Aviation Geeks unite?! Anybody else care about planes here?

I prefer the bubble one to the versions with the flatter cockpit.

 

Pff! you're hard to please.. well then
Bubble -ish AND an observation aircraft!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_OV-1_Mohawk

I demand praise and a cookie!

 

everyone's favorite taxidermied-dead-cat-helicopter-drone Orville!

 

That bubble ain't got nothing on the Edgley Optica, WAY too much fuselage in the way and the aircraft is HUGE and non-civilian.

No deal.

 

That thing looks like an OV-10 Bronco and a helicopter had a baby.

 

Very true, and it's unique in it's capabilities.

 

Similar stats but not as weird looking:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seabird_Seeker

 

The Mi-26 now that's a chopper!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-26

In October 1999, an Mi-26 was used to transport a 25-ton block of frozen soil encasing a preserved, 23,000-year-old woolly mammoth (Jarkov Mammoth) from the Siberian tundra to a lab in Khatanga, Taymyr. Due to the weight of the load, the Mi-26 had to be returned to the factory afterward to check for airframe and rotor warping caused by the potential of structural over-stressing.

I saw that on TV. The blades in flight looked U shaped.

The closest of calls.

Ugh--this makes me sick
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a34691643/antonov-124-runway-accident/

This thing has a bridge, not a cockpit https://transport-photo.com/photo/1582/An-124-Cockpit.html

 

But only a 2 seater =D
3 seats design optimally = better.
Pilot in the center, observer to the Left/Right of the pilot all sitting in bench-like seats.

Making the Pilot do double duty as an observer is unnecessary work load and not as safe as having the pilot in the center controlling the plane and having two observers scouting.

 

There are WWI fighters that could outrun it ... Just off of the top of my head, both the S.E. 5a and SPAD XIII are a bit faster.

 

Ouch.

From the article it reads like an uncontained engine failure and from the pictures it looks like the port inner that failed.

Very lucky flight crew.

Whether she flies again will problem depend on the extend of the damage and if it's economically possible to repair (depends on the availability of parts).

accord to wiki there had been a plan in place to resume production back in 2014 but ongoing conflict between the Ukraine and Russia nixed that.

Sometimes aircraft are repaired when you think they would have been sent for scrappers.

about 15 years ago, QANTAS had a 747-400 severely damaged in landing at Heathrow but was returned to service after $100mil worth of repairs. At the time there were two stories (probably closer to rumour but with strong air of plausability) that did the rounds. Firstly the accident was due to insufficient reverse thrust and that pilots had been told to get to use a little as possible as fuel and therefor cost saving measure. Secondly QANTAS wanted to preserve it's safety record with no hull loss accidents in the Jet era (then an A380 nearly ruins it).

 

Not surprised, the Edgley Optica was designed for Observation with giant Field of View, & 8 Hr Loiter Time along with very low stall speeds and a very quiet ducted Turbo Fan for quiet to the ground oberserver use when high up.

 

From the 1941 film 49th Parallel:

RCAF Hudsons on patrol...


... but they're Digbys when they go into action!

 

I love flight simming and Concorde is my favourite with FSPassengers to record the flights. Such an amazing aircraft with the way it was designed and how the CoG and fuel system worked. The test pilot Brian Trubshaw looked like the kind of bloke you could have a pint with.

Something else I like with Concorde over other sims I have like the Boeing 747-400 and Airbus A320-200 is that the flights are only 3.5 hours.

 

Had the Concorde for X-plane 9. Could never master the CoG so ended up going from a Mach 2 cruise to a crater.

 

Now for something a little faster..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_X-15

And a nice research aicraft, didn't know this one yet but cool looking beast.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myasishchev_M-55

 

Many here will be familiar with the story of the Lockheed L-188 Electra, the very sophisticated late-'50s turboprop airliner that got an unsafe reputation after two accidents where the wings came off. Extensive testing revealed the culprit to be "whirl mode" oscillation in the outboard engines; if the engine mounts had been weakened or damaged the effect could become great enough that it resonated with wing movement and was amplified to the point the wing was destroyed.

There are some cool videos about the testing on YouTube. Lockheed built a scale model, NASA volunteered a wind tunnel, and Boeing contributed a "flying motion" stand for the model.



Longer length test footage, significant precession can be seen about 18:00:


A very cool demonstration of some gyroscopic propeller effects and how they could be dampened or amplified:

 

Designing aircraft isn't all that easy.. same with buildings, ships, bridges, vibration and oscilations can rip them apart..

And a dragon lady..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_ER-2

 

Just ask DeHaviland (or Neville Shute).

 

Didn't those fly under many airlines? I think BOAC had them