|
seven or eight years ago when everyone had those cheap nokia phones, every day i went flying i would hear some interference over the local CTAF every time someone flying in the area was about to get a phone call. it got to the point where people would just call out, "turn off your phone" over the radio. i'm not going to go so far as say it would have caused a crash or whatever, though. it was just an annoyance, but a noticeable one.
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2011 18:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 00:43 |
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:I really wish they'd do more like this. i've flown on that plane, it's pretty impressive in person
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2011 05:19
|
|
|
law abiding rapist posted:another gem 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2012 01:32
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:The Mi-26 is scary big, it's ridiculous, it looks like a loving movie prop more than a real thing. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2012 23:39
|
|
|
Understeer posted:This is a pretty good article from Boeing if you'd like to learn more about the 787's bleedless architecture. this is a really interesting design and i wish sikorsky (and by extension GE) would take a page from boeing on this one, especially the elimination of the bleed air system and this replacement for engine starters: Boeing posted:The 787's engine-start and APU-start functions are performed by extensions of the method that has been successfully used for the APU in the Next-Generation 737 airplane family. In this method, the generators are run as synchronous starting motors with the starting process being controlled by start converters. The start converters provide conditioned electrical power (adjustable voltage and adjustable frequency) to the generators during the start for optimum start performance. it would yield some serious weight cuts as well as improve reliability since the UH-60 bleed-air start system in particular can struggle with hot-high starts after prolonged time in sandy environments.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2012 04:47
|
|
|
EnergizerFellow posted:As in independent circuits for each engine starter? Since they mention faster start in rear connections, I assume those are 220 VAC feeds for rest-of-world electrical connections outside NA/JP? The front ones dual-voltage? Can you even supply enough amperage at 115 VAC to start one of those engines (110VAC@15A ~= 2hp, if memory serves)?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2012 05:39
|
|
|
Tremblay posted:The red one is the best! Super Tucanos are cool as poo poo, but I don't see us buying them or anything like them in the foreseeable future.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2012 03:58
|
|
|
i bet maintenance on those was a great time. also engine fires. also if they shoved 4 engines and gearboxes inside each wing, where did the fuel tanks get displaced to?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2013 14:02
|
|
|
got this in super large? beautiful pic
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2013 16:15
|
|
|
*ahem*
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2013 20:53
|
|
|
Linedance posted:Just finished the ATA 24 (electrical power) for my 787 endorsement... Very very clever. Completely new architecture that the more you look at it the more you realize some very smart and talented engineers designed this thing. I wrote a paper on the 87's bleedless architecture for school, and it's pretty remarkable especially considering Boeing pretty much rewrote from scratch what was the industry standard for turbine-powered commercial aircraft pneumatic and electrical design for the last 50-60 years. I definitely see this design being duplicated in future aircraft from all of the major manufacturers. Also considering the organic support for multiple (very) powerful generators per engine and robust power distribution built into the design, I wouldn't be surprised to see Boeing try to market an 87-based AEW or AWACS platform in the near future.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2013 22:21
|
|
|
SyHopeful posted:I'd love for either of you to do a semi-layman's writeup of what's so innovative about the 787's bleedless architecture. I think most of us know that it's A Thing and that it helps to increase the fuel efficiency over a bleed air system, but what about it is well-engineered/thought out? Basically, traditional turbine aircraft design (and by traditional I mean drat near every design for nearly 60 years is based on this) involves pneumatically-driven starter motors geared to the engine driveshaft. Bleed air, which is air siphoned from a turbine engine after it's been compressed, is used to drive the starters which in turn spins the driveshaft of the turbofan, drawing in air and causing enough compression to start. This bleed-air can come from the other engine, a start cart (on older designs), and most commonly from the APU. Now, the bleed air drawn from the APU has to get to the engine starters, which on larger aircraft is a not-insignificant distance, so many designs use a compressor driven by the APU to give it that extra push to have enough pressure to crank the starters after traveling the hundred or so feet of ducting to the engines. This obviously adds quite a bit of weight and complexity to the engine start system. Also, since the whole thing basically boils down to having enough pressurized air to turn a motor fast enough to spool an engine, there is a lot of points of possible failure in the form of air leaks or stuck valves, etc., adding a lot of maintenance requirements. The 787 gets around this by using engine-driven electrical generators as the starters, eliminating the need for any external bleed air, and therefore all of the associated ducting, valves, and compressors. The generator, which normally is turned by the engine, uses power from another source to instead spool the engine driveshaft just like a pneumatic starter would. The generator gets its power from another engine, ground power, or the APU. Sound familiar? And where does the APU get power from to start? The giant lithium batteries that like to catch on fire occasionally (or ground power). No bleed air necessary at all, which saves a ton of weight and increases the efficiency of the turbines since they don't have a parasitic loss of compressed air anymore (to a point). The reason no one thought of doing this before was because generators simply were not powerful enough and would be far too large if they were. On a 767, it takes an entire turbofan engine to drive a single 120kva generator. On the 787, the APU alone has 2 225 kva generators, and each engine has 2 250 kva generators. The plane generates almost 1.5 megawatts when it flies. Yes, megawatts. That's why I said it's a natural platform for AEW or AWACS. There's so much power available that Boeing got inventive with lots of systems that, again, traditionally would be non-electric. The brakes, for example, are entirely electric, with no hydraulics at all. The only thing bleed air is used for is engine inlet anti-ice, and that's because it's relatively small impact on engine efficiency and there are some aerodynamic benefits involved. There's a few more gee-whiz details involved, especially with the power distribution system and the variable-output generators, but that pretty much covers it for the basics.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2013 10:50
|
|
|
Dr. Klas posted:Is this photoshopped or are two planes really allowed to land simultaneously at parallel runways ? it's the point of parallel runways 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:The US Military: Strategically incompetent, with not-uncommon moments of tactical brilliance.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2014 15:22
|
|
|
LostCosmonaut posted:Here, have a story of a P-3 suffering quadruple engine failure (story is last one on page); http://www.vpnavy.org/vp47_mishap.html holy loving goddamn poo poo quote:The rescue was uneventful.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
i just like his implication that everything becomes uneventful after surviving that. seriously, though, only 9 control cables not cut and they were literally the barest minimum flight surfaces required to dead stick it into the water. that's pretty goddamn incredible.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2014 03:36
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:I think the big issue with the ring vortex crash on the V-22 was that one rotor lost lift before the other (as might be expected; planes stall this way too with any amount of turning), and the asymmetric thrust from the other rotor put it into an uncontrolled roll at low altitude with no forward speed for the control surfaces to correct it with. A conventional helicopter would be falling like a stone, but at least you're not flipping upside down and have some chance of flying out of it. a chinook really isn't going to develop VRS in one rotor system only, because it is a tandem system. you'd have to fly it in a full slip with a critical sinkrate and a shallow diving bank, aka flying sideways with airspeed while falling and turning, in which case you're well outside of the flight envelope anyways so no surprise there when it falls it out of the sky. interesting sidenote, the way to escape settling with power in a chinook requires lateral input, as opposed to a conventional rotor system which requires forward airspeed.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
with enough thrust, anything will fly 
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:Heading the other direction this weekend. Anybody have anything they need a picture of from the Naval Aviation Museum? that's a really solid museum. some of the airframes they have in there are just drop dead gorgeous. i really liked the history of the turbojet/turbofan exhibit, too.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:From an aerodynamic standpoint, the wings on a V-22 basically do nothing while hovering, since the aircraft is being held up by the thrust generated by the rotors. In forward flight, the wings work exactly like they do on an airplane, with the rotors simply providing enough thrust to keep the V-22 moving fast enough for the wing to produce the required lift. from a couple pages ago but don't forget that the thrust vector can be changed from full forward to a vertical-horizontal component by changing the nacelle attitude i.e. during transition and that they have enough thrust to overpower lift effects. also, those little stubby wings don't do much; the fuselage also contributes lift. V-TOLs are fascinating designs but have been so poorly implemented they've gotten a (deservedly) bad rap.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
  
brains fucked around with this message at 15:19 on Aug 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
Ambihelical Hexnut posted:like 1400 lbs/hr vs 750 lbs/hr. hawk guy or apache? spot on explanation, though. mlmp08 posted:On the other hand, it's pretty cool when the test community informs you that they're going to replace a few hundred 1960s circuit cards weighing a few hundred pounds and costing several million dollars with a suite of processors that costs tens of thousands of dollars and weighs 40 pounds or something. Then they get to work filling that freed up space with more poo poo. yeah, except for when they neglect the impact the removal/movement of processors has on CG.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
relative air flow over the control surface given the density at altitude is too low
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
McDeth posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHq56fVJak4 this is so loving ace combat, i love it. the music, the pan shots, even the briefing screen and the hilariously awkward post-mission cutscene, everything. and it's amazing.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
the fact that this is open canopy is the icing on the cake
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
Naturally Selected posted:So who wants to see A350-9s doing some formation flying? yeah but can they trace a giant dick across the american midwest? didn't think so
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
Bob A Feet posted:Lasers are a huge concern for military pilots. Pack in 24 dudes in the back with lasers on their rifle (both visibile and IR) and then a tail gun on the back (aka gently caress you to -2/3/4) not to mention the other aviation assets you're working with and you have a battle space full of them. Tight control measures help but nothing you can't prevent everything. in afghanistan we were using PEQ-15s on the 240s without issue when about halfway through the deployment some idiot staffer decided it would be an amazing OER bullet to try and procure IZLIDs for all the H-60 gunners because reasons. we promptly vetoed that loving idiot because there was no goddamn reason to mount a laser meant for a loving gunship that spot illums over 40 km away on a weapon operated by a door gunner with the easy potential to flag other aircraft or ground personnel or loving satellites with a no-poo poo weapons-grade laser. people are bad enough about actual weapons discipline in regards to flagging, don't even get me started on lasers. and to the people questioning whether or not they're actually that big of a deal, why don't you stand right over here and tell me how it feels when that "low-powered" commercial laser burns your retina faster than the pain inputs to your brain for you to react.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2015 06:56
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:I mean, that all makes sense that you'd object to it. I just think it's funny that you're splitting hairs over a laser pointer when these guys are manning actual guns. because with weapon systems people actually see destruction of the target right in front of them, and they learn by association that whatever is downrange of the barrel can potentially be destroyed. this (hopefully) causes them to be aware of what they're pointing a weapon at. this is not apparent at all with lasers; people almost never see the first-order effects of it besides the actual dot, and never associate that little dot with something that can literally boil the fluid in your eyes. as a result, they flag everything and everyone with potentially damaging lasers without understanding the consequences. also if we gave them IZLIDs we'd have all been stuck wearing bronze visors all the time like some kind of loving apollo landing re-enactment.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Gonna attach a laser on my drone and fly somewhere with 10 miles of an airport now just to make people freak the gently caress out. mlmp08 posted:Make sure you are flying for commercial purposes without a license when doing so. honestly i'm surprised this hasn't already happened lol
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:Last page, but I think we can agree the best looking plane is every delta wing ever built. i'm gonna go ahead and double down on this   
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2015 03:53
|
|
|
PhotoKirk posted:You, sir, are wrong. holocaust bloopers posted:YOU THINK THAT'S UGLY
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 03:06
|
|
|
freshmeat.popsicle posted:How many AMTs, or students to become one, are there itt? hi. part 65 AMT and A&P. and yeah, the pressurization system is probably the worst part. also the fabric skinning/resin process. ugh.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:I was not referring to spec ops osprey pilots vs normal. I was referring to the special operations wing Blackhawks pilots that do bonkers poo poo like land in back yards or swoop in and drop a team out the side doors at a jogging pace with their weapons already up on target. i'm gonna weigh in from the blackhawk side of the house: the hawk is drat agile when it wants to be, far more than you'd expect out of a 16,000lbs medium-lift utility bird, but we specifically train pilots to use non-aggressive control inputs and power-conservative approaches all the time, so that when they're actually in high density altitudes they're not trying to pull more power than the engines can provide in those conditions. yeah, it looks boring and slow but at 12,000 feet it will make the difference between a successful approach or burning a hole in the ground. when you see a hawk (or anything) coming in to land with an excessive nose-up attitude and pulling in a ton of collective to arrest the decent, that's what we call "hotdogging" and it's killed a whole lot of people the instant that pilot tried the same maneuver and the power wasn't there. also, just saying, but landing in backyards, and touch-and-drops, and FRIES/SPIES, and vehicle interdiction et al, are hardly the sole purview of SOF aviation. brains fucked around with this message at 06:33 on May 20, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 20, 2015 06:29
|
|
|
drat that looks good. i forgot about the heritage series, they did a really good job with those. some of the WWII fleet schemes are just gorgeous on modern aircraft.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
open cabin doors too so you know that cockpit is filled completely 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I don't suppose anybody's said anything about how they would choose a replacement, have they? if i had to patrol the great white north on an air interdiction mission, i'd probably want a big twin engine air superiority fighter with long legs to do it in.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:As far as I'm concerned people drilling holes in the air in their bugsmashers can go pound sand, or otherwise fly above whatever altitude limit the FAA imposes on the drones. The only concern I have is for helicopters doing medical evacuations and such. as someone who's flown helicopters for the last 7 years and flies almost exclusively 0-1000 AGL, i can tell you that we have a hard enough time avoiding military controlled small UAS (some of which are as big as a compact car), let alone commercial drones. they don't talk to anyone, they don't observe any type of airspace restriction, and most significantly, they have absolutely gently caress all for situational awareness. don't act like the entire world needs to change to accommodate your glorified electric RC plane hobby. there's a middle ground but it sure as gently caress isn't a 500ft AGL manned aircraft restriction with no changes to drone operators.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I thought at least military UAVs had transponders? WTF? the larger airframes, like the predators, reapers, global chickens etc. do, but the hand-launched or rail-launched varieties? nope. the only way we avoid mid-airs is to deconflict airspace. usually what will happen is the UAS operator will open a ROZ (restricted operating zone with established boundaries and altitudes) for launch/recovery and for wherever they are operating, which is then briefed to aviators operating in that area very similar to a NOTAM. of course, for any of this to actually work safely, the UAS operators have to: 1. actually open a ROZ before firing a SUAS into the great unknown, 2. actually fly inside the ROZ, and 3. actually be trained on basic airspace rules and management, all of which is difficult enough for trained soldiers (who, full disclosure, are not pilots and mostly laymen when it comes to aviation) and would probably go a long way towards safety in the civilian world.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
Ola posted:
CSAR aren't considered medical aircraft under Geneva
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2015 18:53
|
|
Different headsets have different outputs, pilots have different preferences, hardware varies...RWR and other noisemakers have volume knobs too, but perhaps it's a thing of the past.
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 00:43 |
|
|
Ola posted:https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/f6c8b9fee14a77fdc125641e0052b079 this isn't just a nitpick, it's a major distinction in international law. i think you're confusing medical evacuation with "rescue," when they are two distinct types of missions. in terms of Geneva classification of forces, "medical aircraft" means dedicated air ambulance with medical aidmen on board, flying for the express purpose of evacuating casualties. this is not the same as flying out and picking up a downed pilot.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2015 19:52
|
|