch article index This makes it hard to dissipate energy on descent while clean, and therefore requires some planning to start descents early enough to make sure they're shallow enough, kind of like a slippery jet. But another way of dealing with this is flying the overhead break approach, which lets you come screaming in as fast as needed and dissipate the speed in the hard pull of the break. Then you've gotta do a whole lot configuring in very little time on downwind. That brings me to the next item, you've gotta have your flows for critical phases of flight down pat. Generally patterns are flown a lot tighter and there's no time for a written checklist. You simply need to learn all the speeds, power changes, and other configuration changes (and whatever other set of procedures apply from your training program) and be able to spit them out like your middle name. (This applies even with a written checklist.) The first couple of patterns are gonna be a whole lot busier with the sensory overload of all the new stuff, and every bit of thing that you can drill into your brain on the ground will help here. The same applies doubly to emergency procedures. Approaches from closed traffic, once you have your drag out, will be a lot steeper than you're used to, so be able to visually pick out your aimpoint on the runway and drive the airplane to it. (And many warbirds, the T-28 included, make prodigious amounts of drag.) Don't be like all of my students who let the airplane fly them toward a point on the ground halfway from where they are to the runway, realize it very late/low, make a measly correction, get even lower and shallower, and then drag it in from a half mile away with the nose up in the air the engine at climb power, and the wheels going through the trees. Even worse is when they pull the nose up without adding power, and immediately start bleeding airspeed. See the deviation early, make a positive and accurate correction (get the job done!) and keep looking for deviations. And keep in mind that power and power only will reduce a descent angle or produce a climb angle. Any pitch inputs are merely to shepherd the airplane, at a constant AOA, gracefully into the new pitch+flight path angle configuration. Don't let anybody tell you that power controls airspeed. A power increase alone will usually decrease, not increase, the airspeed due to a nose-up moment change from the propwash over the tail. And it's AOA that ultimately determines airspeed. I've never flown a T-28 but these are my general observations about warbird flying and teaching, mostly in the T-6. vessbot fucked around with this message at 01:13 on Nov 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
Thanks for the advice, vessbot, there's a lot there to digest for sure. I have some tailwheel experience, having flown a Scout (the Citabria's bigger brother), plus as I mentioned I flew a Stearman all this spring and summer as well; figure 50 hours in the Scout and about 140 in the Stearman all told. We got into some limited aerobatics in the Stearman, and what you said about aerobatic flying absolutely holds true. The other thing I found was that aerobatic flying demands a precision far beyond what is expected for any level of non-aerobatic flying; not just in terms of "enter this maneuver at this speed, this altitude, etc." but also in judicious, proactive application of the controls. Flying gliders is a lot like that, but only for the simple fact that you need to very carefully manage your energy or you'll be landing out in a hurry. And I am a firm believer in pitch/AOA for airspeed, power for descent rate. It's what I was tought flying gliders (though in that case it was spoilers for descent rate), plus my favourite old, ex-Canadian Forces flying instructor drilled that into my head in my commercial training as well. If it's good enough to keep you alive in a CF-104, it's good enough for me. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
MrChips posted:
You sexy sonofabitch.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
This highway looks like it will make a lovely landing strip... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hisTNkN_sJY It's sort of old (2011) but I've never seen it before so may not have been posted here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
The fact that this picture represents almost $500 million of air-frames makes me a little queasy...
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
Thats has to be shopped. No way could 4 of them be working at once.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 06:16
|
|
|
Well, only two are F-35s, and they're both the normal AF variant.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 06:19
|
|
|
2. The other two are actually semi-decent birds. Stiiiill calling photoshop on even 2, though. EFB 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 06:20
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Thanks for the advice, vessbot, there's a lot there to digest for sure. I have some tailwheel experience, having flown a Scout (the Citabria's bigger brother), plus as I mentioned I flew a Stearman all this spring and summer as well; figure 50 hours in the Scout and about 140 in the Stearman all told. We got into some limited aerobatics in the Stearman, and what you said about aerobatic flying absolutely holds true. The other thing I found was that aerobatic flying demands a precision far beyond what is expected for any level of non-aerobatic flying; not just in terms of "enter this maneuver at this speed, this altitude, etc." but also in judicious, proactive application of the controls. Flying gliders is a lot like that, but only for the simple fact that you need to very carefully manage your energy or you'll be landing out in a hurry. Well you've got no choice in a glider! But yeah, the pitch/power thing came up in the other thread not too long ago, and when I proposed a scientific experiment by isolating the variables and asking everyone if they could use only one hand to set and hold any speed I assign them which hand it would be, they all fell strangely silent except of course for the Navy guy. (And I'm not counting all the "I'd use the hand that can reach both controls  " responses)If you're a bit technically minded, you might get a lot out of Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators, which goes into the details of exactly why it works like that; and that it's not really a matter of opinion or technique at all, but hard math and physics. Everyone controls airspeed with AOA and flight path angle with power whether they realize it or not. It' just a matter of whether their technique is or isn't in accordance with how flight actually works. I towed gliders for a bit in the past, and got a few flights in them myself. But all on stable days with a ride straight back to the airport  One of these decades I'll afford to finish that rating. Surely that would come faster than the helicopter one...
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 06:39
|
|
|
McDeth posted:The fact that this picture represents almost $500 million of air-frames makes me a little queasy... Wow, it is incredible how similar they look
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 07:16
|
|
|
Splode posted:Wow, it is incredible how similar they look I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not...
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 07:38
|
|
|
simplefish posted:I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not... Deadly serious. The only large difference is the geometry of the tail fins. Everything else is a minor detail. Several posters itt assumed it was four of the same plane, as did I until someone pointed out it was two different kinds and I had a closer look.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 07:39
|
|
|
Splode posted:Deadly serious. The only large difference is the geometry of the tail fins. Everything else is a minor detail. Several posters itt assumed it was four of the same plane, as did I until someone pointed out it was two different kinds and I had a closer look. I think you need to look closer. Long slender body vs short fat body, intake geometry complete opposites, vastly different vertical stabilizers, one engine vs two which completely changes the fuselage shape, etc. To be fair, some of the obvious differences that would break it up are hidden by the angle. Godholio fucked around with this message at 08:02 on Nov 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 07:59
|
|
|
They have similarly shaped wings and general proportions, but the angle of the shot hides how much bulkier the F-35 looks compared to the F-22. The canopy shape, vertical stabilizers, elevators, intakes, etc. are all distinctly shaped. Computer modeling tends to push everything to look the same except for minor details.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 08:01
|
|
|
At first glance it wasn't apparent to me. I thought there was just one -35. I had to look harder to realize there are 2 of each as it becomes more obvious.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 09:26
|
|
|
AzureSkys posted:At first glance it wasn't apparent to me. I thought there was just one -35. Stealth, man.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 11:46
|
|
|
 The cyan lines are where the part slants the entirely opposite direction The green lines show where there's more angles/distinctly different angles The red line shows the sexy sexy back on the 22 and the brutalist "just make it fekkin straight" one on the -35 The orange line shows the wings are vastly different in proportion (the -35 has stubby little things) and join the fuselage at totally different points The yellow circle shows that on the -22 the elevators and the ailerons overlap, while there's clearly a decent gap between them on the -35
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 11:50
|
|
|
The 35 looks like a guppy with wings on. The 22 looks like this: 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 12:00
|
|
|
dubzee posted:The 35 looks like a guppy with wings on. For some reason the surface on the F-22 and the PAK whatever Russia is making looks so sexy to me. It reminds me of the awesome (and completely different) pattern meteorites get. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 13:38
|
|
|
simplefish posted:
 The details don't matter, the shape is pretty similar when you compare them to say, F-18 vs F-16 or whatever. Didn't realise goons were so invested in intake geometry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 00:07 |
|
|
Splode posted:
you realize what thread you're in right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 14:55
|
|
