Aircraft

[Gravdigr]

Move along folks, nothing to see here...



...just a sleepy-eyed, flying whale with an underbite, move along.









Whale of a plane though.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Empty weight: 127,500 kg (281,089 lb)
Capacity: 50,500 kg (111,333 lb) payload
Max takeoff weight: 227,000 kg (500,449 lb)

[Carruthers]

Originally Posted by Gravdigr

Move along folks, nothing to see here...


...just a sleepy-eyed, flying whale with an underbite, move along.


Whale of a plane though.

I've occasionally seen one of these monsters but only at great altitude when trailing.

They fly between the Airbus factory near Chester, where wings are manufactured and, I believe, the assembly plant in Toulouse.

If I've managed to be looking at FR24 at the right time I've nipped outside to see for myself but, despite their size and even with the aid of a good pair of binoculars, you don't see much when they are five or six miles up!

[sexobon]

Maybe it eats those Spirit Airlines flying bananas.

[Diaphone Jim]

I'm never quite sure how to introduce a new topic, but I spent some time this morning looking for information on the C130 fire tanker that crashed in Australia a few days ago.
A couple of overviews with imbedded vids:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-...cooma/11894892

https://fireaviation.com/tag/t-134/

There is some duplication but it is a very interesting and tragic story.

One thing I couldn't find is how they got the fairly short range 130 to Australia.
This details the fatal flight:
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N134CG/history

but not the transpacific trip. If anyone is a member, the info is available and I would like to learn it.

They can refuel in flight and it is always exciting to watch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pu3KCyTth0o

They might have hopped around the northern Pacific, but that seems to be tough even for modified jet tankers.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Maybe they filled the retardent & water tanks with fuel and ran a hose to the fuel tank. Or set it on one of those empty container ships returning to China.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Send the AWACS out to choose who we'll kill tomorrow.

[xoxoxoBruce]

This family was 5 miles from Aspen, CO when the instruments went crazy and it appeared the engine would quit.
He had to make a split second decision and chose to pull the chute on the Cirrus airplane while he was still
high enough for it to work. The plane ended up in waist deep snow with the chute snagged on a tree which kept
then from sliding down the slope. No one hurt and rescued by the next day as rescue crews snowshoed in.
Took them 3 hours to shoeshoe out.

The plane and chute system from Cirrus Aircraft, Duluth, MN.
Parent organization: Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC)

[Clodfobble]

Wow--I've never seen a parachute on a plane, before. I guess it does make more sense than properly training everyone who gets on how to use a personal chute.

[xoxoxoBruce]

It was first certified in a Cessna in 1998.

As of 18 December 2018, CAPS has been activated 98 times, 83 of which saw successful parachute deployment. In those successful deployments, there were 170 survivors and 1 fatality. No fatalities have occurred when the parachute was deployed within the certified speed and altitude parameters, and only one anomalous unsuccessful deployment has ever occurred within those parameters. Some additional deployments have been reported by accident, as caused by ground impact or post-impact fires, and 19 of the aircraft involved in CAPS deployments have been repaired and put back into service.[20]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirrus...rachute_System

[Carruthers]

Taken during Storm Dennis, Saturday last...



Foreshortening of distance due to telephoto lense effect and camera angle probably conspire to make this look worse than it was.

That said it was 'interesting'.

[xoxoxoBruce]

That's what happens in strong winds, the trick is keeping the wings level. If the wings don't touch first it should be OK even at obscene angles of approach. It helps that the passengers can't see out the windshield.

[Carruthers]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

That's what happens in strong winds, the trick is keeping the wings level. If the wings don't touch first it should be OK even at obscene angles of approach. It helps that the passengers can't see out the windshield.

I believe that the C-5 Galaxy landing gear aligns itself with the extended centre line of the runway so even if the aircraft is crabbing down the approach the wheels will still point in the right direction, within certain limits, no doubt.
I stand to be corrected but I think that the B-52 has a similar capability.

My own attempts at crosswind landings were rarely a thing of beauty.
Being a cautious soul I tended to kick off the drift too early, but on days when I wasn't I'd kick it off too late.
Occasionally I got it right but it tended to be more by good luck than good management.

[Diaphone Jim]

That put some strain on the gear and wear on the tires!
I saw a Dennis landing yesterday with incredible wing flexing.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I wasn't aware the B-52 could do that so I checked and it can, 20 degrees left or right. Then checked to see how far a C-5 could turn and it was also 20 degrees.
But I found on airlinersdotnet a discussion claiming The C-5A had this feature, the C-5B did not, then it was removed from all the C-5As. The reasons given were maintenance issues, complexity and improved landing techniques. Sounds like military bullshit to me.