|
For the newest batch of skytrain cars in Vancouver the transit co bought them from a company in south korea instead of bombardier like the first 2 generations were, so RIP.
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 00:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 16:43 |
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:edit: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-21/bombardier-is-said-to-explore-combining-rail-unit-with-alstom nope WTF, how can they even do this: quote:Bombardier also said at the time that it may exit a joint venture with Airbus SE that makes the A220 jetliner and potentially take a major writedown. Bombardier shares dropped as much as 39% on the news, a record decline. e: quote:The potential end of Bombardier’s involvement in A220 manufacturing, combined with new stumbles in the company’s rail business, have undermined a once-great name in manufacturing -- just when investors thought they were poised to reap the rewards of a difficult turnaround effort. Walking away from the A220 would close the book on Bombardier’s work on an aircraft program in which the company invested more than $6 billion. e2: while trying to figure out WTF Bombardier, I came across this which I'd never heard of before https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMC_YS-11 Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 03:08 on Jan 23, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 02:17
|
|
|
Welp. Looks like a large air tanker has crashed in new south wales. Civilian C-130. Crossquoting from the bushfire thread The Peccadillo posted:Oh poo poo https://twitter.com/NSWRFS/status/1220185124391702534?s=19
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 04:51
|
|
|
My question about Boeing is if Boeing has enough engineering talent to dig their way out of this problem. Boeing basically has to start on a clean-sheet 737 replacement as soon as the MAX is ready to go, but it's taken Boeing over a year to fix the MAX (which suggests that much more is wrong with the design than publicly admitted) and the 777X isn't out the door. Also the Boeing tanker undergoing endless revisions and their spacecraft had a system design flaw. All of those suggest a lack of solid engineering talent - just as Boeing needs all it can get its hands on. The problem is that a good plane designer requires experience and can't be purchased, even for financial consultant prices. Another question is financial, large-body sales are down and Boeing has a major 737 MAX backlog. It isn't clear how Boeing can get new profitable business. I assume that 737s will be sold basically at cost for a while. Moreover, Boeing has to back-stop it's suppliers. If Spirit Aerosystems goes out of business, the debt is rated junk, Boeing has to bail them out. No Spirit - no fuselage - no Boeing planes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 05:21
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:edit: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-21/bombardier-is-said-to-explore-combining-rail-unit-with-alstom nope quote:“The joke continues,” said John O’Connell, chief executive officer of Toronto-based Davis Rea Ltd. “This company has been a disaster my whole career and I’m almost ready to retire.”
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 06:51
|
|
|
My favourite part of that story is Viking Air and its parent company gradually buying parts of De Havilland Canada as Bombardier sold them off, reestablishing the company once they had all of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 08:17
|
|
|
 Australian Gothic
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 09:30
|
|
|
Ola posted:
Now I want to see that as a painting proper.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 09:54
|
|
|
drunkill posted:Welp. Looks like a large air tanker has crashed in new south wales. Civilian C-130. It was a Canadian plane with an American crew of three. drat. https://www.theguardian.com/austral...y-monaro-region
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 15:11
|
|
|
Sperglord posted:My question about Boeing is if Boeing has enough engineering talent to dig their way out of this problem. Boeing basically has to start on a clean-sheet 737 replacement as soon as the MAX is ready to go, but it's taken Boeing over a year to fix the MAX (which suggests that much more is wrong with the design than publicly admitted) and the 777X isn't out the door. Also the Boeing tanker undergoing endless revisions and their spacecraft had a system design flaw. The 777X problems are supplier related afaik, not so much engineering related, but that's been the problem at Boeing for years now. Margins are the number one concern over everything else, so even if the engineering is good, if the subcontractors are crap (and they will be since it's the low dollar that wins), it won't matter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 17:05
|
|
|
Mark Felton on youtube has been doing videos lately on weird Axis flights. Germany's 'U-2' Axis flights to Japan. I'd really like to know his source on the Japanese flight. Emily's Pearl Harbor attack. A good commentary on why the Germans didn't do this elaborate staging via submarine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 18:20
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Mark Felton on youtube has been doing videos lately on weird Axis flights. Just to quibble - the Ju86R's engines were weirder than that; they were supercharged two-stroke opposed-piston diesels. They had two pistons in each cylinder, with compression/combustion taking place between them as they moved inwards, rather than one piston-per-cylinder horizontally opposed as on a boxer engine. Jumo licensed the patents on their opposed-piston diesel quite widely in the 1930s and ironically that ended up significantly to the Allies' advantage. Napier built the Jumo 204 (the first in the opposed-piston series) in the UK as the Culverin, and then developed that into the bonkers Deltic engine with went into torpedo boats, minesweepers and locomotives. Fairbanks-Morse licensed the patents in the USA and expanded the design into the 38 8-1/8 Series which powered a lot of the later Fleet Boat submarines and continued post-war in both GUPPY and nuclear subs. The Fairbanks-Morse engine was in turn copied by the USSR and made by Karkhov where it became the standard Soviet locomotive diesel of the post-war era. The Soviets also more directly copied the original Jumo engines (with plans seized as war reparations) to be the basis of the engines used in the T-64 tank and some of its later descendants.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 21:05
|
|
|
BalloonFish posted:Just to quibble - the Ju86R's engines were weirder than that; they were supercharged two-stroke opposed-piston diesels. They had two pistons in each cylinder, with compression/combustion taking place between them as they moved inwards, rather than one piston-per-cylinder horizontally opposed as on a boxer engine. Oh man, that's a good post, we were still putting those giant diesel-juice spewing fuckers on Nuclear powered submarines in the 90's Here's some mesmerizing gifs from the Napier Deltic Wikipedia page.  
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 22:00
|
|
|
Something about that gif feels disgusting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 22:54
|
|
|
it's abstract porn
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 23:13
|
|
|
BalloonFish posted:Just to quibble - the Ju86R's engines were weirder than that; they were supercharged two-stroke opposed-piston diesels. They had two pistons in each cylinder, with compression/combustion taking place between them as they moved inwards, rather than one piston-per-cylinder horizontally opposed as on a boxer engine.  Thanks for the correction, I had no idea such things existed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 23:25
|
|
|
Elviscat posted:Oh man, that's a good post, we were still putting those giant diesel-juice spewing fuckers on Nuclear powered submarines in the 90's Might as well quote my own Deltic post earlier in this thread from last time it came up: BalloonFish posted:If you wanted a loco engine with aeronautical (insanity) heritage, you could try a Napier Deltic - 5384 cu. inches of 18-cylinder, 36-piston, three-crank, two-stroke madness good for 2500hp (if you were willing to rebuilt it after 15 minutes) or 1900hp at 1700rpm for a 1000-hour service life.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 23:44
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:At that point, deleting MCAS is killing two birds with one stone. MCAS has already killed two birds. And everyone that was aboard them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 06:58
|
|
|
 Fine. “Roast two pieces of meat on one fire.” Wait. gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 07:22
|
|
|
Flies makes a lot of sense. Meat...what the hell guys.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 08:44
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:
Of course the French are the RPGers
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 08:50
|
|
|
Now I want a car powered by that sort of engine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 08:51
|
|
|
RandomPauI posted:Now I want a car powered by that sort of engine. It would have to be a pretty big car, would make the Merlin-engined Rover SD1 look like a toy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 11:57
|
|
|
Platystemon fucked around with this message at 12:49 on Jan 24, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 12:40
|
|
|
I assume the deltic was unreliable
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 12:51
|
|
|
lilbeefer posted:I assume the deltic was unreliable a thousand hours between overhauls isnt bad by the standards of the time and for non-turbine engines. the r-3350 was 400 hours between overhauls. i think they were a pain to repair, though. BR policy on the class 55 was to swing the engine out and replace it with a new unit, then repair/recondition the old unit in a workshop.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 15:07
|
|
|
Is there an internal combustion engine from the Second World War that wasn’t unreliable? Perhaps a marine diesel?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 15:13
|
|
|
hi po combustion engines are pretty well inherently unreliable because you're pushing the limits of what you can accomplish with available metallurgical, computing, etc technology.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 15:47
|
|
|
lilbeefer posted:I assume the deltic was unreliable It had very good reliability, even in locomotive use (which is generally accepted as the most gruelling duty for big diesel engines) but to maintain that good reliability it needed much more thorough, frequent and expensive maintenance (on account of its original designed purpose as a marine engine where it would be continually doted on by a crew of trained mechanics and engineers). It was also horrifically expensive to overhaul or carry out major mechanical repairs because it was totally different in form and function to virtually every other diesel engine and was made of exotic aeronautical-grade materials. I think on the railways each Deltic locomotive cost something like five times as much in maintenance as a conventional loco, although in return you got much better performance and generally better availability. This was also the problem when Fairbanks-Morse tried to build its own locomotives with its opposed-piston diesel. It was fantastically reliable in submarines, but there too it was running for days and weeks at a time at constant speeds and generally fairly moderate loads, constantly attended by trained engineers, while being surrounded by infinite amounts of cooling water. In a locomotive the engine had to run unattended for weeks at a time between brief inspections by a less-trained fitter, while undergoing frequently changing speeds and loads, plus all the dust, dirt, vibration and torsional stress inherent in loco operations, and with a finite limit on its cooling capacity where a single slow leak, broken pipe or blocked radiator spelt disaster. And like the Deltic the F-M engines needed specific and specialist training and equipment to maintain and service, and many railroads simply didn't do that to the required standard. There was one railroad (I forget which one) which bought a lot of F-M locos and got very good reliability out of them simply because they trained enough people to service and fix them properly. KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:a thousand hours between overhauls isnt bad by the standards of the time and for non-turbine engines. the r-3350 was 400 hours between overhauls. i think they were a pain to repair, though. BR policy on the class 55 was to swing the engine out and replace it with a new unit, then repair/recondition the old unit in a workshop. The highly de-rated loco engines were pegged at 4000 hours between overhauls, and as you say they were the first units on BR's fleet to use the now-common system of having spare engines available so when a loco had a fault or was due an overhaul the prime movers were swapped and the loco went back to work, whereas previously BR followed the same method as it had on its steam locos (where the loco is the engine), treating the locomotive and its prime mover as an indivisible whole and taking the entire unit out of service for as long as the overhaul took. IIRC English Electric actually had a sort of 'power-by-the-hour' deal with BR on the Deltics where they would keep the fleet to an agreed level of availability for a fixed price. Platystemon posted:Is there an internal combustion engine from the Second World War that wasn’t unreliable? Define 'reliable'? The aero-engines had to be reliable by their very nature, but also the plain facts of building multi-thousand-horsepower lightweight engines with 1940s technology meant they often needed an hour or so of checking, servicing and maintenance after each sortie and had times-between-overhaul of 250-500 hours. Although that was only the official number; there was a P-47D with an R2800 which recorded 600 hours on its original engine, still in fighting condition. For all its initial troubles, the TBO of the R3350 was originally 250 hours and was later set at 500, with more than one B-29 reached 750 engine hours. The V1710 could reach 1500 hours and still be in acceptable flight condition in certain applications. The sturdiest, most rugged engine from the 1940s would be a shonky mess by modern standards, with its carburettor(s) (or primitive fuel injection), points/condenser ignition, cork-ring oil seals, canvas radiator hoses, manually-adjusted valves and so on. If you want no-qualms reliability then marine diesels are a good place to go. GM's EMD-567 was purpose-designed as locomotive engine just before the war but was made in huge numbers as a marine engine during the war itself, which allowed GM to do a lot of the final development and improvement of the engine on the government's dime, although it was inherently a superbly reliable engine from the get-go, having been based on an older engine designed on the same principles but with much more inherent problems - GM spent four years going over the design to progressively eliminate all the problems one by one to create the 567. They ran for thousands of hours continuously in diesel-electric destroyers and LSTs. There was also the bizarre Doxford Marine Diesel, which was a British two-stroke opposed-piston engine which looked like a mutant hybrid between a diesel engine, a reciprocating steam engine and a Victorian printing press. Doxford was primarily a shipyard which moved into making its own propulsion diesels and in WW2 they designed and built a standard mass-production cargo ship (along the lines of the Liberty Ship) called the Doxford Economy Motor Ship. These were fitted with a three-cylinder Doxford engine which, running flat out, could just about get a laden ship to the standard convoy speed of 10knts, albeit while burning only six tons of fuel oil per day, as opposed to the 15-plus tons of a Liberty Ship. The standard procedure for Economy Motor Ships seems to have been to raise the anchor, crank the engine up to maximum speed, leave it there for three weeks until you get to the other side of the Atlantic, stop the engine, drop anchor...repeat. The engines never gave any trouble. I seem to be bleeding Aeronautical, Nautical and Locomotive Insanity into a glorious mess, here
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 16:24
|
|
|
RandomPauI posted:Now I want a car powered by that sort of engine. Will you take a twin Griffon powered "Tractor" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TV96cN_BUys
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 16:25
|
|
|
yeah the class 55 contracting and service model is pretty interesting as a proto power-by-the-hour, but the cost risk is almost entirely on the supplier so if somehow a lot more hours are put on the fleet you just absorb the extra cost as the supplier. in a more contemporary pbh model, you would be compensated according to some relationship with hours run and probably unit availability so it would be more "fair" to you. edit: thank you for effort post ballonfish!
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 16:33
|
|
|
A sidebar to Bombardier [IE corruption in Canada], but still rail related
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 17:02
|
|
|
Boeing is attempting to fly the 777x for the first time today but it's not looking good. Tailwinds are currently gusting to 20 knots with 1'000' ceilings. Live stream here: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777x/first-flight/?sf226332888=1
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 19:38
|
|
|
They can't take off the other way?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 20:00
|
|
|
BalloonFish posted:
Good stuff, I for one appreciate it. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 20:12
|
|
C-Bangin' it 
|
Sagebrush posted:They can't take off the other way? 50% cost savings in you only paint the runway one-way!
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 20:23
|
|
|
KodiakRS posted:Boeing is attempting to fly the 777x for the first time today but it's not looking good. Tailwinds are currently gusting to 20 knots with 1'000' ceilings. Youtube live stream here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKXu06VaxLI Currently holding due to weather. What i want to know is why the hell fold-able wings even necessary for a 777?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 21:41
|
|
|
The Real Amethyst posted:Youtube live stream here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKXu06VaxLI Wikipedia posted:To stay within the size category of the current 777 with a less than 213 ft (65 m) wingspan, it features 11 feet (3.5 m) folding wingtips supplied by Liebherr Aerospace.[66] The mechanism was demonstrated for Aviation Week at the Boeing Everett Factory in October 2016; the folding movement should be complete in 20 seconds and be locked in place at the end.[67] Specific alerts and procedures are needed to handle a malfunction.[68] "there's nothing in the rules that say a dog can't play basketball"
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 21:49
|
|
|
e: never mind beaten ^
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 22:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 16:43 |
|
|
The Real Amethyst posted:Youtube live stream here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKXu06VaxLI this is currently just 47,000 people typing F to pay respects
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 22:32
|
|