|
Understeer posted:It's not a mix of the Airbus design (assuming you're referring to the A330/340 winglet), but rather it's a winglet that's blended both upwards and downwards. Aviation Partners showed almost the same thing about 6 months ago. I think it was in reference to the A380 winglet.
|
#
¿
May 3, 2012 11:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 02:24 |
|
|
8th-samurai posted:The Everett plant is still the largest building in the world by volume, seriously it's big as hell. Yeah it is. It's a third of a mile walk from the parking lot to my desk.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2013 22:01
|
|
|
We should also be thankful that this 777 didn't hit another plane landing at the very same time on a parallel runway.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2013 20:55
|
|
|
ChickenOfTomorrow posted:Also that it wasn't trying to land on a treadmill. I'm sorry? EDIT: Haha, got it, thanks 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2013 20:59
|
|
|
Alereon posted:A pilot becoming overwhelmed by workload during a critical phase of flight is an extremely hazardous condition that requires immediate corrective action to prevent an accident. That corrective action didn't happen here, which is a big deal, but it's also worth exploring the factors that increased the pilots workload and may have caused the pilot to become overwhelmed (if that is indeed what happened). Yeah, this is pretty much the approach you take in any industrial accident investigation. Outright blaming someone, aka, "they should have known/done better" and stopping there misses a significant opportunity for the development of safer and more reliable practices. Sometimes there are unknown factors that contribute to the accident after all. Additionally, approaching the investigation from the perspective of "who do I need to blame" tends to make folks very reluctant to give complete information. Negligence or malice may still play a role, but you figure that out once the situation is understood and changes (if any) are made. Even in cases where someone is just a complete gently caress up, it's still useful to know how or why they hosed up.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2013 21:41
|
|
|
Random question for the thread: Why does the P-8A use raked wingtips rather than the customary blended winglets from the 737 it's based on? Or should I be asking why raked wingtips aren't on the current/NG/MAX 737s?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2013 20:38
|
|
|
Thanks for the info folks! I guess that explains why the hypothetical 787-3 had blended winglets.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2013 21:27
|
|
|
Ugh, christ. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23294760
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2013 17:49
|
|
|
NTSB just blamed an intern for confirming those names.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2013 02:08
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Ok so wait, did someone tell the news those names, and then they called the NTSB and it was confirmed? Or did they call the NTSB and ask for names and the intern told them those? Here's the email: NTSB posted:NTSB STATEMENT ON ERRONEOUS CONFIRMATION OF CREW NAMES
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2013 02:35
|
|
|
vulturesrow posted:This story may be of interest to some of you: http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Whidbey-Island-neighbors-sue-Navy-over-jet-noises-216679991.html Reminds me of the assholes complaining about the idea of some airlines adding a handful of commercial flights to Paine Field each week. We already have wide body jets taking off and landing there on a daily basis, for christ's sake. gently caress NIMBYs.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2013 16:14
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:To be fair, old MD-80s are probably louder than modern wide bodies. Good point. As far as the Boeing traffic goes, the 787s are surprisingly quiet.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2013 16:34
|
|
|
The first 787-9 rolled out of the paint hanger this weekend: She looks even better in person!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2013 13:37
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:F-16's looked amazing so did the C-130. Those Dreamliners were absolutely sexy. Not biased at all. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2013 04:41
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:So I managed to catch a 747-8 taking off today. Yeah, Dreamliners are almost silent when they're taking off, it's really crazy.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2013 14:07
|
|
|
Butt Reactor posted:So my saturday was pretty awesome, how was yours Post them when you get a moment, I'm not allowed to take pictures here!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2013 15:35
|
|
|
Powercube posted:I'm media, Boeing doesn't give you jack poo poo no matter who you are. There are no "open days". They also have the dumbest restrictions- like if you are there for an airline's media event- you can only take photos of that aircraft for "copyright reasons". Yeah, the reason they tell us is that the interior is proprietary information, and the customer reps will have a loving heart attack if they think images of the interiors might get out somehow before the plane is delivered.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2013 05:21
|
|
|
buttcrackmenace posted:x-posted from the GBS F-35 thread Aerospace version of Herpes.  Back to the sky whale, I really want to see it go through a high blow test. Preferably from half a mile away. Solkanar512 fucked around with this message at 18:22 on Jan 24, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
So Boeing had some fun yesterday.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2014 15:22
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Not the only one, and it was some interesting "flight testing" They should have done that over Denver. 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2014 14:53
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Good point except that commercial carriers are happy to give you a fuckton of booze so... As long as you're paying them for the booze, I'm sure they're really, really careful about not over-serving...
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
Ola posted:I wonder what it's like to fill out the options form of an airliner fleet. Yeah, go with the RRs definitely...heated seats, captain's side sun shade mirror...gently caress, can you believe the price of surround sound?! Think we'll being aftermarketing that one, yessir... I've been to the Dreamliner gallery a few times for meetings, there's a showroom for every part of the plane you'd customize. It's really sweet.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
Powercube posted:and the -9 is larger It was fun seeing that black tail go through the factory while it was being built.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
Hell yeah, the 787-9 just received certification from the FAA and EASA!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
CharlesM posted:The 747-8 and -9 is supposed to be quieter, especially due to the sawtooth nacelle design. I live quite close to the end of the runway at Paine Field, and they are really quiet. We don't hear those or the Dreamliners, but holy poo poo do you hear the 777s, Dreamlifters and occasional 737.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Man the 787-10 is long*: Here's one that does exist: 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:JIT does not necessitate assuming nothing will go wrong. But isn't the whole point of JIT to reduce the redundancies created by the need to deal with unexpected events like storage for extra parts and the like?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
So did anyone have a chance to read the request Amazon.com sent to the FAA requesting exemption from the experimental airworthiness regulations? This stood out to me: pre:We also intend to use one or more of the six FAA‐selected test sites and seek a special airworthiness certificate (experimental category) for our sUAS. However, it would be impractical for Amazon to pursue either one of these avenues as our sole or even primary method of R&D testing at this time, and doing so would unnecessarily tax scarce FAA resources. For example, it would be an unreasonable burden on both the FAA and Amazon if we were required to apply for a special airworthiness certificate for every sUAS design or testing configuration while we are in R&D and conducting rapid prototyping.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
Cocoa Crispies posted:They want to build, test, and iterate on their 55lb robot helicopter on some property they (will) own out in the boonies instead of having to go through the FAA every time they try something new. Low speed, low altitude, and with several automatic and manual fail-safe systems. It seems reasonable to me. The whole testing in the boonies is fine by me (except the "special invitees" thing, keep it to essential personnel only), but the fact that they're asking to rapidly iterate materials, parts and software with no history of drone manufacture or certification is what set my alarms off. At least certify that all those fail safes actually work first. I just don't see why the inspections are such a huge deal when you're talking about something as relatively simple as a drone. I guess what's really crawling up my rear end about this is the attitude of the company. Amazon is a tech firm and like all other tech firms they're used to obsessing over the bleeding edge of technology regardless of how well it works - hen their products crash no one dies. I used to work in food safety and now obviously in aerospace, and the stakes are much, much higher. Sure, we aren't talking about jumbo jets here, but I think it's way too early to be granting a company with no prior experience exemptions in the licensing/certification requirements. Is there something I'm missing here? PS: And we have poo poo like this happening already. When you start talking about transporting packages (mostly from airports) things are going to become very complicated. Maybe we just need a new set of regs to deal with drones, I don't know. Solkanar512 fucked around with this message at 18:39 on Jul 14, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:I edited out a too snarky part about how the government hands out exemptions to certain politically connected companies, often at obviously greater public expense, all the time. The Amazon case seems more the exception than the rule. You're getting ahead of yourself here, and this lies in the root of my concerns. I'm certainly not an expert here, but I spent the last year working FAA Conformities. Amazon has no history (please correct me if I'm wrong) of being assigned any sort of airworthiness certification what-so-ever. No prototypes, no destructive testing, no wear and tear testing, no nothing. We don't know how these drones operate under various conditions, the materials they're made from, the stresses they'll be under and so on. We don't even know that these drones are under a safe condition of operation. Who built them, and to what standards? Who approved the designs? These are questions that can be easily answered, and that's part of the certification process. Once that's taken care of - that is, once there is documented evidence of basic airworthiness - then you can do your R&D, iterative designs and the like. Slight changes don't take all that long to add to the certificate, in fact if it's not that big of a change, it's trivial. Previous approved changes can be used so long as their certification is still valid. Once you have your baseline you get your Experimental Airworthiness Cert and you can do more intense testing and you're good to go. Why is it that Amazon can't have their prototypes certified? Once you have that history of proving the airworthiness of your parts, materials and processes, certification becomes much, much easier to do. The reason you want Amazon to prove themselves (plucky new entrant my rear end, they have 60% greater market cap than Boeing) is because they've never done this before. They or any other new entrant should be the last people allowed to cut corners.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
So if everyone thought the 787-9 prep video was awesome, check out the actual performance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzr313wSY_Y Solkanar512 fucked around with this message at 06:09 on Jul 19, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
Xandu posted:That touch and go... That maneuver was banned the next day apparently.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2014 06:47
|
|
|
Mind if I ask a really dumb question about the V-22? Why is it that rotors are used for thrust instead of jet engines like say a Harrier? What sort of advantages does one type of engine have over the other?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:Not till nuclear turbines become a thing. Anyone else want a VF-1? Thanks for all the info everyone! Is there a link/source/book that talks about the different types of engines and what their advantages/disadvantages are? Say, the difference between a turbojet and a turbofan, that sort of thing. Wikipedia perhaps? It's a bit of a blind spot for me.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
ickna posted:I think it might have ended up in the spaceflight thread at one point. What in the heck is the one that's second row from the bottom on the left with the crazy wing? Does it only ever turn left? Solkanar512 fucked around with this message at 21:18 on Sep 11, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
Here's a handy link to pass around to folks not in the aviation world. Hopefully it will minimize the stupidity on your timelines or Facebook feeds.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2014 06:43
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I think they're required to report on accidents on US soil and accidents involving US planes and carriers but I'm not 100% on that one. My understanding is that if the airlines is based in the US or the aircraft, aeronautics or engine manufacturer is based in the US, the NTSB gets involved automatically. I think there are times they'll join up in special circumstances as well.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
The BBC just posted a blurb about Airbus filing a complaint regarding US based industrial espionage. This should be interesting. EDIT: Here's some more info. quote:Aviation giant Airbus is to file a criminal complaint over alleged US industrial espionage, following German media reports, AFP news agency says. Solkanar512 fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Apr 30, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
Linedance posted:You think that's bad, you should try aircraft maintenance! We certainly use a digital system for signing/tracking assembly and repairs here in Everett, is this not the case elsewhere? I think I remember even conformity paperwork being digitally signed, but that was two years ago.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 02:24 |
|
|
Mortabis posted:Even (especially?) today I doubt there's a profitable market in SSTs. There just aren't enough people willing to pay that much more to get where they're going a few hours faster, and we have things like videoconferencing ( I totally agree, but I would bet that Etihad or Emirates would go for a few.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2015 20:50
|
|
) now that we didn't then which takes a chunk out of the business market.