sacex250

Members
  • Content

    570
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never
  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by sacex250

  1. sacex250

    Camera skydives into football game w/o a parachute

    Look Out Below It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  2. sacex250

    What tablet (not iPad)

    I had one of those, but I dropped it and it's fooked! In fact, the screen would crash everytime I shook it even a little! It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  3. sacex250

    1-2-12

    Look at the bright side, you still have three more days of ranting until the new year! It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  4. sacex250

    Worst Music Video...

    God Damn!!! This thread SUCKS!!!! It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  5. sacex250

    From the cockpit of an F-18

    Here's what would have likely happened if things worked out as they traditionally did. The Navy was looking for a replacement for the A-7 in their light attack (VA) squadrons and the Marines, also a part of the Navy, were looking for a replacement for their F-4s in their strike fighter (VMFA) squadrons. Under the scheme at the time, the Marine aircraft would have been called "F-18"s and the Navy aircraft would have been called "A-18"s. Yes, it sounds silly today, but it's not so far fetched. Take a look at the designations of the Sikorsky H-60. The Army version was designated UH-60 as a Utility helicopter. The Navy Seahawk was designated SH-60 as an ASW aircraft. The Air Force and Coast Guard helicopters were designated HH-60 as rescue aircraft. Nobody even thinks twice about this because the aircraft are not interchangeable. But, could you imagine if the Navy had stuck with the A-18 designation in its VA squadrons. Oh, the horror of the interservice rivalry as the Marine pilots could claim they were fighter pilots and the Navy pilots were lowly attack pilots even though they were the exact same, and essentially interchangeable, aircraft. The F/A-18 designation is an anachronism left over from a time when both the Navy's A-18s and the Marines F-18s would both be in the same inventory system known as Bureau Numbers (BuNos). This is the service serial number that is given to the aircraft and the pilot uses as a radio call sign when communicating with civilian air traffic control. The BuNos is a six digit number that is painted on the side of the airplane near the tail; the aircraft designation is painted just above it. Since the Navy and Marine Corps aircraft are in the same numbering system and the aircraft are basically interchangeable the designation painted above the BuNos is "F/A-18." Meaning that the aircraft could potentially be either a Navy A-18 or a Marine F-18. As it came to pass, the Navy changed the designations of the VA squadrons to VFA squadrons as their new F-18s replaced their A-7s, i.e. VA-25 became VFA-25. There are a bunch of Navy Hornet pilots who should probably be really happy that it worked out that way. In other words, just call it an "AN-2"! It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  6. sacex250

    From the cockpit of an F-18

    It's not how many hours before he can take it on the plane; it's how many hours before he's allowed to use the parachute in his ejection seat! It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  7. sacex250

    Air France Flight 447 - finally solved.

    The "instinct" in this situation should have been to push-over. It's the PF who completely ignored the stall warnings because he didn't think the aircraft could stall. The PNF never acknowledged the stall warnings because he didn't think he had to; it wasn't his job to teach a professional airline pilot what a stall was and how to recover from it. He just assumed that the ID-TEN-T error sitting next to him would have been trained in stall recoveries to at least the level of a student pilot and was already doing everything he could to recover from the stall when in reality he was doing everything he could to keep it in the stall. This crash is just so unbelievably stupid! It makes you wonder, what if they hadn't crashed? What if the PNF had figured it out when they still had enough altitude to recover? What would have happened to the other pilot? Fired? Probably not! It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  8. sacex250

    From the cockpit of an F-18

    Sure, they can be, but it's technically incorrect. That would imply that it's strictly a fighter, with no attack capability. And that's wrong. If it were called an FA-18, of an AF-18 then I would agree with you, but it's not; the slant means that it is an F-18 or an A-18 depending on the specific sortie, and as a matter of grammar. For example, "If your son/daughter must be absent from school please notify the attendance office as soon as possible the day of the absence." In reality, no one ever uses the aircraft's designation to differentiate between its missions, so it's just easier to pick one or the other, and no one in their right mind is going to call a Hornet an A-18! The F-18 wasn't the first multi-role aircraft but you don't hear anyone calling the F-4 Phantom an F/A-4. No one ever confused the A-7 Corsair with an F/A-7 Corsair even though it had an internal cannon and Sidewinder missiles. The only reason the F/A designation came up for the F/A-18 was as a marketing and lobbying tool because it was replacing the both the A-7 in the Navy's light attack squadrons and the F-4 in Marine squadrons. In real life, although it's designated as either, everyone just calls it an "F-18" because that's really its primary role, and it's cooler that way. It's only an attack aircraft when it's loaded with air-to-ground ordinance, and even then, it's still carrying air-to-air missiles and can engage an enemy aircraft should the need arise. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  9. sacex250

    48 65 6c 70 66 75 6c 20 54 6f 6f 6c

    11 Cheers for Binary!!!! It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  10. sacex250

    From the cockpit of an F-18

    It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  11. sacex250

    Air France Flight 447 - finally solved.

    In that crash, the computer wasn't confused. The computer did exactly what it was supposed to do and did exactly what the pilot asked it to do. The crash was completely pilot error because the pilot put the airplane into a situation in which there wasn't enough time to accelerate in order to climb. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  12. sacex250

    Air France Flight 447 - finally solved.

    In order to maximize control feel and consistency during their airshow performances the US Navy Blue Angels would set their pitch trim to full nose down so that they had to maintain back pressure on the control stick which eliminated having to adjust pitch trim as the aircraft speed changed. When the Blues switched to the F-18 they had a problem, the F-18 is FBW which means that pitch trim is automatically accounted for by the flight control system. So, the solution? Each Blue Angel F-18 has a bungee cord attached to the stick pulling it forward. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  13. sacex250

    Probability question

    First Card: 3 Aces in Nine Cards (1 in 3) Second Card: 2 Aces in Eight Cards (1 in 4) Third Card: 1 Ace in Seven Cards (1 in 7) 3 X 4 X 7 = 84 1 in 84 It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  14. sacex250

    Air France Flight 447 - finally solved.

    The SR22 has side sticks with feedback? Yes, an SR22 has feedback in the control sticks. The farther you move the controls the harder it pushes back on you because of the aerodynamic forces on the control surfaces. In an Airbus, the pilot can't feel what the controls are doing. The pilot could have the stick pushed all the way to the right but the FBW could have the ailerons in any other postiion and the pilot wouldn't know it. The FBW system doesn't tell the pilots what it's doing. In AF447, the PF had his side stick full back but the other pilot had no way of knowing it. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  15. sacex250

    Air France Flight 447 - finally solved.

    Actually, that wasn't what the article said, or what the situation is. A fly-by-wire airplane isn't actually flown by the pilot, it's flown by computers that are more like anal-retentive super-sensitive autopilots. The pilot simply puts an input into the controls and it's up to the computers to figure out how to make what the pilot wants to have happen happen. The computers can even override the pilot, if the pilot tries to do something that the computers are programmed not to let him do. You can't barrel roll an Airbus, for example; it won't let him overbank the airplane. Under "normal law" the computers will keep the airplane in its flight envelope no matter what the pilot does with the controls. No matter how hard the pilot pulls back on the stick, no matter how slow he tries to fly, the computers will simply override the pilot and keep the nose where it needs to be to maintain a safe AOA. There have already been several incidents in Airbus airliners where the fly-by-wire system's limits have become the problem. There was the crash in 1988 of an A320 during a low pass at an airshow in France in which the pilot slowed the plane down so that it was flying at its maximum AOA allowed by the fly-by-wire system which prevented the pilot from having any additional control authority with which to climb to avoid a forest of trees at the end of the runway. Once the airplane is at its maximum AOA, whether aerodynamically or artificially through a FBW system the result is the same; the only way the airplane can reduce its AOA is to either accelerate or descend, neither of which were available to the pilot during the low pass while the airplane simply maintained its maximum AOA as it flew into the trees at the end of the runway. Three passengers died. Even the great Capt. Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger got caught-out by the FBW system in his A319 during the emergency landing on the Hudson River. Sullenberger had allowed the Airbus to slow down too much during the approach so that when he tried to flare the FBW system wouldn't let him pull up and the airplane hit the water harder than it should have causing more severe structural damage to the fuselage of the plane. Luckily that one turned out okay. In the AF447 crash, the FBW system lost its normal functioning ability because of supercooled water freezing up the pitot tubes causing the loss of airspeed information which the FBW system needs to "think" about how to fly the airplane. Computers can't fly by the seat of their pants, they need numbers and airspeed is one of them. When the airspeed was lost the computers gave absolute control of the plane back to the pilots. In "Alternate Law", the plane pretty much stops acting like a FBW aircraft and lets the pilots fly the airplane like it's a normal airplane in which the pilots have more direct control over the control surfaces without computer intervention, so that the pilots become the brains of the system and the computers stop second guessing the pilots. The major factor here is that simply the wrong pilot was flying the airplane. When things start to go bad the most experienced pilot should have the flight controls and have them exclusively. There's even a button on the Captain's sidestick controller that "locks out" the co-pilot's sidestick so that there can't be the dreaded situation where two pilots are flying the airplane at the same time which is usually worse than no one flying the plane! I wouldn't bet on it never happening again, pilots have a way of ignoring the most obvious of warnings. What's that beeping noise? It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  16. sacex250

    2011/12 NFL Thread

    The Chiefs fired Todd Haley! It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  17. sacex250

    2011/12 NFL Thread

    TOUCHDOWN!! Raiders did their part by losing to the Lions. Broncos did their part by losing to the Patriots. Come on, Chargers!!!! It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  18. sacex250

    2011/12 NFL Thread

    The Patriots have to win in order for my Chargers to have a chance at the playoffs. Although, this could be the year I become a 49er fan! It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  19. Pics or video, or it didn't happen. Well, couldn't a mechanic look at the airplane and try to fix that "screeching" sound? It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  20. sacex250

    Refueling with the engine running?

    I saw it when it came out as well. One of the best laughs in a packed theatre of all time. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  21. OK, I thought everyone already knew that you can't upgrade directly from XP TO w7. So, is my only choice to upgrade to Vista, and then to W7? Do I have to pay for the Vista upgrade just to get to W7? That's one way to do it. Depending on what version of XP you have and what version of Vista you want to upgrade to, you can do an upgrade instead of a clean install. The extra cost might be worth it in order to save your apps, but it's up to you. Vista upgrades are still available out there for about $50-$70. Check this Out It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  22. Have you tried running the Microsoft Advisor? It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  23. There's two ways to install W7. A clean install and an "upgrade" install. You shouldn't need to reinstall any apps if you do an upgrade. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  24. sacex250

    Refueling with the engine running?

    I don't know quite what you expect me to be. Yes, I am quite amazing, aren't I? I thought Alec Baldwin was quite amazing on SNL last week, plus he's quite an airline passenger, isn't he? I think your last post quite clearly demonstrates that you didn't quite understand what I said. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
  25. sacex250

    Refueling with the engine running?

    You do realize that rationale you're using is the same argument as to why skydiving should be banned, right? Seriously, read your posts and simply replace "hot refuelling" with "skydiving"! It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.