|
jandrese posted:Well, that and that fact that we're not fighting the Soviets in Russia. Slow moving UAVs probably wouldn't last long against a first world nation's anti-air defenses, but since we're fighting small groups of people hiding in dirty third world nations these days it does a great job. You can put up a whole lot of stealthy UAVs for the cost of a single SR-71. The concept is pretty well obsolete.
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2010 22:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 05:35 |
|
|
Fire Storm posted:Yeah Even if you just rebuilt something to SR-71 performance targets without a pilot I bet it would be cheaper to operate and it would probably be cheaper to build as well.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2010 14:34
|
|
Even if we made a UAV with super-cruise and top notch stealth, it would probably be a lot cheaper and smaller than an SR-71.
|
The droop nose on the Tu-144 is really loving clever from a purely intellectual standpoint.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2010 16:02
|
|
|
slidebite posted:More clever than the Concorde or XB70? No? What's your point?
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2010 17:38
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Easy son. They're clever in general, but discussion was just about the Tu-144 so I figured I'd mention it with the 144 since it was topical.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2010 21:20
|
|
|
ozziegt posted:Wow, it's starting in 2011? I remember reading about that years ago. They've had a lot of trouble with it. The price has also gone up from their targets if I recall correctly - they're now around $4M instead of closer to $3.5. Still, ought to be competitive in the very light segment, and their sales targets are quite modest. edit: according to AN you won't be able to get one until 2012, now. KYOON GRIFFEY JR fucked around with this message at 19:46 on May 18, 2010 |
|
#
¿
May 18, 2010 19:42
|
|
|
The wing on the 787 is beautiful. I think it may be the best looking pod-under-wing aircraft.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2010 14:46
|
|
|
2ndclasscitizen posted:That'd freak the poo poo out of me if I had a window seat on the wings. Even knowing that they can flex to some ridiculous degree and that it's part of the design?
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2010 15:04
|
|
|
THAT is loving awesome.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2010 15:26
|
|
|
Muffinpox posted:2 huge targets under wings aren't very good for survivability when someone is actively gunning for you. I really don't think it's going to make that much of a difference in terms of survivability.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2010 21:56
|
|
|
It was a good idea undone by the fact that radio controls and all the electronics needed weren't there yet.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2010 13:12
|
|
|
Man the Peacemaker is loving ugly, no wonder the B-47 kicked its rear end.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2010 21:21
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:When going into its dive, it could submit the pilot to 6-8.5g's which the pilot could only sustain for 3 seconds The Stuka had a very clever auto-pull out feature that would prevent the plane from crashing if the pilot blacked out due to g forces in the dive.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2010 17:46
|
|
|
Ola posted:BRS is the best thing that has happened to aviation since the piddle pack. Holy gently caress. drat, that's loving awesome. Could you strap one to say, a Cessna 172? How big can you go with em?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2010 16:38
|
|
|
I imagine that those would be fairly decent for patrolling Iran's coastline. They're clearly surveillance intended - they mention the camera specifically. Think of it as an el-cheapo first gen UAV that is flown by a dude.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2010 13:35
|
|
|
Yeah I fly in pretty much brand new E190s on JetBlue and Air Canada on the regular these days and they're pretty nice airframes. Seats are a hell of a lot more comfortable than the Bombardiers.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2011 16:03
|
|
|
Yeah the MD twinjets are the poo poo. Shame they're gradually getting phased out.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2011 21:28
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Oh great. I've got about 5 hours in a CRJ twice this coming week. In a window seat no less. Biz class ain't worth it in a CRJ because it's still really uncomfortable.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2011 00:48
|
|
|
See, I fly a lot (YTD I've done about 150 segments) and even on airlines where I don't have status, I really don't have too many issues. They key is to just Not Give A gently caress At All - it's gonna happen, you can't do anything about it, getting mad does nobody any good, so just get out the laptop and do a little work or go to the bar or whatever. gently caress it. Zen flying. It helps that I'm 5'10 165 though. If I was a lot bigger I might have more issues.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2011 18:33
|
|
|
AF has some passable cognac that they give out in quantity if you ask nicely in coach. Either that or the attendant thought I was cute.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2011 22:54
|
|
|
ApathyGifted posted:I gotta ask, what the hell do you do and why do you weekly commute by plane? weekly commute by plane is not like some sort of rare thing i weekly commuted by plane for an extended amount of time; it was even more fun when i weekly commuted by plane and then went elsewhere on planes based out of where i was weekly commuting to
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2011 22:19
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:CRAZY NAZI poo poo: MAN PORTABLE HELICOPTERS This mother fucker was designed to be towed from the sail of a U-Boat. I think you could get it up to a couple hundred feet. It is unpowered and works via some sort of autorotative concept (I know dick about aerodynamics clearly). I want to make one and tow it behind a motorboat as the most metal form of parasailing ever.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2011 22:21
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:I did it for part of 2009 and 2010; FLL-TPA every week is pretty tolerable, since FLL is quick to get through and the flight is only forty minutes. BOS-IAD what up I think my OTA was like 60% on the Friday IAD-BOS flight. 72 minutes gate to gate.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2011 23:28
|
|
|
Whenever I've worn a cap I've received a request to remove it, but I am young and notwhite so...
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2011 12:52
|
|
|
well like everything on god's green earth that comes in flat gray comes in above projected unit price so it ain't like that's some sort of unique negative feature of the aircraft
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2011 03:20
|
|
|
As always, the pilot matters a whole lot more than the airframe. There's a really good passage in Saburo Sakai's autobiography when he went back to combat after getting shot in the eye and was going 1 on 16 in his Zero vs F6Fs - he managed to a) not get shot down in a running 30 minute fight at those odds and b) not get shot at all. He remarked that the F6F was an undoubtedly superior aircraft but the pilots weren't up to his level and didn't adapt well to his maneuvering, hence survivability. Of course that is an extreme example since Sakai was one of the most talented pilots of the war. During the above combat he was blind in one eye.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2011 14:08
|
|
|
The clamshell thrust reversers on the low bypass engines on the -200 are pretty neat. Thank God people are ditching the 757s. I'm on a BOS-LHR AA 757-2 next month without AVOD 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2011 00:31
|
|
|
given that rightfuckingnow you could cut a hole in the bottom of Civilian Airliner X and install a munitions-delivery system i don't see how having it be a factory option is really gonna make a difference you sound pretty paranoid for what it's worth
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2011 12:16
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:not if you want the aircraft to take off again. That's load bearing sheet metal. If you wanted to bad enough I am sure you could figure out a way to make it work.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2011 20:19
|
|
|
Cygni posted:sup gently caress i was gonna post the IL-114
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2011 01:11
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:
That wing is beautiful. I'm looking forward to flying on the 787 at some point.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2011 19:21
|
|
|
Just for the record, the TU-154M has a really good safety record. The issues are essentially the same as the 727 - due to the S-Duct design, it's very difficult to retrofit the Soloviev D30s with a modern, high bypass engine, so it's difficult to comply with noise regulations which will forbid hush kits in the future. Even if you do comply with noise regulations, it's also not very fuel-efficient. You also left out the Trident. I'll not go in to it but basically it was the 727 before the 727 launched, only the launch customer was an indecisive pack of idiots and couldn't decide what they wanted, delaying the project. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Siddeley_Trident
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2011 11:10
|
|
|
Epic Fail Guy posted:I think that makes you suicidal. The TriStar was a technological achievement undone by the fact that it was underengined and Lockheed didn't initially bother to develop any variants. It's a perfect example of the technically advanced product not necessarily being the best. Who cares that the TriStar can autoland in zero visibility and can make smoother approaches and has a corrosion-resistant frame if it a) can't operate on your airline's longest international routes and b) has a higher cost per seat-mile? edit: in fairness to Lockheed, the underengined thing and the lack of variants were in part due to Rolls Royce's colossal fuckups on the engine front; then again, not figuring out how to use non-RB engines would have been a decent strategic decision. KYOON GRIFFEY JR fucked around with this message at 03:17 on Sep 7, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2011 03:12
|
|
|
Cygni posted:Virgin is quite honestly my favorite airline. I fly it LAX-JFK and LAX-SFO a few times a year and its seriously just the best. But of course my work only pays for American and United. Wait, really? Sometimes people have a "YOU HAVE TO USE THIS AIRLINE" but typically if I go on corporate travel, find the lowcost preferred fare, print it out and then buy on my preferred carrier which is significantly cheaper, nobody has an issue.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2011 03:18
|
|
|
Cygni posted:Federal travel. oh man sorry buddy
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2011 04:26
|
|
|
Cygni posted:The problem with all those old Tu-154s, Yak-40/42, Il-86, Il-76 etc isn't their design nearly as much as it's their maintenance and training. A lot of those airframes have absurd reps on them, and they are still storing them with a tarp over the windshield for months at a time on Siberian tarmacs. The TU-154M has a pretty good safety record undone by its tendency to get flown in lovely weather and now frankly the overall age of the airfame is getting dangerous. It's a shame, I think it's one of the prettiest airplanes ever. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2011 23:12
|
|
|
Cygni posted:Probably my fav Tu-154 scheme This thing rules. I think this was posted already in the thread but it's worth watching. TU-154M with a couple... issues. Sorry bout the backing track. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKcXkUYqT4g The anhedral of the wings is supposed to reduce dutch roll but there are a few moments when that thing is all over the place
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2011 01:28
|
|
|
One could also argue that this is a design fuckup: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_232_Heavy not to mention the rudder issues of the A300 etc. IN THE AIR TRAVEL SYSTEM, CUSTOMERS ARE PROTECTED BY TWO SEPARATE, YET EQUALLY IMPORTANT GROUPS: THE COMMERCIAL AVIATION COMPANIES, WHO DESIGN PLANES, AND THE AIRLINES, WHO IGNORE THE PROPER MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES. THESE ARE THEIR STORIES. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2011 03:55
|
|
|
The VC-10 was kind of a heinous pile of garbage although it is a really neat airplane. It was highly noncompetitive outside of MRE hot and high routes within the Empire and its superior shortfield was rendered irrelevant by the fact that major airports expanded to accomodate the 707/DC-8. If you wanted an overengined plane with less capacity than the 707, Boeing was glad to sell you the 720 which was better than the VC-10 in pretty much every conceivable way other than the VC-10 having the raddest layout of all time. I think the IL-62 is the biggest commercial plane to have mechanical controls.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2011 14:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 05:35 |
|
|
slidebite posted:OK, this might be a really stupid question but I gotta ask: Slow.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2011 19:42
|
|