[HN Gopher] Rossiya - Special Flight Squadron Flight RSD88 from ...
___________________________________________________________________
Rossiya - Special Flight Squadron Flight RSD88 from St Petersburg
to Washington
Author : mjlee
Score : 86 points
Date : 2022-03-05 11:42 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.flightradar24.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.flightradar24.com)
| heikkilevanto wrote:
| Maybe it has a special permission, to evacuate embassy personnel
| or such. Maybe it also carries a small nuke.
| ncallaway wrote:
| It has special permission to evacuate embassy personal.
| secondcoming wrote:
| The live tracker: https://www.flightradar24.com/RSD088/2b07dd1e
| Scoundreller wrote:
| > No U.S airlines currently fly into any Russian cities, and
| those that flew over Russia's vast airspace to Asia had already
| been rerouting out of an abundance of caution. That adds time and
| burns a lot more fuel, increasing costs.
|
| Yes and no. If you add a refueling stop to a long-haul flight, it
| can save enough fuel to make up for the rerouting. (Long-haul
| flying is really inefficient because you have to take-off/carry
| _all_ the fuel needed to make it to your destination).
|
| e.g. a flight from NYC-Paris-Delhi is only 5.5% longer distance
| than direct, even though it now routes over europe instead of a
| direct polar route over Russia
|
| http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=nyc-del,+nyc-cdg-del
|
| (This isn't perfect, it still shows a bit of routing over Russia,
| but you get the idea). And you still have staffing costs, landing
| costs, etc. Weather related routings, night-time landing
| restrictions, etc.
| messe wrote:
| > Yes and no. If you add a refueling stop to a long-haul
| flight, it can save enough fuel to make up for the rerouting.
| (Long-haul flying is really inefficient because you have to
| take-off/carry all the fuel needed to make it to your
| destination).
|
| It seems obvious, but I always forget that the rocket equation
| applies in aviation as well. The massive difference in fuel
| efficiencies when you get your oxidizer for free tends to
| overshadow it.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| And using smaller airframes (because you can run
| smaller/lighter fuel tanks, along with lower drag) can add to
| those efficiency gains:
|
| > the total fuel consumption of a 7,200 NM flight can be
| reduced by up to 15% by making an intermediate stop half way,
| while using conventional existing long-haul aircraft. When
| the aircraft is specifically designed for medium-range
| operations (such as e.g. the Airbus A300), the total fuel
| savings could increase to 27%.
|
| From: "Evaluation of intermediate stop operations in long-
| haul flights"
|
| NYC to Delhi is at 6400 NM.
| sigmoid10 wrote:
| The rocket equation doesn't apply here, because planes don't
| just get their oxidizer for free, they get the whole reaction
| mass as well. So they generate forward momentum in a
| different way. Additionally, once a plane reaches cruising
| altitude, the only energy losses are due to air resistance,
| because the lift vector from the wings and the gravitational
| pull are antiparallel to each other and perpendicular to the
| direction of motion. The commenter above is still correct
| though, because the energy needed during ascent is
| proportional to mass times height. So if you can cut the fuel
| in half by limiting the total range, you can save a huge
| amount of energy (i.e. fuel) during ascent.
| newaccount74 wrote:
| A plane is not a satellite. You need to constantly expend
| energy to keep it in the air. The more weight is on the
| plane, the more lift you need. To get a bigger lift, you
| need to angle the control surfaces steeper, which increases
| drag.
|
| Therefore transporting heavy things by air (like fuel) is
| extremely inefficient.
| sigmoid10 wrote:
| That's a common misconception. In level flight, when you
| align the lift and gravity vectors correctly, they do not
| expend energy as work. Only 100% symmetric wings (as seen
| e.g. on acrobatic planes) require a constant positive
| angle of attack to generate lift. By using "normal" flat-
| bottomed wings and minimizing air resistance from forward
| motion, you can effectively glide huge distances using
| only the energy you get from slightly lowering your
| altitude in the gravitational field (downward motion
| component parallel to the gravitational vector equals
| work done on the plane to keep its forward velocity
| constant and balance losses from drag). Mass gets
| cancelled out there, because forward drag doesn't act on
| it and you also get more energy back from the
| gravitational field while descending. With an infinitely
| thin frame (=zero air resistance) or by using thermal
| updrafts, you could even stay in the air indefinitely.
| That's how glider planes work without any engine and why
| commercial jets at cruising altitude (very low drag up
| there) have some of the best fuel economy per person of
| all forms of travel. That's also how airlines can offer
| tickets at prices from which you wouldn't even be able to
| pay for gas when you drive the trip by car. Ryanair for
| example can fly you from Rome to London _and_ back for
| ~40EUR. You 'd be hard pressed to find a car that uses
| less than 40EUR worth of fuel for just one leg of this
| trip, even if it could drive in a straight line. Flying
| itself is really cheap - it's everything else around
| aviation that's expensive.
|
| Edit: I should probably add that this is different for
| cars. Cars don't just have aerodynamic drag, they also
| have rolling drag, mostly from small displacements of the
| tires where they contact the ground. If you ever tried to
| ride a bike with low tire pressure you'll know what I'm
| talking about. A heavy car that has the same aerodynamic
| cross section as a lighter car (think two cars of the
| same make/model, but one fully loaded and one empty) will
| have more rolling drag and thus use more energy/fuel. Two
| planes of the same model but with different mass will
| roughly consume the same fuel during level flight (there
| are slight higher order effects that I've glanced over
| here, but they are neglectable in the big picture).
| jonsen wrote:
| > Mass gets cancelled out there, ...
|
| Two equal airplanes but with different weight can glide
| the same distance, same glide angle, but the heavier
| plane will have greater airspeed to give the extra lift
| needed for the extra weight.
| roelschroeven wrote:
| Your explanation is misguided and half-truth at best.
|
| Every airplane needs wings that generate lift to support
| its weight, and heavier airplanes need more lift. That
| lift does not come for free, except (if I'm not mistaken)
| in the theoretical case of infinitely long wings. To
| generate lift, a wing necessarily bends the stream of air
| downwards; that's it reaction mass.
|
| Different references are used for angle of attack: some
| say zero angle of attack corresponds to zero coefficient
| of lift (called the absolute angle of attack), others try
| to align the reference with the chord line of the wing
| (geometric angle of attack). Obviously for symmetric
| wings the two are the same. In the case of geometric
| angle of attack, you could say a wing generates lift even
| with zero angle of attack. That doesn't mean that that
| lift comes for free! To generate more lift, the wing
| still needs a higher angle of attack (or more airspeed).
|
| Higher angle of attack means more drag. There's just no
| way around it.
|
| Gliders can stay in the air for very long times because
| they have very large lift-to-drag ratios, and hence very
| shallow glideslopes. They descend slowly, and the pilot
| tries to find rising air (thermals, ridge lift, lee
| waves) that rises faster than the plane descends. But
| make no mistake, even it those cases the plane still
| descends compared to its surrounding air.
|
| So no, two identical planes but with different mass will
| most certainly not consume the same amount of fuel during
| level flight. The heavier plane will consume much more
| than the lighter one (depending of course on the
| difference in weight between the two), and the difference
| will be much larger than the difference between to
| identical cars carrying different loads.
|
| See "See How It Flies" (https://www.av8n.com/how/) for a
| relatively gentle introduction to the physics of flight.
| tehjoker wrote:
| Does this apply to cars? I always wonder if there's a
| mileage bonus for riding with a half empty tank.
| ac29 wrote:
| Sure, it takes less fuel to move a car that moves less,
| but fuel is an nearly irrelevant fraction of total weight
| in most cars. A gallon of petrol weighs about 6 lbs.
| fragmede wrote:
| But what's the math on mpg difference for moving an extra
| 60 lbs? It's probably pretty negligible but without
| actual numbers, can't actually say.
| gruez wrote:
| A heavy car takes more energy to get up to speed. The
| extra weight also "stores" more energy once you get up to
| speed, but that's useless when you don't have
| regenerative braking. Also I'd imagine that rolling
| resistance would be higher when the car is heavier.
| roelschroeven wrote:
| As gruez says, a heavier car needs more fuel to
| accelerate and has more rolling resistance. It also needs
| more fuel to drive up a slope. Some of these can be
| regained in a car with regenerative braking, but even
| than only partially because there are always losses.
|
| But the difference is not nearly as large as it is for
| airplanes. Having your fuel tank only half full means
| more trips to the gas station, which might even negate
| all gains you try to make.
|
| It seems a good idea though not to drive around with
| things live heavy tools all the time when you don't need
| them.
| [deleted]
| jacquesm wrote:
| This is what this is all about:
|
| https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/28/us-expelling-russia...
|
| Interesting that even with the special authorization the plane
| was not given permission to transit EU airspace.
| throwthere wrote:
| It's probably simply just easier to fly around then ask for
| permission.
| jaynetics wrote:
| Are they coming to pick up expelled diplomats?
| sandstrom wrote:
| Yes, though they were spies under diplomat cover.
|
| The US has the same setup in Moscow too though. Among "non-
| friendly countries" it's common that close to half of embassy
| staff are actually spies or at least 'intelligence analysts'.
| kingcharles wrote:
| Yes, the words they always use are embassy personnel
| conducting "non-diplomatic activities"
|
| https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1498392471851741202
|
| The spy world isn't opaque. Each country knows who most of
| the spies are. They generally operate out of special sections
| of the primary embassy in each country.
|
| Almost all spies act under diplomatic cover so that they have
| immunity when they get caught. Operating without that cover
| is a risky mission which normally means your host country
| can't save you and will deny you.
|
| Each country just allows the spies to pretty much go about
| their business, follows them from the embassy when they can,
| and then uses them as pawns when necessary, like this.
| cutemonster wrote:
| When the other country knows already that they are spies,
| doesn't that make their job harder? What can they actually
| get done, I wonder
| amaranth wrote:
| You either feed them junk so they waste time filtering
| out the good intel from the bad, use them as a
| communications backchannel, or both.
| lawlorino wrote:
| Do you have a source for that?
|
| Edit: seems people misread my intention, I am challenging the
| parent response because it reads like something out of a spy
| novel with nothing to back it up.
| engineer_22 wrote:
| Why have an embassy staffed full of people in a foreign
| country if not gather information? "Spy" is used sort of
| loosely here, I think.
| [deleted]
| vagrantJin wrote:
| Where do you get a complete list of spies and their
| activities if you do not work for covert operations
| government agency ala Edward Snowden?
| toomanyrichies wrote:
| Your comment is valid- it's likely unreasonable to expect
| evidence for this claim in particular to be furnishable.
|
| That said, if OP can't provide evidence for the
| percentages they mention, perhaps the bigger problem is
| that they shouldn't have made the claim in the first
| place.
| epgui wrote:
| It's true even of friendly countries.
| robin_reala wrote:
| Yep. See Harry Dunn's manslaughter for an example of a US
| spy in the UK under the pretense of diplomatic cover.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Harry_Dunn
| mike-the-mikado wrote:
| A CIA employee working at listening station based at an
| RAF base in the UK (presumably listening into
| transmissions from e.g. Russia) is rather different from
| spies based at the Russian embassy in Washington.
| rjsw wrote:
| Anne Sacoolas, who killed Harry Dunn, was not working at
| the RAF base. She had also not been declared as a CIA
| employee to the UK government.
| nradov wrote:
| You've got to be kidding? There are no reliable sources on
| numbers of spies, by definition.
| aceazzameen wrote:
| Not OP, but I read about this in a book by an ex-CIA guy a
| long time ago. I think even friendly nations do it to each
| other too. It's like an unwritten rule to have spies in
| embassies. Of course, I don't know how much was
| sensationalized, but it somewhat makes sense to keep tabs
| on everyone else if everyone is doing it.
|
| Also, this is why counter-intelligence exists in every
| nation. Watching embassies is part of what they do.
| progre wrote:
| '... spies?' I thought we were chums with the Low King!'
| 'Of course we are,' said Vetinari. 'And the more we know
| about each other, the friendlier we shall remain. We'd
| hardly bother to spy on our enemies. What would be the
| point?'
| AniseAbyss wrote:
| Nothing wrong with spying, it keeps the world safe in a
| way if your intelligence agency can tell you the enemy
| isn't planning a sneak attack.
| NelsonMinar wrote:
| This discussion has gone poorly but I think it's a totally
| fair question to ask for a source. I can't find anything to
| corroborate the "close to half" number but here's a couple
| of articles about diplomatic staff being spies.
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-43556816
|
| https://apnews.com/article/north-america-ap-top-news-wa-
| stat...
| toyg wrote:
| _> though they were spies under diplomat cover_
|
| Pretty much all diplomats are spies, whether officially or
| unofficially. Their work involves learning and understanding
| things about the counterpart, openly or otherwise, and
| reporting their findings. The main difference is that the
| official spooks take more risks and carry out more direct
| action.
|
| _> Among "non-friendly countries"_
|
| Among _all_ countries. Any embassy of note (say, US in
| Germany, or French in Algeria, etc) hosts at least a few
| actual spooks at any given time.
| tus666 wrote:
| Why would the US pick return its diplomats in a Russian il96?
| That website is amazing too, I am surprised so much data is
| publicly available.
| colanderman wrote:
| The US is not picking up its diplomats; it has expelled
| Russia's diplomats.
| mike_d wrote:
| FlightRadar24, FlightAware, etc. are actually heavily
| censored. As a recipient of FAA radar data they have to agree
| to remove planes owned by rich people and corporations that
| don't want to be publicly visible.
| https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/equipadsb/privacy/
|
| ADSBExchange.com does not accept FAA data or process any
| removal requests.
| nickphx wrote:
| That's not how ADSB works.. FlightRadar/FlightAware do not
| have an "FAA Radar feed", they have a network of rtlSDRs
| listening for ADSB traffic. They offer the removal of the
| public display of flights, you can still purchase a
| commercial account to view them..
|
| https://flightaware.com/adsb/flightfeeder/
| chinathrow wrote:
| They are using FAA data next to regular data provided by
| ADSB data feeders, and yes, the FAA is having their data
| feed censored to some degree.
|
| https://forum.flightradar24.com/forum/radar-
| forums/flightrad...
| ncallaway wrote:
| The US doesn't pick a flight.
|
| The US says: "You're not welcome, you have XX hours to leave
| the country". The diplomatic personnel have to figure out
| their own ride home. Normally that's fine (private charter
| flight, commercial, whatever), but in this case there are few
| (no?) flights to Russia, and the Russian's can't fly there
| due to airspace restrictions.
|
| So in this case, Russia asked for a special exemption to the
| US airspace restriction so it could get its personnel out.
| The US said "fine", and the Russians are flying the IL-96 in
| to pick up its personnel
| Symbiote wrote:
| The FAA ban has an exception for diplomatic flights:
| "EXCEPT ... STATE AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS GRANTED A DIPLOMATIC
| CLEARANCE BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE"
|
| There are commercial options, e.g. flying to Turkey, the
| Middle East, China, India etc and taking a connecting
| flight to Moscow. But Russia probably doesn't want a large
| group of their spies and families travelling together on a
| commercial flight.
| vbezhenar wrote:
| Yes.
| bengalister wrote:
| We can still see:
|
| * a private jet flying from Munich(UPEM008) to Moscow
|
| * a commercial flight leaving Moscow to Berlin (Bulgarian Air
| LZBRU)
|
| * a private jet flying over Lithuania from Moscow (4XCUZ)
|
| and
|
| * a RAF aircraft (RRR7240) patrolling over Poland close to the
| Ukrainian border
|
| * An Istanbul to Minsk flight (Belavia 2784) flying east over
| Georgia, then far east from Volgograd then west to Minsk
| glogla wrote:
| I just saw Boeing C-32 (e.g. the Air Force Two) fly from Poland
| to Moldova. I wonder what that is about.
| chinathrow wrote:
| There is a shitload of mil aircraft up in the air at any time
| of the day now but more during european daytime.
|
| Just head over to the uncensored flight tracking site
| ADSBExchange.
|
| https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?mil
| pcardoso wrote:
| Perhaps this?
|
| https://www.reuters.com/world/us/top-us-diplomat-blinken-
| go-...
| CodeWriter23 wrote:
| https://fair.org/home/calling-russias-attack-unprovoked-lets...
| belter wrote:
| This is a Russian government Ilyushin currently en route from St.
| Petersburg to Washington. As the United States has a Russia
| flight ban, assumptions are that the airplane has special
| authorization.
|
| Last three flights of this airplane:
|
| 04 Mar 2022 Moscow (VKO) - St. Petersburg (LED)
|
| 03 Mar 2022 Brest (Belarus)(BQT) - Moscow (VKO)
|
| 02 Mar 2022 Moscow (VKO) - Brest (Belarus) (BQT)
| [deleted]
| anjel wrote:
| Lost on the news cycle but rich in the subtle language of
| diplomacy was that notice of the expulsion was delivered while
| the Russian senior diplomat was conducting a press conference.
| https://youtu.be/yLaX-035hOo?t=161
| NicoJuicy wrote:
| What a coincidence, that's the first time I see a diplomat
| taking a call during a live press conference.
|
| "Sorry, I have to take this"
| mechanical_bear wrote:
| They were informed beforehand. He took that call from one of
| his cronies in order to make a point that the US is the one
| violating international norms, etc. by PNGing those Russian
| diplomats. (Which is nonsense, given the context.)
| jonasenordin wrote:
| It seems that the plane had to go all the way around the closed
| airspaces of Finland and Norway (well, Scandinavia) to reach the
| Atlantic. Or maybe it's the projection.
| nirav72 wrote:
| Most aircrafts traveling west from Asia or Eurasia on a direct
| flight take a polar route to get to North America. If not over
| the north pole, at least as close to artic circle as possible.
| [deleted]
| mjlee wrote:
| https://www.greatcirclemap.com/?routes=LED-IAD - doesn't looks
| like it was because of the great circle route.
| georgecmu wrote:
| The usual route from Moscow and St. Petersburg to the Eastern
| seaboard is over Norway and Greenland, but since the EU
| airspace is closed to Russian flights, the routes to e.g
| Cancun, Punta Cana, Porlamar, etc. have to take a detour over
| Kola Peninsula and the fly over the Atlantic parallel to the
| North American coast. The detour adds maybe 30 minutes to the
| flight time.
|
| The reciprocal closure of Russian airspace over Siberia to
| European and US airlines has a bigger impact on cross-
| continental flights. The London-Tokyo has been trending in the
| news, since it's now 3 hours longer and has to go over Alaska,
| _[but I think the bigger impact is on nonstop flights like
| Washington, DC - New Delhi. These must be completely non-viable
| now for US carriers.]_
|
| edit: Chicago - Delhi was not actually routed over Siberia and
| is only 1.5 hours longer now:
| https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/ua898
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-03-05 23:01 UTC)