And yes, one has to be a little bit nuts to do those things although some of today's aircraft can easily accomplish both. About 20 years ago (maybe longer, can't remember), the Army finally figured out it needed to teach aerial combat to helicopter pilots. Think Top Gun type school but for helicopters. I sent a few Warrant Officers to the school but, never got the opportunity myself. Any chance I may have had evaporated when I went to Test Pilot School.
Rams
I've always been fascinated by helicopters... and I'm interested to see what the future of helo-flight (?) looks like in the future. if... say we have something that's more like a quad-copter with a vessel in the middle. Sort of like an Osprey but with two more sets of rotors???
I was talking to an aerodynamics engineer (among other things), and he was explaining to me that maximum efficiency is gained by 3 blades on a rotor. 2 is less optimal, and 4 is also less optimal. But... the more rotors, the more torque / weight it can support; however, there is a noticeable decrease in efficiency when you begin to add more blades.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I've always been fascinated by helicopters... and I'm interested to see what the future of helo-flight (?) looks like in the future. if... say we have something that's more like a quad-copter with a vessel in the middle. Sort of like an Osprey but with two more sets of rotors???
I was talking to an aerodynamics engineer (among other things), and he was explaining to me that maximum efficiency is gained by 3 blades on a rotor. 2 is less optimal, and 4 is also less optimal. But... the more rotors, the more torque / weight it can support; however, there is a noticeable decrease in efficiency when you begin to add more blades.
I agree with the fascination of rotary winged aircraft, the requirements to be accepted to all US military flight schools were identical for all branches when I signed up, I actively sought rotary wing, had a good friend that wanted to fly jets and he did but that was not my choice.
Based on my knowledge/understanding, that would be correct, I only flew two bladed helicopters as a mission and test pilot (OH-58s, UH-1s, and AH-1s). The most efficient rotor system I know of is that on a CH 47 with a tandem-three bladed system is the most efficient although, I have never piloted one. My first to solo in was a Hughes 300 (C model IIRC) which has a three bladed rotor system (the engine was a horitizonal six cyclinder with six fan belts coupling the engine to the transmission), I have flown a Hughes 500D once and that was a kick in the ass but, that was just once. The current rotary winged aircraft being flown today are much more sophisticated, complex and will outperform what I flew. Yeah, I'm jealous as hell.
Reference future rotary winged aircraft, I almost changed services to the US Marines when I first saw the Osprey, it's one heck of a flying machine but, as with all multi-engine, tandem rotor aircraft capable of hover, there are challenges with power transfer as in transmissions and combining transmissions. The CH 47 had/has five transmissions transferring energy from the two engines to the rotor systems. All five have to be optimal for safe flight. Although rotor winged aircraft have come a long way since inception, I believe there's still a long way to go. I don't know that we'll ever see birds like are in the movie Avatar, I'd love to see it.
I agree with the fascination of rotary winged aircraft, the requirements to be accepted to all US military flight schools were identical for all branches when I signed up, I actively sought rotary wing, had a good friend that wanted to fly jets and he did but that was not my choice.
Based on my knowledge/understanding, that would be correct, I only flew two bladed helicopters as a mission and test pilot (OH-58s, UH-1s, and AH-1s). The most efficient rotor system I know of is that on a CH 47 with a tandem-three bladed system is the most efficient although, I have never piloted one. My first to solo in was a Hughes 300 (C model IIRC) which has a three bladed rotor system (the engine was a horitizonal six cyclinder with six fan belts coupling the engine to the transmission), I have flown a Hughes 500D once and that was a kick in the ass but, that was just once. The current rotary winged aircraft being flown today are much more sophisticated, complex and will outperform what I flew. Yeah, I'm jealous as hell.
Reference future rotary winged aircraft, I almost changed services to the US Marines when I first saw the Osprey, it's one heck of a flying machine but, as with all multi-engine, tandem rotor aircraft capable of hover, there are challenges with power transfer as in transmissions and combining transmissions. The CH 47 had/has five transmissions transferring energy from the two engines to the rotor systems. All five have to be optimal for safe flight. Although rotor winged aircraft have come a long way since inception, I believe there's still a long way to go. I don't know that we'll ever see birds like are in the movie Avatar, I'd love to see it.
Rams
That's pretty cool... I've never "flown" anything except a drone, so I wouldn't know. But my experience on a helicopter has largely been really smooth. With the exception of one instance where we hit turbulence and the helicopter seemed to gain and lose altitude rapidly... which was totally not cool with me. But every other flight on a Huey felt like I was floating on a cloud, I mean... it's like a felt nothing. Insanely smooth... the helicopter rotor would just go faster, and suddenly we lifted off like I was on a mattress.
I did NOT like being on a C21, which you probably know, is the bare-bones government version of the Learjet something or other. It was a 7 seater (7th seat basically being the toilet in the back with a cushion and seat belt strapped to it). The flight was fine... but the pilots treated it like a fighter jet... which was both hilarious and totally shitty at the same time. We start taking off thinking everything is going to be like a nice commercial-style flight, and then the pilots basically go vertical... hahaha, I did not like that.
That's pretty cool... I've never "flown" anything except a drone, so I wouldn't know. But my experience on a helicopter has largely been really smooth. With the exception of one instance where we hit turbulence and the helicopter seemed to gain and lose altitude rapidly... which was totally not cool with me. But every other flight on a Huey felt like I was floating on a cloud, I mean... it's like a felt nothing. Insanely smooth... the helicopter rotor would just go faster, and suddenly we lifted off like I was on a mattress.
Todd, Once the aircraft is running and up to the designed engine/rotor speed, that speed/RPM is not suppose to change. It stays constant (assuming everything is as it's supposed to be), all that changes is the "pitch" of the rotor blades. That's keeping it simple. Reference the smooth ride, you can thank whoever balanced and tracked those rotor blades for that.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 03-25-2022).]
Coaxial main rotors with a pusher prop is the next or current helicopter evolution. Defiant, Defiant X, Raider, or a more traditional approach like Bell's 360 Invictus, which has a single 4 blade main, with a ducted tail rotor, and wings. Army is looking for a Blackhawk replacement. Long Range Air Assault (LRAA)
Defiant flies x2 as far as the Blackhawk, x2 as fast and has the same physical footprint.
360 Invictus is Bell's candidate for future light attack/recon with the developmental program being called 'future attack recon aircraft' (fara) to replace Kiowa Bell OH-58. Sikorsky's FARA entry is RaiderX
That's pretty cool... I've never "flown" anything except a drone, so I wouldn't know. But my experience on a helicopter has largely been really smooth. With the exception of one instance where we hit turbulence and the helicopter seemed to gain and lose altitude rapidly... which was totally not cool with me. But every other flight on a Huey felt like I was floating on a cloud, I mean... it's like a felt nothing. Insanely smooth... the helicopter rotor would just go faster, and suddenly we lifted off like I was on a mattress.
I did NOT like being on a C21, which you probably know, is the bare-bones government version of the Learjet something or other. It was a 7 seater (7th seat basically being the toilet in the back with a cushion and seat belt strapped to it). The flight was fine... but the pilots treated it like a fighter jet... which was both hilarious and totally shitty at the same time. We start taking off thinking everything is going to be like a nice commercial-style flight, and then the pilots basically go vertical... hahaha, I did not like that.
I like to raz Rams about it from time to time, but helicopters are not easy machines to fly. I tried a couple times in Robson R-22's in the 90's and it didn't take long for me to say "screw this, give me something that does what I tell it to do and goes where I tell it to go". Helicopters arent very good at either of those things, they just dont like to listen.
[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 03-25-2022).]
I like to raz Rams about it from time to time, but helicopters are not easy machines to fly. I tried a couple times in Robson R-22's in the 90's and it didn't take long for me to say "screw this, give me something that does what I tell it to do and goes where I tell it to go". Helicopters arent very good at either of those things, they just dont like to listen.
As my first Instructor Pilot told me, in a helicopter, you don't move the controls, you think about moving the controls and that's all it takes. BTW, I recognize envy when I see or read it.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 03-25-2022).]
I like to raz Rams about it from time to time, but helicopters are not easy machines to fly. I tried a couple times in Robson R-22's in the 90's and it didn't take long for me to say "screw this, give me something that does what I tell it to do and goes where I tell it to go". Helicopters arent very good at either of those things, they just dont like to listen.
I'd love to be able to fly a helicopter...
But I'm also pretty excited about the future of air flight. I can't remember what thread it was... but I think MJ was in the subject. It had those drone cars... that's going to be awesome.
I've been following some reports on this crash, it seems some leading "experts" on this aircraft believe this is not a mechanical, maintenance or structural failure that could have caused the nose dive initially. Most are saying the nose dive had to be pilot induced. Why is my only question...........
"pilot induced" intentionally or pilot caused by inadvertent action or lack of action?
Huge difference.
There was a LOT of speculation as well, over on one of those type 'professional' boards that the Atlas crash in Trinity Bay Tx in Feb 2019 may have had an onerous cause.
Still no word on the suspected cause from my airline.
I did get a safety question survey already. How do I feel about this crash? What can be done to prevent another? The pres of here said we must "assure safety", what do you feel needs to be changed? My answers were short. I didn't answer the first question because how I feel is the same as everyone who hears of a massive loss of life. On the second I said wait until the investigation completes before doing anything. On the third question I said China has one of the best safety records in the world in the last 10 years so wait until the investigation completes before changing anything. Maybe they were just throwing it out there to see if we have some pilots with a chip on their shoulder who needed to vent.
As you guys might suspect, the gov here seems to massively overreact to anything bad. Just look at how they handle this virus, massive lock downs and disruptions over 5 or 10 infections. Now with thousands of infections from Omicron it's insane. I get tested every other day now. Also, with regards to aviation, the same overreaction happens every time there is even a small mistake. I'm hoping they will find the cause and then, and only then, make whatever changes need to be made, if any. Accidents are usually a chain of events. Disrupt one link in that chain and prevent the accident.
and the Chicoms release the truth about what that data is...
Speculating here, but if by some rare chance it was a pilot who intentionally (knowingly) caused the crash, I'd wonder if they would allow that to get out, rather... use the opportunity to blame Boeing.
I read today that the second "black box" has been found, no word on condition. Will be interesting to learn what data is contained in it. Of course, this assumes the Chinese let that info out.
When their version of the A320 and B737 (C919) is ready you can bet every airline here will be required to use them. I would be surprised though if the gov makes the locals use it exclusively. These guys are famous for squeaking when they walk so expect whichever of the 3 is cheapest to rule the sky in the greatest numbers.
Although the exact price tag has not been made public by Comac, analysts estimate a single C919 plane would cost buyers about $50 million. That is about 60% less than Boeing's 737 MAX 8 and 55% less than Airbus' A320neo, which are $121.6 million and $110.6 million, respectively, as of 2021.
Although the exact price tag has not been made public by Comac, analysts estimate a single C919 plane would cost buyers about $50 million. That is about 60% less than Boeing's 737 MAX 8 and 55% less than Airbus' A320neo, which are $121.6 million and $110.6 million, respectively, as of 2021.
Yeah... I can see that. A few random thoughts... China doesn't have unions (that I'm aware of)... certainly not the same kind we have where there are work stoppages. Lots of people in China still going from total poverty to their Communist-version of Capitalism to build wealth... so lots of cheap labor. I think that's the biggest aspect of it.
I want to believe that there's less regulation in building it... but I don't know enough about this topic. Is there a worldwide aviation certification board that manages what planes are allowed to land at various airports... or is the Federal Aviation Administration (US-based) the defacto here?
Communism is the embodiment of bureaucracy and administration, so I guess I can't use that excuse.
ICAO is the worldwide body that specifies aviation rules on an international basis. However, each country manages it's own borders and the rules within. Normally ICAO and local rules are the same, no matter the country. There are exceptions though. For instance, ICAO says that the cockpit voice recording should only be used for accident investigation, not punishment. Here it's used for punishment on a daily basis. We had one crew punished for talking about normal stuff during cruise flight. You never, ever discuss politics or criticize dear leader in the cockpit. Big Brother is always listening, especially to foreigners. Here it's the CAAC, in the US it's the FAA, in Europe it's the JAA.
An airplane certified by an aviation authority can normally operate in every country by agreement. The FAA used to be the gold standard until the 737 Max completely destroyed that trust. Now the different regulators are wanting to get in on the approval process. Whether or not an aircraft can operate at a given airport is up to the operator of that aircraft. Pilots of commercial aircraft are assumed to have the proper licenses to operate that aircraft. Every once in a while we get "ramp checked" by an authority to check our license, medical cert, aircraft documents, etc. It's rare and it's nerve racking because if something is wrong they can ground the aircraft right then and there. I've been ramp checked in Japan, Macao, and Nanning in the PRC.
ICAO is the worldwide body that specifies aviation rules on an international basis. However, each country manages it's own borders and the rules within. Normally ICAO and local rules are the same, no matter the country. There are exceptions though. For instance, ICAO says that the cockpit voice recording should only be used for accident investigation, not punishment. Here it's used for punishment on a daily basis. We had one crew punished for talking about normal stuff during cruise flight. You never, ever discuss politics or criticize dear leader in the cockpit. Big Brother is always listening, especially to foreigners. Here it's the CAAC, in the US it's the FAA, in Europe it's the JAA.
An airplane certified by an aviation authority can normally operate in every country by agreement. The FAA used to be the gold standard until the 737 Max completely destroyed that trust. Now the different regulators are wanting to get in on the approval process. Whether or not an aircraft can operate at a given airport is up to the operator of that aircraft. Pilots of commercial aircraft are assumed to have the proper licenses to operate that aircraft. Every once in a while we get "ramp checked" by an authority to check our license, medical cert, aircraft documents, etc. It's rare and it's nerve racking because if something is wrong they can ground the aircraft right then and there. I've been ramp checked in Japan, Macao, and Nanning in the PRC.
Thanks! That was really informative. I have to assume that with China, it will be a matter of pride as much as propaganda, so they'll want to make sure they get it right for the sheer fact that they can show the world that they're a force to be reckoned with.
Interesting. No thought for the people he took with him. Not a society to be trusted by America.
I'm quite sure he thought about them. And he also likely thought it would make one hell of a statement, and create a huge scandal. Much more than if he had just flown an empty aircraft into the ground.
Originally posted by olejoedad: Interesting. No thought for the people he took with him. Not a society to be trusted by America.
Germanwings flight 4U 9525 on March 24, 2015. After the pilot took a break and went back into the passenger area, the copilot (age 28) locked the cockpit door to prevent the pilot from getting back in, and then purposely flew the plane into the Alps below, killing himself and everyone else. The copilot's name was Andreas Lubitz.
I remember reading that there's suspicion that many years ago an Egyptian-flagged airliner met the same fate, but that the Egyptian authorities never wanted to admit that it was a murderous and suicide-bent pilot or copilot that purposely crashed the plane. Despite the evidence.
It seems I fell for a hoax with the suicide scenario. The gov still says they are investigating with no conclusions drawn. My apologies, I should have known better.
"Flight data indicates someone in the cockpit intentionally crashed a China Eastern jet earlier this year, according to people familiar with U.S. officials’ preliminary assessment of what led to the accident."
"Flight data indicates someone in the cockpit intentionally crashed a China Eastern jet earlier this year, according to people familiar with U.S. officials’ preliminary assessment of what led to the accident."
The Wall Street Journal is part of Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation. These are some other News Corp.-owned operations:
Fox Corporation
HarperCollins
The New York Post
realtor.com
The Sunday Times (U.K.)
Vogue Australia
Sky News Australia
At the top of that list, Fox Corporatiion; i.e., Fox News; i.e., Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson.
On last night's "The Last Word", MSNBC anchor Lawrence O'Donnell brought up Tucker Carlson in conjunction with "Replacement Theory" and the Buffalo supermarket murderer's online manifesto. O'Donnell called the Australian-born Rupert Murdoch, now a long time naturalized U.S. citizen, the one immigrant that's done more damage to the United States than anyone else to come here from another country.
Consider this a "Rorschach-style Riff."
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-17-2022).]
Yes, it appears as if the first reports of an intentional crash were true. The question now is who was flying. Was it one of the crew or another actor? It doesn't appear to be a group as no one has claimed responsibility.
