PDA

View Full Version : Great...now my plane is gonna be refueled by a ****ing FRENCH PLANE!!!



SoonerStormchaser
2/29/2008, 07:22 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/29/air.force.tankers/index.html


:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:


Let's recap.
France hates us...Germany hates us...France and Germany own the majority of Airbus. So how do we repay their backstabbing us over Iraq? BY BUYING THEIR PLANES FOR OUR MILITARY!:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


This decision is sickening! And I'm royally ****ed (in case you couldn't tell).

Jerk
2/29/2008, 08:21 PM
You do realize that both France and Germany have recently elected right-wing leaders who are more pro-American?

AlbqSooner
2/29/2008, 08:31 PM
Actually the DOD would be buying planes from Northup Grumman, a very American company. NG would be buying planes from EADS and fitting them to the appropriate specifications.

SoonerStormchaser
2/29/2008, 09:00 PM
I don't care that we're buying from NG...the only way Airbus had a prayer of this contract was to get into bed with either NG or LM. NG being part of this deal doesn't take away from the fact that it's a POS airplane!

Jerk
2/29/2008, 09:10 PM
I don't care that we're buying from NG...the only way Airbus had a prayer of this contract was to get into bed with either NG or LM. NG being part of this deal doesn't take away from the fact that it's a POS airplane!

I heard they use Elmer's Glue to glue the verticle stab on the tail.

SoonerStormchaser
2/29/2008, 09:13 PM
That would explain AA587.

Jerk
2/29/2008, 09:21 PM
That would explain AA587.
I assume that's the one I'm talking about, too. The one that went down in NYC circa 2002. Did the NTSB ever figure out why the vertical stab broke off?

Can you imagine being the PIC of an airplane that has had a total catastrophic structural failure? It would be teh suck, because pilots are control freaks, and when you're 'in for the ride,' it's time to convert to the Baptist Church.

That's why I would not fly hot-air baloons. I'm not a Baptists.

mdklatt
2/29/2008, 09:21 PM
That would explain AA587.

A misunderstanding of certification standards regarding maneuvering speed and the rapid stop-to-stop deflection of control surfaces would explain AA587.

Jerk
2/29/2008, 09:25 PM
A misunderstanding of certification standards regarding maneuvering speed and the rapid stop-to-stop deflection of control surfaces would explain AA587.

Speaking of verticle stabs, did 'they' ever figure out what was going on with the 737's? I recall one crash in Penn. and another in Colorado as a result of tail/rudder failure.

reevie
2/29/2008, 09:28 PM
NG being part of this deal doesn't take away from the fact that it's a POS airplane!


That's why the 767 is disappearing from the commercial world in favor of the A330...


The aircraft will be finished (militarized) in Mobile, AL. The economic impact to the Bay Area is going to absurd. That noise you hear in the Southeast is their property values doubling right now. This deal would have no real economic impact to Seattle, maybe a some to Wichita.

Boeing made a strategic mistake in choosing the 767 over the 777 and it the end, that may have cost them this contract. But keep in mind, the KC-X is step one. In about 10 to 15 years the Air Force will send out a Request for Proposal on the KC-Y and then the KC-Z a few years later. I would expect Boeing to get their act together and win at least one of those.

mdklatt
2/29/2008, 09:28 PM
Speaking of verticle stabs, did 'they' ever figure out what was going on with the 737's? I recall one crash in Penn. and another in Colorado as a result of tail/rudder failure.

The two theories are an uncommanded full-scale rudder deflection, and turbulence (a rotor cloud in CO, and wake turbulence outside of PIT). I don't remember what the NTSB finally concluded, but you can look it up on their web site.

reevie
2/29/2008, 09:30 PM
Speaking of verticle stabs, did 'they' ever figure out what was going on with the 737's? I recall one crash in Penn. and another in Colorado as a result of tail/rudder failure.

Yep, I think they figured that out. Had to do with screw threads or something like that coming out of alignment in certain conditions. They put in some plug to keep it from happening.

Jerk
2/29/2008, 09:32 PM
The two theories are an uncommanded full-scale rudder deflection, and turbulence (a rotor cloud in CO, and wake turbulence outside of PIT). I don't remember what the NTSB finally concluded, but you can look it up on their web site.

I can only imagine that an 'uncommanded full-scale rudder deflection' would happen in a fly-by-wire system. But my mind is soaked with alcohol.

When flying RC airplanes, if the control surfaces 'flutter,' it is bad news, and usually results in the airplane ripping itself apart.

Jerk
2/29/2008, 09:33 PM
Yep, I think they figured that out. Had to do with screw threads or something like that coming out of alignment in certain conditions. They put in some plug to keep it from happening.

These would be screws on the hinges of the rudder/vert. stab?

mdklatt
2/29/2008, 09:37 PM
I assume that's the one I'm talking about, too. The one that went down in NYC circa 2002. Did the NTSB ever figure out why the vertical stab broke off?


Pilot action. I don't say error, because the pilots did what they were trained to do. Every pilot knows that if you're below maneuvering speed you can't break the plane no matter how hard you yank on the controls, right? It turns out there's some fine print in the certification standards. Rapid full-scale rudder deflection from one side to the other is one of those exceptions. The pilots of AA587 hit some wake turbulence as they were climbing out, and did what there were trained to do, which is to use whatever control deflection is necessary to maintain control. Airlines have modified their unusual attitude training due to this accident. You can't break the wings below Va because the plane will stall first, but that's not necessary true with the tail surfaces.

SoonerStormchaser
2/29/2008, 09:39 PM
AA587 was a combination of the co-pilot (the PIC at the time) using some unusual rudder deflection maneuvers to get through the wake of a JAL 747-400 that had taken off right before it. Unfortunately for him and the rest of the passengers, the A300 tail wasn't built to withstand those stresses (later tests showed all Boeing widebodies would've withstood those same stresses)...thus the new definition to OH SNAP!

mdklatt
2/29/2008, 09:40 PM
I can only imagine that an 'uncommanded full-scale rudder deflection' would happen in a fly-by-wire system.

Nope. It was documented on Boeings other than the two that crashed, but the pilots were able to regain control. I'm not sure if they could determine for sure that's what happened with the 737s. Boeing did come up with a fix for the rudder problem.

reevie
2/29/2008, 09:40 PM
These would be screws on the hinges of the rudder/vert. stab?

Screws that turn/move the actuator that controls the rudder/stab

sooneron
2/29/2008, 09:41 PM
I can only imagine that an 'uncommanded full-scale rudder deflection' would happen in a fly-by-wire system. But my mind is soaked with alcohol.

When flying RC airplanes, if the control surfaces 'flutter,' it is bad news, and usually results in the airplane ripping itself apart.
YOu fly RC planes?

Jerk
2/29/2008, 09:43 PM
Pilot action. I don't say error, because the pilots did what they were trained to do. Every pilot knows that if you're below maneuvering speed you can't break the plane no matter how hard you yank on the controls, right? It turns out there's some fine print in the certification standards. Rapid full-scale rudder deflection from one side to the other is one of those exceptions. The pilots of AA587 hit some wake turbulence as they were climbing out, and did what there were trained to do, which is to use whatever control deflection is necessary to maintain control. Airlines have modified their unusual attitude training due to this accident. You can't break the wings below Va because the plane will stall first, but that's not necessary true with the tail surfaces.

OK, gotcha. You'd think the tail surfaces would be alot more stout simply because they are much shorter than the wing.

Turd_Ferguson
2/29/2008, 09:50 PM
I thought I had read somewhere that Tinker was getting quite a few KC-10's from Cali, to replace the 135's? I saw one of the 10's last month coming in across 40 in full landing config.......that mother****er was huge!

reevie
2/29/2008, 09:56 PM
There are no KC-10s moving in and the 135s are staying put.

Jerk
2/29/2008, 10:00 PM
YOu fly RC planes? No in 4 years, but I still own 2 quarter scales.. An Ultimate and an Extra 300. Both have Saito 1.8's which turn their 18" props around 9,000 rpm.

I want to get back into it, but I'm buying gun stuff because after you demos take over that will all be baned. :)

2009 I plan on flying RC again.

Turd_Ferguson
2/29/2008, 10:01 PM
There are no KC-10s moving in and the 135s are staying put.Thanks....this is what I had seen. http://www.tinker.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123086463

sooneron
2/29/2008, 10:02 PM
No in 4 years, but I still own 2 quarter scales.. An Ultimate and an Extra 300. Both have Saito 1.8's which turn their 18" props around 9,000 rpm.

I want to get back into it, but I'm buying gun stuff because after you demos take over that will all be baned. :)

2009 I plan on flying RC again.
Just curious as I have a proto in my posession. Very cool new controller. They're batt operated at the moment. I'm not sure when they'll release fuel. BIG release coming up. This controller is winning over the hardcore old school guys.

reevie
2/29/2008, 10:07 PM
Thanks....this is what I had seen. http://www.tinker.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123086463


Ah, that's just talk about bringing the 10's in for routine paint jobs. They'll come get, get re-painted and go back home. So yeah, they're not coming in to replace the 135.

Jerk
2/29/2008, 10:10 PM
Just curious as I have a proto in my posession. Very cool new controller. They're batt operated at the moment. I'm not sure when they'll release fuel. BIG release coming up. This controller is winning over the hardcore old school guys.
I've been out so long that I have no clue as to what you you're talking about. Is this a single stick controller? I learned on the standard: rudder and throttle on the left stick, aileron and elevator on the right stick. As long as you can do what you want to with the airplane, it should make no difference.

Here is a pic of my Extra from 2001. I believe the wingspan is 80", weight is around 12 pounds.

http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/9966/curtbh2.jpg

Ruuuuuufus
2/29/2008, 10:13 PM
funny story... years ago there were quite a few 737 fuselages that were damaged in transport from Wichita to Renton. By damaged, I mean they picked up a few bullet holes while on the trains. Makes me wonder what's going to happen when this new equipment has to leave Mobile.

sooneron
2/29/2008, 10:13 PM
Damn, those be like real planes!


This is a stick controller - think of the Wii. It's that easy to use. A big issue with the makers is retention. One kid buys one of your types of controllers and they get frustrated. Little frustration with these. We're doing a commercial for them.


D

Jerk
2/29/2008, 10:17 PM
Wow! The technology in RC is getting absurd. I talked to Mike McMurty (who ownes Mike's Model's in OKC, and his son is one of the world's best RC pilots and has worked for the .gov flying drones) and he told me about this new radio that requires no frequency tag. A thousand people can fly with this radio and they won't interfere with the other aircraft.

sooneron
2/29/2008, 10:19 PM
Wow! The technology in RC is getting absurd. I talked to Mike McMurty (who ownes Mike's Model's in OKC, and his son is one of the world's best RC pilots and has worked for the .gov flying drones) and he told me about this new radio that requires no frequency tag. A thousand people can fly with this radio and they won't interfere with the other aircraft.
That is cool.

Jerk
2/29/2008, 10:22 PM
RC airplanes are so much more fun than rifles. However, the thing about it is this: I can drop a few grand on an airplane and it can go *poof* at any time. I can drop a few grand on a rifle and I plan on willing it to my grandkids.

My random thought of the day.

sooneron
2/29/2008, 10:24 PM
I was gonna ask you that. Have you ever or how does it feel to lose a man out there?

Turd_Ferguson
2/29/2008, 10:30 PM
I bought my first RC about 7 years ago. I had a blast building it. Flying it was another story. I think I lost about 8 pounds during the first 5 minutes of flight. I was shakin like a dog ****'n a peach seed. Like Jerk said, I was skeered of seeing all of that hard work and money go poof! It finally happened....I augered her in on about the 3rd flight:mad:

Jerk
2/29/2008, 10:35 PM
I was gonna ask you that. Have you ever or how does it feel to lose a man out there?

Yes, I crashed a Carl Goldberg Ultimate 1.20 into lake Hefner back in 1993. A fisherman brought it to shore, and the motherf***er wanted money. The funey thing was, that there was no wind that day, and the water was dead still, and that little 12 oz. fuel tank made an oil spill that looked like the fkn Exxon Valdize.

sooneron
2/29/2008, 10:42 PM
Yes, I crashed a Carl Goldberg Ultimate 1.20 into lake Hefner back in 1993. A fisherman brought it to shore, and the motherf***er wanted money. The funey thing was, that there was no wind that day, and the water was dead still, and that little 12 oz. fuel tank made an oil spill that looked like the fkn Exxon Valdize.
:les: ECO-TERRORIST!!!!!

sooneron
2/29/2008, 10:43 PM
I bought my first RC about 7 years ago. I had a blast building it. Flying it was another story. I think I lost about 8 pounds during the first 5 minutes of flight. I was shakin like a dog ****'n a peach seed. Like Jerk said, I was skeered of seeing all of that hard work and money go poof! It finally happened....I augered her in on about the 3rd flight:mad:
With this new system, you won't be frustrated, of course, they're going after the kiddo market first. Most models will be around $40.

Jerk
2/29/2008, 10:46 PM
With this new system, you won't be frustrated, of course, they're going after the kiddo market first. Most models will be around $40.

eeee!!! $40? The servo that controls the rudder on the Extra (pictured above) was over $100 :(

Turd_Ferguson
2/29/2008, 10:50 PM
Speaking of "Pilot Error", watch the screwup on the throttles. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI5xTmmPbsY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI5xTmmPbsY) (C-5 crash at Dover AFB) By the way, can any of you Air Force ****** *******'s tell me what they are saying at about 30 seconds in? Sounds like "down in the line go pop":confused:

sooneron
2/29/2008, 10:55 PM
eeee!!! $40? The servo that controls the rudder on the Extra (pictured above) was over $100 :(
They use two engines to steer.

Jerk
2/29/2008, 10:56 PM
When he says 'we've got nothing left' I assume that this means that they are low and behind the power curve. Bad news. Did anyone survive?

Jerk
2/29/2008, 11:01 PM
Turd - I was never IFR rated, but why was the airplane so far below the G/S to begin with?

sooneron
2/29/2008, 11:02 PM
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=821230

Turd_Ferguson
2/29/2008, 11:10 PM
Turd - I was never IFR rated, but why was the airplane so far below the G/S to begin with? They lost the #2 on take off. They were fully loaded headed to the ME. I think the altitude they were at when they initiated return to base just brought them in lower than normal to intercept the glide slope. The PIC throttled back to idle while turning for final and once the flaps were extended he throttled back up with #1,2&4 leaving #3 at idle...doh! From my knowledge, they all survived. Some had pretty bad injuries though. Pictures of crash (http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123018520)

Jerk
2/29/2008, 11:40 PM
They lost the #2 on take off. They were fully loaded headed to the ME. I think the altitude they were at when they initiated return to base just brought them in lower than normal to intercept the glide slope. The PIC throttled back to idle while turning for final and once the flaps were extended he throttled back up with #1,2&4 leaving #3 at idle...doh! From my knowledge, they all survived. Some had pretty bad injuries though. Pictures of crash (http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123018520)
Ok, you're right about them all survivng: I looked it up. That's messed up about the PIC forgetting which engine was dead when he throttled up, because I can see how this can easily happen in a stressful and confusing environment, such as losing an engine on take-off in a 4-engine airplane. That excuse probably didn't keep him from losing his wings.

When he says 'we have nothing left,' he doesn't realize he has power to only two engines..not three like he thought.

Jerk
2/29/2008, 11:45 PM
Ron - here is the controller I use. Contrast just how different it is than they one you're working on:

http://www.rocousa.com/Futaba/futj87_150h.gif

Turd_Ferguson
2/29/2008, 11:47 PM
Ok, you're right about them all survivng: I looked it up. That's messed up about the PIC forgetting which engine was dead when he throttled up, because I can see how this can easily happen in a stressful and confusing environment, such as losing an engine on take-off in a 4-engine airplane. That excuse probably didn't keep him from losing his wings.

When he says 'we have nothing left,' he doesn't realize he has power to only two engines..not three like he thought. Yeah, I'm sure these guy's are constantly drilled on engine out take off's and landings. Wich reminds me of this little zanger....

A reader wrote us, retelling the story about the military pilot calling ATC for a priority landing because his single-engine jet fighter was running "a bit peaked." ATC told the fighter jock that he was number two behind a B-52 that had one shut down.

"Ah," the pilot remarked, "the dreaded seven-engine approach!":D

Jerk
2/29/2008, 11:48 PM
Yeah, I'm sure these guy's are constantly drilled on engine out take off's and landings. Wich reminds me of this little zanger....

A reader wrote us, retelling the story about the military pilot calling ATC for a priority landing because his single-engine jet fighter was running "a bit peaked." ATC told the fighter jock that he was number two behind a B-52 that had one shut down.

"Ah," the pilot remarked, "the dreaded seven-engine approach!":D
That reminds me of the story of the missed B-52 approach, when the PIC yells, "Everyone grab a throttle! We're going around!!"

(for anyone reading this who doesn't know, the 52 has 8 engines, therefore 8 throttles)

yermom
3/1/2008, 02:06 AM
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=821230

that looks like fun...

SoonerStormchaser
3/1/2008, 10:49 AM
Jeez...this thread took on a life of it's own. :rolleyes:

Frozen Sooner
3/1/2008, 11:39 AM
Yeah, I'm sure these guy's are constantly drilled on engine out take off's and landings. Wich reminds me of this little zanger....

A reader wrote us, retelling the story about the military pilot calling ATC for a priority landing because his single-engine jet fighter was running "a bit peaked." ATC told the fighter jock that he was number two behind a B-52 that had one shut down.

"Ah," the pilot remarked, "the dreaded seven-engine approach!":D

Heh. That's good stuff right there.

sooneron
3/1/2008, 10:51 PM
Jeez...this thread took on a life of it's own. :rolleyes:
YOu're surprised?


noob:rolleyes:


:pop: