old shapeI too use DPP (tis an under-rated software imho) I use a Canon 400D with a Sigma 100-300f4 lens. I shoot in RAW onto Sandisk Extreme III 4gb CF Cards.
Downloading is via a card reader & computer into a Maxtor 500gb external hard drive. Both the card reader & Maxtor are connected to the computer via the USB2.0 leads. On a 4gb card I can get circa 400 images (RAW) & to empty the card as described normally takes about 5 mins.
Perhaps the problem is the 450D uses SD cards which I seem to recall (from somewhere) are not so fast due to the number of connections?*
*I stand to be corrected
Your resolution seems very high!
I normally go for 96dpi @ 800 pixels wide for general stuff
For printing I go 350dpi @ A4Do you print ALL of your images????
I stick the SD card into a card reader which is USB’d to the PC.
Not sure what you mean by the number of connections involved with an SD card.When I Batch process, the screen has a choice of File Format, mine is set at TIFF 16 bit. I want the Tiff but I don’t know if I should be using 8 or 16 bit.
The output setting, what exactly does this do? Does it simply resize the measured dimensions of the image…..i.e if the image is 2560 wide my 1200 will give me an image 2.13 inches, whereas your 96 will give you one that is 26.67 inches wide. It’s the same volume of information so it shouldn’t make any difference in transfer time should it?
Printing, I only print about 1% of what I take. Usually at A4 but about half of that 1% gets framed up to A3. I have my mounts pre-cut on a machine with a defined aperture size (1cm less than A3 all round and perfect every time), I print 1mm larger than that all round (Mounting takes me 2 minutes!)
I define all these sizes on photoshop, and just let the DPI sort itself out (I never choose the option to resample the image. I get an image at 1200 dpi which is about 2.5 inches long in CS2. I alter that to 15.5 inches and the DPI drops. If I chose an output resolution of 96, them my image would be 35 inches or so, which when reduced to 15.5 inches the DPI would naturally increase to 217. If I “Chose” a dpi of 350 then my image would only be 9.7 inches long. If I chose 350 DPI AND chose 15.5 inches long, I would be resampling the image, thus letting extra pixels to be added by photoshop by whatever interpolation method I had also chosen (Bicubic smoother or whatever).
old shapeWell, I suppose that it is correct in that one of them is the reset switch for the total fuel flow gauge.
Problem with the Vulcan is that the panels went through several in-service mods – all my panels have plates riveted in, and new cut-outs added. As a rule, the same panels stayed with their airframe throughout their life.
Be interested to see an extract from your PN’s though….
Mark.
Every part that left the Chadderton Factory had a part number on it. This, as you say, must be an in-service mod. Not only in-service but likely done by the Service – possibly by an apprentice. Are the originals .25″ thick? I didn’t think they were…..16’s guage or 10’s guage was more the norm (0.064″ and 0.128″…or, a 1/16″ or an 1/8″ near enough) for such panels.
old shapePerhaps I am not stating it correctly. Try this:
If you run side by side comparison of a ship with winglets and one without with the exact same climb/cruise/descent profile, the difference is negligible. This is what I was trying to say when I said this: “The burn at any particular flight level is almost the same with or without.” The savings comes from being able to climb earlier and/or higher, as old shape argued.
There are other benefits that might be less obvious to some observers. For example, altitude changes on the North Atlantic track system are not routinely done, in fact they are rarely done. A 767-300ER might want to step climb on the the econ profile, say from FL330 to 350 to 370, but is unable to because he is generally locked into whatever FL he entered the track at. Thus he crosses the NA at the uneconomic FL330 while the 757ER equipped with winglets will climb right to 370 straight out of JFK at a very high percentage of his MTOW. There is also less traffic at the higher FL*s on the tracks because the heavies can’t get up there (generally). Thus the 757 is also less likely to get a track change.
No, it is NOT. The difference is marked. The negligible bit is YOUR claim that the faster climb to Cruise Alt is the key. I argued against you, you typed like I defended your claim.
The post above also points you at Boeings website. It supports my argument, and my argument is based on feedback from ALL the Winglet operators. All those designed by APB that is.
old shapeConcur. And this is precisely why these airlines are doing this now as opposed to 10 years ago.
FYI, I have it on very good authority from a very large 757 operator that the 757 with winglets save about 3% on the trip burn versus a 757 without. When you are at limit (normally structural), this savings goes right back into additional payload, meaning additional weight and burn, thus confusing the comparison.
The winglets don’t save fuel per se, as in reduced burn. The burn at any particular flight level is almost the same with or without. They cause the wing to produce more lift (or to lose less), thereby allowing higher flight levels earlier in the flight, and generally (normal winds) the aircraft burns less fuel at the higher flight level.
The winglets save fuel burn. The drag reduction by not having the tip vortex is significant. The extra lift enabling cruise altitude to be reached earlier is only small, the craft my get to level cruise about 5-10 mins earlier, 5-10 mins at a more efficient burn level is no great shake – but not to be ignored.
Your operator is using the savings made by the winglet to cram an extra pax or more freight (The freight and postage that travels with most flights – not just freighters). This is a normal thing to do and this means extra revenue, and that revenue must be included in the benefit side of the analysis sheet. Feedback from all the operators of the blended winglets indicate 6-10% running cost savings. The longer the haul, the better the saving.
10 years ago, the blended winglet design had not been perfected, the Airbus one was garbage for example and they carried on with their fence. But Airbus are now designing a proper blended winglet. Remember, these winglets were fitted long before the present fuel crisis, and it was a benefit back then.
And, as I said on another related thread somewhere, the private operators of 737’s are having them fitted, they care not-a-jot about fuel saving as it is their private jet and it’s pedal to the metal wherever possible. They fit them because they look good. A 737 without winglets now looks old and outdated once you’ve seen one with them. And the 767 just looks divine with them. Of course, the 767 fleet operators are looking for money return not a Bling(let).
old shapeI hate the way the media are making it sound 100 times worse.
It didnt plunge, it simply made an emgerncy decsent down to a level where the oxygen is at a breathable level(12000 FT Below). They did a proffesinal job and my hat goes off to both the crew (flight and cabin).
It simply had a decompression at 37000FT and the crew responded.
A question. Are the passangers/News readers told to blow things out of proprtion because they made it sound like the plane mearly fell out of the sky with words like Plunged, Uncontrolable etc.
You have clearly never been in a situation like this my lad.
I have, on the way back from Tenerife and we had a window blow. Sudden decompression, pilot takes it from 30k to 10k as fast as he can. Believe me, it is a plunge. Controlled or not, sat in an aeroplane that is nose down at about 30 degrees or more does not feel good. And it does feel uncontrolled, and the pilot is too busy to tell you that all is in control. If you are religious, you pray, with brown trousers on.
As for the A/c in question, it’s forward of the Front Spar and thus the torsion box…but, some fuselage stringers are ripped, that tear could have gone worse very quickly. There is no door of any sort there, so the aerosol theory is the only theory holding weight at the moment. And they are all theories, we speculate because nobody has been hurt.
IIRC there are no services located in the leading edge root, just a large fairing (Which has been ripped off too). Boeing experts please comment on services in this location.
If it had gone down, would that be Qantas’s first loss?
old shapeThe likely – very likely reason for the Harriers having to be slowed down is that they will have flown more hours than the Fatigue Specimens. In 2004 the FLAC rigs were only a few hundred hours ahead of the Airframe with the most hours. A few hundred hours is “Plenty” as each mission is about an hour, and each A/c doesn’t fly daily in normal circumstances. The FLAC rigs are run during the working day (Have to keep an eye on them in case the actuators break) but you can’t get 8 hours artificial flying from an 8 hour day. 3 maybe 4 hours. And people have to examine the results before the next test.
Since 2004 we’ve had a skirmish or two, so the gap must have closed to “Beyond comfort zone”
old shapeBeen making the centre section ribs today;)
The pale struts betwixt the wings. Are they a fabric strap or marine ply?
old shapeAs the magnetic poles shift, so do runway designations! 🙂
Welcome to the forum, Gav!Paul
Ged oudda here!
It will be fun when the poles flip then won’t it. We’re overdue the flip by about a 100 years. Maybe it will be like the Millennium bug. A complete lie in order to sell/upgrade/pretend to correct the computers.
Hey, I’m serious. Was it 06/24 at MAN or not?
old shapehttp://www.airliners.net/photo/American-Airlines/Boeing-767-323-ER/1372871/L/
Oh yes :cool:.
That piccy is better than the official ones that are now knocking around……
old shapeGood one!!! :dev2:
I don’t get it.
old shapeGood one!!! :dev2:
I don’t get it.
old shapeHi there to another Manny resident. You can get some great photo’s from the mounds on the south side of the runways, south of the fire training area. The pathway is of a road call Moss Lane which goes down the parimeter. Photography is best before Noon, after that either the Aviation park which is great when they are on RWY05 or there is the end of the runway round the corner from the Airport Hotel or the beer garden of the Airport Hotel itself which is situated right at he end of RWY23R. Oh and not forgeting the top level of the multi-story carpark.
Off topic, but did Man. move it’s runway a bit? In the 60’s and 70’s it was 06 and 24. Or am I going mad?
Oh, hi Gav. Welcome to the forum, all your Q’s will be answered here.
old shapeIt’s intended for longer exposures where the mirror slap would set up a vibration. Locking the mirror up allows you to wait until the camera is still again and then fire the shutter. Since it requires a double shutter button depression I wouldn’t have thought it would be much use in any other application.
Correct. It would be useless for A/c photography (Unless you are doing tripod shots of engine details or similar). With mirror locked up, you can’t see through the lens, so panning would be a comical experience.
I use it for landscapes and macro, where (On a tripod) I set up the shot in normal mode, lock the mirror up, press shutter again when the time is correct (I may wait for a cloud to move or something).
Also, (For Still life or tripod work) if you haven’t got one, invest in a shutter release cable. Unfortunately, they are circa £25 (It’s only a goddam cable with a jack plug on one end and a two way switch on tuther end).
Or, use the self timer mode. With detail macro work or a long telephoto that isn’t supported, if you are even gently touching the camera to press the shutter, your pulse will shake the camera…or you will twitch.
Tripods that are strong enough to hold up the Albert Hall still have (Approx) 50mm square plate to connect to the camera. But obviously, a beefy tripod is going to be more stable than a £15 one.
I want to build a mount for my tripod, which takes a large bean bag (NOT the sort you sit on!). Nothing is more stable than your camera and lens resting on a bag of dried peas. The weight of the camera/lens is not enough for the autofocus ring to rub heavily and allow the motor to labour.
I sketched out this mount, to get an idea of sizes etc. Wifey said “Oh, nice Bird table”.
The other very stable method was the Rifle mount with the trigger adapted for a shutter release cable. I haven’t seen one for years now, maybe because in this day and age (Especially around airports / airshows) you are likely to be picked-off with a 50 calibre by our armed forces.
old shapeAny idea on cost?
I read that 737 winglets coast about $500,000 a set but would pay for themselves in a couple of years.Of course the 767 payback wouold be much greater.
It takes more than a couple of years payback.
There are 3 elements to the cost.
(1) The cost of the Winglets themselves.
(2) The cost of the mod kit for the existing wing tip (Some beefy structure goes in instead of the closing Rib). The mod kit and the fitting are more expensive than the winglet.
(3) The down-time of the fitting, which can mostly be done during the scheduled maintainance periods, but not always.
old shapeWhich begs the question: Why don’t they fit the 763 with 764 style raked wing tips or is this something that cannot be achieved as a ‘retro’ fit ?
It must be the payback period. The 300 and 400 are an ageing fleet now and maybe there aren’t enough years left.
Sign In
