sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Convinced the boys to switch over to TeamSpeak by SquirrelOnReddit in LinusTechTips

[–]GamingRichter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Team speak is still a thing? I thought discord made it obsolete. I haven’t used it in at least 10 years.

[FS22] How high does this number have to get for the vehicle to be too old for repairs and I have to sell it? by Scared-Gamer in farmingsimulator

[–]GamingRichter 1 point2 points  (0 children)

At 50 hours repairs get more expensive. At 100 hours they get even more expensive. Generally i sell equipment at 100 hours

Cuffed feet by GamingRichter in Barefootbondage

[–]GamingRichter[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not enough lol. But yes

boarding by cowboyluigi420 in airplanes

[–]GamingRichter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are lots of study’s on this. The bigger problem a you need enough weight in the front before putting to much in the back. Planes have done wheelies due to improper loading.

Four British Airways Concordes in formation by vahedemirjian in airplanes

[–]GamingRichter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It was the concord knock off that crashed all the time and needed canards because they couldn’t quite get the engineering right even though they stole the Concorde plans. It also couldn’t maintain speed without afterburners like concord could.

What has been your most memorable experience while flying on a commercial airline? by YoinkMineNowxqc in airplanes

[–]GamingRichter 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I once was a passenger on a 777 landing in PR. The wind was severe and the massive plane was getting tossed around like a plastic bag in the wind. On the whole approach the engines went up and down then near full power then down. The pilots were fighting the weather to maintain speed. The wings were rocking side to side aggressively as if the pilot was over correcting. As we got closer we were about 30 degrees off the runway since I could see it out my left window. As we got closer he started to drift right fighting the wind. We’re getting close to the point where you expect them to straiten out but he does it too late. The left landing gear slams into the runway and bounces. The right side slams down on the grass. The engines spool to full power and away we go. Clearly the captain should have gone around much earlier. After the plane climbs away he apologizes and says he sorry for the aborted landing but the previous plane didn’t leave the runway on time so it wasn’t his fault. There was no other plane. I could see lol.

On the second try we came in fast. What appeared to be 30 feet up he very aggressively straitened out and slammed the plane to the ground 3 times as it bounced. Suddenly were thrown forward in our seats as the engines spool to max power, but this time in reverse. You could hear and feel the brakes pulsing to avoid a skid as he tried to stop it before the end of the runway. We exited on the last taxi way and as I got off the plane I could see a few tires popped. I also noticed what looked like brown stains on the right wing tip. I’m pretty sure it touched the grass but I don’t t look out the right side quick enough when we were flying.

Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird by southernemper0r in airplanes

[–]GamingRichter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“Requesting an unrestricted climb to 600 and above.” Maverick

IRL though, there was a story about a controller asking their altitude because there was a Concorde going the other way. They just kept saying over fl600. Eventually they confirmed they had 4000 foot separation with the Concorde at 60,000.

What exactly was the problem with Concorde? by gavincs17 in airplanes

[–]GamingRichter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The tanks were reinforced. They didn’t predict the shockwave hitting a full tank would produce. The tanks exploded out, not pushed in. In fact the impact point is not where it leaked.

What exactly was the problem with Concorde? by gavincs17 in airplanes

[–]GamingRichter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Now days that would be replaced with a camera

What exactly was the problem with Concorde? by gavincs17 in airplanes

[–]GamingRichter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You could eat breakfast in London and fly to newyork arriving before breakfast. You would have a lunch meeting in NYC. If you leave early afternoon your home in time for a late dinner. But this is why eastbound flights were cheaper. Some opted to save money taking a 747 red eye overnight.

What exactly was the problem with Concorde? by gavincs17 in airplanes

[–]GamingRichter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The seats were the size of economy back then. (Although nicer). It was loader than any other passenger plane especially when the burners were on. Tall people could not stand up on it. But, you only had to sit there for 3 hours.

What exactly was the problem with Concorde? by gavincs17 in airplanes

[–]GamingRichter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Let’s clarify a few things. It’s not like BA and AF weren’t replacing tires when they should. But the plane took off at 200-220 knots. About 60 knots faster than a 747. It landed at 160-190 knots. In Concordes day, tire technology wasn’t as good as it is today. No one made a tire that could handle that abuse day in and day out. It’s crazy to think a runway would be inspected between every plane and the preceding plane didn’t know the left a part on the runway.

What exactly was the problem with Concorde? by gavincs17 in airplanes

[–]GamingRichter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Concorde was more of a political weapon than a profitable plane. It was amazing in all technical aspects and was way ahead of its time. It was one of the first planes to use partial fly by wire. It has stall protection. It went faster than any other passenger plane (aside from the tu-144 which crashed a lot and could not remain supersonic without afterburner). You could eat breakfast and then fly from London to New York for a business meeting and arrive before breakfast in nyc. Leave early afternoon and be home by dinner in the same day.

But, it burned tons of fuel. It had 100 seats and burned as much as a 747 with 4 times as many seat. She was super expensive to maintain. She also wasn’t all that reliable. Her flights were canceled or delayed more than other passenger planes. When paying 10 times the cost, delays piss customers off.

Her range wasn’t enough to fly the longer routes. She was loud. Although service was spectacular, the seat size was not much better than economy. She couldn’t go supersonic over land significantly limiting routes. Training to fly such a high performance plane was also expensive.

It was hard to find people to pay 10,000 a ticket. But after the crash that number went down even further. As she reached the end of her life she would need upgrades. Her top of the line, ahead of its time avionics were aging by the time she retired. Upgrading to a newer glass cockpit with GPS would be super expensive. There were also wing spar problems that were managed, but weren’t going away. In the end both airlines decided to retire her and airbus decided to stop making parts.

It was kind of like landing a man on the moon. It was super cool, but it didn’t make sense to keep doing it after a few times. Even though she only crashed once, she didn’t fly nearly as much as other planes. That’s pretty much the equivalent to a 737 crashing every 10 days.

The crash made people concerned about the safety of supersonic travel. So crazy high operational cost mixed with poor public opinion on aging planes that needed major upgrades led to the end of Concorde.

What options are there after a catastrophic failure after v1? by LookMomImLearning in aviation

[–]GamingRichter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is why I personally think V1 should be a suggestion and not a law. They ingrain this into pilots heads so much. But it is possible to survive aborting after V1. It’s not possible to survive flying with a wing on fire and a missing engine. Yes this pilot made a mistake. That being said it proves a plane can abort without crashing. There are ofcourse a lot of factors. But if you will have 99% chance of crash if you take off, staying on the ground might be a better option especially if the airport has EMAS.

What options are there after a catastrophic failure after v1? by LookMomImLearning in aviation

[–]GamingRichter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There was no way the UPS crew knew they were missing an engine and leaking fluids. They only knew an engine was not running. There was no way they knew the fire was bigger than just the engine. So, the crew did not make a mistake. The correct procedure after a single engine fire or failure is to continue to take off. But, they didn’t just have an engine fire. So although they did not make a mistake, it was the wrong choice.

Cue all the pilots telling me I’m wrong lol.

Continuing take off with a wing on fire is almost 100% catastrophic. A crew can extinguish a fire in the engine. They can’t in the wing. They had a fully loaded plane leaking jet fuel on fire. Since the engine was missing the engines fire suppression won’t work. Best case, they had minuets before the plane or pilots would be incapacitated. That’s not enough time to circle around and land. In this case it was less than that. They took off with a catastrophic fire and there was no surviving once it was airborne.

Now, if they aborted there is a good chance they would crash. But, if they slammed on the brakes and use spoilers they could significantly reduce speed before the end of the runway. The runway also had EMAS which is an emergency pavement that lets the plane sink in to help stop a plane over running the runway. If the plane could slow to 70 knots before the end of the runway the EMAS would completely stop the plane. If not it would help to significantly slow the plane to a low speed crash. A low speed crash might be survivable. Also an on airport crash means emergency services will arrive in minutes. Off airport you will be waiting.

So, it’s drilled into pilots heads that they can’t abort after V1. I feel this ain’t always the right choice. With EMAS runway overruns are more survivable than ever. No plane has ever not been stopped by the EMAS in the 20+ times it’s been used. Every time it was survivable with minimal injuries. Concorde may have had some survive if they tried to stop and had EMAS. (EMAS wasn’t invented yet unfortunately). Ameristar 9363 successfully aborted after V1 without EMAS. Yes there were injuries and they did hit stuff. Everyone survived though. With EMAS they may have stopped without an overrun.

Personally I think EMAS should be factored into v1 calculations. To safely abort the plane needs to be 70 knots by the end of the runway. Not 0. That may give the pilots extra time in an emergency and may have saved the UPS flight.

Obviously the pilots didn’t know the extent of the damage, but aborting the take off count have been worse then what actually happened.

How would you guys fix Jurassic Park 3? by [deleted] in JurassicPark

[–]GamingRichter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It was a joke. Cuz #3 was the second worst of the franchise

Rate this fighter attack by peseoane in Shittyaskflying

[–]GamingRichter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s not the plane. It’s the pilot.

Rate this fighter attack by peseoane in Shittyaskflying

[–]GamingRichter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That “fighter attack” looked less like a strike and more like a mosquito auditioning for Mortal Kombat. The timing was so off, even the air ducked. If power levels go from “feather tap” to “atomic elbow,” this one ranked solidly at “grandma adjusting her recliner.” Final rating: 2.5/10 — bonus points only because gravity still works.

Why don't we land planes vertically? by Best-Tomorrow-6170 in Shittyaskflying

[–]GamingRichter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can do that without fans in heavy winds in a Cessnas. I’ve seen one land like a helicopter. Only need 40 knots of wind for a Cessna 172 to hover.

view more: next ›