|
BurgerQuest posted:Wow. One of my worst fears is a propeller breaking off and coming right through the fuselage at me. I too have the irrational fear whenever I'm right on the side of spinning propeller. And then on 2015 a tow plane our club was renting lost two out of three propeller blades during a tow flight, so suddenly it doesn't seem that irrational.  
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 19:19 |
|
|
ApathyGifted posted:Yeah, it's perspective. The aircraft is 23' 3-5/8" tall, the propeller is 22 feet in diameter.   The Linke-Hofmann R.II had about ~20ft less span than the Seimens-Schuckert in the top image; they were just really really big planes. Schematic:  People also may have seen pictures before of the R.I, which had... a unique fuselage shape:  
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
HookedOnChthonics posted:My favorite of these is definitely the Linke-Hofmann R.II, which had a wingspan of 138 feet and used four interlinked engines to drive a single, 22-foot propeller, the largest ever used. Wingspan 8 metres greater than a 737. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
HookedOnChthonics posted:People also may have seen pictures before of the R.I, which had... a unique fuselage shape: I wanna pet it
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Welcome, friend. Hey-hey I know you! No RR bias though, the Pratt & Whitney PW2000 is lovely as well - it's just that my first flight ever almost 10yrs was onboard a 757 with the RR engines. Also noise abatements can be cool as well, take John Wayne Airport for example. I just wish I could have also departed in one instead of a boring old 737 (still quite an experience though - you really do hear half the cabin simultaneously gasp when they slam back the throttle after taking off at close to full power)... MrYenko posted:I watched an An-124 crew do this AND rebuild a brake on the ramp at CHS one night. Yeah they remind me of a highly competent (and probably extremely well paid) LeMons team on wings...who knew? I half assumed they were a bunch of disgruntled, vodka crazy ex-Soviet military pilots...perhaps they still are but I suppose you can now add 'respectable' onto the pile of adjectives. I also love the ANTONOV DESIGN BUREAU livery, probably gets plenty of strange looks flying into Dulles each time nowadays. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=836IhCriTWs 
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
Mariana Horchata posted:
Heard some great stories from a heli pilot that spent some time as a civ contractor in the Middle East. One of them being all the Russian mechanics that were there used normal spanners instead of ratchets for everything, which takes incredible patience. The other being they rolled out like 5 50 gallon drums of "De-Icing Fluid" in the desert at their heliport, which of course was all Vodka, being in a dry country.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
D C posted:Heard some great stories from a heli pilot that spent some time as a civ contractor in the Middle East. One of them being all the Russian mechanics that were there used normal spanners instead of ratchets for everything, which takes incredible patience. Well it will de-ice things 
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 02:38
|
|
|
Mariana Horchata posted:Yeah they remind me of a highly competent (and probably extremely well paid) LeMons team on wings...who knew? I half assumed they were a bunch of disgruntled, vodka crazy ex-Soviet military pilots...perhaps they still are but I suppose you can now add 'respectable' onto the pile of adjectives. I also love the ANTONOV DESIGN BUREAU livery, probably gets plenty of strange looks flying into Dulles each time nowadays. Once we had one parked outside the hangar for the night, and we went on board to have a look around. The crew live with the plane wherever it's staying, and the two guys on board were fine with us nosing around. We were a couple of wide eyed kids straight out of college, and one of the things our wide eyes definitely noticed was the vodka being drunk while the crew sat on lawn chairs playing chess and chain smoking. So loving Russian. D C posted:Heard some great stories from a heli pilot that spent some time as a civ contractor in the Middle East. One of them being all the Russian mechanics that were there used normal spanners instead of ratchets for everything, which takes incredible patience. it probably was deicing fluid, in so far as they probably used pure ethanol as deicing fluid, which they also drank.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 02:39
|
|
|
Vitamin J posted:
How does no one have a picture of the jet after it landed. It was written off. I'd love to see how it looks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 09:53
|
|
|
Put a turd into a tumble dryer for a reasonable facsimile of the cabin interior.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 09:58
|
|
|
sellouts posted:How does no one have a picture of the jet after it landed. It was written off. I'd love to see how it looks. Most acceleration-related write-off damage is in probably-invisible stress to structural elements, but, yeah, the cabin has probably seen some poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 10:11
|
|
|
ArcMage posted:Most acceleration-related write-off damage is in probably-invisible stress to structural elements, but, yeah, the cabin has probably seen some poo poo. Flight Services Bureau posted:...the Ram Air Turbine could not deploy possibly as result of G-forces and structural stress... 
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 10:24
|
|
|
Who's got the pictures of that biz-jet the pilots wrote off by snap-rolling it a few times and wrinkled the fuselage/bent the wings from over-stress?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
Finger Prince posted:Once we had one parked outside the hangar for the night, and we went on board to have a look around. The crew live with the plane wherever it's staying, and the two guys on board were fine with us nosing around. We were a couple of wide eyed kids straight out of college, and one of the things our wide eyes definitely noticed was the vodka being drunk while the crew sat on lawn chairs playing chess and chain smoking. So loving Russian. There is a VICE piece about Russian pilots flying cargo out in Africa and its exactly what you would imagine it is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
Preoptopus posted:There is a VICE piece about Russian pilots flying cargo out in Africa and its exactly what you would imagine it is. Outlaws, Inc is fairly decent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
Darwin's Nightmare is another great documentary about that subject. It's mostly about African fisheries, stocked with non native fish that have destroyed the local ecosystem, but there are these references to the Russian planes that carry out the fish on their return trips, flying in "tractor parts" 24 hours a day.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
ArcMage posted:Most acceleration-related write-off damage is in probably-invisible stress to structural elements, but, yeah, the cabin has probably seen some poo poo. I would describe the circumstances as extraordinary, wouldn't you?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
Well I crossed the Hawker Sea Fury and A-26 Invader off my list of warbirds I haven't seen fly in person. Of course we brought batteries, lenses, memory cards, sling, and no camera body 
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Well I crossed the Hawker Sea Fury and A-26 Invader off my list of warbirds I haven't seen fly in person. The Sea Fury is my number one warbird that I want to fly. But I got to sit in one once, and I'm not gonna lie it was more than a little intimidating.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 02:20
|
|
|
If you need some Sunday Afternoon Aviation 'spergin, Major Kong has three new posts: SSTs - The Future was Gonna Be Awesome The USAF wants a new trainer Weird Aircraft of WW2
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:If you need some Sunday Afternoon Aviation 'spergin, Major Kong has three new posts: quote:The other big requirement is “embedded training with synthetic sensors and data link”. Cutting through the DoD jargon, they essentially want it to be able to mimic an F-22 or F-35. The biggest thing with this requirement isn't so much being able to mimic an F-22/F-35 (though that's certainly a plus), it's being able to inject virtual targets that the pilot can see on radar and employ weapons on. If you're able to do that, you can drastically cut down on the red air requirements for training and/or present much more complex problems than if you were reliant on having actual aircraft in the adversary role. That's especially valuable for this kind of large-scale, mass production training where you want to give each student a lot of reps and sets to build that initial familiarity with the tactics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
I happened to watch this video about why planes don't fly faster, which was the first one to make an obvious point I hadn't considered: for the same price as (or lower than) an SST ticket, you can make a conventional jet ride so comfortable and luxurious that people actively prefer to spend more time there. Basically, 6 hours in first class is way better than 3 hours in Economy Plus, and if you scale luxury on the SST, you can always beat it on the conventional jet.
Alereon fucked around with this message at 18:16 on Mar 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
Alereon posted:I happened to watch this video about why planes don't fly faster, which was the first one to make an obvious point I hadn't considered: for the same price as (or lower than) an SST ticket, you can make a conventional jet ride so comfortable and luxurious that people actively prefer to spend more time there. Basically, 6 hours in first class is way better than 3 hours in Economy Plus, and if you scale luxury on the SST, you can always beat it on the conventional jet. The Concorde wasn't a comfortable plane to be in. Sure the service was nice, but cabin-wise it's CRJ coach with nicer materials and maybe more legroom.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
Yeah, the only time we're ever going to see SSTs in the near future is when uber-billionaires get a shot at buying/leasing them, like he says in the article. I do like his self-promotion about how he has supersonic experience and *also* flies for UPS. I could see the application for medical organ transport, too, provided they can establish a supersonic travel corridor over land.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Yeah, the only time we're ever going to see SSTs in the near future is when uber-billionaires get a shot at buying/leasing them, like he says in the article. I do like his self-promotion about how he has supersonic experience and *also* flies for UPS. I could see the application for medical organ transport, too, provided they can establish a supersonic travel corridor over land. We'll see Musk's hyperloop network before we see that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
SST at least have a historical precedent where they proved they were technically possible, even if not financially viable. The hyperloop concept, I'll wait to see it function for a few years in real conditions before ceasing my skepticism about the whole idea.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 01:43
|
|
|
Hyperloop sounds like it'd be even more vulnerable to terrorist attacks than airliners. The tracks are above ground and all it takes is severing one support beam to compromise the tube and you've got people experiencing 700mph to *zero* in a fraction of a second.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
Doesn't seem significantly more at-risk than commonplace trains.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 01:58
|
|
|
Safety Dance posted:Doesn't seem significantly more at-risk than commonplace trains. Frailer infrastructure, faster speed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Frailer infrastructure, faster speed. Not to mention the fact that how do you *evacuate* from a hyperloop capsule? The NTSB is sure gonna want to know that. It's a vacuum within the tube.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 02:20
|
|
|
Cocoa Crispies posted:The Concorde wasn't a comfortable plane to be in. Sure the service was nice, but cabin-wise it's CRJ coach with nicer materials and maybe more legroom.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
No, BA made money off Concorde because of how they operated it in their fleet. Tickets were stupidly expensive, and it was very rare for a Concorde flight to be fully booked. So they'd overbook First Class on London/NY flights on their other planes, then offer those passengers a Concorde seat once they arrived at the airport. It worked very well to fill up the Concorde flights, making them viable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 04:41
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Hyperloop sounds like it'd be even more vulnerable to terrorist attacks than airliners. The tracks are above ground and all it takes is severing one support beam to compromise the tube and you've got people experiencing 700mph to *zero* in a fraction of a second. I agree with this. Better to put it underground, but that makes it even harder to evacuate and more expensive to build and maintain. If there is a turbine in the pod itself (which I think some designs include) it's going to catch fire sooner or later, even if it's electric. Hyperloop seems to make sense when you're looking at a whiteboard in California, but so many silly things do. Maybe it would be better for goods. Put 30 ft container in tube, shoot tube across nation with forces too uncomfortable for passengers, but not damaging for well packaged consumer goods, load container on to electric truck for local distribution. The real future of travel is not travelling. People sigh and moan that they have to go somewhere for work, but really they just love to get away from their routine, day drinking in lounges, scheming their way up the aristocracy of air miles and comparing complimentary slippers and noise cancelling headsets with their fellow aerial esquires. All at staggering expense to society and the environment. A Norwegian cartoon, which does not need translation: 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 08:54
|
|
|
I hate that 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 09:15
|
|
|
Ola posted:I agree with this. Better to put it underground, but that makes it even harder to evacuate and more expensive to build and maintain. If there is a turbine in the pod itself (which I think some designs include) it's going to catch fire sooner or later, even if it's electric. Hyperloop seems to make sense when you're looking at a whiteboard in California, but so many silly things do. Maybe it would be better for goods. Put 30 ft container in tube, shoot tube across nation with forces too uncomfortable for passengers, but not damaging for well packaged consumer goods, load container on to electric truck for local distribution. Until we can get a star trek holodeck, there will always be travelling. Most people I know who have to travel for work consider it a benefit, and treat the trips themselves as a vacation outside of the actual work stuff. And that doesn't even touch the leisure market, and the basic human desire to explore other places. I'll agree that there's a massive societal and environmental cost to this, but you can describe much, if not most, of human civilization in those terms.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 14:09
|
|
|
Alereon posted:I happened to watch this video about why planes don't fly faster, which was the first one to make an obvious point I hadn't considered: for the same price as (or lower than) an SST ticket, you can make a conventional jet ride so comfortable and luxurious that people actively prefer to spend more time there. Basically, 6 hours in first class is way better than 3 hours in Economy Plus, and if you scale luxury on the SST, you can always beat it on the conventional jet. I'm not sure this is true at the end of the scale where an SST is really playing. If I could pay same price to fly in a CRJ for 2 hours to London rather than overnight in a lie flat, you can bet I would do the former. I've logged six transat trips in paid business class this year as of today, and I would really prefer to cut down on the travel time in exchange for giving up all of the experience.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:I'm not sure this is true at the end of the scale where an SST is really playing. If I could pay same price to fly in a CRJ for 2 hours to London rather than overnight in a lie flat, you can bet I would do the former. I've logged six transat trips in paid business class this year as of today, and I would really prefer to cut down on the travel time in exchange for giving up all of the experience. I think this might be the crux of it. Having the option of going really fast clearly would appeal to at least some of the people some of the time. I guess the question is if the "option" can actually be viable in an airline or not?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
Finger Prince posted:Until we can get a star trek holodeck, there will always be travelling. Most people I know who have to travel for work consider it a benefit, and treat the trips themselves as a vacation outside of the actual work stuff. My work travel is usually something like: Arrive at destination area between 6-9pm, get rental car and find hotel, sleep from 10pm to 5 am (if you can depending on time changes). Get to destination office by 7:30. Eat lovely continental breakfast and drink crap coffee. Meet until 6 or 7 pm going over some tedious procedural documents and engineering documents that everyone has reviewed for weeks previously. Have dinner with local reps. Usually can be okay unless they want to talk work. Hotel at 11pm, sleep until 5 back to destination office by 7:30, repeat until meeting schedule is exhausted. Last day, fly out immediately after last conference, usually to catch 6 or 7pm flight. Get home around midnight or later. Go into normal work day next morning. Blah.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
Finger Prince posted:Until we can get a star trek holodeck, there will always be travelling. This is true of course. A more nuanced argument: If the goal is to use technology to reduce the impact of mankind's transportation on nature, the first and most efficient way to try is eliminating as many journeys as possible. You don't even need technology. For instance, if there was more carbon shaming in the corporate world, fewer people would jetset drunkenly around the world, passively attending conventions on their shareholders' and customers' dime as a perk with no return value. Many journeys can't be eliminated and life itself isn't really worth living without a bit of travel, so the remaining journeys can be made greener. Let's say a battery electric airplane was invented that had very little impact on the environment, but it had the range and speed of piston era airliners*. So a transatlantic trip would mean one or two stops and take maybe 24 hours. A big setback? Well, the business jetset can communicate electronically instead of travelling and tourists can chill out and have some biodynamic champagne while the plane charges on geothermal power in Reykjavik. Hopping on a hypersonic SST in New York to attend a business meeting in Tokyo is a ridiculously outdated idea. It's the futurism of the 1960s. It's Mr Jetson getting Mrs Jetson an atomic vacuum cleaner for her birthday before he zips to the office on the moon where he can sexually harass his typewriter-qualified secretary without consequence. * I would be totally fine with the range and speed of piston planes, but not the altitude. gently caress crossing the Atlantic down in the weather.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 19:19 |
|
|
Murgos posted:Where the heck do you work? Yeah, seriously, where do you work that people enjoy work travel? Most of the time it's fly in, go to meeting, spend night at lovely hotel in the middle of nowhere, attend meeting, fly back, go the gently caress back to work the next day. Nobody's gonna make a mini vacation of a trip to the Yarapunga Airport Holiday Inn and Convention Center.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 16:30
|
|
