Do you like planes?
Good. Post pictures of planes. Post interesting stuff about planes. Discuss Post Soviet planes. Post Post Soviet Planes, discuss American, British, Chinese, Brazillian, Canadian, Spanish, Japanese, Indonesian, Australian or anywhere else that makes planes planes. Post military planes, post civilian planes, WW2 planes, 60s planes, contemporary planes. Post air battles, post trip reports, If you are feeling daring, even go so far as to post helicopters. Post cockpits, post passenger cabins, post timetables, post airports, post liveries, post about airlines that exist and that no longer exist. If it's plane related, I want to see it.
And most importantly:
Post your favorite plane.
why? whats the difference to today?
Also why does flying suck now?
first class used to literally have people serving a roast like its god damn thanksgiving
>>14035>he subsequently died in a collision with another US spyplane
o7 Thank you for your service
jet planes are reactionary they use up too much fuel and emit carbon. International travel in the green future will be restricted to small passenger amount solar powered planes, wind powered boats, and possibly helium zeppelins.
International tourism and travel will go way down as telecommuting replaces business trips and globalization is undone as production is re-localized
The jet plane has been one of the most historically progressive forces yet known. Undoubtedly it will be phased down-or-out as the piston engined plane before it was, but it's important not to let it fall to the wayside as though it has been a bad thing so far, a historically regressive anomaly like so much of the modern tech industry. The present push against aviation in general
is itself profoundly reactionary.
The risk that lies ahead of us is not that the number of flights will be cut - undoubtedly they will, and undoubtedly this is necessary - it is that the burden will be decided by the market, and thus disproportionately wreck the progressive achievements of aviation for ordinary people. That the average person's visit to a foreign country and culture, or the lifeline air links of far-flung communities will be destroyed by market pricing while business jets continue to fly the wealthy to unnecessary networking conferences. Flights on key business links like London to Paris may yet be continued even though there's a perfectly adequate rail service, while the people of the far flung pacific are told to make do with finding themselves several weeks by boat away from the rest of the planet, rather than the half-day they face currently. (PDF related, a map of major air routes and their travel times in the Pacific islands.)
I'm not disagreeing with you on the big issue - of the need to rebalance away from jets and to reduce the amount of travel - what concerns me is the principle, and the equity of how we approach that task. Fundamentally, it should be recognized that allowing ordinary people to experience foreign cultures in person - even in the cheap, tacky tourist form they often do - and generally shrinking the scale of the world are both massive historical gains, and it would be a mistake to regard them as a misstep. On the question of equity: Global air passenger numbers may be cut back to the levels of the 1950s, but that doesn't mean that the composition of travelers (in terms of finances and reason for traveling) should do the same. Transport networks should be integrated and rationed with a view to preserving the mobility of the average person, not simply priced at a market rate with the consequence of cutting the world to ribbons for for us while preserving the status quo for the wealthy. (And of course I'm not saying that's your
position, I just think it's a likely outcome and that it will be a tragic one.)
Obviously I'm in the Plane thread, so you can expect my position may come across as being the pro-Plane one - but it's not about preserving aircraft, it's about preserving mobility - which in some cases can only viably be air links. On such a principle I would trade the entirety of flights in the northeastern united states to preserve a twice-weekly air service to the Marshall Islands.
>Obviously I'm in the Plane thread, so you can expect my position may come across as being the pro-Plane one - but it's not about preserving aircraft, it's about preserving mobility - which in some cases can only viably be air links.
What about ekranoplan ?
>>14036>why? whats the difference to today?
of the 7 airlines visible in those pictures, only 2 still exist today. every other one merged into American Airlines. Not that AA is uniquely bad, United and Delta have eaten an equally large number of once independent carriers too. Since pic related was made, United merged with Continental and American merged with US Airways. Not helping matters is that airlines tend to make their paintschemes more bland over time, partially in line with minimalist design trends and partially because the more white the plane is, the cheaper it is to repaint it and lease it to other airlines when you don't need it.
of the plane models pictured, none remain in passenger service in the US today. Again there has been a reduction in the diversity of types: Every single plane pictured, whether it's got two decks or one, two engines, three, or four, a pointy nose or a rounded one, a T-shaped tail or a conventional tail, etc, would now be replaced by a plane with two gigantic engines stuck under the wings and a pointy nose. this is a side effect of basic physics, but it's still something that makes the world less interesting to live in.>Also why does flying suck now?
the main reason the quality of service has dropped is deregulation. until the late 1970s airlines weren't allowed to compete by cutting their ticket prices, so they competed on offering the best service possible. the catch was that flying was very expensive, since airlines could pass all their operating costs on to the customer. with the increased competition since then, economy class service has been cut down to keep costs low while first class service has focused less on food, entertainment, etc, and more on stuff like lie-flat seats or greater frequency of flights. since in most cases business travellers aren't too concerned about the quality of meals - although a few international airlines still offer higher quality, highly expensive service in first class.
For 50 large I would spend a night on top of one of those hanging up there. Would do it for much less too.
In the old days in both east and west you just had to buy a ticket then board. Your plane also would have far more leg room.>>14041
Jet engines do provide better scaling then piston engines if anything the issue is not building high speed rail handle to better handle travellers.
The nearest aviation museum to me has some super sonic jets including a black bird and the concord, and has a space shuttle also, so definitely.anarchismAnarchism
it's cool, but I'm no good at it… or rather I can do it, but I prefer looking at the end result rather than doing it myself… one of the few hobbies i like to look at and not do, ironically.
A comprehensive post on alternative energy including in relation to aircraft >>20449
This actually might make for a good flag
I would pay to spend a night in there.
If there's one plane concept that strangely never took off (heh) it's the inflatable plane. The concept functioned and even if the military didn't pick it up, the idea of a personal, plane you can carry in a suitcase definitely has appeal for plane enthusiasts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodyear_Inflatoplane https://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php?topic=28095.360
Ironically the US military has been exploring the concept again recently.
>News that the only remaining Antonov An-225 got destroyed https://archive.fo/pp26t
There has been no independent confirmation of the aircraft's destruction. A tweet from the Antonov Company said it could not verify the "technical condition" of the aircraft until it had been inspected by experts.
Ukrainian state defense company Ukroboronprom, which manages Antonov, on Sunday issued a statement saying the aircraft had been destroyed but would be rebuilt at Russia's expense – a cost it put at $3 billion.
I find it funny given that the actual corporation of Antonov got shutdown by Ukraine nearly 2 years ago.
How fast does it blow up? Can it carry it's own pump? Would it be feasible to make one of these with helium?
From the link >"It took about five minutes to inflate to about 25 psi (170 kPa)"
It used the motor to inflate and maintain pressure
It used air from the atmosphere to maintain rigidity>helium
I suppose if you made it larger and made the engine have an adjustable setting to pump out helium gas carried in a pressurized tank.
So what's the news on it, 2 weeks later?
RIP. When it's in that condition you may as well break it down for scrap, could keep the tail as a memento though,.
It could probably be repaired TBH, it'd take a lot of work, but its possible.
Perhaps but it wouldn't meaningfully be the same as the original anymore, restoration is one thing but basically building a new cockpit from scratch is not really the same thing.
>>23730>basically building a new cockpit from scratch is not really the same thing.
I mean they just have to replicate the old blueprint (or use the half-made abandoned hull of the unfinished second AN-225) and they could even modernize the technology making it more effective.
Yeah but you can't just put something in a museum and be like 'hey this is BETTER than the original historical item'.
Well okay, you can, but it's not as good.
Unique IPs: 10