|
This has likely already been posted, but it's still cool. (except for panel 20) http://www.public.navy.mil/airfor/centennial/Documents/Heritage%20Paint%20Project.pdf   
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 07:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 11:01 |
|
|
 Edit: Just noticed after posting this the T-33 flying spotter or whatever its doing
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 11:20
|
|
|
pik_d posted:
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 11:33
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 14:01
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 14:05
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sA9Kato1CxA
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 14:13
|
|
|
drat that looks good. i forgot about the heritage series, they did a really good job with those. some of the WWII fleet schemes are just gorgeous on modern aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:I want this plane to have like, neon runners, multi-colored steamers, rainbow smoke trailing from the wings and a giant, towed banner saying something like FOLLOW ME TO BOMB ZE KRAUTS. also needs a sound system similar to the ones in the Apocalypse Now UH1s preferably playing this -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLkhRMBOtzk note : if you listen to the entire song you'll have Nazi propaganda swing music stuck in your head for the rest of the day admit it, you've had that image preloaded and waiting since page 747
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
Ardeem posted:Do acrobatic squadrons count? You're probably just funnin', but this bears being talked about. Being upside down doesn't cause engines to quit, but staying upside down does. If you allow the nose to drop while momentarily passing through an inverted attitude, the G's will stay positive. Quite a lot of basic and intermediate aerobatic maneuvers can be flown under positive G all the way through, and there are a ton of lower-end aerobatic planes doing so every day. It wasn't until the 1960s or 70s that rudimentary inverted fuel systems started being put into use. And by rudimentary, I mean it. I think I remember Neil Williams in his book Aerobatics (interesting book from a historical perspective, in it he talks about being at the first contest where the Czechs showed off lomcevaks to Westerners) describing one, where the pilot had to, when starting a negative G maneuver, manually shut off the normal tank because the combined fuel flow from the normal and inverted tanks would flood the engine, causing it to quit. But he had to do this before the start of the maneuver, because the effect would take some time. Doing it too early would, of course, also make it quit. So you had too time it just right, all the while flying aerobatics. (I may not be getting the exact details right, but you can still see the finicky and cumbersome process)
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
787s look so stubby for whatever reason.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
 cozy
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:787s look so stubby for whatever reason. Because they do look stubby. The -8 does anyway. The -9 has much more aesthetic proportions. E- 
Finger Prince fucked around with this message at 17:20 on Jun 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
17.3" seat width. Gah.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:17.3" seat width. Gah. I will suffer crappy seating - even for a 13hr long haul - if it means I can actually afford to fly
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
But you can just find a seat on a 777 and get an extra inch of seat width.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:787s look so stubby for whatever reason. Yeah, looks weird when compared to the 777, though the 777-9 looks weird in the opposite way 
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
Great timing for this page today, Air Canada's first 787-900 out of the factory:
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
 Cool livery! e: this one too 
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
pik_d posted:Yeah, looks weird when compared to the 777, though the 777-9 looks weird in the opposite way 777-9 has some 757-300 going on Do we have a long plane is long metric? If we do length divided by cabin with we get 12.8 vs 15.4 so I guess the 757-300 is still the leader in looking lanky. hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Jun 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
pik_d posted:Yeah, looks weird when compared to the 777, though the 777-9 looks weird in the opposite way
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Oh hey, page 787... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-xPHopebiE&t=13s
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
The first and third linked videos in this thread just further serve to prove that YouTube commenters are literally, LITERALLY the dumbest loving people on the planet. I'm also a goddamn dumb for looking at the comments section in there  buttcrackmenace posted:also needs a sound system similar to the ones in the Apocalypse Now UH1s  This, however... Wow. Definitely needs to be on the Assembly Plane's kickin' Alpine stereo system.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:This has likely already been posted, but it's still cool. (except for panel 20) I love that P-3s have been around so long that some of their heritage paint schemes are just their original colors.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
I have always liked the blended wingtip whatnot on the 787 -I'll cut-choo, bitch! Also: this is required watching on page 787 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZRKm6PG918
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
At least everyone gets a screen. I remember sharing the big on up front and it sucked
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:I remember sharing the big on up front and it sucked I always hated that poo poo. And hey certification flights are always an interesting watch. Though no where near as dramatic and fun as the airbus brake test flambe' fest a few years back https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fz7486Dhfg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nKFGQCAg3c&t=53s
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
 ANA 787 sitting at the Pima Air & Space Museum.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:At least everyone gets a screen. I remember sharing the big on up front and it sucked I wonder if the personal screen thing has made the lives of flight attendants any easier? Way fewer bored people, but it's something new to complain about.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
 Good thing they didn't build this thing instead of the 787...man, it would have been a disaster. Or at least, a bigger disaster. E: 
MrChips fucked around with this message at 02:44 on Jun 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
MrChips posted:
... I really want to see that from the bottom. What would the intakes even look like?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
Ardeem posted:... I really want to see that from the bottom. What would the intakes even look like?  Fuselage  Can't be hosed flipping one of the images.  E: Did it anyways. Naturally Selected fucked around with this message at 03:15 on Jun 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
Ardeem posted:... I really want to see that from the bottom. What would the intakes even look like? These Germans threw some S ducts down there. http://www.mh-aerotools.de/company/paper_7/astec_2002.htm I didn't immediately find a picture of the Boeing concept model from below.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
Naturally Selected posted:
That plane just looks so drat happy. Reminds me of a big fat doofy Labrador for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
Ardeem posted:... I really want to see that from the bottom. What would the intakes even look like? I found a few pictures The best image of the intakes, really a bit   A few others, not all official obviously    And a slightly less radical design: 
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
Don't get me wrong, the part of me that covered school notebooks with suspiciously similar looking scribbles loves the idea, but what exactly were the purported advantages of a double delta airliner with canards?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
pik_d posted:I found a few pictures Not her best angle, to be sure
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
It's everything I imagined it'd be. And I suppose it moves the efficiency vs stability graph twords efficiency. Better lift, faster climb, better high speed performance, shorter flight times, less fuel burned, more profit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
It was designed to cruise at Mach 0.95 or so. At that speed parts of the wing are supersonic so you need some supersonic aircraft design control surfaces like a flying tailplane (well, cannards).
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 11:01 |
|
|
Dihedral canards  JUST SAY NO
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 03:45
|
|