|
Plinkey posted:So why did they use alcohol? I assume it's resistance to Freezing? I'm guessing resistance to freezing and low viscosity at low temperature. Starting up hydraulics at -30 C is a total pain in the rear end when you have a big bulky system like a hatch cover, I can't imagine what it's like for something complex like an aircraft.
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2013 21:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 06:18 |
|
|
Unicom posted:Here's the ATC, you can hear so much shame in his voice. "Are you sure which airport you're at?" This is beautiful. Wish the recording quality was a touch better though. FrozenVent fucked around with this message at 16:59 on Nov 21, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2013 16:46
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Looks like the old museum 737 has passed its tests and expected to fly out of Edmonton around 2PM today. I'm not familiar with aviation SAR, but in the marine mode they certainly call the operator's shore office before the planes take off. That being said, once you've reached (Or had someone reach) the guy who looks at the beacon and goes "Nope, not transmitting!", you kind of want to investigate the source of the signal. SAR's one of those things where "Woops, used too much!" is way, way better than the opposite.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2013 21:25
|
|
|
Everything about the B-36 is absolutely bonkers.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2013 00:31
|
|
|
It's certainly gone viral, it's popped at least four times on my facebook feed so far, from four different websites. Posted by people who aren't native English speakers, at that.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2013 05:20
|
|
|
Powercube posted:Soviet Aerobus projects- why you got to be so loving crazy? This plane needs big googly cartoon eyes and a smile.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2013 05:56
|
|
|
The Canadian Coast Guard still uses the BO-105 (They don't do SAR or EMS); they lost one in the Arctic last summer.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2013 03:16
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:The coolest part of this might be the quick-connect/release mechanism for the load. Yeah that's way too fast to be smart.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2013 08:14
|
|
|
I'm not a pilot, so can someone explain what the gently caress this means?quote:11:27:51.9 HOT Did the impact knocks a phone off the hook or something?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2013 17:44
|
|
|
Psion posted:I've got a family member flying on a dash-8 in the near future. When they arrive do I offer condolences or grumble jealously? A Dash-8 100 or a Q400? Because there's a world of difference.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2013 00:40
|
|
|
Psion posted:Q400, should've specified. It's ok, unless they're really tall. Can't really complain about the Q400, personally. The 100 though, gently caress that thing.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2013 01:15
|
|
|
grover posted:Ethiopian Airlines is part of the star alliance (with Lufthansa and United, among others) and one of the few (only?) African airlines with stringent enough safety standards to be allowed to fly into Europe. So, I'd imagine maintenance by African standards. How did compare to other airlines in Africa you've been on? South African flies into Europe don't they?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2013 00:40
|
|
|
grover posted:Yeah, they fly to US and Europe, too; forgot about them. Flew JFK to Johannesburg in coach with them, best service I've ever had. Long rear end flight, though.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2013 01:15
|
|
|
Polymerized Cum posted:The newer ones are quieter, the Q400 has acoustic noise canceling. A Q400 is to a Dash 8-100 what a brand new Greyhound bus is to riding in someone's enclosed pick-up bed on the highway in winter.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
Wait, they did an emergency landing on the beach, tried to take off and crashed, fixed the plane and tried again? I thought they'd only tried to take off once, it's just that the video was edited that way.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
Linedance posted:the long walk from international arrivals to the dash 8 gates, that's too tight. Do not underestimate this. If you've never done it, the walk to the Dash 8 gate is pretty loving long. Bring water and pace yourself if it's at YYZ, holy poo poo are those gates out of the way. There's no poo poo a sign that says "Last chance to buy snacks before gate XXX!" (It's a lie, there's a bagel place down that cramped little corridor)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
There's one just down the highway.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
Entone posted:Three amazing videos of Aerial Firefighters(Bombadier 415?) reloading in Irwindale,CA. Yeah that looks like a CL-415. I had to double check, looks like there are still quite a few CL-215 in service, but they don't have the additional vertical stabilizers on the tail. I guess it's one of the planes LA County leases from Quebec during bush fire season.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2014 03:36
|
|
|
I'm really digging the thin little struts linking the engines and wings to the fuselage. Looks straight out of Kerbal Space Program.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
buttcrackmenace posted:x-posted from the GBS F-35 thread Counterpoint: Laser. Your move. 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:At this point it almost seems like it would have been better to keep pounding away at the air-superiority F-22, then retrofit ground strike improvements to that airframe later. If only because that seemed to work for the F-15 -> F-15E and the F-16 series. Or is there something very different about the two programs I'm missing? The F-22 was very expensive and not really destined for export, the F-35 was meant as a cheaper light fighter. Then of course cost ballooned, the F-35 is now loving expensive to the point where it might not get exported all that much.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:Yeah if Canada ends up buying that thing I'll eat my hat because it'll be a loving political NIGHTMARE. Though the conservative government seems hell-bent in wasting as much money as possible on defence projects, like several billion dollars for a few tenders. Don't get me started on that loving polar icebreaker. You know we're going to end up with the F-35, though. There's no way Harper's going to budge on that.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
St_Ides posted:The CBC seems to think Dassault might have a chance. No chance the brits would happen to have a bunch of obsolete last generation fighter jets sitting around, never been used, that we could buy for five times the price? Cause that worked out great for the navy.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I guess AF447 is kinda the airplane equivalent of the accelerator getting stuck on the floor mat of your Camry. I bought a 2012 Camry and holy poo poo was Toyota ever eager for me to understand that if I used non-OEM floor mats I would do so at my own risk, that doing so might cause the car to suddenly speed up on its own and explode and... Like seriously, I think I had to sign two forms, it's in the owner's manual and I think they sent me a letter to remind me afterward. Seriously, you'd think there was an epidemic of out-of-control Toyotas roaming the world's roads, what the gently caress. Does anyone have Airbus vs Boeing accident rate comparisons?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
kmcormick9 posted:What you really need is "System failure resulting in incident per 1000 flight hours of aircraft built after 19XX" to make an apples to apples comparison and I think Airbus would have a marginal number more. Yeah that's what I meant by accident rate - Incidents per xxx hours of operations, since Y date. I know Canada's TSB keeps them for every modes, but I don't think they segregate (publicly anyway) by equipment used.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
Bob A Feet posted:This is a dumb post. Ships do this, too. In fact pretty much any man-made structure bigger than a semi truck is designed so that it'll tolerate some amount of flexing.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2014 03:12
|
|
|
At this point, the words boats and ships are so denatured that I've never had anyone correct me, and I've never corrected anyone. I say this as a humongous boat sperg, too.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
Gibfender posted:Ok that's pretty awesome, must be hard keeping it upright. Nah, you just go very slow and have at least two (if not four) ballast tanks abreast.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2014 13:03
|
|
|
Looks like the cheaped out on the back half of the plane, must be an Airbus product.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
100 metric tons will sink a handysize bulk carrier by about 2/3 of an inch. Handysizes are small, the bigger ones (Chinamax) carry about 350 - 400 thousand metric tons. poo poo, 100 tons isn't ocean freighter amount of cargo, it's a rounding error. About four days worth of fuel for a 35 000 dead weight tons freighter... Enough to go about 1200 nautical miles or so. Every time I've had someone bring up blimps as part of the supply chain, they were people with no idea of what the supply chain actually involves.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
~Coxy posted:I thought the main promise of the airship freighters is that they will open up to extraction large areas of energy or mineral reserves that were previously economically unviable because of their remote location or inaccessibility. The natural resource industry is pretty good at making inaccessible places accessible - they'll build airports, roads, ports, train tracks, no big deals. Plus unless you're talking about gold or diamonds, which they can just fly out by plane, 100 tons is peanuts for those guys. A smallish crude oil tanker hauls 80 000 tons, a 100 car train is what... 10 000 tons? Plus raw materials are low value / weight cargos, nobody's going to airlift them. (Unless, again, you're talking gold or diamond or some fancy poo poo.) Unless you meant things like helicopter loggers, but that's way too small a market to start up a blimp production line.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
You'd need a ridiculous amount of 100 ton capacity airships (which don't currently exist) to make any kind of major exploitation worthwhile. Plus there's nothing that says they can't run the mine and stockpile while the export infrastructure is being built.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2014 13:11
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:So they're sending the team to NYC in shipping crates? Nah, that plane's going to carry the 121 million skittles.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2014 15:25
|
|
|
grover posted:hahahaha, was that Kareem Abdul Jabbar? Who the gently caress else would you want co-piloting your plane in the 1980's? Otto?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
Wouldn't a plane with a pusher prop be a terrible system for dropping poo poo out of?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
drat, those are some nice pictures. The F-8 was basically an inlet with wings, wasn't it?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Thats going to be rather expensive. Yeah, isn't that where they keep the weather radar and all sorts of fancy electronics? What are the odds that got damaged?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2014 03:06
|
|
|
Stealth Like posted:They're more likely to charge the passengers for the repairs than to compensate them in any way. Does the concept of general average exist in aviation? 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
Bob A Feet posted:Sorry but if my plane is hijacked I may do a little more than frantically try to send texts. Such as?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 06:18 |
|
|
If you can't hold your breath long enough to beat the poo poo out of a terrorist, you obviously don't love freedom enough to deserve to live.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2014 16:02
|
|