wizzlebippi

I read about this and looked to see if I had it in my M101 images. First image is from early April, second was from last Saturday. Both are about 200 subs, first is 45 sec LRGB with a 5" refractor, second is slightly processed color from a CPC 1100 with Hyperstar.

It's not that you couldn't fix it in fly by wire control logic, just that you would be signing up for a lot more work. Dihedral and anhedral are practically free for small angles anyway and I'm not aware of any benefits to loose or negative lateral-directional stability. The 787's wing flexes more because it's mostly carbon fiber and designed to do so to keep weight down. Keep in mind that a large aluminium wing also flexes significantly when loaded. Look up a video of a B52 takeoff and watch it's wings lift before the fuselage.

Since no one really answered OP's question, here it is. Engines throttle and propellers govern RPM. A simple constant speed prop for a piston engine uses engine oil pressure to drive a hydraulic cylinder in the prop hub. The amount of oil it is fed is controlled by a centrifugal governor mounted to the side of the propeller shaft. When the engine is throttled up, it tries to increase RPM. This drives the governor to feed more oil into the hub, which increases the pitch of the blades. This increases the load on the engine, and prop RPM remains relatively constant. Likewise, when the engine is throttled down, the pitch on the blades is decreased and engine RPM remains about constant. Multi engine aircraft have the ability to feather the prop, or turn the blades such that they are parallel to the air flow to minimize drag. I think they're supposed to automatically feather when oil pressure is lost, but don't quote me on that. The aircraft I work on have contained spinny things and I'm not multi-engine rated. Turboprops are a more complicated beast with the ability to feather and reverse pitch, usually requiring multiple governors (I've heard that the venerable PT-6 uses 3). Again, not sure how that works.

I discovered that I can't get achievements to pop. I've tried making new saves, deleting old saves, and reinstalling everything and starting clean. Still can't get them to work. I don't think I've ever used the cheat menu, but I thought it was attached to a save. Any ideas?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kutta–Joukowski_theorem

Can you calibrate the instrument now to determine the error, and apply the correction to the data analytically?

@Snark I wouldn't say I'm angry about the delay. I understand the development process enough to know that these things happen. I'm frustrated to have a last minute delay, and I know this means we're looking at the first week of April at the earliest to see this patch and more parts.

On one hand, I appreciate the honesty letting us know that the update was delayed. On the other, this update is long overdue. The last console update was July 19th 2018, only a bug fix, and squad failed to communicate fot the next several months, even when directly asked. In my opinion, anyone who bought the flying tiger port should receive the DLC for free for being crapped on for the past 2 years. At the very least, squad needs to commit to a console update schedule, and make an attempt to bring features from pc to consoles in a timely manner.

As an engineer who has worked on a few derivative designs, loosing how something was designed or built is easier than you might think. While the majority of the design is in the drawings and documentation, a large number of design decisions are made by individuals and not written down. Trying to improve on an existing design is amazingly difficult if you don't know why it's that way to begin with. Whoever did it first may have designed around a then known issue that you won't ever find written down. So you hope that individual still works at the same company, ask why this is the way it is, hope they respond, and actually remember. Everyone who designed the Saturn V has likely retired or died, so good luck. Building it is even worse. The process for assembling aircraft since the beginning has been lovingly reffered to as "beat to fit, paint to match", and the industry has only recently begun moving on to less wasteful manufacturing practices. I can't imagine a rocket built in the '60s is any different. This process means the knowledge to build a Saturn V existed in a few people's heads, who coached everyone around them. Long story short, you're better off not trying, and building something new from scratch.

https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Pilots-Not-Told-About-737-MAX-Auto-Trim-System-Updated-231846-1.html An update from a site that understands aviation. Apparently pilots were not made aware of the system that brought down Lion Air 610 in their type rating/differences courses.

I had to take a grad level aero class to get answers to some of the questions posed here. The equation is: Lift = density * Forward Velocity * Circulation. Hold density constant (constant altitude), and the result is circulation is inversely proportional to forward velocity, assuming the aircraft is airborne. If the leading edge of the wing (usually a separate piece for repairability) isn't sealed to the rest of the wing, stall speeds are significantly increased due to air being pulled through the gaps. Because the wing isn't infinite, air flow below the wing moves increasingly outboard as you approach the wing tip. It attempts to come around the wing tip and forces air above the wing to move increasingly inboard as you approach the wing tip. This produces a theoretical (and mind meltingly complex) structure called a vortex sheet. Since it's inherently unstable, it balls up into vortices on any discontinuity, like control surface gaps, and static wicks. If the aircraft happens to be in an extremely humid environment, these vortices are visible, and makes Facebook as "the pilot left the Chem trail sprayers on." Many aircraft have vortex generators near the ailerons. They can be strips attached to the leading edge, or even finger like protrusions from the bottom of the wing. This is because near stall, high pressure air from under the wing is either coming around the wing tip or trailing edge and reducing roll authority. The vortex generators keep air moving chord wise and maintain roll authority deeper into the stall. If you see vortex generators ahead of the aileron on top of the wing, that's a fix for something else.

The problem is that insufficient speed stability resulted in a number of Leerjet crashes because the aircraft's pitching moment resulted in an increasing nose down pitch with increasing speed. The regs are written in blood. Never forget that.

The only reason it's manual flight only is AP-ON operation likely has full envelope protection. This means the autopilot will never allow the aircraft to slow to the speed that the pusher activates. I find it a bit disturbing that the pusher uses up to 10 seconds of trim movement. A 3 second mistrim is all that is required in testing. 10 seconds would have to be catastrophically high control forces, even with hydraulically boosted controls (which I think the 737 has). I also find it disturbing that a failed/malfunctioning AoA vane has an impact on all other level A sensors. Someone really failed at the fault tree analysis for AoA. Though my favorite is still the Legacy 450 with a GPS dependant yaw damper. For YNM's concern, Boeing has to have done extreme heat/humidity (105F at 100% relative humidity and 135F with 12+ hour exposure prior to testing) testing as well as extreme cold (-40F/C for 12+ hours is pretty popular). The McKinley Climactic Chamber at Eglin AFB is a popular destination for this testing. You are right, these conditions make a lot of systems not work. It generally involves one visit to see what breaks so it can be fixed, and another to actually certify. A damaged wire bundle could be the root cause, but I would like to think they would do a continuity test on the wiring.

This could be the most interesting detail I've seen yet. The left and right pilot displays use different sensors to ensure that in case of a latent failure, someone should be looking at correct data. This also factors into autopilot operation in that guidance commands are computed twice by independent systems using data from independent sensors (displayed as flight directors on the left and right displays). If the flight directors don't agree within a given tolerance, the autopilot won't work.

The 737 max is equipped with a stick pusher designed to keep the aircraft from encountering full aerodynamic stall. Based on the articles I've read, the aircraft had problematic airspeed indications, implying that Boeing can fire their pusher at a minimum airspeed. As a transport category aircraft, the 737 max should have at least 3 air data sources, allowing a malfunctioning system to be voted offline. There should be a red override/disconnect button on both pilot's controls that if held would stop the pusher from firing. The aircraft may have been very nose down once the pusher was overridden, and the crew may have not recovered properly (throttles idle, speedbrakes extended, pull to 1.5-2g).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_Engine_Test_Facility Vacuum test facilities exist, just maybe not for something the size of a raptor. They could test their scale model, and validate the flight worthy engine with a computer model.

While both water and air are fluids, water is significantly denser. Even if the aircraft is facing the tsunami, fast moving water could easily exceed the dynamic pressure the aircraft is designed for. Best bet is getting away from windows and off the ground floor.

A common repair on aircraft, assuming the mis-drilled hole poses no structural danger, would be to plug the hole with a rivet and sealant. If there is a structural issue, some sort of doubler would be applied. Mis-drilled holes happen, and the worst thing a manufacturer can do is punish the worker who made the mistake. That leads to things like this at best.

Because the process of compressing air slows the air down. The compression/deceleration process starts at the intake on all jet engines, slowing it to less than 0.3 Mach before it reaches the compressor. This is because below 0.3 Mach, air can't be aerodynamically compressed. From there, multiple compressor stages mechanically work the air. These can be numerous axial rotor/stator stages, or on some engines, a few axial stages and a large centrifugal stage before the burners. The idea is the same, something speeds air up and forces it into something stationary to increase pressure. On a ramjet, the intake air is fast enough that aerodynamic compression is enough to operate the engine. No moving parts needed.

The fuselage is one awkward airfoil. On conventional aircraft, the fuselage is usually assumed to produce as much lift as the wing area it covers. Assume the chord is the length of the craft, and the area is what you see in your top down view. The easiest way to calculate area on that is to break it down into simpler shapes.

It doesn't even need to be in space. Next time you fly on an airliner, have a navigation app open. Your phone will drop GPS shortly into the takeoff roll because it senses excessive acceleration. For entertainment, if you get the chance to fly on something smaller and slower like a skyhawk, open a navigation app and watch it try to figure out where you are.

I might be a savvy engineer, so I'll take a crack at this. Engines work by using a heat source to cause a working fluid to expand as a means of transferring energy from fuel into mechanical energy. The problem is most working fluids don't hold much thermal energy at useful temperatures, limiting the energy output and efficiency of the engine. The solutions are either increasing the operating temperature or increasing the mass of the working fluid. Increasing operating temperature usually isn't an option, at least not by enough to make a difference, due to material properties and cooling. Increasing the size of the engine can dramatically increase energy output by increasing the volume of working fluid, but at the expense of efficiency due to difficulty heating all the working fluid. Compressing the working fluid increases the mass being heated while keeping the volume being heated reasonable, allowing more chemical energy to be captured as heat, resulting in increased energy output and efficiency of the engine.

The problem is transferring gasses to and from your blood relies entirely on pressure. If the pressure of oxygen in the air is less than the pressure of oxygen in your blood, then oxygen moves from your blood to the air in your lungs. Above about 35,000 ft, the ambient pressure is low enough, that the time of useful consciousness becomes constant. This is because there isn't enough air pressure to keep enough oxygen in your blood for you to remain conscious. It then becomes a race of you using oxygen vs. oxygen and other gasses escaping in your lungs. Holding your breath will not stop this because breathing also relies on relative pressure. If you have an FAA medical certificate, you can take a chamber ride for free at the Civil Aerospace Medical Institute.

And now it magically works again. I'm not sure what I did to disable the reaction wheels and today they work again.