dizman Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 Wow, I've never heard of trainspotting, planespotting, or railfanning. I must really be outta the loop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-ZeroOne Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 "Trainspotting" is a quite well known term in the U.K, probably because we have a more noticeable passenger-used railway (rather than freight). "Trainspotter" is often used in a derogatory way, with meanings such as "sad", "nerd", "geek" (the insult versions, not the modern hip versions) and "science fiction/anime/role-playing/delete-anything-which-isn't-related-to-sports" fan. A group of U.K. plane-spotters got themselves into trouble in Greece a few years ago; the military accused them of spying and apparently the concept of watching military aircraft for enjoyment as a concept took some explaining...! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalvasflam Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 uh oh... it's starting to smell like an A380 http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Stor...o&dist=yhoo I suppose the upshot is they're saying it now instead of three weeks before delivery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 So you say it's not a term used here, and then you say thats what people use here to describe the activity. It's popular usage, which pretty much counts. No. People who DO it call it raifanning, which is 90% of the population that's even aware of its existence. But are never heard. The few people who know of it, but don't actually do it/know what it's really called, call it trainspotting. But they're the only ones ever heard. Before that movie came out, they would have been at a loss for words. Vocal minority. Kind of like nuclear vs nuke-u-lar. 99% of the public will call an elevator or rudder a "flap". Doesn't make it right or correct in the slightest, regardless of common usage. PS to FZero-One----we plane-spotters are well aware of what happened in Greece. Many nations are like that. Never mind that they were holding a public airshow at the time. "If you don't want people looking at your planes, don't show them off at a big public event!!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 Lazily reposting from Alert5: RAM Block 2 missile tests: http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/micro_st...TE=Jan+14,+2008 When was the new UK CVF named Queen Elizabeth class? Anyways, looks like it'll be delayed: http://www.janes.com/news/defence/naval/jd...80114_1_n.shtml Looks like the first actual in-flight refueling of the Gripen: http://www.gripen.com/en/MediaRelations/Ne.../080111_aar.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 As a kid growing up in the UK, long before the 'Trainspotting' movie came out, the activity of watching trains and recording their numbers, was always called 'trainspotting', with the people who did it being called 'trainspotters'. I never did it, (I find trains, buses and airliners boring), but I had an uncle that was into it. I've never head of the term 'trainfanning' before. Must be word specific to the US. Graham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 *Rail*fanning. It's like hood vs bonnet, biscuit vs cookie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nied Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 SAT time! Railfan is to Trainspotter as Trekker is to Trekkie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 Nah, Foamer is to Railfan as Trekker is to Trekkie. Or the opposite. I forget how the Trek terms go. Back when I first started watching Trek, there was only one term, all-encompassing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight26 Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 Lazily reposting from Alert5: RAM Block 2 missile tests: http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/micro_st...TE=Jan+14,+2008 About dang time that the Blk-2 got off the ground, sheol I wonder if they ever fixed the problems with Blk-1 and 1B, been out of the loop on RAM for two years now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-ZeroOne Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 (edited) When was the new UK CVF named Queen Elizabeth class? Anyways, looks like it'll be delayed: http://www.janes.com/news/defence/naval/jd...80114_1_n.shtml Its a name thats at least a few months old; I first saw it on Wikipedia before the New Year, but I can't say definitively when they were named that. Incidentally, second-of-class will be HMS Prince of Wales, and in a pre-emptive attempt to stop the jokes I can already hear, its a name with quite a long history in the Royal Navy, way before the current bloke with the ears held the title. Edited January 16, 2008 by F-ZeroOne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noyhauser Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Well its F-22 time boys. Lockheed Martin given F-22 reprieve http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2b6bbce0-c4a1-11...?nclick_check=1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 How is the F-35 more modern? Newer, yes, but that doesn't mean more advanced. It's a stripped-down F-22. F-22 has the absolute best of everything. The F-35 has "the best stuff the US is willing to sell to friendly nations". Arguing the F-35 is better due to being a more recent design is like saying a 2008 Ford Taurus is better than a 2005 Lambo Murcielago because it was built a few years later... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-ZeroOne Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 (edited) David, current UK news story that may interest you: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7194086.stm A British Airways 777 landed short of the runway at Heathrow today; only a handful of minor injuries have been reported but the pictures are pretty spectacular. You can clearly see damage to the wings near the roots and it appears it came down actually on the grass - you can actually see the dirt trails - before coming to a halt just on the runway. Reports are that the pilots says he lost all power and systems just before touching down. This could have been a lot worse... Edited January 17, 2008 by F-ZeroOne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynx7725 Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 (edited) Woah, that's quite a major incident. Looks like the left wing is really tattered. Yes, it could have been a lot worse -- quite surprised there's no fire. Edited January 17, 2008 by Lynx7725 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-ZeroOne Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 The aircraft was coming in to land from Bejing so presumably much of the fuel load was burnt already. The official "family" theory from my Dad is that the grass helped absorb the impact... Eyewitness and passengers reports indicate that the aircraft appears to have "swerved" or "see-sawed" just before "dropping" down; reminds me a little of that famous F-22 prototype crash and makes me wonder if the flight control system had a problem - it also appears there was a total loss of engine power... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Leader Posted January 17, 2008 Author Share Posted January 17, 2008 Well its F-22 time boys. Lockheed Martin given F-22 reprieve http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2b6bbce0-c4a1-11...?nclick_check=1 Hopefully the grounding of virtually the whole F-15 fleet will be the wake up call to go with a much bigger F-22 fleet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 I only just found out about the BA 777. Normally everybody tells me, as they all know I'm interested. Current rumor is that it ran out of fuel. Also, the plane is totalled/write-off. First 777 hull loss. But still 0 fatalities. A340 has a similar record, with 3? losses but no fatalities. Newer-design airliners are either lucky, or actually safer in a crash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-ZeroOne Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Someone forget to pay the fuel bills this month...?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Best pic of the damage: http://www.flightglobal.com/AirSpace/photo...4/original.aspx The big pale grey vertical piece with ribbing? (just above the rescue vehicle with barricade striping's ladder). That's the connection between the left main gear mount and the rear spar/rear fuselage main frame (I'm unsure of the 777's exact design there). There is probably no stronger piece in a 777. And it's ripped through the wing and is pointing straight up. (it's supposed to be horizontal) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalvasflam Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 (edited) Hopefully the grounding of virtually the whole F-15 fleet will be the wake up call to go with a much bigger F-22 fleet. I like the number 831, it's just an anagram of 183.... on the other hand... poor 787... compensation city, here we come. As for the BA777... ran out of fuel? What the hell? Did the ground crew at Beijing pull a Peter Griffin? Edited January 17, 2008 by kalvasflam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Either that, or complete and instant failure of all systems at the same time. Which would be one hell of a bug/glitch in the software. Personally, I think even the most face-saving pilot would admit if he ran out of fuel. It'd come out quickly anyways. Still---ripping the wings open with no fire... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddhafabio Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 well it fits with the latest industry trend, eliminate the fuel bumper so that air traffic control has to give the in coming plane a better slot in the landing queue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-ZeroOne Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 (edited) Another theory doing the rounds is a double bird-strike. And its not a "rescue vehicle", its a fire engine. Edited January 18, 2008 by F-ZeroOne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mriboy Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 Isaw a F-22 practicing for an airshow a Nellis AFB and it amazing what it can do. I saw it stop pretty much in the air do a 180 then zoom off pluse a lot of other stuff like that. I grew up near Nellis so seen lots of stuff, but that F-22 doing all those diffrent things blew me away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Leader Posted January 18, 2008 Author Share Posted January 18, 2008 For all the things that we either know or speculate about the F-23 being superior to the F-22 (top speed/cruise, stealth, etc.), I wonder if the F-23 would have been capable of performing the same kind of aerobatics the F-22 is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Leader Posted January 18, 2008 Author Share Posted January 18, 2008 I like the number 831, it's just an anagram of 183.... The original ATF production run was suppose to be 750, so hey why not. In light of the huge cuts both the F-22 and B-2 took to their original intended production runs, in the F-117's case it was suppose to have been a fleet of about 20 aircraft. They ended up making 59 of them! (59 production along with 5 prototype/preproduction aircraft) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight26 Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 The lack of fire damage tells me that there was either no fuel in the tanks, or those engines were dead and cold at landing. If it is loss of fuel and the pilot has not fessed up we might be looking at a problem in the fuel quantity gauging system. I;m sure there will be an investigation into that system if dry tanks are discovered and the pilot swears up and down that his system showed fuel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Leader Posted January 18, 2008 Author Share Posted January 18, 2008 Reading over that British Airways 777 story some more, if it was a case of the plane being out of fuel how did the all his electronics go kaput? If there was some fuel left, maybe there was no fire since the engines were dead and if there was no electrical output. Looking at the map and just how crowded and congested things are around that airport (including a busy road at the end of the runway), it was a complete and total miracle that this 777 landed where it did and that nobody got killed. Maybe David or someone elese can answer this, but does the 777 have both electrical and hydralic controls? It it were electrical only and all their systems went out I would have thought they would have been toast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 The 777 uses cables from the yoke/pedals/throttles to send the signals, the computer interprets the signals and commands the servos/hydraulics. It uses every system in combination. That is technically FBW, but a more mechanical version than most. F-18 is the same I think. Airbus uses electonics for both the signals from the pilots and computer interpretation (same as F-16), while the 787 goes all the way and even has electronic motors and servos instead of hydraulics for the actual movement of the surfaces. Current statement from the AAIB (UK version of NTSB) says the autothrottle commanded a thrust increase and neither engine responded. After several unresponsive commands the pilots took manual control of the throttles and the engines still refused to increase thrust, and the plane basically came down at idle. Don't know why/how electronics went out, 2 idling engines should be more than enough, though maybe it was just the passengers over-reacting to their TV screens shutting off---IFE is the first thing to go of course when the generators can't keep up. Just because you can't watch reruns any more in business class doesn't mean the pilots lost THEIR screens... Pilot's statement is misinterpreted a lot, he said he got no power when he needed it. That is not a LOSS of power, that means NO INCREASE. PS---the plane is so going to be scrapped. I got out my best 777 schematics and the inboard wing is similar to other recent Boeings, 2 of the 3 main wing-to-fuselage attachments are damaged/destroyed on the left (mid attachment has to be deformed/disturbed if not disconnected, aft one totally destroyed), I doubt the right wing fared much better. There is footage of it landing, but I can only find what I believe is the censored version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYwQ4EHQY8Y I doubt the tape actually stopped right there. Liveleak has more footage from a few secs earlier, but it's still just what was shown on broadcast TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orguss01 Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 (edited) AHHH more about the grounding of my favorite birdee.. Looks like the AF was working on Macross style ejector pod/cockpit. I am glad pilot survived to tell tale... F-15 break up Edited January 20, 2008 by orguss01 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stemp Fester Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 AHHH more about the grounding of my favorite birdee.. Looks like the AF was working on Macross style ejector pod/cockpit. I am glad pilot survived to tell tale... F-15 break up Didn't the F-111 have some kind of ejector pod? I remember seeing it in a "Warplane" magazine I think, although IIRC it didn't have any real info about it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stemp Fester Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 Dug out that issue of Warplane, more info on it than I thought... "The pilot and WSO sit side-by-side in an air conditioned and pressurised emergency escape module. An explosive cutting cord, detonated by either of the crew, separates this capsule from the fuselage at any speed or altitude, a rocket motor carrying it upwards and away from the stricken aircraft before a parachute is deployed to ensure a controlled descent. To stabilize it a small portion of the wing remains attached to the capsule, which is adapted for survival on land or in water with airbags cushioning an 'on land' landing and keeping it afloat in water. The safety module means that the pilots do not need to use 'poopy' suits, although they must, like other fighter pilots, wear anti-gravity suits. These suits inflate under conditions of high g to prevent blood rushing to the aircrew's feet and rendering them unconscious." Poopy suits? Magazine is from 1987, dunno how much has changed on the F-111 since then... a bit I'd presume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante74 Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 (edited) Don't know if the escape module is still used but I found a site showing a pic ofthe module. http://www.ejectionsite.com/f111restore.htm ::EDIT:: ...and another Edited January 20, 2008 by Dante74 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmaker Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 Reminds me of the cockpit modules for the fighters in Space: Above And Beyond I didn't think actual aircraft had such things. Learned something new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts