BigBusa Posted October 20, 2001 Share Posted October 20, 2001 ------------------ ? This message has been edited by BigBusa on 10-20-2001 at 04:27 AM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig6519 Posted October 20, 2001 Share Posted October 20, 2001 ------------------ Klipsch KLF30 Mains Klipsch KLF-C7 Center Klipsch KSP-S6 Surrounds Klipsch KG4 Surrounds Klipsch KSB 1.1 Front Effects Dual SVS 20-39CS Sub's Samaon S700 Sub Amp ART 351 Eq. Yamaha DSP-A1 Yamaha MDX-793 Mini disc Yamaha TX-492 Tuner Sony CDP-C701ES 5 disc Player Panasonic A110 DVD Hitachi MX6080EM Muli-system HI-FI VCR Hitachi 29" T.V. Denon DP-37F Turntable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted October 20, 2001 Share Posted October 20, 2001 cute - what kind of headphones is the pilot using? what kind of frequency response do they have? what is the noise rejection? ------------------ HORNS & subs; leather couch & feet up; lights out & tubes glowing! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty Favog Posted October 20, 2001 Share Posted October 20, 2001 And I thought David Clark headphones were the industry standard. I have no idea why I just posted this. Tom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEAR Posted October 21, 2001 Share Posted October 21, 2001 I think the pilot uses noise cancelation STAX Omega III headphones!The Omega III system will cancel any satanic words from Osama. Osama uses gas propulsion,he eats beans and then takes off.No wonder the fighter jet has to use the afterburners to keep up! TheEAR(s) Now theears Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted October 21, 2001 Share Posted October 21, 2001 Actually, after many discussions here on the forum (search under BS), most of us have concluded that for the best deep bass sub-woofer response, he should not be seated in front of the fighter jet. Everybody here agrees that the proper position for the deepest bass response in an open air environment with a combustion fuel driven bass woofer chamber is to sit behind the chamber at a distance equal to least 50% of the length of the chamber. This is where one feels the best deep bass "burn"! I don't think osma is using any tail lights either, a clear violation of Afghani air space, but he seems to be signaling a turn, if he does slow down, he will get a fighter jet up his butt! ------------------ HORNS & subs; leather couch & feet up; lights out & tubes glowing! This message has been edited by Colin on 10-21-2001 at 02:41 PM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WMcD Posted October 21, 2001 Share Posted October 21, 2001 Well, bass response from the engine might well suffer from the pilot being well displaced from it. But the forward placement puts the pilot closer to the cannons, No? I'd call that a midrange issue. Always something to be considered. Gil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dougdrake2 Posted October 22, 2001 Share Posted October 22, 2001 Too close for missiles, switching to guns... Wouldn't the exponential horn provide a more focused dispersion pattern than the Tractrix® horn, increasing the intensity of the effect in the "hot spot?" DD2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Adams Posted October 22, 2001 Share Posted October 22, 2001 Actually...OBL (in the photo) is in the perfect spot for.... LOI (live object ingestion). But that would only lead to FOD (foreign object damage). Which reminds me - if you ever get a chance, you should watch some bird strike video sometime. It's typically mono and won't show off your HT, but kinda funny nonetheless. You'd be surprised what happens to a 6 pound chicken when it hits a canopy at 400+ mph. One thing is for sure, those F-16's use SS amps and not tubes. <ducking & running> Sorry - working for an aircraft company will do this to you. :-/ Tom Adams Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Garrison Posted October 22, 2001 Share Posted October 22, 2001 Hey, Tom, just out of curiosity, what kind of wire do they use to connect the various sensors, digital whatnots and subsystems together in that aircraft? Is Boeing a believer in high end cables? Or do they just use some general contractors basic copper stuff? ------------------ Music is art Audio is engineering Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Adams Posted October 22, 2001 Share Posted October 22, 2001 Ahhhhh yes....I feel the preverbial off-topic tangent coming on.... Ray - I know you're trying to make a funny, but believe me, wiring (at times) is every bit as hotly contested/debated item as it is here. Everything from shielding to gauge thickness to termination to connectors...sheesh, I'm glad I don't have to deal with it (I work with aircraft systems -hydraulics, enviromental controls, etc.). Weight is always a big concern, so thinner gauge is always better except then it's more susceptible to breakage. And from what I've heard, pilots get a bit pissy when their display CRT's go <gulp> blank. Was in a meeting one time when they were arguing 22 vs. 24 gauge wire and one guy said, "Well hell, let's just go back to 12/3 romex then." To which some guy piped up and said, "Well, we'd certainly get the grounding hum outta the com system that way." The room cracked-up. Another major area of concern is HIRF (high intensity radiated field). You know, when you're flying your $40 mil corporate jet over in the middle east and some SAM site radar lights-up your aircraft. Seems that all those fancy Honeywell flght control computers we use have an issue with HIRF. Yep, nothing like seeing four large cockpit disply CRT's go blank to get the pucker factor at 10. Therefore grounding and sheilding are pretty important so ground braid termination and "hardened" connector shells are used and closely tested. We use some fiber-optic cables, but not much. And lord help us if an on-board laptop or PS2 or VCR or flat screen TV craps out. Hell, the crapper could be clogged up, but don't have the global communication system take a dump (pun intended). BTW, in flight our jets have an interior ambient noise level of a Lexus 430 at 60mph on a smooth road - I think the level we shoot for is 60db. The sound systems in these $30 to $40 mil aircraft are rarely high-end and use speakers like AudioVox and <cough, gag, choke, pah-toee> Bose. OTOH, I understand the guy who owns Peavy had a system in his aircraft that would thump with the best of the low-riding mini-pickups. Ahhhhh...what money won't buy. Tom Adams Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Garrison Posted October 22, 2001 Share Posted October 22, 2001 Actually, that was a serious question. I figured if there was any application where someone was going to go to great lengths to evaluate, under stringent test conditions, whether there was any variance in any aspects of performance between different geometries, conductor materials, termination methods or what have you, this seemed to be one of those applications... But looking at your last paragraph, I have this sudden flashback to Apocolypse Now and am visualizing some hotshot in an F-16 playing the Ride of the Valkyries as they line up OBL in the crosshairs... ------------------ Music is art Audio is engineering Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Phillips Posted October 22, 2001 Share Posted October 22, 2001 This what is on the T shirt that I have on at this moment,almost as goodMay be someone will get a chuckle out of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty Favog Posted October 22, 2001 Share Posted October 22, 2001 Tom and Ray,(oh God! The Click-n-Clack Brothers from National Public Radio? LOL) In light of various birds being hurled into canopies, engines, etc. I once heard oa story of a foriegn gov't firing chickens into some canopies of planes they had purchased. They were horrified to find the bird not only sailing through the canopy but completely through the cockpit and taking out at least a few dozen rows of headrests in a commercial airliner. The new owners contacted the makers of the canopy "glass" and described their test with great detail. The only reply that came from the manufacturer was "Don't use frozen chickens." LOLOLOL My brother told me about this a few years ago. He works General Electric in Evandale, Ohio testing cockpit controls so they stand up to real-life stresses. ------------------ Tom KLF-20 Mahogany (Cornell Hotwired) McIntosh C33 Preamp McIntosh MVP-841 CD/DVD Rotel RB-1080 Amp Yamaha PF-800 Turntable/ Sure V15 Type V Cartridge Ortofon VMS-30 mkII Cartridge Stanton 999SS Cartridge Yamaha K-1020 Cassette dbx 1231 EQ H.H. Scott 830z Analyzer Monster Interlink 400mk II Monster Interlink 300mk II Monster Video 2 (DVD to TV) Studio Tech U-48RW Cabinet Monster Power HTS-5000 Power Conditioner/Surge Protector Original 12ga. Monster Cable Enough empty boxes for a fire hazard! MAN!! That post was in bad need of editing. This message has been edited by tblasing on 10-23-2001 at 03:52 PM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forresthump Posted October 22, 2001 Share Posted October 22, 2001 what's the "cotpit"? the area behind the cockpit where they sleep? ------------------ go forth & hump the world Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShapeShifter Posted October 23, 2001 Share Posted October 23, 2001 Glide underneathhorizontal roll....Osama Bin Flatten ------------------ "KLIPSCH IS MUSIC"f> This message has been edited by ShapeShifter on 10-23-2001 at 05:15 AM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Adams Posted October 23, 2001 Share Posted October 23, 2001 Just remember tblasing...you brought it up. Yes, I heard that story of someone using frozen chickens, but not sure it's true. There's very specific criteria for bird strike tests (we're engineers afterall) and everyone knows you use dead birds that are not frozen. However, feathers are optional (no shite). Typically for wing and tail surfaces, there is a so-called splitter behind the leading edge skin. The splitter is a flat piece of metal that is perpindicular to the leading edge skin. It's job is to aid in <ahem> dispersing the bird's energy. Otherwise the skin (aluminum) would have to be very thick. For canopies, it's a combination of thickness, multiple layers and angle that's used to not only dissipate the bird's energy, but to deflect it as well. And in case you're curious, the device that hurls these birds is an air cannon. Simple device really. Big huge air tank and a long steel barrel. Chicken goes in the breech, air is compressed, valve from tank to barrel whacked open and ka-BOOOM!! I think this is where the term smithereens came from. We also do bird ingestion on engines. Here the engine must withstand the ingestion of a certain size bird without frag'ing the internals of the motor. Typically the bird goes in and you see virtually nothing come out. There's also a test to determine how many birds can be ingested (flow rate, if you will) before motor goes KA-PUT. I've not seen this test, but hear it's very <ahem> interesting. Ok - back to work. Tom Adams Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.