• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

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

What's your level of interest in aviation?!

  • Setting squawk 7500 when a flight simmer gets anywhere near the cockpit.

    Votes: 6 12.0%

  • Telling an Airbus from a Boeing? Easy. Shape of cockpit side windows!

    Votes: 21 42.0%

  • I AM GOING TO DIE ON THIS PLANE OMG!!!

    Votes: 9 18.0%

  • 737 Max? I'd like fries with it.

    Votes: 3 6.0%

  • Sure, I like animals: mad dogs, warthogs, racoons, otters,...

    Votes: 2 4.0%

  • "Hi, is this the A340 crew? I've got a delivery for you. Four hair dryers?"

    Votes: 3 6.0%

  • I'm just here because I like voting in polls.

    Votes: 14 28.0%
  • Total voters
    50
On the B-21
https://hushkit.net/2023/11/16/why-the-new-b-21-raider-stealth-bomber-look-the-way-it-does/

recent crashes
https://www.al.com/news/mobile/2023/12/plane-crashes-in-mobile-river-in-south-alabama.html

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...ncident-haneda-airport-02-january-2024.42765/
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/boeing-737-max-family-news-only.14158/page-21#post-645627

Solar plane
https://www.universetoday.com/16510...r-powered-aircraft-for-the-2024-niac-program/

Report the odd without fear
https://www.coasttocoastam.com/arti...-pilots-to-report-ufos-to-federal-government/

Mars flight
https://www.space.com/mars-helicopter-ingenuity-opened-red-planet-skies-exploration

Gen 6
https://thedebrief.org/next-generat...rospace-company-looks-toward-prototype-tests/

I dream of
https://www.unexplained-mysteries.c...er-inert-nuclear-missile-found-in-mans-garage
 
Last edited:
Boeing showing of the new 777x at this year's Dubai Air Show.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

One unique feature to the new 777 is the folding wingtips so they can benefit from the extra lift while still fitting in the regulation gate (something that was a major issue for the A380).

But betweeh the 787-9, the A350 and now the 777x you can see why the days are number for the 747 and A380. Can get similar passenger loads combined the costing savings on twin engine - what's the not for an airline to like?
 
Marc said:
One unique feature to the new 777 is the folding wingtips so they can benefit from the extra lift while still fitting in the regulation gate (something that was a major issue for the A380).
Click to expand...
The 747 truly did set the standard/precedence for gate width that most airports seemed to follow around the world.

But betweeh the 787-9, the A350 and now the 777x you can see why the days are number for the 747 and A380. Can get similar passenger loads combined the costing savings on twin engine - what's the not for an airline to like?
Click to expand...
2x Engines have been the future since the ETOPS regulation by ICAO came onto the scene. The ETOPS regulation just happened to "Co-incide" with the launch of the A380 and eventually doomed it's fate.

The only real solution moving forward IMO is a ground build of a 747X with 2x engines only using the GE9X.

Personally, I want the big 2x AeroSpace companies (Boeing & AirBus) to invest in ABL STARC on their largest planes.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

The only difference is that my idea for the 747X is that the:
- Upper full length stretched deck is single aisle with 3-3 configuration in economy.
- Lower deck is single aisle A380 width with 3-5-3 configuration in economy.
Using more reasonable economy seat widths and Alternating Reverse Face Seating so that nobody is bumping shoulders would help everybody in economy seats.
I've napkin-math estimated that they could get ~805 passengers in a pure economy configuration. That's very close to the A380's 850 passenger limit while being 2x engines.
This would be more than enough to cover Long Haul-flights (6-12 hours).

Given that in the near future that Boom Aerospace's "Overture" is going to completely eat up the vast majority, if no the entirety of (1st-class / Business-class) market, they will change the aviation game by becoming the "Premium Seats" to fly on while going SuperSonic.
Normal Economy seats will become the "Regular Seats" that travels at Sub-Sonic speeds.

Medium Haul (3-6 hours) Aircraft should probably go with Boeing's Transonic Truss-Braced Wing style aircraft.

Short Haul (≤ 3-hours) should probably go for a updated & modernized Boeing 7J7 design.
Bring back the T-Tail with ABL STARC rear Electric Propulsor in the center.
Use a updated PropFan design with Counter-Rotating blades, one mounted in front of the intake, one on the aft exhaust to reduce the blade / wind noise.
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
Current PropFan engine are either both mounted on the aft in counter-rotating fashion, or on the front. Nobody has tried a Front & Aft mounted unit to reduce the noise generated.

That's the only real down-side of Prop-fan aircraft is the dang external noise. Otherwise, it's a great engine from a fuel consumption perspective with noise as it's only down-side.
 
Last edited:
I just love the look of T-tails.

There has been a step forward in alloys:
https://phys.org/news/2023-11-ai-high-temperature-strength-nickelaluminum-alloys.amp

Now I hear the Air Force froze Boeing out of the Doomsday plane contract…losing to SNC.

A lovely diorama
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

New steel
https://scitechdaily.com/cannot-be-...r,great foreground of industrial applications.
 
Last edited:
Interview with a former USAF pilot for flew russian fighters (Mig-21, -27) as part of Operation Constant Peg which was a top secret program to train U.S pilots against enemy hardware.

How the U.S got it's hands on them is s still classified.
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

They had to deal with both the perculiarites of the russian hardware at the same time the secrecy caused a few headaches (limited documentation, no training models, having to keep all repairs in in house).
 
I understand the Deltahawks jet fuel piston airplane engine needs no electronics and has been FAA approved.

A futuristic Airbus
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...studies-nacre-e2-a30x.8206/page-2#post-301657

That's what I want in a car.

Record tailwind?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/ne...enger-plane-at-826-miles-per-hour/ar-BB1hjLNt

Best metal toy of a plane---the Cragstan 727.

DB Cooper…a Boeing employee?
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Last edited:
I had never heard of Jenny Blalock until this morning when I discovered her youtube channel while browsing for flying videos and it's just beyond tragic what happened and made harder to comprehend when seeing her enthusiastic replies to comments on her videos as recently as a few weeks ago. She was clearly loving her hobby and must have been so proud to be able to take her dad with her. What makes it even more tragic is that on every video I've seen on her channel the general theme in the comments section is that she lacked the required skills to be flying IFR and her instructors and the FAA are being criticised for passing her. I'm not making any judgement on the pilot but it does make me wonder how she dealt with comments from what looked like concerned professional pilots urging her to go back to basics and use their advice to correct errors.

I've been wondering for a long time if the standards required for obtaining a PPL are as stringent today as they were 20 years ago or if new technology has made certain requirements no longer applicable. For example, when I got in to flight simming and wanted to learn about aviation I got a bunch of books from the library and one was called something like Flight school: A Pilots Handbook. I've tried finding it online but it's impossible to narrow it down. Fom page 1 it was filled with mathematical formulas and diagrams of aerodynamics so had I known that in the library I would never have borrowed it. They were on every page and it looked extremely complex and something a maths undergraduate would be reading so that made me realise there is a lot more to flying than I had thought. Would a text book like that still be prerequisite reading material for someone learning to fly today or is the learning stages of becoming a pilot different now because of new technology?
 
The short answer to your question is that you don't need to be a physicist, mathematician, or aerodynamicist to become a pilot. The more of that stuff you can soak up, the more of the theory you understand, but It's like saying that a plumber needs courses in fluid dynamics in order to put in a toilet- you don't. A pilot needs to understand the simple forces of flight acting on his aircraft, but being able to independently derive Bernoulli's Equation is not necessary. ;)

There's one publication that any wannabe pilot (in the US, anyway) should start with: the AIM/FAR, which means Airman's Information Manual / Federal Air Regulations. It's a thick book chock full of great material every budding pilot needs to know, and they put out a revised edition every couple of years. That's the place to start, and then for someone serious about learning to fly, head down to the airport and find a flight school. They'll explain it all to you.

Remember these two basic facts:

1. The number of takeoffs needs to equal the number of landings.
2. What makes airplanes fly? ANS:
MONEY!
 
@Jedi Marso Thanks for the information. Next time I'm at the library I'll see if the book is still there. Perhaps it was from a time when there was no FMC or anti-stall/stall-recovery systems so pilots had to know navigation and dealing with deep stalls inside out.

I saw this video yesterday and it's one of the best 747-400 approaches in severe turbulence I've ever seen but I was surprised to hear someone say "really bumpy" at 1:35. Isn't that an FAA violation of CRM procedures? It sounds like it comes from the person holding the camera and is designed as a narration for the viewer. Seems unbelievable that someone would speak out like that at such a critical phase. I'm sure he was exited and probably nervous but I'm surprised there have been no comments on the youtube video about it. At around 1:25 the two rear passengers have a quiet conversation with each other which is co-incidentally at the same time the captain and FO talk to each other and then a few seconds later what appears to be the person holding the camera says "really bumpy". Amazing video but I doubt that would even be allowed in a simulator. I wonder if they had a word with him afterwards.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
B0xrfea_d.webp
 
more interesting tales of aviation from Youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/@ronrogers

This time it's guy named Ron Rogers who started out as military pilot before joining United Airlines. Starting as a second officer on the 727 he moved up the aircraft (737, DC-10) and finished as a captain on a 777 before retiring in 2015.

Some video are his personal experiences, others are looking at aviation incidents.

the one on his retirement combined both - he had a easy flight with his family on board coming back from Hawaii compared to another pilot who had a hull loss accident on DC-10 caused by tires blowing out on take off (no pilot error though)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Starscape
Contest: ENTER December 2024 Art Challenge - Suggest Your Festive Themes!
Replies
6
Views
831
Starscape
Starscape
ColdFusion180
Star Trek: Lower Decks - CF073 - "Sub Rutherford"
Replies
1
Views
608
Robert Bruce Scott
Robert Bruce Scott
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top