Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Some Inspiration for BoeingBobby

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 3WE
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan
    I certainly won't be setting foot on [Starship]. It's a BF Deathtrap.

    Leave a comment:


  • BoeingBobby
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post

    Ugh, your are correct sir. L-4. I had Junkers on the brain.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAf0maieLjs
    Thanks so much for that. What a fabulous story.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post

    Reference please. And probably an L-4 if true.
    Ugh, your are correct sir. L-4. I had Junkers on the brain.

    Find out what happened when a US Army Grasshopper spotter plane came face-to-face with its German counterpart, the Fieseler 156 Storch in the skies over wait...


    Not exactly top gun but a much better storyline.

    Leave a comment:


  • BoeingBobby
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post

    The only plane to ever lose to a cub (J-4) in a WWII dogfight.
    Reference please. And probably an L-4 if true.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

    Ah, the Fieseler Storch. The plane with a stall speed of "no, thank you".
    The only plane to ever lose to a cub (L-4) in a WWII dogfight.

    Leave a comment:


  • BoeingBobby
    replied
    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

    Ah, the Fieseler Storch. The plane with a stall speed of "no, thank you".

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post

    Or a Storch, if you're flying over die Heimatland.
    Ah, the Fieseler Storch. The plane with a stall speed of "no, thank you".

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
    And for you LH, there is nothing like a Cub. Except maybe a Stearman.
    Or a Storch, if you're flying over die Heimatland.

    Leave a comment:


  • BoeingBobby
    replied
    And for you LH, there is nothing like a Cub. Except maybe a Stearman.

    Leave a comment:


  • BoeingBobby
    replied
    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG-20230116-WA0031.jpg
Views:	48
Size:	119.0 KB
ID:	1159388 Early morning over Vulcan. Nothing like a sunrise flight with two suns!

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

    Remember that the ultimate plan with this ship is going to Mars. That's why an escape system or recovery parachutes don't make sense. They won't save you there and even if you survive the "ejection", what are you going to do the next day? Grow potatoes? That's also why they were testing the possibility of taking off from a simple platforms. Building giant deflectors in Mars can be a... complication.
    True. That’s why they chose methane as well, which can be synthesized from CO2 on Mars. But the launch escape system is still needed to get off Earth. It is there to protect the crew if the booster goes awry, and the booster doesn’t go to Mars. You don’t need a reflector for 33 engines there either. Also, both Dragon and Starliner use a ‘pusher’ type system that might work on Mars. As for the potatoes, remember that Elon thinks he’s building a colony there. Never mind reality.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    But the gargantuan elephant in the room is that, unlike Dragon, Starliner and Orion, 'Starship' has no launch escape system. Did we learn the lesson from Challenger? Apparently not. Any man-capable rocket should have this requirement. I certainly won't be setting foot on Starship. It's a BF Deathtrap.
    Remember that the ultimate plan with this ship is going to Mars. That's why an escape system or recovery parachutes don't make sense. They won't save you there and even if you survive the "ejection", what are you going to do the next day? Grow potatoes? That's also why they were testing the possibility of taking off from a simple platforms. Building giant deflectors in Mars can be a... complication.

    Leave a comment:


  • LH-B744
    replied
    Ahm. Imho, a LH-B744 doesn't contain rocket science. If we talk about
    Elon
    I'm out.

    I hope he likes it nice and boring on the A320.
    Some people in Germany call it a bus driver. But I like bus drivers, not only because of the following video. Last but not least also because the LH CEO is a 'bus driver' .
    If this 'vehicule' (p3dv4 language) would be my daily background as a bus driver,
    I wouldn't complain either.
    Invented in 1977, this rather long vehicule somehow has survived until today (!), but afaik, they look for a sponsor to at least get all the four axles going again.

    In my eyes, the livery is nice, also if with a small LH sponsor sticker on it...
    Afaik, in April 2023 the huge V10 truck diesel is running (originally with a V12 diesel), but it might be the gearbox, something prevents him from entering the streets again. Here finally the video.
    http://www.treberhilfe-dresden.de/ Jumbocruiser turn out a very small street in Dresden when people have party on cityfestival "Bunte Republik Neustadt".


    Boring bus drivers? Tse, not necessarily. I'd say it depends on the bus. Compare 737 and 320 and 330,
    which one is the most boring bus?

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
    Bobby,
    How do you fancy 33 rocket engines and 15,000,000 lb of thrust?
    27 and 13,500,000 lbs. We only count the ones that actually work (for at least 30 seconds).

    I really question the wisdom behind the Big Fcked Rocket. Modular concept. The bigger the rocket, the more engines used. More engines = more complexity. More complexity = more opportunity for failure. Redundancy? I guess that depends on which ones fail. You have a Big Fcked Rocket, not fin stabilized, using gimballed engines for flight control. But only some are gimballed while the others are just dumb thrusters. So, when you lose five all on side plus a gimbal, does the thrust asymmetry exceed the remaining thrust vectoring ability? Is this the rocket version of Vmca, only in terms of minimum engines rather than minimum airspeed?

    The Raptor itself is a marvelous bit of kit, nearly matching the thrust of NASA's RS-25 at about half the weight. Sure, it's dirtier methane, but when you bundle enough of them together, you don't need those filthy solid rocket boosters to get off the pad. But then there's the complexity and redundancy nightmare... It's too bad SpaceX didn't opt to use the Raptor tech to build an engine at the F1 scale (used on the Saturn V). They would still need 10 of them though.

    I suspect the loss of 6 engines might have something to do with Elon's brutal production schedule and cheapness demands. For-profit space travel. Or maybe it had to do with none of these rocket scientists considering what 15,000,000 ibs of thrust might do to a concrete structure without a water deluge system: collateral damage?

    But the gargantuan elephant in the room is that, unlike Dragon, Starliner and Orion, 'Starship' has no launch escape system. Did we learn the lesson from Challenger? Apparently not. Any man-capable rocket should have this requirement. I certainly won't be setting foot on Starship. It's a BF Deathtrap.

    Leave a comment:


  • LH-B744
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    Łukasz Czepiela, a Polish A320 captain and Red Bull aerobatics pilot, lands a cub on the Burj Al Arab Jumeirah hotel helipad. But, big deal, it had a posh electrical system (and brakes, I assume). And then he takes off again.

    My father told me when he began his flight training in the USAF, they taught him how to practically hover under strong headwinds in the cub.

    But this is some next level cowboy sh*t. I hope he likes it nice and boring on the A320.

    [...]
    As Brian has shown me, youtube is not only good for music (!).

    The Piper j3-Cub, as I assume. But what I don't quite understand until today, why is his inspiration for Bob, only?

    I know one or two a/c manufacturers who I know from inside: Boeing, Airbus, Cessna, ... and yes, that's my limit until today, all of them only as a 737 passenger, 320 passenger,
    right seat on a Cessna sighseeing flight, 747 'passenger' on the D-ABYM LH-B742 museum jet with a fascinating look into the LH-B742 cockpit,

    but I can swear, I've never seen a Piper J3-Cub from inside. I've just opened again my fsx to see why I know the Piper J3-Cub, but even in fsx I rather preferred the Cessna types,
    and the Beech Baron 58.

    Is the Piper J3-Cub really the easiest a/c which we can imagine, easier than a C172?

    PS: Good that Randazzo sells products with a bank angle limiter....
    Now that I've opened the video, alot of things come to my mind, don't try this at home (if your father owns a J3 Cub), or your mother will make big eyes when you fall off the roof together with the Cub onto the car port (I've seen alot of videos...), ... 27 meter ... and even an A320 Flight Captain fails on first attempt, good that for his first attempt he used the EDDL 23L ...
    And finally, 27 meter. That's if you try to land a cub on the upper deck of a LH-B744 (cp my avatar). Which for me as a 747 passenger would be an occasion where I make big eyes, when you try to land a Cub on a B744 in midair. I'd assume that the speed difference is a little bit too much for the Cub...
    Last edited by LH-B744; 2023-04-27, 00:42. Reason: Don't try this at home.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X