Aviation MegaThread!!!!

I would say VERY distant future, if at all. It will be a very brave manufacturer and even braver commercial airline to take on something so radical. Knowing the way airlines and their investors like to save money, primarily by reducing wages, we're more likely to end up with pilotless aircraft first.

In the world of extreme rigourous Health and Saftey, it is interesting to see some strong resitance in deference to 3rd world needs and practicality.

<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/w-F-cBF5ZbQ?version=3&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/w-F-cBF5ZbQ?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

Really well done piece, and very interesting.

Just read this account of crossing the Atlantic in a 36 Hp Fournier motor-glider.

http://www.cfiamerica.com/mira_slovak-rf-4d-1700.html

This bloke had some balls !!!

That was fascinating. So nice to see those beautiful aircraft still providing service and so refreshing not to hear a line of corporate bullshit from the pilots.

Someone's video of the Mosquito in action last weekend (Armistice celebrations). I really hope it stays in the country for the Masterton airshow early next year (hopefully owner reads this).

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2qYU1RYGgy8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I agree. The first ones ought to be freighters in order to establish a track record.

1. Most, not all, freighters are well used airframes before they enter service, typically as a conversion. A lot of freighter's typically fly less than a passenger aircraft, so they can use the airframe at the higher end of the time/cycle frame and are available for maintenance more readily.
2. For freight the blended concept looks like it would have to carry a whole lot of different sized containers - not very functional.
3. The idea they should try it as a freighter first to establish some sort of track record seems to suggest the freight pilots are some sort of guinea pigs. Which reminds me of a DC-8 freighter crash long ago out of Salt Lake which killed the 3 person crew. The AP reported that "there were no people aboard".

Heck, the freight companies can't wait to remove the co-pilot, then the pilot, using unmanned-aircraft technology.

That must be one hot plane...the pilot is wearing Ovgloves. :huh

No scheduled flights. The plane leaves when it has enough cargo and passengers to make it profitable.

Alot of cargo is palletized, so it would be reasonably simple to load accordingly, lower and lighter to the outboard, higher and heavy to the center. Very functional, in fact....just not particularly efficient use of space.

I would think that in addition to the fore and aft c.g. limits, the allowable lateral c.g. would be a big player as well.

It would be interesting to loadplan, for sure.

If the guys doing the load plan are anything like the ones I worked with that would be very, very scarey!

They gave me the load plan duties after I had been there two days. I was scared shitless about making a mistake. I always thought of one of those old beat up containers popping loose from the tie down locks and sliding all the way back.

FAA requires all locks to be up and engaged (locked), whether there is a container there or not...for just such a contingency.

I remember walking the deck and pulling those up now.


EDIT: Actually I don't remember doing that, but I guess we did.

It would just be a matter of habituating the general public to the new shape.

Maybe. Passengers never really see what an airplane looks like anyway...they self inject/insert themselves via the jet way and file into their seats. Most don't know and don't care what plane they are on. In such a plane they probably would get lost trying to wander around and find their place. Another factor is the 90 second rule for evacuation. That might be hard to accomplish from deep inside the plane. Or, other factors: how wide is the gear track? Will it fit at most airports in and around the gates? Still, if it has distinct operational and efficiency advantages it should be worth development.

http://aviation1970.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-moment-first-hucks-start-in-70-years.html#!/2012/10/the-moment-first-hucks-start-in-70-years.html

Great read, thanks.

That's pretty cool. Thanks!

Tonight on Netflix I came across "The Real Battle of Britain" with the McGregor brothers. Fantastic documentary about the air battle that took place.

Sent from my Samsung Note 10.1