Slashdot Mirror

This tech has been avilable since the 1980s, but we've yet to see it in consumer-grade vehicles. Why is that?

Adapative cruise-control is still crazy expensive (even on a $70k car it's a $2500 option.) Sure the tech might have been around since the 1980s but it's still wickedly complex and expensive.

Heads-up display never caught on...I suspect, again, because of cost, and maybe because it really never was all that good in car applications.

HUD is actually rare even in commercial airplanes. There are a variety of factors, but according to that thread, it has a $1mil pricetag per plane and airlines aren't very interested. However, HUD will probably become standard in commercial airplanes over the next 20 years.

To be fair, I think you'll see collision avoidance systems in cars before you see HUD. No matter how cool HUD is.

For some reason I was thinking:

Super Etendart

as in:

Dassault Super Etendart:

"Honey, I got you a super entry dart...
It's long and has super appendages..."

(Oh, sorry, eggs-skews mah French...)

http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=405278

http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?aircr aftsearch=Dassault%20Super%20Etendart&distinct_ent ry=true

and they come with a lot of high-octane fuel, and have an afterburner...for extra boost...

From TFEA:

Edgy is all about cutting edge, perhaps bleeding edge, brand new code and infrastructure

No it's not - it's all about jumpy, nervous. Not really the sort of image I'd want to be projecting. OK, so you can do worse, like not checking the registration you've been given before taking your new plane to an airshow.

At least now I know WTF an eft is, though.

for reference, the wings on a 737 the wings are 1344 sq. ft. and the maximum takeoff weight is 174200 lbs. At cruising (i.e. when the lift and weight are in equilibrium) that's 0.9 psi on the wings. But I don't know about the lift over weight durring take off.

there is (no shit) a small helicopter powered by a lada (yes, that really bad russian car maker) wankel engine.
read more here

Tell that to the dead of Korean Airlines KAL007. The wikipedia article has a few inaccuracies, but you still get the jist. The Russians thought it was an RC-135, but it ended up being a passenger airliner.

Check for Windows. This is just one example. It is not considered to be considered controlling of the aircraft, but is in the cockpit. More importantly, Airbus wants it everywhere that they can. They would have it on more critical systems if they could.

BTW, check out google as I suggested (the other 2 were simple lamers who would not run it). You will find it in heavy use in the cockpit. Basically, Airbus is standardizing on it, except that FAA forces them to have a DO-178B on all critical instrumentation.

493 knots = 832.09026 feet per second

155 feet / (832 feet / second) = 0.186298077 seconds

0.186298077 seconds * 30 frames per second = 5.58894231 frames

From the nose to the tail of the plane to pass through the scene should take about five frames. (Discounting any deceleration, which would increase the time frame.)

Without the callous disregard for loss of life, that exchange is just stupid.

Ok then, does this help?

...adopted the same color scheme, citing exactly the same reasons.
The second one is the magnificent Airliners.net.

Who runs http://www.airliners.net/?

According to this,http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0949972 &WxsIERv=Prffan%20172&Wm=0&WdsYXMg=Unpvraqn%20Ubgr y%20Ynf%20Irtnf&QtODMg=Ynf%20Irtnf%20-%20ZpPneena% 20Vagreangvbany%20(YNF%20%2F%20XYNF)&ERDLTkt=HFN%2 0-%20Arinqn&ktODMp=Bpgbore%2015%2C%202005&BP=0&WNE b25u=GM%20Nivngvba&xsIERvdWdsY=A9172O&MgTUQtODMgKE =Guvf%20vf%20gur%20npghny%20nvepensg%20juvpu%20uby qf%20gur%20Jbeyq%20Raqhenapr%20Sylvat%20Erpbeq.%20 Frg%20ba%2007-Sro-1959%2C%20Eboreg%20Gvzz%20%26%20 Wbua%20Pbbx%20gbbx%20bss%20sebz%20ZpPneena%20nvecb eg%2C%20qrgrezvarq%20gb%20syl%20sbe%20ybatre%20jvg ubhg%20gbhpuvat%20gur%20tebhaq%20guna%20nalbar%20r yfr.%20Fcbafberq%20ol%20Ynf%20Irtnf'%20Unpvraqn%20 Ubgry%20gurl%20syrj%20sbe%2064%20qnlf%2C%2022%20ub hef%2C%2019%20zvahgrf%20naq%205%20frpbaqf%20-%20gu r%20rdhvinyrag%20bs%20fvk%20gvzrf%20nebhaq%20gur%2 0jbeyq.%20Gurl%20crevbqvpnyyl%20ershryyrq%20sebz%2 0n%20gehpx%20qevira%20nybat%20gur%20serrjnl%20haqr earngu%20gurz%2C%20svyyvat%20gur%20hahfhny%20rkgre any%20shry%20gnax.&YXMgTUQtODMgKERD=1787&NEb25uZWx s=2005-11-02%2008%3A42%3A31&ODJ9dvCE=&O89Dcjdg=367 72&static=yes&width=1200&height=812&sok=JURER%20%2 0(nvepensg%20%3D%20'Prffan%20172')%20%20BEQRE%20OL %20cubgb_vq%20QRFP&photo_nr=10&prev_id=0953307&nex t_id=0946016 he's got a long ways to go.

Actually "Chirac Airlines" use small-size / mid-size aircrafts: Falcon 50, Falcon 900 and Airbus A319. No Airbus A340, for example. Of these, the Falcon 900 are most commonly used. They're small, fast and practical - and they're 100% French-made.

In 2003, Chirac flew 245 hours in Airbus aircrafts, and 428 hours in Falcon aircrafts (source).

There would probably be a PR backlash if the President started to fly only in big, luxurious, expensive aircrafts a la Air Force One. Remember, this is France, not the USA: you're not supposed to show off your money, especially when it comes from the taxpayers' pocket. Announcing "big cuts" in spending on official transport is a popular gimmick among French politicians.

Thomas-

Qantas has had John Travolta flying his 707 with their paint job for years now.

It's not just passing similarity. I plugged in that photo of the plane landing on the beach, and got every other photo of that beach in the db. The noise filter must be set kind of low, because I can't figure out how the cow balloon photo is similar.

It's not just passing similarity. I plugged in that photo of the plane landing on the beach, and got every other photo of that beach in the db. The noise filter must be set kind of low, because I can't figure out how the cow balloon photo is similar.

I was trying this out a bit, and have to admit that it's cool that something like this exists at all.

However, I think it would be better if it were able to realize what the 'background' was and filter it out. (Though I couldn't begin to guess how you'd do this.)

For example, I searched for this image. Many of the results are of something completely different, such as a white jet. Which is nothing like a camo helicopter. But the sky and the ground are pretty similar, and I think that's how it's matching.

It's incredible that we got this far, but I think there's still a long ways to go before it's at the stage where you put in an image, and are awed at how quickly it works.

Also note that I'd tend to think this would exponentially more difficult than searching HTML files, so it might be much more expensive to implement large-scale.

I was trying this out a bit, and have to admit that it's cool that something like this exists at all.

However, I think it would be better if it were able to realize what the 'background' was and filter it out. (Though I couldn't begin to guess how you'd do this.)

For example, I searched for this image. Many of the results are of something completely different, such as a white jet. Which is nothing like a camo helicopter. But the sky and the ground are pretty similar, and I think that's how it's matching.

It's incredible that we got this far, but I think there's still a long ways to go before it's at the stage where you put in an image, and are awed at how quickly it works.

Also note that I'd tend to think this would exponentially more difficult than searching HTML files, so it might be much more expensive to implement large-scale.

Of course, given the usual course of things, it will instead be deployed at JFK's formerly-TWA terminal, assigned facial recognition tasks, and immediately declare everyone to be among the 10-most-wanted terrorists. I can't wait.

747 landing

This famous pic is the GIS for 747 and beach.

nice thong and an A-340 -- Same beach.

"The island is served by many major airlines that bring in large jets, including Boeing 747s, carrying tourists from across the world on a daily basis. This fuels the island's largest revenue source, tourism. The airport is famous for its short landing strip - only 2130 meters, which is barely enough for heavy jets. Because of this, the planes approach the island flying extremely low, right over the beach. Countless photos of large jets flying at 10-20 meters over relaxing tourists at the beach have been dismissed as photoshopped many times, but are nevertheless real."

Ehm - not no be too much of a geek, but here are some airplanes that (don't) look like the Slashdot logo...

http://www.airliners.net/similarity/index.php?imag e_url=http://images.slashdot.org/title.gif

BTW, if you want to post other searches, this URL format seems to work.

Here's one taken there about 6 weeks ago.

Some Applications of Our Research
1. Airliners.net
A site with almost 1,000,000 aviation images.


Wow !!! I tested their Sample search and all the results were aeroplane photos !!! Ok, ok the site only has airplanes but still ..:)

On a more serious note the alogorithms seem to look for similatity in the colors and lighting rather than the subjects (for example it shows the interior of a cabin in photos similar to a whole plane in the sky. To really see its effectiveness we need to test in in the real world (google images) . The 'artisticly revealing' photo you always liked ... now you should be able get similar pr0n (^H^H^H^H I mean art) with these algorithms

What an awful beach.

Actually a huge amount of flying is automated now on the big airliners. Pilot always has the option to go manual but more often than not so little input is needed the flight system can just be switched to auto pilot till you come into land again. The systems can also even land the plane for you, enabling truly unmanned flying...but pilots are always there for obvious reasons, but the planes do regularly land themselves. http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviat ion/read.main/1882971/ Couldnt find direct Boeing type links but that forum has some info on the automated landing.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/826031/L/

Found these posted on the airliners.net forum. I hate to /. this guy's PC, but hopefully somebody will be able to mirror these:

flyby & landing video

Found these posted on the airliners.net forum. I hate to /. this guy's PC, but hopefully somebody will be able to mirror these:

flyby & landing video

It says:

Photo copyright French Frogs AirSlides

Talk about a good marketing name ...

For several great pictures of this wonderful aircraft check out http://www.airliners.net/! Just do a search for the A380..

at Airliners.net.

Sig reply:
--
"all around the world/never go away without you/my Singapore girl" Anyone know the rest of this SIA/SQ slogan?

I haven't heard it in a long time, but from memory the line was something like "Singapore Girl, You're a great way to fly"....

A quick search on that phrase nets this user on the Airliners.net forums:
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/profile.main? username=Singapore_Air
whose signature is:

"Such A Way About You - Singapore Girl - You're A Great Way To Fly"

Now, that's not the most authoritative source in the world, but it roughly matches both what you remember, and what I do...

Cheers...

See here

It must be at least 36 787.559 kilometres, equal to the length f the Tropic of Cancer.

Here's a picture of A380 #2 just after painting...

How many volkswagon beatles lined up side by side would be needed to encircle the Earth 12 times as is needed to match the height of stacked A380 planes from here to the moon?

You must not have seen the other article where they gave this number.

Assumptions:
VW Beetle width = 1.6 meters
A380 Height (Tail) = 24.1 meters
Average Moon distance = 384,500,000 meters
Circumference of Earth = 40,075,160 meters

Where:
x = Number of VW Beetles to encircle the Earth 12 times
y = Number of A380s stacked to the Moon

1.6m * x * 12 = 40,075,160 m
x = 40,075,160m / 19.2m
x = 2,087,248 VW Beetles to encircle the Earth 12 times

24.1m * y = 384,500,000m
y = 384,500,000m / 24.1m
y = 15,954,357 A380s stacked to reach the Moon

Therefore, you get these ratios:
x : y = 0.1308262 VW-Twelve-Earth-Circles to A380-Moon-Heights
y : x = 7.6437287 A380-Moon-Heights to VW-Twelve-Earth-Circles

Lots of great pictures of the A380 are accessible from this search page. Pictures cover part shipment by barge and truck, as well as the build and rollout of the first two A380s (#1 an engineering test platform that won't fly, and #2 that WILL fly).

Boeing and Airbus have different philosophies regarding air travel. Airbus sees big planes going hub to hub, while Boeing envisions smaller planes going point to point. With more point to point travel, you can avoid so called mega hubs such as Chicago O'Hare and Atlanta.

It's also to important to note that Southwest Airlines is one of the more profitable airlines today, and they run a mostly point to point network. Guess which system the legacies run?

If you are looking for more amusing Boeing vs. Airbus threads, be sure to check out airliners.net.

Yeah, the A380 is old news to aviation buffs, but we're not all hardcore aviation buffs, are we?

Here's a good collection of pics from airliners.net

Airliners.net has some good information on the A380 aircraft, and the history of the devlopment.
You can also see tons of pictures of the A380, both the ground test aircraft and the first flight aircraft.

Airliners.net has some good information on the A380 aircraft, and the history of the devlopment.
You can also see tons of pictures of the A380, both the ground test aircraft and the first flight aircraft.

they already do, I saw a video where the pilots said the autoland is great in fog, zero visibility but the plane fined the runway, the real problem is taxing to the gate when you can't see out the window.

Anyway, it took me a while to find someone talking specificly about a 747 but here is a linkhttp://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_a viation/read.main/1882971/

Forget emergencies, try routine basis to keep certified, if you travel a lot, you probably have already been on an aircraft that has done an autolanding.

Yeah, and with good maintainance you'll get ~40,000 takeoff and landing cycles with that A340-600, and it usually carries around 380 passengers. You do the math.

In all fairness, since it's so early in the game Branson is also paying for a large chunk of the development costs per unit. I can't find stats for the A340-600, but it looks like the A380 has cost around $10.7 billion so far. Of course, this is still very much an apples-and-oranges comparison.

In terms of capacities, it's possible that a marginally better comparison might be something like a Gulfstream V jet, which cost $46 million apiece and hold a max of 19 passengers. I'd be interested to see if Scaled and/or Virgin tries targetting a similar market in the future, offering a point-to-point rocket for wealthy business travelers who need to get there ASAP, and wouldn't mind an extraordinary ride (and possibly a higher-than-average degree of danger) in the process.

To be exact, AN-124 and even larger AN-225 http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=389 were designed and built in Kiev, Ukraine.

Some pictures... Search for Antonov AN-225

Pictures like this

Cheers, Ulli

Some pictures... Search for Antonov AN-225

Pictures like this

Cheers, Ulli

Only if the plane is painted as a flying pha11us. They can do it, check out what they did for Miss Europe.

Using civil airliners may even "work" better.

Italians experienced a terrorism series of very much the same goals and in the same ways (albeit of very smaller scale). Here is an excerpt from one of their philosophical reasoning behind the scenes. Not for the faint of heart, I suppose, but reading it gave me a strong deja-vu concerning 9-11, especially since this text was written more than 20 years ago in 1980.

A customer can even order a plane with his choice of powerplant installed. An Airbus 330, for instance, can be ordered with a GE CF6-80, Pratt & Whitney 4000 series or the RollsRoyce Trent 700.