Aussie Aircraft Thread

My neighbours love hearing AC/DC at level 11 and then Satan going for a midnight drive

 

That's excellent.

Definitely best to hold the nose off for as long as possible. It won't come down with a bang - actually very gentle - but the technique uses a lot more runway.
Normally the nose wheel is lowered reasonably quickly because then you can apply reverse thrust / heavy braking and achieve a much shorter stop.

Great job all round.

 

Invite him next time we go to lunch.

Oh I see the problem.....

 

Oh, interesting, thanks! I think Prestwick has a decently long runway, too - IIRC it's used for training by BA, including with Concorde when she was around, so hopefully it's reasonably sized!

Must be comparatively easy to hold the nose up for a long time with an empty bomber hanging off a wing that size!

 

Leave me alone.

This was my luncheon venue today.

http://maltdining.com.au/

 

Thanks for the invite!

 

Victor Harbor to the Murray Mouth and the start of the Coorong today from 23,000ft

Taken with iPhone 6

It's a pity this website (still) compresses pics so much because raw the detail is surprisingly good and crisp.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

One point for guessing the aircraft (not too hard), but...

Several bonus points for whom wants to have a stab at what the far left value is?

I'm not sure, but my guess is it has something to do with AoA.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Concorde and rate of climb

 

Concorde has as many dials in the cockpit as that screen has pixels!

 

Interesting 1/2 hour watching an Orion doing blocky's over Atherton.

Might have had something to do with all the Army activity using a bunch of Blackhawks ,over the past week,waking babys,dogs and Klink,at 7am!

 

If you're friendly with the local coppers, borrow an old fashioned K band radar gun and point it at one of the aircraft as it approaches - that'll liven up their day too

 

Nah,I'll just hijack one of these...
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

No, and no.

Rate of climb is on the far right. 460 fpm through 70,000ft

 

FFS, how could I invite you. It's heterosexuals only.

 

Lol, they out looking for you again?

 

Nup,they got lost and were doing blocky's tryin' to find the rest of the convoy!

 

Lol.

 

If it helps, there's another pic out there showing the value at 0.88 but still with the bug at 6 (or 0.6, I suppose). And some other photos where it has a reading even with the aircraft parked (but I can't tell what the exact value is, because too many people taking cockpit photos appear to use terrible cameras).

 

I'm not sure. The screen grab I posted has the value at 5.34 but with the bug (if that's what it is) at 6
Thats why I wonder if it's the target Angle of Attack (in degrees)?

For moretti, it's not a Concorde because the Concorde would have to be supersonic at that altitude. It certainly wouldn't be indicating 104 knots.

 

I am not a pilot (I did a roll in a Robin once) but I think it is indicating 0.34 and not 5.34 - the other image I saw (which I can't bloody find now, but there's a lower-res version at http://www.christophermichel.com/Art/U-2-High-Flight/i-G5VBpHd/0/XL/u2cockpit-XL.jpg) showed the 1-9 scale in the same spot, but the white bar on the right hand side matching up to a not-quite nine value, whilst the central left hand number said .88. Yours shows the bar at three-and-a-halfish and indicates .34, and I've seen another one very close to that (http://i.imgur.com/DJ1Yz.jpg - 3.5 on the bar, .35 central number).

I know U-2s are pretty keen on the right AoA, but tenths and hundredths of a degree seems a bit TOO finicky (if I'm right about the 0.xx thing)

I wondered if it could be some kind of lift coefficient readout? Don't know if that's something you can calculate on-the-fly though (I guess so, but I'm not a pilot OR an aerodynamicist...). Other things important to U-2 pilots - yaw/drift stuff, fuel(??), camera related things like shot spacing to get proper overlap, ummmm track miles since a waypoint... nothing I can think of seems to fit in with that B+W parked-on-the-ground picture showing a value though.

 

It's definitely either indicating 5.34 or 0.534

It could be indicated Mach as opposed to actual Mach (which is 0.707) with the target at 0.6 Mach (ie. The bug) but I'm not sure why that would be on a separate indicator to actual speed - and hence why I don't think that is right.

As an aside, it's interesting that you mention yaw / drift.
If nothing else, the pilot really needs to step on the left rudder pedal...

 

While I'm at it, this early EFIS stuff shows an appalling lack of logic.

One instrument is graduated in one direction, and the one next to it is completely the opposite, and so on.

What were they thinking?!

 

My instrumentation engineering stopped in '82 when it all made sense, I like analogue dials.

Remember those insane instrument systems in those early Corvettes ?

That didn't last long but I would like to have HUD on Satan as the cops use their one card trick

 

I don't thiiiink it can be 0.534 just because the readout clearly says .34 (and one of the images I posted shows no leading digit - it's just a decimal point with nothing to the left). But the way it seems to work is that the only thing moving is the white bar on the right edge, it's not like the speed or altitude tapes that scroll up and down whilst the central number is just effectively a zoom lens onto the exact centre of the tape. In this case (and unlike the instrument three pixels away from it) it seems to be that the central number indicates the value reached by the top of the moving white bar.

Thinking about that, and the fact that it goes from 0-10, perhaps it's a percentage of something? I can't figure out what that would be where 6 is a constant figure of importance across all three examples of the display I've seen, though.

Something else important to U2 pilots is the very precise height AGL during landing (chase cars and all that), but that would seem fairly irrelevant at FL700, so I guess that's out too. I also don't think it can be speed related because of that B+W photo showing zero speed with the mystery instrument at .88 - unless it's wind speed, but again the actual values are weird unless it's a percentage of maximum tolerable or something...