|
That's fantastic. My new favourite plane.
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 10:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 07:17 |
|
|
gipskrampf posted:
That's a question I think a lot of people* haven't asked (including myself until your post - full disclosure: I am not a pilot) I went for "It should still work?" and found out "Theoretically, yes; but in reality, it'd be hideously unstable and because of the pointy leading edge it would stall with any very small variation in pitch" *People in this thread are more likely to have asked it, admittedly.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2014 16:33
|
|
What will happen if the car drives backwards?
|
iyaayas01 posted:I'm sure that was the intent, but Herks are plenty capable of landing on carriers, no hooks or cables needed: I had to go back and check, but the copilot really was called Lt.Cmdr. STOVL
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
I think he's saying that the mad part is the landing, not the waiting round on the pitch
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2014 06:46
|
|
|
It's the uncovered-ness of the engines that gets me.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2014 13:20
|
|
|
Oh no, I always thought the logic behind it was weight or access, perhaps cooling? It still makes it look half-finished though.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2014 13:55
|
|
|
It's those bad packets in red that I'm concerned about. Seems a few too many of them. And they're all 0s
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2014 11:12
|
|
|
And if it's a "turn up in person test" you know half the world would just bribe their way to a "Passenger Licence" or whatever
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 14:18
|
|
|
The thing that concerns me most about exit rows is people pulling the door into the cabin (as you must) but then not tossing it out, and leaving the door at their arse to cause a blockage.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
I want Hold Cocktail Lounges like in the L1011 to make a comeback
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
jaegerx posted:What? Looks good, he caught the 3rd wire pretty well. Best caption I've seen in a long time
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM4G1Toe3h0 I've never seen anything like this before. The firefighter looks utterly hopeless and like he has some sort of deathwish but not the balls to carry it through. e: it apparently removed the time, I mean around 7:30 with the airbus simplefish fucked around with this message at 11:06 on Jun 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2014 08:57
|
|
|
A happier Eurofighter story: http://imgur.com/gallery/ewUqxSs e: although Moron Base... what a name simplefish fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Jun 9, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
...which was never painted like that and was illegal to take above Mach 0.95 under their control
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvCMrt1JPwo This is so bad that it seems like a parody
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2014 05:47
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:-Smoking We need a return to wood panelling and cloth curtains. None of this plastic and pull-down blinds malarkey.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
I've never shat while on a plane because the toilets are on par with a greyhound bus - disgusting with no bogroll. This is based on my experience of riding a greyhound bus nonstop (except for refuelling and food) from Vancouver to New York, and on transcontinental flights from Europe via India to East Asia. I have also never shat on a plane because Ryanair don't fly for long enough to need to, and besides, I think O'Leary would lock me in and hold me hostage until I paid to get out.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
King Airs also fire Hellfire missiles
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'd be interested in seeing a source on this, I haven't heard of it before. http://web.archive.org/web/20071116110821/http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2007/11/iraqi_security_force_5.php http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/standing-up-the-iqaf-king-air-350s-05101/ http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/us-sends-hellfire-missiles-to-iraq-2986905472.html Although I think AP and the longwarjournal might have it wrong. According to defenseindustrydaily (which seems a better source in terms of typical topic knowledge and inclusion of things like quotations), it's a Cessna Caravan shoots the missiles, while the King Air paints the target. The AP is not wrong per se but rather it means the missiles are for missions involving King Airs and not for direct use by King Airs. It's poorly phrased. I can't ID hardware but have this too:  Then again, the 208 has a high wing so that can't be it. There's also the fact that a Google image search has 0 <<king air missile>> photos but <<cessna caravan missile>> gets loads
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
Well sure, but I think people judge far more on interior condition. I wouldn't count that under rebranding, but I could see how you might factor that in. Still, I care if the seats are in good condition, not what colour they are - or, indeed, if a steward's jacket changes colour, or if the outside of the plane looks a little newer. I'm not saying looks can't matter, but they only matter if it makes something wrong, not if it makes something less good. Bathrooms having cacti on the walls, for example, would put me off an airline because it looks like they don't give a poo poo what the passenger sees. No effort at professionalism. If the steward's uniform is frumpy, or the seats are brown and orange tartan and look like they're from 1974 (this does presuppose the seats are in good condition, like not ripped, stained or faded), it's not something I'd worry about.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
A JetPort, is it? "A 'friendly' computer already knows more about you than you do"  - well, they got that right at least (Hello NSA man)No passport, but an ID card... same difference, right? Oh, that's nice, no waiting in the supersonic age. Isn't it great how the human/weather/maintenance factors are all taken care of? One of THREE different movies? Sign me up! ... or all three at one time? What?! I like to think some advertising guy was trying to work out what was better than three movies: "Four movies?" "No, that's too obvious." "Hmm... what about three movies AT ONCE?" "Break out the scotch, Jim, you did it again!" Really, though, I love this old stuff. Thanks for posting it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
They added sealing valves to the system after United 232, so it doesn't matter that they all go through the same place (in theory) because you can stop the plane bleeding itself dry and use what's remaining out of fore/aft/left/right to get you down. Also if you are running hydraulics to the rear of the plane they're pretty much guaranteed to meet up near their destination. In some cases, it's unavoidable
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
The Harrier's nickname is the Lawn Dart? I thought it was the F104's, especially German ones'
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
I want to fly on a 747 because it's iconic - that means I won't be doing it cattle class. Depending on how quickly they're being phased out of Cathay (and they are) I stand a chance. e: Lufthansa are the only(?) passenger 748 carrier, so there's that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
In 747 news: http://avherald.com/h?article=4766bbc8&opt=0
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2014 10:20
|
|
|
The DC-10 and L-1011 were high bypass. I don't understand why their #2 engine position would contradict that. The 727 had low bypass turbofans. Low bypass gives you better power-to-weight ratio and better high altitude performance. High bypass are costlier to make, but are more fuel efficient and deal better with hot-and-heavy takeoffs E: hot-and-high, I mean, obviously simplefish fucked around with this message at 15:41 on Jul 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
Actually if you look at the back of a 1011 the bypass is very clear http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LockheedL1011.jpg
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
You get 5-engine 747s in the same vein (the 5th engine is unpowered and being ferried)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
Wait, so if you don't pay for a survey and your house starts to suffer subsidence, can you say "the estate agent didn't warn me" and get your money back?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
Everyone here loves the 787, I know, but... I'm not a fan (looks-wise).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
I went looking for the longest continuous flight record. What I had expected was that, apart from modern purpose-built aircraft, there would be some cold war bomber (I thought a B-52 to be honest) that did some ridiculous always-aloft Alaskan patrol in the '50s or '60s. I was wrong. To be clear, I hit up Wikipedia to see the endurance record for manned, refuelled aircraft. It was not what I had expected. What do you think it was? The answer? Cessna 172 Add to this the fact that I misread the wikipedia table - I thought it was 64 hours. It was, in fact, 64 days. Bear in mind that the airship record is slightly over 11 days. Naturally I disbelieved this and thought that there was some gaming of regulations going on. Refuelling was via a truck - aha! thought I, they landed and then discounted it, like how those hand-on-car-to-win-the-car people get five minutes our for ablutions. I knew it couldn't be correct! Oh no. They drove the truck along a road and, after the electric fuel pump broke, hand-cranked the fuel into the belly tank as it drove along - once at night. All kinds of instrumentation and systems (including the autopilot, which did nothing except ensure level flight) were broken by the end of the stint. The biggest problem was carbon buildup in the engine, it seems. Then you have the pilot's weight to factor in  , and the whole thing just shouldn't have happened.Full story here: http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2008/March/1/Endurance-Test-Circa-1958 simplefish fucked around with this message at 13:47 on Jul 11, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 12:56
|
|
|
Someone posted about the Polish Skorpion a few pages ago, which seems like a popular name for jets. BBC have an article on the Textron Scorpion: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28260781
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 07:59
|
|
|
Crossposting from the 777 thread:Ninja fetus posted:I'm afraid we've lost pilot Parker: https://twitter.com/MAS/status/489605424786587649
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Whatever that Tweet was, does anyone have it screenshotted? Yes, in the 777 thread I linked to Ninja fetus posted:Ha. They've removed it. For those interested. Malaysia Airlines posted a picture of a cute teddybear in a pilotseat. The picture was followed up by a tweet about the crashed plane in Ukraine. I was thinking of screenshotting it myself but I didn't think they'd remove it so quickly.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
http://flightclub.jalopnik.com/watch-these-seat-soiling-crosswind-operations-from-birm-1541878105/+flyingphotog
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
Reminds me of that Turkish F16: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-23296285
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
MrChips posted:The biggest reason why there is very little Britjet chat is that with a few exceptions on the military side (Vulcan, Canberra and Lightning), their operational aircraft were all failures or hopelessly outmoded even before they entered service...which is in direct contrast to their experimental and concept aircraft, which were among the very best in the world. More than in any other country I would say, politics killed the aviation industry in the UK. Wikipedia posted:Aeronautical engineer Sir Sydney Camm said of the TSR-2: "All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics. TSR-2 simply got the first three right.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
uXs posted:At 4 minutes in, there's a plane landing that looks like it has air brakes on its engines? Never seen that before, are those indeed brakes and what kind of plane is that? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yz3AC93DvDo Poor old Steve.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Excuse me, when I was 8 I would draw a Sukhoi Su-15 Flagon. I never tried to draw that specific plane but it basically did. I think mostly straight lines, the cockpit "bubble" just stuck on top, the pointiest of pointy noses, pointy little perfect delta wings with a straight back edge. An intake either side, flat-top empanage, and missiles hanging underneath. I always loved the F-5 growing up, though, and if you're asking me to choose between the 4, 14, 15, 16 and 18, it's going to be the F-14 every single time.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2014 15:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 07:17 |
|
|
One of the first flights they did that on sadly smashed into the ground, also at O'Hare
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2014 16:48
|
|