Author Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.  (Read 5413 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

I've noticed that we have a lot of people on the forum interested at least tangentially in aviation and we have a variety aviation themed threads, but no consolidated thread dedicated to it. So whether you like military aircraft, black projects, experimental aircraft, or just plain ol' civil aviation then this is the place to discuss it.

If you have any news or interesting stuff to share then feel free. Ask any aviation question you have and I'm sure someone will answer (or try to).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So to start off with, here's some videos:

Flying in Africa using a road as an airstrip


An approach into Queenstown, NZ


A first person view of the Mach Loop in Wales



Re: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #1 on: June 04, 2017, 10:37:13 AM »
Pence plane missed runway target by nearly 2,000 feet, NTSB says
So I guess the NTSB has released some new information on the runway overrun of Mike Pence's plane in October last year, with the pilots admitting that they should've aborted the landing instead of continuing.

Quote
In a transcript of the plane's cockpit voice recorder, the pilots can be heard talking about the incident shortly after the plane stops. "We should have went around," one of the pilots says, according to the transcript. "My career just ended," one adds as they prepare the plane for shut down. "Mine too," the other replies. A Secret Service agent is recorded entering the cockpit to check on the situation. After being assured no evacuation is necessary, he compliments the pilots. "Nice job," the agent tells the pilots, according to the transcript. "Huh?" one of the pilots responds. "Nice job. You stopped at least," the agent replies.



It doesn't sound like the crew worked well together either:
Quote
"He felt that there was a 'lack of communication' as he did not hear the captain say, 'I have control,'" according to a summary of the first officer's interview. "After they had stopped, the captain had said he was trying to get off on the last taxiway. Then, he (the first officer) realized that the captain was also on the controls when he was."
The first officer also declined to answer several questions about the captain. "When asked how he enjoyed flying with the captain, he declined to provide an answer," a document says. "When asked about the captain's proficiency or for areas that could be improved, when compared to others he had flown with, he declined to answer."



http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/02/politics/mike-pence-airplane-incident-laguardia/index.html

Re: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #2 on: June 04, 2017, 10:49:44 AM »
Qantas is holding a public vote to name their new 787 aircraft
Qantas has included the nation’s most famous (or infamous according to some overseas visitors) breakfast spread Vegemite in its shortlist of potential names for its Boeing 787-9 fleet that also features a grab bag of prominent Australians, some “Great” landmarks and a smattering of local wildlife.
The 20-strong shortlist, based on input from the travelling public, was released on Thursday, with the final eight to be named on Wednesday, June 7.



The list:
-Boomerang
-Cooee
-Don Bradman
-Dreamtime
-Evonne Goolagong
-Fred Hollows
-Great Barrier Reef
-Great Ocean Road
-Great Southern Land
-Jillaroo
-Joan Sutherland
-Jumbuck
-Kokoda
-Kookaburra
-Quokka
-Skippy
-True Blue
-Uluru
-Vegemite
-Waltzing Matilda


http://australianaviation.com.au/2017/06/vegemite-makes-qantass-even-spread-of-shortlisted-true-blue-787-names/


Re: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #3 on: June 04, 2017, 10:49:54 AM »
Pence plane missed runway target by nearly 2,000 feet, NTSB says
So I guess the NTSB has released some new information on the runway overrun of Mike Pence's plane in October last year, with the pilots admitting that they should've aborted the landing instead of continuing.



It doesn't sound like the crew worked well together either:


The crew should give Harrison Ford a call, and ask for tips on keeping their wings.  :)

Re: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #4 on: June 04, 2017, 10:52:59 AM »
The crew should give Harrison Ford a call, and ask for tips on keeping their wings.  :)

"Be famous."

Re: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #5 on: June 04, 2017, 01:23:36 PM »
Earlier this week Scaled Composites rolled out a new aircraft to be used for launching rockets into space from high altitude. This aircraft is composed of two separate fuselages linked by the wing, which itself has the largest wingspan of any aircraft to date at 385ft (117m), and six engines. To cut development costs the company bought two 747s and cannibalised them for integration into the new plane including avionics, landing gear, and the flight deck.






https://www.wired.com/2017/06/paul-allen-built-worlds-largest-plane-fling-satellites-space/
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/innovation/billionaire-rolls-out-ginormous-rocket-launching-airplane-n766996




Re: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #6 on: June 04, 2017, 02:30:35 PM »



http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/02/politics/mike-pence-airplane-incident-laguardia/index.html

Note the torn up overrun in the above photo.  It's an engineered materials arrestor system designed to crush under the weight of the a/c at controlled rates to absorb energy and safely bring the a/c to a stop.  The lack of damage to the plane and its occupants is more a function of passive technology than aircrew skills.


Re: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #8 on: June 04, 2017, 03:04:24 PM »
Apparently there is talk about semi-privatizing ATC and, in addition, moving to a newer technology called NextGen. One hears differing opinions on both.

The Australian ATC provider is semi privatised and it suffers from cost cutting everywhere (e.g. closing towers, phasing out NDBs, reducing personnel).  Their most recent cost cutting measure was removing the index entirely from the Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP), which makes life difficult for pilots and is potentially a safety issue.


Re: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #9 on: June 05, 2017, 08:46:58 AM »
A little levity. Thought you knew how aeroplanes flew? Think again.

 :)

http://messybeast.com/dragonqueen/liftdemon.htm

Quote

LIFT DEMONS AND THRUST PIXIES

Title of Paper: The Role of Lift Demons and Thrust Pixies in Heavier Than Air Flight

Publication Date: 2004

Abstract: The role of Lift Demons in aeronautics was first explained in 1994 by Mary Shafer (NASA). Since then, Shafer's work has been explored and revised. This paper summarises advances in Lift Demon technology over the last decade.

Keywords: Lift Demons, Thrust Pixies, lemon fondant

Authors: Sarah Hartwell, DEF Smith, Peter Rieden, Gavin Bull

Question: How did the secret information on Lift Demons make it into the public domain? I've been a practising Aircraft Performance Engineer for the past 26 years and have always tried to explain how aeroplanes fly by using the official public explanations regarding Bernoulli, airfoils and other such rot. Civilians just weren't ready for the truth. In fact, we generally don't speak about the magic directly. Most of our plans and estimates usually end with the phrase "and then a miracle happens".

Answer: The science of Lift Demons was declassified in 1994, throwing this topic wide open for discussion and research.

According to Shafer "Lift is caused by Lift Demons. These little, invisible demons hold on to the leading and trailing edges of the aircraft and lift it into the air by flapping their wings (so, in a reductionist sense, lift is actually caused by feathers). Some of the demons are a little confused and they hold on backwards, causing drag. The reason that planes stall at high alpha is that the leading edge demons get scared and let go when they can't see the ground anymore. Lift demons have good taste and don't like to look at ugly aircraft, so they hold on backwards on ugly planes. That's why gliders have so much lift and so little drag and why F-4s have lots of drag." This, however, did not address what gives lift to the Lift Demons' wings. Again, according to Shafer "Feathers. The multiple filaments on feathers trap the air molecules and they struggle to escape, which causes the action-reaction that we call lift. Bat wings don't have feathers but they're hairy and that works just about as well (air molecules are a little claustrophobic)."

Because Lift demons hold on backwards on ugly planes to avoid looking at the planes, drag can be calculated using CDU (Coefficient of Drag due to Ugliness) used in correlating aircraft ugliness against Lift Demons' unwillingness to hold on forwards and provide lift.

It was originally believed that Lift Demons got their lift from smaller Lift Demons whose lift was, in turn, produced by even smaller Lift Demons leading to the "Infinite Demons Theory" as proposed by the great Greek philosopher-scientist Miasma. However, with the revival of scientific knowledge that eventually ended the Dark Ages, it was realised that this situation unresolvable according to Zeno's paradox. The "Infinite Demons Theory" works in many problems of engineering significance, however, real understanding requires that the ether be introduced into the analysis at some point. The "Ether Concept" explains why planes fly more efficiently at higher altitudes. This is an absolute necessity when studying orbital and interplanetary travel where, it is believed, many of the Lift Demons are unable to breathe.

As always the Chinese seem to have been there first. "The Genius of China", tells of one Ko Hung. "Someone asked the Master (Ko Hung) about the principles of mounting to dangerous heights and travelling into the vast inane. The Master said "[...] some have made flying cars with wood from the inner part of the jujube tree, using ox leather straps fastened to returning blades so as to set the machine in motion. Others have the idea of making five snakes, six dragons and three oxen to meet the 'hard wind' and ride on it, not stopping until they have risen to a height of 40 li (about 65,000 feet). The the ch'i [emanation of the sky or perhaps wind] is extremely hard, so much so that it can overcome the strength of human beings. [...] Take dragons, for example; when they first rise they go up using the clouds as steps, and after they attained a height of forty li then they rush forward effortlessly gliding." The jujube tree device sounds like the Osprey. Scholars believe that the term "dragon" referred to the Lift Demon and that the Chinese had harnessed their power before the Western world had even discovered the Lift Demons' existence.

Lift Demons operate differently on different aircraft types. They get dizzy holding onto a spinning prop and become disorientated, thus more of them face the wrong direction which increases the drag. Lift Demons have to be magically bound to jet engines and an Airbus propulsion engineer explained "It takes an average of three day's solid chanting and ritual to get one of those 'engine' things to work. If us witches stopped our hard work, there'd be planes dropping out of the sky all over the place. We should never have let you lot find out about being able to fly, it's been nothing but trouble ever since."

Recognition of Lift Demons has also solved one of aviation's oldest puzzles: Gremlins. There appears to be a connection between Gremlins and Lift Demons. Gremlins may be Lift Demons that have, in some way, turned against the pilot. Instead of assisting him in his task of keeping the machine in the air, they do the opposite. The reason may be that, after reading about the Bernoulli/Newton dichotomy, they have become confused. Much has been written about Gremlins, dating back to WWII. Gremlins have been known to run towards the nose of an aircraft, causing it to dive into the sea, showing that they have at least some knowledge of the principles of flight. These days, most planes carry a full complement of In-Flight Gremlins; although they must be carefully managed, their presence generally inhibits the transformation of rogue Lift Demons into Gremlins.

Further study of Lift Demons was carried out by an aero-industry weights engineer who submitted the following scientific paper in 2004 to celebrate the anniversary of Shafer's ground-breaking article:

"There are still people in this company who think we weigh aircraft to find out how much they weigh, not to calculate stresses. Of course we need to know how much the thing weighs. How are we ever going to know how many Thrust Pixies we need to get the thing off the ground if we don't know the weight? Or should that be "Lift Demons"? Pixies have largely fallen into disrepute - something about Bernoulli not being representative in unbounded conditions and cause and effect being transposed in the Newtonian model.

In fact the use of Lift Demons on civil aircraft programmes is generally not that good an idea. The Demon binding contract tends to specify payment in blood or souls. This is readily achievable with aircraft of military function, but frowned upon in civilian circles as they may attempt to acquire payment outside of the terms of their binding contract. Lift Demons are not used on Elf bombers. We don't talk about Lift [Thrust] Pixies too often as it seems to upset the self-loading cargo [passengers]. Pixies require payment in cakes, flowers or nice thoughts. These are readily sourced either from the in-flight catering, or provided cost-free by the passengers. Clearly this would not work well within an operational military environment. Air force cooking is not renowned for the "light and fluffy texture" that Thrust Pixies demand, the availability of flowers might be problematic in desert operations, and nice thoughts may also be hard to find during times of active operations.

There is also a scalability issue. While one rampant Lift Demon would have few problems supporting a fighter aircraft (particularly if there is an immediate prospect of blood), it'll struggle to achieve level controlled flight of a 560 tonne Airbus A380. Use of more than one Lift Demon on the same flight vehicle is contra-indicated (they squabble and eat each other). Communities of Thrust Pixies can be encouraged to work together on the same aircraft by the provision of advanced technologies such as Lemon fondant icing, variegated tulips or in-flight romantic comedies. Ryanair once requested Leprachauns be installed in place of Lift [Thrust] Pixies, but Leprechauns have a mission statement which indicates their desire for monetary gain, and their willingness to search all over the world for it. This makes Lift Leprechauns expensive to keep (gold vs. lemon fondant icing), and makes it difficult to establish a regular route network as the Lift Leprechauns don't like to continuously visit the same locations. By law, aircraft also have to have a full complement of In-Flight Gremlins, but these are generally not a problem unless you feed the Wingtip Vortex Faeries after midnight."

His article shows that we've moved on a great deal since 1994. It has been known for some time that Lift Demons are best suited to military uses. In spite of suggestions that Pixies have fallen into disrepute, outside of military aviation it is Lift Demons that are considered passé - they have notoriously short attention spans and the ones used on Harriers have problems discriminating between air and water. Inbreeding in pursuit of the ultimate high performance Lift Demon may have been the cause. In civil aviation, the way ahead still lies with Thrust Pixies, large amounts of lemon fondant icing and in-flight Hugh Grant movies. Many instances of civil planes mysteriously falling out of the sky can be traced to (a) cessation of happy thoughts/lack of lemon fondant for the pixies (resulting in "Pixie Fatigue" or even "catastrophic pixie failure") or to (b) a large amount of happy thoughts/gateau mountain at ground level distracting the pixies from their task.  Thrust Pixies dislike Marmite/Vegemite (yeast extract) and since such spreads can cause unhappy thoughts in some passengers, airline caterers are careful to avoid these.

A note on Catastrophic Pixie Failure: Temporary pixie problems resulting in turbulence or sudden loss of altitude causes unhappy thoughts in the passengers (which is why cabin staff and pilots always play down such occurrences). The resulting loss of happy thoughts causes further Pixie failure, worsening the situation. This makes passengers have even more unhappy thoughts and the Pixies become more fatigued; some may even leave the aircraft. Unless counter-acted by large lemon fondant reserves, Pixie Failure reaches catastrophic proportions and the aircraft is doomed.

Modern aircraft designers use Lift Fairies and avoid the whole controversy regarding the used of Lift Demons on civil aircraft programmes. Coming from a less benevolent cast, Lift Fairies are less dependent on nice thoughts or cakes. Fairies tend to less concerned with good and evil and hence make better dual use aircraft. Another major headache today is how to get 707 Lift Fairies at a reasonable price. Many of the older aircraft-specific fairies have become rare, if not unavailable. Aircraft numbering relates to the type and quantity of Lift Demons or Lift Fairies needed. For example a C-130 requires 130 "C class" Lift Demons while an Airbus A380 uses 380 "A" class Thrust Pixies. Aero engineers have a scale of values (proprietary information, not available in the public domain) allowing them to substitute different numbers of Pixies and Demons with different lifting abilities, thus making best use of the available surfaces.

There was short-lived interest in breeding a generic, or at least dual-use, "Thrust Demon" but the blood-loving Lift Demons ate the gateau-loving Thrust Pixies. In vitro techniques failed because their genietic [sic] material is incompatible so there are no hybrid Thrust Demons. DNA sequencing has allowed us to distinguish between many castes of Lift Demon, Thrust Fairy etc. For example due credit should be given to the inelegantly named Fart Fairies without whose bean eating and gas production, no machine could power itself from the earth's surface. The shy Turbine Winder-Rounder Gnomes hide inside those so-called engine nacelles from the public and indulge their serious kerosene drinking problems. Why else would the engines be called Gnome engines? Leading-Edge Leeries give the extra little push that keeps the nose up. The unfortunate tendency for RAF Harriers to crash into the sea has led to speculation that Harriers are equipped with Sirens or that the crashes resulted from an ill-advised experiment in using Water Nymphs (these are better suited to submarine propulsion). In any case, only export versions of the Harrier are likely to use Sirens, while those for the British domestic market use Banshees leased from the Irish.

Thrust Pixies are adequate for civil aircraft, while Lift Demons were good in military applications in years past, but modern Naval Aviation is currently all Angel-powered. The very best ones are, of course, Blue Angels. This is why they report their altitude as "angels twenty" or such. In addition, many Navy pilots claim that black air has no lift, which means they can get all night in to supplement their daytime naps between meals. This shows that Angels and Naval Lift Demons are strictly diurnal. Genetically engineered, military-tolerant Thrust Pixies may be what is needed. Thrust Demons might also have applications in getting Air Force maritime patrol aircraft to stop reaching "prudent limit of endurance" by 2 p.m. (local time) every Friday just after reporting a "possible intruder" submarine in the exercise area, and not be restored to flying status until 9 a.m. Monday, thus leaving the ships to stay out over the weekend looking for the "intruder".

There are no Anti-Gravity Demons so a different approach has to be taken in this field of research. Current research into inertia-free propulsion has shown great promise through the use of properly modified felines. Butter is spread evenly over the felines back. When the creature is tossed lightly into the air, the third law of universal fate dictates that it must land butter side down. However this does not occur due to the intervention of the feline landing axiom (feet first). The above conflicting forces result in a stable hover. The subject felines have demonstrated the ability to control their own velocity at will. The only loose ends delaying the full commercialisation of this process is the matter of persuading the felines to (a) work in teams; (b) not lick off the butter and (c) follow a flight plan. As there seems to be a deficiency in feline herding instincts, any suggestions would be appreciated by the researchers involved.

LIFT DEMONS AND THRUST PIXIES

Title of Paper: A Brief Sumary of Past Research

Lift Demons were originally discovered and bred in captivity by Bernoulli. He did not properly understand Lift Demon management, which explains why early attempts at manned flight were often so unsuccessful. Many early planes had double or triple wings (sometimes even more) to provide more places for the Lift Demons to cling. However, the design of many of these did not permit Lift Demons to perform to the best of their abilities.

Being air breathing creatures, they are not found at very high altitudes and dislike getting their wings are icy or dirty.

Other researchers note that Lift Demons and Thrust Pixies congregate unseen near the downwind end of the runway and hop on for the ride, dismounting again on landing ready for the next plane. This is why taking off from the other end (looking into the big end of the windsock) can be tricky. Air Traffic Control regulates arrivals and departures especially in areas where there is a lack of Lift Demons and Thrust Pixies and they must make smooth changeovers from one plane to the next. At large international airports, the supply of Lift Demons, Thrust Pixies and baggage carts are all limited.

Lift Demons and Thrust Pixies are very sensitive to poor pilotage and can easily fall off the wing if a pilot lifts the nose too much whilst going slowly or banks steeply at slow speed. A slightly roughened surfaces helps them to stay on longer. Research into the behaviour and IQs of Lift Demons and Thrust Pixies shows that they lack comprehension of what a downwind turn is. Domesticating and training a flock of Lift Demons is the secret to truly great aerobatics and some practitioners have attempted to breed specialised strains of Demon, tentatively named Aerobatic Imps. These breeds do not entirely abandon an aircraft when it inverts or stalls; instead they remain close and catch it once it reverts to a Demon-friendly attitude. They are also far more resistant to the dizziness that rolls and dives cause in wild-type Lift Demons.

Male demons outnumber females by a ratio of approximately 3:1 and are predominantly found on the mainwing topsides. The females, which can apparently only push (though this view is being challenged by current research), are found on the underside of wings and tailplanes. The males find it fairly easy to "pull" the females due to the imbalance in numbers. A favourite area for congregating males is near the wing's hump where the view is often better. This activity is known scientifically as humping. Humping can be controlled by the pilot by raising and lowering flags at the wing ends to signify the end he would like them to pull hardest. The female of the species being on the undersides are often kept in the dark especially about the cost impact of aviation. Lift Demons are sexually active and highly promiscuous; sexual activity frequently occurs near the wing tips resulting in Demon Spawn which can sometimes be seen streaming off the tips in a conical cocoon. It is widely, but erroneously, believed that neutered Lift Demons are called Vacuum Demons and that an excess of neutered Demons causes breathing difficulties and should have a government health warning attached. No-one has yet managed to neuter a Lift Demon.

In the days of airships and hot air balloons, Lift Demons were often trapped in bags, but would escape given any opportunity. Such captivity was actually unnecessary on airships as there were ample places for Lift Demons to hold on. These days, instead of trying to contain captive Demons inside the structure, winged aircraft are designed to entice the Demons to visit and to hold on to the outside. This is not easy since Lift Demons abandon common aircraft on very weak pretexts. For example, Lift Demons enjoy engine roar and go elsewhere when this noise stops. The best engine roar is found on military jets. Thrust Pixies are more commonly used on civil aircraft.

Builders of kit aircraft generally find enough in the box for the first flight. Once in flight, more Lift Demons are attracted to the plane and subsequent flights become easier and usually more stable. Even if a home enthusiast is improvising, his/her efforts will usually attract curious Lift Demons and/or Thrust Pixies, though not always enough for the craft to become airborne.

Bird feathers are merely ornaments evolved to attract Lift Demons. These are species of Demon that have evolved symbiotically with different bird species. Birds merely have to waggle their wings to signal a desire to fly and their Demons eagerly comply. Flightlessness in Penguins is due to the Demons' dislike of ice. Flightlessness in other birds is due to the Demons' sense of aesthetics. Moas, ostriches and great auks are (or were) simply too ugly to fly. On the other hand, all types of Lift Demon and their kin have a playful side and this can often be seen in the way they keep kites aloft. Unfortunately, the Lift Demon sense of humour has brought many hang-gliders down to earth with a bump.

DRAGONQUEEN'S LAIR


Re: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #10 on: June 05, 2017, 10:18:31 AM »
Women sue United Airlines for $85K after hard landing
Quote
Two Vancouver women are suing United Airlines for nearly $85,000 after claiming they were injured when their plane made a hard landing.

According to the lawsuit, Pricilla Triplett and Barbara Shivvers were on United flight 1587 from Portland to Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport on May 23, 2015 when the plane made a sudden, hard landing around 6:35 a.m.

The women said the hard landing “threw [them] forward and into the seat backs in front of them,” causing mental pain and physical injury. The lawsuit alleges the women suffered “permanent injury to the muscles, tendons, ligaments and nerves of her back causing radicular pain and numbness together with headaches and, in particular, a cervical and lumbosacral sprain/strain,” in addition to other injuries.

Lawyers contend United Airlines was negligent in “failing to approach the runway at an appropriate speed and altitude; In failing to avoid a sudden hard landing; In failing to warn passengers… that a hard landing was possible or imminent; and in failing to give appropriate and timely instructions to passengers to brace for the hard landing.”
http://koin.com/2017/05/25/women-sue-united-airlines-for-85k-after-hard-landing/

I wonder if they realise that airliner computers record certain accelerations experienced during landings, with those exceeding limitations requiring a maintenance inspection - meaning that if there was a hard landing there'd be some kind of evidence of it. Plus being 'thrown into the seats in front of them' sounds like they weren't seated/strapped in properly.




Re: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #11 on: June 05, 2017, 10:51:24 AM »
Women sue United Airlines for $85K after hard landinghttp://koin.com/2017/05/25/women-sue-united-airlines-for-85k-after-hard-landing/

I wonder if they realise that airliner computers record certain accelerations experienced during landings, with those exceeding limitations requiring a maintenance inspection - meaning that if there was a hard landing there'd be some kind of evidence of it. Plus being 'thrown into the seats in front of them' sounds like they weren't seated/strapped in properly.



Yeah, no doubt they'll explain that one away.  :)

Re: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #12 on: June 05, 2017, 11:33:08 AM »
A little levity. Thought you knew how aeroplanes flew? Think again.

 :)

http://messybeast.com/dragonqueen/liftdemon.htm
Ha. There was a radio host here, Phil Hendrie, who was a genius and had a character called Art Griego who was a pilot (really it was Phil's voice) who would be a "guest" on the show about aviation-related subjects. He would be outrageous and people, including pilots and stewardesses, would call in "outraged" and questioning and saying "Art does not speak for all pilots!" "What is your rating?" etc. He would do things like go on rants about birds (they attack planes, how come they can fly but I had to have a machine, etc), say that "every pilot is stressed because they don't know how planes can fly" and "covers his eyes on landing, since it is so impossible," they ditch luggage at altitude for weight problems- or "if there are annoying/demanding passengers," and various things (in a certain model plane women mistake the exit door for the lavatory door- when that HP executive, somehow, fell out of a plane.)

Re: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #13 on: June 05, 2017, 11:41:51 AM »
Here is a pic I took of the last complete airframe YF-12A in existence AF Ser. No. 60-6935  (there is a SR-71c which is 1/2 of an YF-12). 

For years I thought it was an SR-71, but because it has the cut off chines on the front and the 3  downward facing ventral fins in the center of the plane and under the engines.  These wre necessary as the cut off front chines changed the airframes dynamic stability.  The chines were cut off and didn't go all the way forward like the othert Blackbirds as the F-12 was to be an interceptor equipped with air-to-air missiles, and these missile system required front mounted RADAR, the chines would have interfered with these RADAR systems.
These pics are from the late 90's, the 2014 timestamp was when I took "pictures" of the photographs.
[/URL][/img]

[/URL][/img]

Here is a Wiki picture of the same aircraft. Notice the ventral fins under the engines.


and this SR-71 has no ventral fins under the engines, and under the center of the rear of the plane.


The YF-12s were about 6-7000lbs lighter than the SR-71 and IIRC didn't have the fuel load that the SR-71  had.  The longer these types of jets fly, the higher they can get. In reality it is the amount of time in between tanker rendezvous that determines terminal altitude.  Every 2500miles or so,these jets had to back off of Mach 2.8+ operation down to refueling speeds that occurred at 25,000ft. The larger SR-71 took about 20 minutes to take on its full fuel load, and because of its fuel load being the largest of all the "Blackbirds" during the last few minutes of refueling, the Pilot would have to engage a single afterburner just to keep up with the tanker.  Just imagine being the pilot, you have been taking fuel for about 15 minutes, then you have to engage an afterburner on a single engine on a plane that doesn't react well to thrust differences between the engines.  Talk about nerves of steel.  During takeoff when the pilot selects afterburner, the engines do not engage 100% at the same time, the actual engagement is staggered, this momentary thrust bias makes the fly by wire system, specifically the planes SAS or Stability Augmentation System would  "flash" the aero control surfaces in an attempt to correct the momentary thrust differential.  Takeoff is a very dangerous time for these jets. The SR-71s during normal operations would take off with a 40,000 pound fuel load, then hit the tanker and continue. Ground crews noticed excessive tire and landing gear wear if they would take off with the full 80,000lb fuel loads, the fuel load, combined with the extra force that a delta wing aircraft exerts upon its rear landing gear during rotation. In addition, there was a portion of the takeoff envelope where if an engine flamed out, the resultant thrust bias would cause a crash. In other words, it's single engine out takeoff envelope is tiny. Taking off with the smaller fuel load helps it out immensely.
The following quote is from Page 3-12 of the SR-71 flight manual.
"WARNING: Under most conditions below single engine minimum aerodynamic control  speed, directional control on the ground cannot be maintained with maximum thrust on one engine with the other engine decaying or failed."

Flight manual here.
https://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/manual/

Even though these jets took off with smaller fuel loads, it didn't make the fuel loader's job any easier.  This was because even with a 40,000lb fuel load, the tanks would have to be filled to 100% full, then approx. 40,000lbs of fuel would have to be pumped back off leaving the tanks half full. This was done to allow the jets nitrogen purge system to replace the fuel tanks airgaps with nitrogen gas as part of the fire prevention strategy. No oxygen, no fire.  There is a term used for this fill'er up then pumping 1/2 the fuel back off again action, but I cant remember it.

Even the tankers were special.  They were KC-135-"Q" models.  Instead of burning the same fuel that it was distributing, the Q model tanker had to keep its own supply of JP-8 separate from the Blackbirds special JP-7 fuel.  The very high flashpoint JP-7 fuel was used in the Blackbird jets as the fuel was actually used as a coolant for certain areas of the plane that reached 500ºF.  The fuel wuld reach 350ºF and the fuel load was used as a heat sink. The entire airframe would bleed heat into the -70º upper atmosphere and the black coluring helped to accomplish this. Because of the JP-7 was more difficult to ignite, the J-58 engines used Triethylborane or TEB. TEB is a pyrophoric substance meaning it will spontaneously ignite when it contacts air.  During initial startup the J-58 was spun up to starting speeds initially with start carts using dual Buick Wildcat engines, and later start-carts using dual Big Block Chevrolet engines.  Once the start carts got the J-58s rpm up to 3200rpm, the pilot slid the throttles to START, fuel started to flow and a shot of TEB was injected into the engine. At bases where J-58s were regularly started, conventional air powered start-carts would be attached to the J-58 engine instead of the gasoline engine powered carts.
  The TEB ignited thus also igniting the jet fuel.  TEB shots were required for:
1)Initial engine start
2)whenever going from Maximum Military Power to Full Power, aka going from non afterburning power settings or dry power, to power settings in which the afterburners are functioning or when REHEAT(for our British friends) is being used. The TEB was injected into the afterburner section further back in the engine, compared to an engine start TEB shot.

A full combat load of TEB was enough for 16 TEB shots in each engine. So 1 TEB shot is used for initial engine start, another is used when going to Maximum Power when starting the takeoff roll. A 3rd shot used when coming off the first tanker rendezvous during which the jet receives its full load of JP-7. So by the time the jet is airborne and ready to begin its combat mission it has used 3 of the 16 TEB shots. And about every 2500miles or so, the jet must descend from 80,000 feet of altitude down to tanker hookup altitudes of 25,000feet and slow from Mach 2.8-Mach3.2+ down to tanker speeds (I keep seeing a spec of 300knots). So in reality, these jets range with refueling is limited by the amount of TEB that is carried.  There is also a finite amount of Liquid Nitrogen that is carried on board. Remember that as the fuel volume is burned off, its volume is replaced by gaseous nitrogen to reduce fire hazards, that is supplied by 3 Liquid Nitrogen dewars that are loaded aboard just before flight.
Here is a pic of the Pratt and Whitney J-58 engine on a test stand burning off the last of the highly specialized JP-7 fuel.


In Feb 1968 Lockheed was ordered to destroy all the HIGHLY specialized tooling which was invented to work with Titanium which composed 85% of the aircraft.  There were other aircraft being looked at for the high speed interceptor role and there was a politician at the time that didn't want the YF-12 to be able to compete in the selection process, so the ability to produce more airframes was axed.  However, still to this day several hundred tons of the Soviet supplied Titanium(acquired via "shell" companies set up by the CIA) exists is various sizes of billets.

General Schwartzkopf who was the Commander of Alleid forces during the Gulf War, was disappointed that the SR-71s unique intelligence gathering wasn't available to him for Desert Storm as the initial retirement rendered it unavailable.

There is so much interesting stuff about the remarkable jets and the remarkable teams that allowed here to operate for so many years.  For sure a great American achievement in aircraft history.  Even the ejection seats and pressure suits were used for the Space Shuttle during its "test flights" during STS-1 through STS-4.  The pressure suits when used on the Shuttle were referred to as the "Shuttle Ejection Escape Suit".

Here Commander John Young and Pilot Robert Young are pictured wearing their SR-71 derived Shuttle Ejection Pressure Suits just before STS-1 Columbia.


peace
Hog

Re: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #14 on: June 05, 2017, 11:56:11 AM »
There is so much interesting stuff about the remarkable jets and the remarkable teams that allowed here to operate for so many years.

You might enjoy a book I read last year called Sled Driver: Flying the World's Fastest Jet by Brian Shul. The author was a former SR71 pilot and discusses things like the training, the aircraft, and what a typical mission was like. While it's not particularly long, it's still a good read with some unique photos.



Re: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #15 on: June 05, 2017, 03:16:29 PM »
You might enjoy a book I read last year called Sled Driver: Flying the World's Fastest Jet by Brian Shul. The author was a former SR71 pilot and discusses things like the training, the aircraft, and what a typical mission was like. While it's not particularly long, it's still a good read with some unique photos.


I'd love to give Sled Driver a read. The book is sold for several hundred dollars over its original sale price.
Do you still have a copy Taaroa?

 During a combat mission Shull used the SR's top end speed to beat a missile to a turn.  Then after beating the missile to the turn, the RSO or Reconnaissance Control Officer  (backseater of the SR-71,FCO or Fire Control Officer of the F-12, or LCO or Launch Control Officer for the M-21 that launched the D-21 drone) reminded the Pilot Schul to pull back the throttles as they were attaining Mach numbers not previously seen. At least that's how the story is told.  The stuff of legends.  Then there is the story of the SR flying over Western United States when after a few prop aircraft have asked the tower for their ground speeds which ranged from 95mph up to 230mph, a cocky F-18 pilot asks for a ground speed check, just to show off to other aircraft in the region, (its a blatant penis measurement move as the F-18 has equipement to show its crew its ground speed, the tower replies "Your ground speed is 620mph."  Ooooohhhhh,  Ahhhhhhhhh!!!!!
Then moments later, the back seater of an SR-71 keys his mic "Hey tower, what's my ground speed?"  The tower operator replies "Your ground speed it 1871 miles per hour."  If the F-18 pilot thought he was hung like a horse, well the SR-71 crew was wearing their dicks like a neck-tie and STILL was dragging on the ground.  Again, the stuff of legends.

 I'd love to have seen the Compressor Inlet Temperatures(CIT's) recorded after that run.  The J-58 weren't supposed to be run over a certain Compressor Inlet Temperatures (427 C) and if they were, Pratt and Whitney weren't responsible for engine damage and severe penalties including discharge were reportedly threatened.

 For the record run on the way to being delivered to a museum, a higher than normal temperature of 450º C was cleared for one half of an hour ONLY. During the record run however, these elevated temperatures were not attained.  There were altitudes of 89,500ft reported during certain tests. That's 16.95 miles, straight up.


Just in case some have not seen it, here is the video of the M-21 colliding with the D-21 drone upon separation.  Pilot Bill Park and Launch Control Officer Ray Torrick both successfully ejected in this July 30, 1966 Mach 3.2+ incident.  Unfortunately LCO Torrick lost his life when he mistakenly opened his visor and drowned in the sea.
First there is a successful D-21 launch, then the accident.




It was reported that as the budget for the SR-71 diminished, the usual compliment of KC-135 "Q" aerial refueling tankers was reduced from 5 down to 3. The SR-71s had to hit a tanker every 2200miles or every 1 hour 40 minutes, then slow/descend to 25,000ft/tanker speed, then travel approx. 150 miles while on the tankers boom refueling.
"Captain Adams flew in the SR-71 program for four years and accumulated about 350 to 400 hours in the Black­bird.  His longest combat mission was 10 hours 20 minutes and following the October 1973 Yom Kippur War, he flew one of his most memorable SR-71 missions—a 10-hour 20-minute round trip to the Middle East requiring five aerial refueling—for which he and his backseater were awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross.
Here is a video of Captain Adams describing his mission.



As of 1990, there were 25,862 mid air refueling related to the SR-71 A, B and C program.  Wow!

 The choreography of these Blackbird/KC-130-"Q" tankers was only bested by the United Kingdoms refueling strategy for getting their V-planes (the Vulcan bombers and Victor refueling tankers) down to bomb Argentinian forces who were occupying the Falkland Islands during "Operation Black Buck." 
It took 1.1 million pounds of fuel, about 137,000 gallons of fuel, to deliver 21 bombs on Port Stanley.
Here is a diagram of the Vulcan bombers refueling strategy by the Victor tankers.



peace
Hog




Re: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #16 on: June 05, 2017, 06:55:00 PM »
There were a number of attempts to shoot down SR-71s over the years, although none succeeded.  NK, China, USSR, Libya etc come as no surprise, but attempts were also made by Israel, India, and maybe Sweden.  The Israeli attempt I'm aware of occured during the Yom Kippur war of 1973, and is documented in an AW&ST special war issue published in late 1973/early 1974.  The Indians fired at high altitude/high speed a/c overflying their nuke facilities, but never actually said publically they were SR-71s.


Re: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #18 on: June 05, 2017, 10:28:57 PM »
I'd love to give Sled Driver a read. The book is sold for several hundred dollars over its original sale price.
Do you still have a copy Taaroa?
I'm afraid I never had a hard copy precisely because of that reason (it was $1000 a few months ago, looks like it's come down some).







The above pictures are of a Qatari Airforce C-17 that was painted in the same livery as that of Qatar Airways. If I remember correctly there are three reasons for this: 1) it is operated by the militari for Qatar Amiri Flight, which is basically a VIP airline of the government 2) it works as a flying billboard to promote the country and Qatar Airways 3) before Boeing ended production of the C-17 there was speculation that the company were trying to gauge interest in the civil sector for the design, with this being part of it

Re: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #19 on: June 06, 2017, 09:18:52 AM »
There were a number of attempts to shoot down SR-71s over the years, although none succeeded.  NK, China, USSR, Libya etc come as no surprise, but attempts were also made by Israel, India, and maybe Sweden.  The Israeli attempt I'm aware of occured during the Yom Kippur war of 1973, and is documented in an AW&ST special war issue published in late 1973/early 1974.  The Indians fired at high altitude/high speed a/c overflying their nuke facilities, but never actually said publically they were SR-71s.

I think its true that its top speed was never reached, because as mentioned before the heating of the fan blades. It was the limits of the metalurgy rather than the airframe and theoretical power output.

Re: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #20 on: June 06, 2017, 11:59:34 AM »
I think its true that its top speed was never reached, because as mentioned before the heating of the fan blades. It was the limits of the metalurgy rather than the airframe and theoretical power output.

Meanwhile the Soviets just built an aircraft that could go faster than M2.83 (and was recorded doing so) but would damage itself in the process.



As an aside, the Russians are claiming to be developing a new Mach 4 aircraft.  ::)

Re: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #21 on: June 06, 2017, 06:51:29 PM »
Meanwhile the Soviets just built an aircraft that could go faster than M2.83 (and was recorded doing so) but would damage itself in the process.



As an aside, the Russians are claiming to be developing a new Mach 4 aircraft.  ::)

Yes the Foxbat had a steel airframe to support the very heavy engines that self destructed at maximum thrust. It was made to intercept the SR71 but wasn't one of MiG's finest hours.

Re: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #22 on: June 06, 2017, 07:04:17 PM »
This thread needs more diversity prepare to be culturally enriched.












Re: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #23 on: June 06, 2017, 07:57:24 PM »
Yes the Foxbat had a steel airframe to support the very heavy engines that self destructed at maximum thrust. It was made to intercept the SR71 but wasn't one of MiG's finest hours.

The Foxbat was actually designed to intercept the B-70, a mission it might have been able to accomplish had the Valkyrie been fielded.  It had little chance against the SR-71, and in fact failed to intercept them on a number of occasions in multiple air forces.

"Mig Pilot: The Final Escape of Lieutenant Belenko" is the story of a Russian MiG-25 pilot who defected with his a/c to Japan.  It's a good read, especially the discussion of how the US tore the thing apart to see what made it tick before giving it back to the Soviets.  Happily copies of this book are readily available at very reasonable prices, unlike the SR pilot's book apparently.

Re: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #24 on: June 06, 2017, 10:17:03 PM »
Here is an interesting glimpse into aircraft design, production (or lack thereof) and eventual non-utilization during World War One.  Introducing the Sopwith T.1 Cuckoo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sopwith_Cuckoo


T.1 Cuckoo.  By http://www.aviastar.org/air/england/sopwith_cuckoo.php, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=4393296

Re: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #25 on: June 07, 2017, 05:54:49 AM »





Re: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #26 on: June 07, 2017, 09:29:41 AM »
I finally got to personally witness a SpaceX Falcon 9 launch and, even better, a landing of the first stage at the Cape last Saturday.  The first try on last Thursday was scrubbed due to weather (lightning strikes too near the pad) but I hung around until Saturday.  It was worth it!

The launch looked to be questionable for Saturday, again due to weather, but it was a "go" at the scheduled launch time.  Broken clouds, but I saw the Falcon break through the clouds and climb as a bright streak into the late afternoon sky.  I was at Port Canaveral, as it was about as close as you could get to the first stage landing site, without being at Cape Canaveral.  The launch was from Kennedy at the old Apollo, Shuttle launch pad 39A but the landing was a few miles away at Cape Canaveral.  A little over eight minutes after lift-off, I saw the first stage streaking through the clouds once again, and then gently touching down.  Soon after, the area was shaken by the sonic boom of the first stage return.  Wow!  Well worth seeing!  Way to go, SpaceX!



https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/6/15751008/spacex-falcon-9-landing-video-4k-60p-florida

Re: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #27 on: June 07, 2017, 06:20:52 PM »
I finally got to personally witness a SpaceX Falcon 9 launch and, even better, a landing of the first stage at the Cape last Saturday.  The first try on last Thursday was scrubbed due to weather (lightning strikes too near the pad) but I hung around until Saturday.  It was worth it!

The launch looked to be questionable for Saturday, again due to weather, but it was a "go" at the scheduled launch time.  Broken clouds, but I saw the Falcon break through the clouds and climb as a bright streak into the late afternoon sky.  I was at Port Canaveral, as it was about as close as you could get to the first stage landing site, without being at Cape Canaveral.  The launch was from Kennedy at the old Apollo, Shuttle launch pad 39A but the landing was a few miles away at Cape Canaveral.  A little over eight minutes after lift-off, I saw the first stage streaking through the clouds once again, and then gently touching down.  Soon after, the area was shaken by the sonic boom of the first stage return.  Wow!  Well worth seeing!  Way to go, SpaceX!



https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/6/15751008/spacex-falcon-9-landing-video-4k-60p-florida

That landing is fantastic.  The spitting image of those Moon and Mars landings from Sci Fi movies of the 1950's.

Re: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #28 on: June 07, 2017, 08:15:42 PM »
Here is an interesting glimpse into aircraft design, production (or lack thereof) and eventual non-utilization during World War One.  Introducing the Sopwith T.1 Cuckoo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sopwith_Cuckoo


T.1 Cuckoo.  By http://www.aviastar.org/air/england/sopwith_cuckoo.php, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=4393296

The Brits saw the potential for aerial torpedoes very early, and the RNAS sank the first ship in actual combat with the weapon in 1915.  As part of their Gallipoli campaign, they sent a small number of Shorts "hydroaeroplanes" with their fleet aboard what would later be called a seaplane tender.  They sank a small number of Turkish ships, including one struck by a torpedo launched from a taxiing Shorts after it had made a forced landing near its target!


Re: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #29 on: June 07, 2017, 08:24:25 PM »
The Brits saw the potential for aerial torpedoes very early, and the RNAS sank the first ship in actual combat with the weapon in 1915.  As part of their Gallipoli campaign, they sent a small number of Shorts "hydroaeroplanes" with their fleet aboard what would later be called a seaplane tender.  They sank a small number of Turkish ships, including one struck by a torpedo launched from a taxiing Shorts after it had made a forced landing near its target!

The Sopwith Rix pictured really doesn't look that terribly far behind the Swordfish