|
priznat posted:A-5s were pretty drat large planes to operate off of carriers. Were they the largest? A-3s might be heavier.. and the C-130 that landed on one as a test doesn't count. Although, in the good timeline, they are flying 737s off carriers.
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 11:53 |
|
|
david_a posted:Yes, I think the A-5 is the physically largest with the A-3 being the heaviest. Neat! Although 727 or DC-9 makes more sense from an engine configuration perspective. Unless there is a maintenance consideration..
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Weird. Why the dissymmetry? It's just not needed, and leaving it out saves a bit of weight/complexity/maintenance/$$$. I think there's something with the way the propeller wash flows over the tail that makes the right inboard vertical stabilizer more effective than the left side, so that's the one they put the rudder on. I've heard that in the original design they proposed leaving the left inboard vertical stab off completely, but that looked too goofy. I'm a little skeptical about that, because it would mean someone looked at the E-2 and thought "woah woah woah, let's not make this thing look silly now". david_a posted:I figured that might be one of the reasons for Navy planes, although that can be worked around: True, it's definitely an option, but again, folding mechanisms = more weight. And while it's not really a concern with the C-2, the E-2 needs those outboard stabilizers to deal with a giant radar dish deflecting airflow. e: vvvv yeah, single engine performance might be another driving factor there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Weird. Why the dissymmetry? As far as i know the E-2s props don't counter-rotate, which means one of the engines is going to affect the plane's handling a lot worse than the other if it dies. So it probably boils down to "if the left engine dies then we're gonna want a lot more rudder still working behind the right engine to help counter that, but if the right engine dies then it's not as big a deal".
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
 quote:Senior Airman Michael Rathman, 50th Equipment Maintenance Squadron, pins a flow track together on the tire of F-16A #80-0601 during Exercise SALTY DEMO '85 mods namechange to SALTY DEMO '85 plz  
HookedOnChthonics fucked around with this message at 00:31 on Nov 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
david_a posted:Yes, I think the A-5 is the physically largest with the A-3 being the heaviest. Since you mentioned alternate timelines, some sort of navalized Mi-26 would be excellent for people with helicopter carriers. I could have sworn the US Navy tried landing one of its rigid airships on an aircraft carrier but I can't find any pictures.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I could have sworn the US Navy tried landing one of its rigid airships on an aircraft carrier but I can't find any pictures. The USN used the USS Patoka as a rigid airship tender during the twenties and thirties, but I don't recall ever seeing or reading about an airship mooring to a carrier.  That's Patoka and USS Shenandoah. USS Los Angeles and USS Akron also used her services, but I can't find pictures of Akron and Patoka.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I'm assuming the B-24 is fairly intact; ... ... From the linked article “Because the crew had such little experience flying in the night, they performed the wrong manoeuvres to correct that problem. They actually made the problem worse, so the plane did three barrel rolls and crashed directly into the lake. ... ... " I wonder what shape that bird is in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 04:43
|
|
|
Nucken Futz posted:From the linked article “Because the crew had such little experience flying in the night, they performed the wrong manoeuvres to correct that problem. They actually made the problem worse, so the plane did three barrel rolls and crashed directly into the lake. ... ... " If they were really disoriented they could have been doing 1g barrel rolls and not known the wiser. (Unless they looked at their instruments) (Unless the attitude indicator was the old type that didn't distinguish between sky and ground) (Crashing into the lake probably didn't help)
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 05:42
|
|
|
It would have given them a pretty clear idea of their altitude and the direction the ground is in if it hadn't also killed them
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
david_a posted:Yes, I think the A-5 is the physically largest with the A-3 being the heaviest. Are we just going to ignore what a sexy airframe the A-5 was?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I could have sworn the US Navy tried landing one of its rigid airships on an aircraft carrier but I can't find any pictures. They did! We literally just processed the original photographs in my archive this past week. They tried to land the USS Los Angeles (ZR-3) on the Saratoga in 1928  They also landed a K-class blimp on an escort carrier 
Pepperoneedy fucked around with this message at 15:26 on Nov 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
They should have developed a naval version of the PA-97.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:They should have developed a naval version of the PA-97. Can't tell if you're making a joke here but the PA-97 was built for the Navy 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
Has anyone see this new Prat and Whitney geared turbofan? https://youtu.be/8aPIEsnKb6o The benefits sound awesome, and I wonder if reducing the speed of the intake fan will offset the increase in complexity from the gearing. During an uncontained failure it's usually the fan that ejects right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
simplefish posted:Are we just going to ignore what a sexy airframe the A-5 was? There's a carrier operations video that gives a better sense of how massive it was. The Phantoms and Crusaders taking off next to it look puny in comparison.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:Has anyone see this new Prat and Whitney geared turbofan? No, it's usually one of the turbine disks. The fan blades are pretty well contained by a massive Kevlar collar. And with modern carbon fan blades, they probably disintegrate pretty well if they were to somehow come off anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
Nucken Futz posted:From the linked article “Because the crew had such little experience flying in the night, they performed the wrong manoeuvres to correct that problem. They actually made the problem worse, so the plane did three barrel rolls and crashed directly into the lake. ... ... " It's a fair question, obviously I'm making a shitload of assumptions here. Pepperoneedy posted:They did! We literally just processed the original photographs in my archive this past week. They tried to land the USS Los Angeles (ZR-3) on the Saratoga in 1928 Awesome! Thanks you very much! To get back to why I brought it up: these are the largest aircraft ever to attempt a carrier landing  As to weight, eh. The Vigilantie weighted 47,530 lbs (21,605 kg) fully loaded. ZR-3 weighed 104,103 lbs (47,220 kg) before payload, but all of that is reduced to very near zero when actually flying, so....
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
Finger Prince posted:No, it's usually one of the turbine disks. The fan blades are pretty well contained by a massive Kevlar collar. And with modern carbon fan blades, they probably disintegrate pretty well if they were to somehow come off anyway. Interesting. Isn't the gearbox on a turboprop setup usually the weakest point? I wonder what the long term reliability on a geared turbofan is going to be.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:Isn't the gearbox on a turboprop setup usually the weakest point? Definitely in the case of the TP400.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:Interesting. One of the guys who posts in this thread works at Pratt, so I'm sure he'll be able to tell you they're indestructible 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
Haven't BAe 145s/Avro RJs been using geared turbofans for decades without much problem?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:Has anyone see this new Prat and Whitney geared turbofan? I saw before and couldn't figure out what the hype was about, until I realized it is the first geared turbofan. Until then, I assumed they were all geared down, with how much bigger and slow-turning they are.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
vessbot posted:I saw before and couldn't figure out what the hype was about, until I realized it is the first geared turbofan. How so? The Turbomeca Aspin was a geared turbofan that powered a flying aircraft in 1952.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
OK then I change my position back, what's all the hype about? I guess the first geared turbofan that's perched for widespread use?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Largest so far, having to take on the CFM56/Leap-X. Smaller GTFs have over 10000 units produced, flying on BAe146/AvroRJ, almost all types of learjet, older Dassault Falcons, and many others. Planes not known for exploding gearboxes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:It's a fair question, obviously I'm making a shitload of assumptions here. Less than zero when flying.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Tsuru posted:Largest so far, having to take on the CFM56/Leap-X. That puff piece for P&W really gave the wrong impression.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
It's probably the first high bypass turbofan.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
Tsuru posted:Largest so far, having to take on the CFM56/Leap-X. Yeah, it's the largest geared turbofan so far. And I say so far because Rolls has just tested a reduction gearbox designed for an engine big enough to power a 777. Supposedly the gearbox in the PW1000G family is designed in such a way that it will never need routine maintenance while on-wing. As for the excitement over this engine, so far in service it is actually exceeding performance predictions by a percent or two, which is absolutely stunning since the predictions were quite bold to begin with. Problem is, Pratt just can't build and deliver them fast enough, and their delivery targets are slipping badly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Yeah, it's the largest geared turbofan so far. Who's ordering these things and what are they equipping them on?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:Who's ordering these things and what are they equipping them on? Everyone but Boeing basically. The CSeries, the A320neo, the EJet E2, the MRJ and (lol) the Comac C919 all use or will use the PW1000G family. MrChips fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Nov 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
Boeing isn't using them mainly because the 737 wouldn't have enough ground clearance with them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Everyone but Boeing basically. The CSeries, the A320neo, the EJet E2, the MRJ and (lol) the Comac C919 all use or will use the PW1000G family. On CRJ 700/900s or just the upcoming 1000? Someone off topic but your Boeing comment made me think of it... I've been harboring this secret hope that United opens up CLE's built-and-never-used international terminal and uses 787/737max to run some long and skinny routes to Europe.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
MrChips posted:As for the excitement over this engine, so far in service it is actually exceeding performance predictions by a percent or two, which is absolutely stunning since the predictions were quite bold to begin with. P&W badly missed targets with some engines in the 1990s and learned to be extra careful. A lot of customers were extremely pissed at Pratt.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:On CRJ 700/900s or just the upcoming 1000? The CSeries is an entirely different aircraft to the CRJ family. Boeing considered using PW1000Gs on the 737MAX apparently, but building a special, short-fan variant sized for the 737's unique situation would have negated most of that engine's benefit. Plus, Boeing already has a very comfortable relationship with CFM, so it made sense to go with their LEAP engine instead. While it isn't as stellar in terms of fuel burn as the PW1000G, the LEAP has a lot of other advantages that can make it more attractive under certain conditions. phongn posted:P&W badly missed targets with some engines in the 1990s and learned to be extra careful. A lot of customers were extremely pissed at Pratt. Pratt just hosed up in general in the 1980s and 90s with their engines in a lot of ways. They built their "billion-dollar baby" PW2000, which, while a good engine, never came close to meeting their expectations for it. The PW4000 was a good follow-up to the JT9D family, but they pushed the core engine way too far in the larger variants (the PW4084, 90 and especially the 98) and the engine's performance really suffered a lot. That said, the GE90 was also struggling badly at the time too, but unlike the PW4000 that engine's problems were actually fixable. MrChips fucked around with this message at 22:25 on Nov 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Everyone but Boeing basically. The CSeries, the A320neo, the EJet E2, the MRJ and (lol) the Comac C919 all use or will use the PW1000G family. Also the Yak-242 (formerly Irkut MC-21) if that ever happens.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:That's good news in one sense for recovering warbirds - I'd imagine that's a low oxygen environment, good for preserving things. In another sense, it complicates any sort of salvage operation. Gas solubility in water is temperature-dependent, colder water dissolves more. So there can be *oxygen* down there, but that's okay, the stuff we make airplanes out of like aluminum oxidizes at the surface and that's it. But if it's freshwater, and it's cold, that's good, because you're not going to get corrosion and there's not going to be a lot of stuff trying to grow on it. Sunken aircraft are salvaged pretty regularly, Lake Michigan is famous for this because that's where we had training carriers during WWII and lots of mechanical failures etc. ended up on the bottom. http://www.atrecovery.com/ATHome.htm
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
MrChips posted:The CSeries is an entirely different aircraft to the CRJ family. Oh right. I always forget about Bombardier doing anything interesting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 11:53 |
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:737max to run some long and skinny routes to Europe. Expect to see me on your doorstep if this ever actually happens.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 00:15
|
|