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.
«63 »
  • Post
  • Reply
hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008


StandardVC10 posted:

Obviously the artist did pay attention to the engines (just not the rest of it.)

Well, one of them anyways.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008


Nebakenezzer posted:

Possibly it's the GE 90 photos on this page, but those engines look tiny.

Those are basically the same engines as a 747 right?

e;fb

hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 16:48 on May 22, 2013

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008


OptimusMatrix posted:

So why doesn't Boeing outfit two of those on the 747 and call it a day? Aren't they more efficient than its current engines?

To throw things out there; for one thing 744 and 767s share engines, 748 and 787 share engines. The engines would probably need to be on different pylon locations for weight distribution. The new plane would be subject to ETOPS.

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008


GE likes to add the "one GE90 can power a 747 in cruise!" everywhere. No poo poo, TO/GA power is what matters.

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008


In a parallel universe where ETOPS isn't a thing the trijet 747 is probably the backbone of international fleets.

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008


Captain Postal posted:

ETOPS won't stop a trijet from becoming the backbone of a fleet. T means "twin"

No poo poo; trijets were everywhere when the minimum allowed over water was 3 engines. With ETOPS twins are everywhere but the heaviest of the heavy routes where economics let the 747 and A380 show up. If single engine airliners showed up tomorrowoand were allowed over water in a decade only FedEx would fly twins.

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008


I had no idea about the ME262 replicas; those things look amazing.

Also, I will now have nightmares about Hitler having J-85 powered ME262s; those replicas seem to have ridiculous performance.

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008


Reading about the film, the failure appears to be based on Alaska Airlines 261; they flew upside down for a little while.

wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Airlines_Flight_261
Kinda sad that they made such an unrealistic film based on that failure; there was some incredible piloting down on 261 but the plane was completely unrecoverable.

hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 14:59 on May 31, 2013

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008


MrYenko posted:

When you pull on the big red engine fire handles, (and the exact operation varies by aircraft, of course,) the first movement (generally pulling the handle down, out, or up,) closes the fuel and hydraulic fluid cutoff valves, opens the generator field circuit (sometimes it just disconnects the constant speed drive/IDG from the accessory gearbox,) and arms the fire bottle(s) for that engine. You can then (generally,) turn the handle left or right to fire individual fire bottles to that engine, which bathe the inside of the cowling with a generous application of firefighting foam. Sometimes its a seperate switch or handle to actually fire the bottles.

Can you try to restart the engines after you do that?

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008


MrYenko posted:

Returning the handle to the original position (in some aircraft) reopens the fuel and hydrualic shutoffs, but who in their right mind would open the fuel shutoffs to an engine that was just potentially on fire?

This is in context of a movie where the pilot is high on cocaine.

edit: since we're in fantasy land anyways, I do that in DCS A-10 because uh: 1. its a simulator. 2. you have an ejection seat. 3. its a loving a-10 the only thing thats going to kill you is the ground

hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 20:13 on May 31, 2013

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008


Well the entire point behind modern fighter aircraft is that they're incredibly simple to fly so you can gently caress around with weapons and keeping up with the guy in the other jet or missile or whatever trying to kill you.

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008


"Fighters" includes strike aircraft such as the A-10 and multi-role aircraft such as literally everything but the F-15A-D and the F-22 (though those technically can carry bombs I think?)

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008


kill me now posted:

I think by definition the "A" in A-10 means its not an "F" Fighter.

From what I understand the A-10 is a "fighter" for most purposes in the USAF. ie from a training and operational standpoint

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008


Well, you compensate with a giant loving counterweight that takes up most of the lower cargo hold that compensates for CG shifts.

Boeing why didn't you halve the cargo carrying capacity of the 744 to prevent CG shifts!!!!!

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008


Credible sport was such a ridiculous plan. Eagle claw was such a disaster that I fear what would have happened if we went through with that plan...

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008


polpotpotpotpotpot posted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw

Why were they painting black-red-black stripes on air support planes for this operation? Wikipedia has a couple pictures, but no real explanation.

Invasion stripes; we sold Iran F-4s and F-14s; there was a lot of potential for confusion.

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008


They had radar, but their air force was in disarray from the revolution and they lost a lot of their leadership due to purges and such. This is why Saddam saw an opening and invaded a few years later.

Radar also isn't anywhere near perfect, thats why they were using nap of the Earth flying to get there.

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008


Well, with the way modern "fighters" the best one would probably be a E-3 with an AIM-54

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008


Linedance posted:

I don't know anything about military pilotage, but from a complete layman's perspective I'd trust a Navy pilot with a few dozen hours of general familiarization to land anything on and aircraft carrier over an Air Force pilot with 1000 hours on type who's only ever landed on fields that typically don't heave and roll around.

The Navy flies C-130s, dunno if they did at the time though. Someone in the navy must have had experience with the greyhound or whatever COD transport hey had at the time and larger aircraft (P3?).

Edit: it was a marine C-130 flown by his guy: RADM James H. Flatley III. That family appears to have generations of navy carrier test pilots.

hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 01:32 on Jun 8, 2013

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008


It's also in the background of almost every shot in Top Gear.

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008


And it's perfect for this application; they just have to orbit the fire until the cargo door blows out!

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008


ChickenOfTomorrow posted:

So AA are refitting their MD80s and 73Xs to squeeze in more seats.

I was hoping they'd retire their Mad Dogs soon so someone else could get them (I like MDs but dislike flying AA). Guess that's a 'no.'

As a mad dog lover you should fly Delta. They still have loving DC-9s in service!

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008


KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:

Delta certainly marches to the beat of a different drummer. Their mentality is basically: who gives a gently caress about logistics cost when your acquisition cost is so low that your theoretical commonality savings will never pay off the acquisition cost savings.

I do think that airlines overrate fuel econ and parts commonality, especially when they outsource so much heavy maint.

Delta needs to get a 787, A300, A350 and A380 to say that they have literally one of everything.

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008


wdarkk posted:

That is a shitload of gauges.

So... how do you control the jets?

edit: lol never seen a "4 minute turn" gauge before.

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008


Yeah there they are. I figured the flight engineer's station would have some reference to them.

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008


That's a J though?

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008


iyaayas01 posted:

Yeah, airliners didn't start eliminating the FE position until the '80s, with the A300B4 and 747-400.

The USAF still has FEs on multiple airframes. I'll let you draw your own conclusions as to what that says about the age of our fleet.

I seriously don't understand how the KC-135 doesn't have a FE but all the other C-135 derivatives do.

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008


holocaust bloopers posted:

They don't. 707-type airframes in the USAF inventory have FE's while any -135 model doesn't. They're two separate lines.

Right, 717 vs 707. That military.com article claimed a much higher mishap rate in the 2 man cockpit variants vs 3 man cockpits. Go LeMay.

edit: The author there really has an axe to grind though, the MD-11 doesn't have that terrible of a safety record.

hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Jun 18, 2013

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008


Kilonum posted:

And none of the fatal MD-11 accidents (with the possible exception of Lufthansa Cargo Flight 8460, which is still under investigation) were due to something wrong with the plane itself, all but 1 were pilot error, and that sole exception, Swissair Flight 111, was due to an improperly installed entertainment system, not an actual flight system.

Well, that kinda back up his point though which is that the lack of a FE increases the workload on the pilots and reduces safety.

edit: Though not sure how that would prevent you from hitting the slats accidentally.

hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Jun 18, 2013

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008


Cygni posted:

Just realized that with the A350 flying, when the CSeries has its first flight in few days, that will basically be the last time we see an all new Western airframe take off for the next 20+ years...

20 years is plenty of time for Yellowstone Y1 and Y3 to come to fruition.

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008


Though on the other hand Delta's ancient DC-9s actually have newish interiors and aren't yellowing or anything.

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008


Mr. Despair posted:

Pretty sure that sort of tale slide is doable by plenty of planes.

Most 4th gen fighters have some super maneuverability. Basically if you have a thrust to weight ratio greater than 1 theres all sorts of stunts you can do but they only get really useful if you have thurst vectoring. Pugachev's cobra looks cool but mostly is a way to commit suicide in a dogfight (speed = life). A J-turn might be useful though.

I'm not sure that a fighter in actual combat with a full fuel and missile load and external tanks would be able to do any of these maneuvers. Not that dog fights are likely to happen at all these days.

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008


Nerobro posted:

Being able to maneuver like that means you can point your missile rails, and guns, in the right direction. There's some use to it.

In a dogfight gen 4.5 and 5 fighters only have to point their nose within 40 degrees or so of the enemy to use heat seeking missiles.

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008


Godholio posted:

With previous-generation equipment, yeah. But helmet-cuing systems and high off-boresight missiles (ie, JHMCS and AIM-9X) are going to ensure there's never other real within-visual-range engagement that's not a suicide run by one party.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g4_jzqBJnA

Uh, that's what I said. That demo was apparently only 22 degrees off bore sight too.

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008


Of course if you fly through a flock of birds and lose both engines you're hosed. Well, unless you have more altitude, a body of water and Sully in command.

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008


Godholio posted:

I doubt if a single stretch of interstate highway is capable of supporting anything larger than an F-16.

We have plenty of football fields for C-130s though!

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008


ehnus posted:

I think that's a B-50.

Same thing.

(Don't tell congress!)

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008


Reading up on the M-15 it looks like they hacked an AN-2 to bits and redesigned it into that? The AN-2 is in all ways better!

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008


NightGyr posted:

Doesn't the massive stockpile of spare engines and parts mean that even with the fuel savings of new engines, keeping the old ones is still cheaper?

Nothing is going to be cheaper than switching the B-52 over to 747 engines.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008


Vincent Van Goatse posted:

In their defense at least part of the reason they keep building new tanks is to keep the production facility in operation so they don't lose the construction specialists.

Of course the tanks being produced in the house majority leader's district has nothing to do with it.

I bet the USAF will reengine literally everything to JT9Ds when everyone is ditching 747s at dirt cheap rates. Alternatively, as soon as a 747 is seized as part of a drug ring. (We got a C-137 this way!)

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply
«63 »