Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«4 »
  • Post
  • Reply
InitialDave
Jun 14, 2007

I Want To Believe.


Manny posted:

Edit: Put it this way, the closest thing we have in our country is the Sea Harrier which is cool in itself, but its like comparing a Mini to a Cadillac.
I'd argue the Tornado, but I've always had a soft spot for them. Not that I dislike Harriers, mind.

While we're being all , I really need to bring up the Avro Vulcan:

Click here for the full 788x455 image.


And the BAC TSR-2. Cancelled in favour of the F-111, which they never bloody built anyway
(Edit: That reads wrong. Of course they built the F-111, but the supposed commissioning of a batch for the UK never materialised)



Then you've got Spitfires, Hurricanes, Lancasters, Lightnings and, for those who used to read the Biggles stories, Sopwith Pups and Camels. There's just something about old British aircraft that gives me the warm and fuzzies

InitialDave fucked around with this message at 17:38 on Mar 9, 2010

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

InitialDave
Jun 14, 2007

I Want To Believe.


That particular one is the last big one the Russians built, the missile-launching "Anti-Aircraft Carrier". The really famous one, the Caspian Sea Monster, was sunk in a crash.

Edit: It's the sheer mind-bending numbers of these things that really impresses. 550 tons at about 450mph? Yeah, we can do that...

InitialDave fucked around with this message at 21:19 on Mar 8, 2010

InitialDave
Jun 14, 2007

I Want To Believe.


Rev. Dr. Moses P. Lester posted:

how manly does your engine stand have to be to hold a loving merlin?
They weigh about 1,500lbs. There's also the Meteor, which is similar for land vehicles. Like Rover SD1 hatchbacks:

Click here for the full 500x374 image.

InitialDave
Jun 14, 2007

I Want To Believe.


Ola posted:

internet discussions about modern jets fighting
Let's face it, they mostly give you a burning desire to post this:

InitialDave
Jun 14, 2007

I Want To Believe.


azflyboy posted:

Hughes was pretty well known for defrauding the government
He was also madder than a box of frogs. He kept that thing stored, serviced and ready to fly at the drop of a hat for years, at enormous expense.

InitialDave
Jun 14, 2007

I Want To Believe.


galliumscan posted:

The Thunderbird pilot swatting at debris floating in the cockpit while doing an 8 point roll is *awesome*.
Reminds me of the start of Hot Shots.

InitialDave
Jun 14, 2007

I Want To Believe.




The DeHavilland Comet, which probably marks the start of the jet age as most people know it. Sure, it may not have had the best safety record, but with those faired-in engines, it certainly looked the part, and has passed its DNA down to the RAF's current Nimrod.

During the an early flight, a plane was detected coming over the channel, and the RAF base running an exercise at the time asked if the pilot would mind being the subject of chase practice for the fighters. He obliged, waited until they were neatly arrayed behind him, then opened the taps and just walked away from them.

InitialDave
Jun 14, 2007

I Want To Believe.


jandrese posted:

IMHO, the Concorde was a failure in the end because regular Joes couldn't afford to fly on it, and the ticket prices were high enough that most businesses would only let executives fly on it. That's the majority of people who fly. Given the maintenance costs associated with it and the fact that it could only fly over the ocean it's no wonder that nobody is rushing to repeat the experiment.
The ticket prices were kept artificially high - they basically charged what they thought they could (and, indeed, did) get away with. They didn't really reflect the operating costs.

InitialDave
Jun 14, 2007

I Want To Believe.


jandrese posted:

That would suggest a high profit margin on the tickets. If that's the case, why stop flying them?

"Yeah, we had to shut down this division, it was just too profitable."
Namby-pamby safety bullshit after one went down thanks to runway FOD.

InitialDave
Jun 14, 2007

I Want To Believe.


I challenge you not to replay this at least once:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=annkM6z1-FE

InitialDave
Jun 14, 2007

I Want To Believe.


You put WHAT on your aircraft carrier? Yes, that's a C-130.



And it seems that a U-2 can do the same trick.

InitialDave
Jun 14, 2007

I Want To Believe.


InterceptorV8 posted:

Holy poo poo. That's loving awesome!
Indeed. God, the temptation to "lose" that copy and buy the library system a replacement one...

InitialDave
Jun 14, 2007

I Want To Believe.


Godholio posted:

What huge tanks? All the fuel these planes carry is internal...they don't use external tanks.
I think he means why can't tankers be refilled from the refuelling supply they carry, rather than themselves being refuelled by another plane?

InitialDave
Jun 14, 2007

I Want To Believe.


429cj posted:

I was able to find it... It's insane how much effort went into getting 1 bomber over a target.


Click here for the full 775x850 image.

Yeah, I was going to post this in response to the comment on multi-refuelling to allow for crazy overall range.

Might take a while, but it'll get you there, and you don't have to rely on having a closer base in a sympathetic country. It also makes a pretty good statement of "Actually, yes, we do mean it".

InitialDave
Jun 14, 2007

I Want To Believe.


nurrwick posted:

Lately, I've come to the desire to go down and catch a shuttle launch because some reptilian part of my brain is telling me "this is it... this is the last great accomplishment of our time. A reusable space vehicle that big will never happen again in our lifetimes."
Anyone spending significant time around me will get to hear some fairly impressive rants on this and similar subjects. It feels like we've got a strange knack of taking seven years to do the impossible, then sitting with our collective thumbs up our arses for the next four decades.

InitialDave
Jun 14, 2007

I Want To Believe.


Nebakenezzer posted:

Richard Hammond experienced 100 gs briefly during his crash, for example.
Some say he used to be as tall as Clarkson...

InitialDave
Jun 14, 2007

I Want To Believe.


monkeytennis posted:

A VERY expensive accident, wouldn't like to have been the guy explaining that one to the boss.
IIRC, that was actually a brand-new plane being given a static engine test, only someone forgot the static.

InitialDave
Jun 14, 2007

I Want To Believe.


CommieGIR posted:

Just dust em off, put some radar absorbent paint on and its ready for the next mission
CA: Even my spyplane has knee sliders.

InitialDave
Jun 14, 2007

I Want To Believe.


slidebite posted:

I hope they dressed the bear up as a pilot.
Yeah, a Russian one, this could have resulted in a pretty good Hartlepool Monkey situation should some rednecks have found it.

InitialDave
Jun 14, 2007

I Want To Believe.


slidebite posted:

I giggle imagining that.
Hey, now we know that this guy must be an Air Force vet!

InitialDave
Jun 14, 2007

I Want To Believe.


Cakefool posted:

People who hate Stoke, or 15 ton Autogyros?
Yes.

InitialDave
Jun 14, 2007

I Want To Believe.


ApathyGifted posted:

Of course I don't have an argument as to why you should plot is as percent of tax revenue instead of GDP. Probably because we run in a deficit so often that the percentages of other poo poo + military would be greater than 100. So you could probably go by absolute government expenditures, I suppose.
I plot the value of government expenditure as dollar amount against how cool the poo poo they're buying is. Apollo and Star Wars beat the poo poo out of social welfare on that graph, let me tell you!

InitialDave
Jun 14, 2007

I Want To Believe.


Our head quality inspector came back from holiday this week. Apparently, on the takeoff for his return flight, one of the engines ate a few seagulls, and proceeded to make a rather loud bang as it lost a few compressor blades. They made what was described as a sphincter-tighteningly low banked turn over the sea and landed again, but he couldn't get any photos of the carnage because the powers that be were being all about cameras.

Apparently the reaction of half the passengers was the expected , but the pilot's attitude was more an irritated "Oh FFS, back we go "

Needless to say, about the only thing anyone at work had to say was "Well, at least it wasn't our bits that went".

InitialDave
Jun 14, 2007

I Want To Believe.


monkeytennis posted:

Thought you'd like this, sorry it's from the Daily Mail






http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Snowdonia.html
Yeah, I saw that just now. Luckily, other news sources are carrying it too: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland...nd/10412257.stm

InitialDave
Jun 14, 2007

I Want To Believe.


Vitamin J posted:

Dambusters!
For the sake of completeness, :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuIJqF8av6I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKHc-U2FNHk

InitialDave
Jun 14, 2007

I Want To Believe.


Lilbeefer posted:

Looks awesome, but is there any reason why camo would be painted on in non organic square shapes?
I guess it causes more of a headache for automated silhouette-recognition systems.

InitialDave
Jun 14, 2007

I Want To Believe.


Boomerjinks posted:

I just got engaged and somehow, despite me knowing the odds, the idea of having a wedding band made from a piece of an SR-71 has entered my head and will not leave...

loving goddammit.
I spy an opportunity to exchange an off-the-shelf lump of Inco 718 and some bullshit for several hundred dollars!

InitialDave
Jun 14, 2007

I Want To Believe.


On the other hand, how often do you get to (attempt to) live out your Flight Of The Phoenix fantasies?

InitialDave
Jun 14, 2007

I Want To Believe.


BeastOfExmoor posted:

Not that this thread really needs something to generate replies, but I've been thinking for a while about which military aircraft has proven to be the best investment over time. To me it's between the C-130 and the B-52, but I'm curious to hear other positions.
I'll put in a vote for the Harrier Jump Jet.

slidebite posted:

In other happy news, 10 years ago this weekend.

I did not know this until just recently, but there is a team dedicated to restoring one for flight duty in time for the 2012 Olympics.


No reason why it wouldn't be doable - stopping using the planes was a choice, not a requirement or something that was forced upon those involved.

InitialDave fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Jul 24, 2010

InitialDave
Jun 14, 2007

I Want To Believe.


As I understand it, the auxiliary water cooling on the Harrier engine is good for like a minute and a half at full cooling capacity, but you don't actually need to use that in most instances, so it's not the sole limiting factor, and the jet is good for 5-10 minutes of general hanging about.

Also, check this out:

InitialDave
Jun 14, 2007

I Want To Believe.


BonzoESC posted:

Sure is ugly though.
It looks like The Mekon from Dan Dare.

InitialDave
Jun 14, 2007

I Want To Believe.


slidebite posted:

I always thought a lawn dart was slang for crashing?

MA-Horus posted:

Or a F-104 Starfighter.
Same difference, really...

InitialDave
Jun 14, 2007

I Want To Believe.


Simkin posted:




InitialDave
Jun 14, 2007

I Want To Believe.


Look, I know this is the plane thread, and this is an aviation sim, but...

SCAMMELLSCAMMELLSCAMMELLSCAMMELLSCAMMELLSCAMMELL!!!

InitialDave
Jun 14, 2007

I Want To Believe.


http://www1.airweb.faa.gov/Regulato.../2010-16-07.pdf

The FAA posted:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

Wear, beyond Engine Manual limits, has been identified on the abutment faces of the splines on the Trent 900 Intermediate Pressure (IP) shaft rigid coupling on several engines during strip. The shaft to coupling spline interface provides the means of controlling the turbine axial setting and wear through of the splines would permit the IP turbine to move rearwards.

Rearward movement of the IP turbine would enable contact with static turbine components and would result in loss of engine performance with potential for in-flight shut down, oil migration and oil fire below the LP turbine discs prior to sufficient indication resulting in loss of LP turbine disc integrity.

We are issuing this AD to detect rearward movement of the IP turbine, which could result in loss of disc integrity, an uncontained failure of the engine, and damage to the airplane.

Hmm. Might be related, might not be. Certainly an inconvenient coincidence.

I'm kind of glad it's not that likely to be one of the fasteners that caused the problem, obviously. I could ask one of the guys at RR for the inside track on what's happened, but I can't imagine they really want everyone and their dog badgering them about it, or accidentally telling someone something they shouldn't.

InitialDave
Jun 14, 2007

I Want To Believe.


Used Sunlight sales posted:

When there's a shaft failure or the disc/blisk fails there's not much that can be done to keep it in the engine.

It's going to leave and there's nothing you can do about it.
Pretty much.

InitialDave
Jun 14, 2007

I Want To Believe.


azflyboy posted:

Quantas also had an incident earlier in the year where one of their 747's experienced an uncontained engine failure shortly after leaving San Francisco, so it's either an issue with the engines or their maintenance, which means a large company gets in trouble either way.
They are, somewhat unsurprisingly, saying they believe the A380 incident is unrelated to their maintenance.

Which engines is that 747 running? If it's RB211s, that's not painting the best picture for RR either, but on the other hand, it would be worse if it were another Trent this happened to.

InitialDave
Jun 14, 2007

I Want To Believe.


azflyboy posted:

The Trent family has never been fitted to a 747, so the aircraft in that incident would have been using an RB211.

However, I'm pretty sure some RB211 models use a hot section from the Trent line (I don't know about the engines Qantas uses), so there could be a problem that spans two RR engine lines now.
You misunderstand me. While the only Rolls-Royce engines fitted to the 747-400 are the RB211s, that doesn't mean that those are the engines fitted to that plane. It could be GE or P&W units - if it's the longer-range ER plane, it definitely won't be RR ones.

InitialDave
Jun 14, 2007

I Want To Believe.


MrChips posted:

All of QANTAS' 747-400s are powered by RB211 engines.
Fair enough, that's what I wanted to know.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

InitialDave
Jun 14, 2007

I Want To Believe.


2ndclasscitizen posted:

Wouldn't the fact that the 380 wings are made elsewhere, and then shipped in and fitted indicate QANTAS would be able to get the damaged one removed and replaced?
Large proportions of components are made near Bristol, then the wings are built in Wales, and shipped to Toulouse for airframe assembly.

dietcokefiend posted:

If stuff is welded or put together in an odd one-time fashion it might not be possible.
I believe they use composite spars with aluminium skin etc, so my best guess would be that it's largely a bonded structure where the two meet.

I would be very surprised if they couldn't replace the entire wing as a unit, but as to whether a sectional repair could be effected on the damage, it's probably more a question of confidence level rather than technical feasibility.

quote:

Who foots the bill on this if it turns out it was 100% RR's fault?
RR's underwriters.

Unless the root cause digs up someone having falsified test data etc, at which point it's time.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply
«4 »