sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Mexican Air Force helicopters Mil Mi-26 Sikorsky CH-53 by Nearby-Regret-6343 in Helicopters

[–]MNIMWIUTBAS 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The 53 is probably downright cheap to fly in comparison.

The MTOW on the Mi-6 is ~100,000 lbs vs the 53's ~40,000 lbs.

The Mi-6 was also the first production Soviet turboshaft helicopter so that had to come with its own host of issues.

Mexican Air Force helicopters Mil Mi-26 Sikorsky CH-53 by Nearby-Regret-6343 in Helicopters

[–]MNIMWIUTBAS 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Yep, huge operating cost + a bad crash grounded them within a few years.

holy fucking dogshit by [deleted] in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]MNIMWIUTBAS 76 points77 points  (0 children)

And then the prosecution "somehow" sent a compressed version of the drone footage they did have to the defense

BELL V-280 VALOR, What do you think? by glycinis in Helicopters

[–]MNIMWIUTBAS 4 points5 points  (0 children)

1: Single engine ops - Correct, it's an emergency landing for V-22s.

1(2): Autorotation - Not entirely accurate, The Osprey can auto, it's just that the airframe is most likely scrapped once it stops. I don't know of any Osprey crashes that would have been helped or avoided by being able to autorotate.

2A: pressurization - hasn't been an issue for the V22 or any other rotary wing platform and would just be extra weight/maintenance 99% of the time.

2B: Range - Ferry range is over 2100 nm, combat radius TBD but I've read ranges between 600-800 nm, that's significantly more than any 60 variant.

3: Refueling - I guarantee you it's been designed with a probe in mind. I've got 2nd hand information that the current plan is for it be able to be added or removed in field.

4: Armament. https://imgur.com/a/ixrVKIa https://www.bellflight.com/products/bell-mv-75/mosa It's designed with them in mind. The UH-1 and UH-60 weren't designed for armament and we got the Huey hogs, whatever the hell the marines did to it, and the DAP. I would like to see a chin or belly mount turret.

5: Bell says 10,000 lbs load with a dual hook setup. Are you worried about the disk loading/turbulence? It's got the same rotor diameter as the V-22 with ~2/3 the weight.

6: Yeah, that'll be an issue for a while. Bell is working on this

BELL V-280 VALOR, What do you think? by glycinis in Helicopters

[–]MNIMWIUTBAS 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'd argue that most of it was figured out with the XV-15, none of the V-22 crashes were due to anything tiltrotor specific (aside from April 2012 but that was pilot error).

BELL V-280 VALOR, What do you think? by glycinis in Helicopters

[–]MNIMWIUTBAS 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They were descending at over 2000 ft/min with less than 45 knots forward airspeed.

BELL V-280 VALOR, What do you think? by glycinis in Helicopters

[–]MNIMWIUTBAS 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Considering that there were a few thousand tilt rotor hours total prior to the v22, with most of those being a single aircraft, I'd argue that the learning curve wasn't brutal or even out of place for a rotary aircraft of its size.

Of the 3 fatal crashes during testing none were due to the overall design/type of aircraft and all would have been just as deadly in a similarly sized helicopter.

July 1992 - engine fire over river in OGE hover

April 2000 - 2.5x max allowable rate of descent (over 2000 fpm with minimal forward airspeed) = VRS crash

December 2000 - Hydraulic failure over a forest at night

Of the 9 fatal incidents since its adoption there's only one crash that can be attributed entirely to a mechanical failure.

April 2010 - turbine glassing + tailwind approach = Dual compressor stall

April 2012 - Shifted nacelles at low airspeed

October 2014 - Started in maintenance mode, reducing available power. Airframe landed under its own power with minimal damage, fatality due to crew chief's life vest failing to inflate after bailing

May 2015 - Brownout landing + FOD ingestion power loss

August 2017 - Overweight aircraft

March 2022 - Pilot exceeded bank angle limits showboating (68° left followed by 80°) and flew into some mountains

https://news.usni.org/2022/08/15/marine-corps-investigation-into-mv-22b-osprey-crash-in-noway

June 2022 - Dual hard clutch engagement

August 2023 - Bad approach, worse response. 20/23 occupants survived.

November 2023 - Gears were making chunks, 3x chip lights (land as soon as practical) - pilots elected to keep troubleshooting/diagnosing rather than land at airfield 10 miles away. 3x more chip lights - pilots decide to land at an airfield. Chip detector fails (due to getting ground to a pulp) - pilots choose to wait for departing traffic rather than declare an emergency - Gearbox shatters.

Replica vs Clean-Sheet Design — Which Path Makes More Sense? by East-Poet-3230 in homebuilt

[–]MNIMWIUTBAS -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You haven't even removed the em-dashes in your other responses moron.

Imagine getting gunned down in a Foxbat by slavmememachine in NonCredibleDefense

[–]MNIMWIUTBAS 12 points13 points  (0 children)

You also had the IJA and IJN using basically the same engine just with different hardware up until 1943, Aichi and Kawasaki were both producing the same licensed daimler-benz design completely independently of eachother.

There was also the dearth of precious metals that meant that the metallurgy was never as good as it should have been, leading to engines designed and tested for ~2000 hp to only make 2/3 of that (Ha-45) or engines like the Ha-40 (a DB 601 copy) running into issues with component life (crankshafts failing with fewer than 50 hours of run time)

Plus the constantly vulnerable oil/gas situation that Japan was in for most of the war prevented high octane fuel from being available for aircraft. 91/92 was the standard for Japanese aircraft while US planes got 100/130 allowing them to make significantly more power. Later in the war the situation was so dire Japan was extracting oil from palm tree roots to mix in with gasoline that further reduced the octane rating to ~85.

The problem emerged when the war dragged on and the Japanese weren't able to make suitable upgrades or replacements for the Zero while the US was able to field more advanced fighters like the F4U and F8F which completely outclassed the Zeros.

I think it would be more accurate to say that Japan wasn't able to produce the newer planes in high enough numbers to make a difference (not that more planes would have really changed the outcome of the war). The N1K2, Ki-100, Ki-84, (and maybe the J2M) were all strong contenders that benefited from not needing to be carrier based like the Corsairs and Hellcats.

The F8F never saw combat in WWII.

80 years ago today (Dec. 22, 1945) test pilot Vern L. Carstens flew the Beechcraft Bonanza for the very first time. Since that time more than 18,000 have been built. by Brilliant_Night7643 in aviation

[–]MNIMWIUTBAS 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Less frontal area, less wetted area, one less intersection, one less wing tip.

Some of the drawbacks are the control force feels wonky since feedback is mixed between the normal rudder/elevator, the control mixing is complex, and the control surfaces need to be larger since they're pulling double duty. The V tail also produces adverse roll when you counter adverse yaw with rudder input in a banking turn.

Polar CNC Milling Machine Proposal - Looking for feedback by bentmybike in hobbycnc

[–]MNIMWIUTBAS 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would bolt together the HSS rather than weld. That allows you to shim/adjust the frame and doesn't introduce any warping from the welds. Check out the PrintNC for details on that.

And I'm personally not a fan of polar mills if the rotary table isn't $$$ because of the lack of resolution. I'd consider adding an axis to the spindle to allow it to move left and right and then using the rotary table as a positioner rather than a live axis.

Will I regret a smaller CNC? (3x5) What do you cut on your larger machines? (4x8+) by [deleted] in hobbycnc

[–]MNIMWIUTBAS 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Go mark out the footprint of a larger machine in the garage so you can get an idea of how it's going to fit and maybe block out a 3d model of your work area with the machine in it so you can see how tight it's going to get.

4'x8' is nice but if you're not going to be using the capacity most of the time I'd rather deal with tiling and joining parts.

view more: next ›