|
New page, new picture: Aircraft I passed my private check-ride in. Agreed, airliners.net rocks! I usually update my background twice a day with a new picture from their site. The forums seem weak though. Too much talk about highly specific airline operations like "Why does DL operate a 757 on the JFK-CDG route?". The tech/ops forum has questions like "What is that blue streak coming from the aft lavatory service panel?". SA just spoils it for the rest of the worlds forums. In other news, WN is getting the B738! And the FL WN merger is taking shape. They will operate the 717, FL business class will be phased out, and WN stated they will try to keep as many small cities (please keep Akron/Canton) as possible. gigButt fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Apr 19, 2011 |
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 20:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 19:58 |
|
|
BonzoESC posted:I just hate 'em because I can't stand up straight in the middle of the aisle. Compare and contrast with the MD-11 I rode on Monday, where I could just barely touch the ceiling in the aisle. It's an interesting issue, since the Challenger and Global Express bizjets have a roomy cross-section, why couldn't those be incorporated into a regional jet?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 21:47
|
|
|
gigButt posted:In other news, WN is getting the B738! And the FL WN merger is taking shape. They will operate the 717, FL business class will be phased out, and WN stated they will try to keep as many small cities (please keep Akron/Canton) as possible. I really have to ask - what's so great about Southwest? I really don't understand why you would want to fly without assigned seats. It's so much nicer to be the last person on the plane, staying longer out in the terminal where the air is fresh yet knowing I have a seat near the front. No baggage fees I understand, but I've flown mostly carry-on for years because I've lost luggage my entire goddamn life, and the one time that should have been a good experience (when they delivered it to my grandparents house over an hour away from the airport) they threw the luggage over the fence into the pool. I always see cheap fares advertised, but how often do you actually get that low rate?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 23:09
|
|
|
Southwest is my 2nd favorite to AirTran. AirTran has low fares with upgrades to Business Class available and you will always have a seat assignment although you have to pay extra to pick it in advance. AirTran also flies into great secondary airports. Most notably for me, Akron/Canton instead of CLE. Southwest has a solid route structure offering a bunch of non-stops and times that fit my schedules. I fly out of LAS and the number of flights to choose from is very impressive. The product is nice too with leather seats that seem spacious, very few delays, and extremely friendly staff. Bags fly free is awesome when you do end up buying something you want to take back with you that wont fit in a carry on or more commonly, isn't allowed in the cabin. I have flown Delta, Continental, Midwest, and Independence Air. AirTran and Southwest still rank at the top for me. edit: Southwest has the best cancelation policy ever. No cash back, but all funds are avail to book future flights for 1 year with no black outs. So if i see a great fare, I can book it right then and if the dates do not work I just cancel and use that credit another time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2011 01:08
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:(emphasis BonzoESC's) It does - but it runs deeper than just aircrews; put simply, there is redundancy in everything in a merger. Until you figure out what stays and what goes, it is easier to operate as two separate operations under one name. Integrating two airlines into one is a very complicated and often highly contentious procedure that can take years to accomplish. Back when Canadian Airlines and Air Canada merged, I remember hearing all kinds of ugly stories; aircrews getting into shouting matches in public, jumpseaters getting kicked off flights for no reason (other than you worked for the other guy)...it goes on and on. SyHopeful posted:It's an interesting issue, since the Challenger and Global Express bizjets have a roomy cross-section, why couldn't those be incorporated into a regional jet? The Challenger and GLEX both share a common fuselage cross-section with their CRJ cousins. The only reason why the business jet seems roomier is because there isn't a need to cram it full of seats to make money.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2011 02:36
|
|
|
MrChips posted:It does - but it runs deeper than just aircrews; put simply, there is redundancy in everything in a merger. Until you figure out what stays and what goes, it is easier to operate as two separate operations under one name. Integrating two airlines into one is a very complicated and often highly contentious procedure that can take years to accomplish. Back when Canadian Airlines and Air Canada merged, I remember hearing all kinds of ugly stories; aircrews getting into shouting matches in public, jumpseaters getting kicked off flights for no reason (other than you worked for the other guy)...it goes on and on. You're probably right. Been a long time since I've been on either a Challenger or a GLEX. And when I say Challenger I meant the old guppy-looking ones, not the 300s. Or is it just an illusion that the old Challengers look and feel bigger? (not being a smartass)
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2011 04:09
|
|
|
SyHopeful posted:You're probably right. Been a long time since I've been on either a Challenger or a GLEX. And when I say Challenger I meant the old guppy-looking ones, not the 300s. Or is it just an illusion that the old Challengers look and feel bigger? (not being a smartass) The entire family, from the original Challenger 600 to the CRJ-1000, share the same fuselage cross-section. Some of it is due to what I mentioned earlier, but it also occurred to me that not only are there none of the dreaded CRJ window seats (where banana-shaped people have their only advantage over the rest of us) in the business jets, but also because there are typically no overhead bins either, which frees up a ton of headroom.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2011 04:49
|
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:I really have to ask - what's so great about Southwest? I really don't understand why you would want to fly without assigned seats. It's so much nicer to be the last person on the plane, staying longer out in the terminal where the air is fresh yet knowing I have a seat near the front. The way WN does seating incentivizes being ready to board so they can get you moving faster. Yeah the terminal is a bit nicer than the airplane, but I'd much rather be breathing stale air while hauling rear end. I used to fly Miami area to Tampa every week or two, and when I did, there were four non-stop options: AA 737 MIA-TPA, WN 737 FLL-TPA, CO turboprop MIA-TPA, and Spirit A320 FLL-TPA but gently caress Spirit. I tried AA and WN, both the first flight Monday morning, and AA took an extra 45 minutes to board the plane, even figuring that FLL was an extra 30 minutes in the car. When plans change, I can adjust WN tickets without paying change fees, just fare differences (including recovering the difference if the new ticket was cheaper). Basically, they're fast and no-frills while still having good customer service and friendly policies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2011 14:38
|
|
|
edit: wrong thread  edit2: Bonus helicopter porn due to my mistake: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRd-yMT_5NE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T22N8MKVL-4 Ola fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Apr 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2011 18:24
|
|
|
Ola posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T22N8MKVL-4 Haha, this thing sounds like a chevy with a lopey cam when it starts up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2011 22:14
|
|
|
MrChips posted:The entire family, from the original Challenger 600 to the CRJ-1000, share the same fuselage cross-section. Some of it is due to what I mentioned earlier, but it also occurred to me that not only are there none of the dreaded CRJ window seats (where banana-shaped people have their only advantage over the rest of us) in the business jets, but also because there are typically no overhead bins either, which frees up a ton of headroom. so....was it really all in my head that the 300s looked significantly narrower than the 600s?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2011 23:44
|
|
|
I love how when a turbine engined vehicle starts up you repeatedly feel and hear sounds that start in your chest and then pass upwards out of hearing as various bits start very slowly and then move breathtakingly fast.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2011 01:31
|
|
|
SyHopeful posted:so....was it really all in my head that the 300s looked significantly narrower than the 600s?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2011 01:32
|
|
|
Skyssx posted:I love how when a turbine engined vehicle starts up you repeatedly feel and hear sounds that start in your chest and then pass upwards out of hearing as various bits start very slowly and then move breathtakingly fast. I love the sound a turbine engine makes right after the fuel lights off in the engine, like in the Huey video at 0:39; I've heard it (and done it myself) thousands of times by now, yet it never ceases to make the hair stand up on the back of my neck. The only thing I like more than that is the sensory overload you get right after you step out the hangar door, first thing in the morning, about 0530 or thereabouts. Everyone is starting up for first flight then; jet engines big and small are lighting off and idling everywhere. That first step out the door, when you smell the burnt Jet A; not only can you hear the characteristic whine of dozens of engines, propellers and APUs, you can feel it welling up from the ground too. Forgive me if it sounds hackneyed, but this is what gets me out of bed every morning.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2011 02:36
|
|
|
Understeer posted:Sure you weren't thinking of the ERJ-135/145? PDX never got ERJs at all when I was working line service, so no. Except for Embraer's E190 testbed, but that's obviously not what I'm talking about. Edit: lots of Brasilias but nothing else. SyHopeful fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Apr 21, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2011 02:50
|
|
|
MrChips posted:I love the sound a turbine engine makes right after the fuel lights off in the engine, like in the Huey video at 0:39; I've heard it (and done it myself) thousands of times by now, yet it never ceases to make the hair stand up on the back of my neck. My favorite is the kick of thrust when you're on runway 9 at FLL thirty seconds before sunrise, and as you get over the ocean the sun rises and it's a glorious morning. Either that or sitting up front on a MD-80/88/95 when you can't even hear the engines and just notice that it got quiet after the gear went up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2011 23:04
|
|
|
Yeah the MD twinjets are the poo poo. Shame they're gradually getting phased out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2011 21:28
|
|
|
They really make me wonder where the 797 is going to end up. If they keep the same-old, same-old with the engines under the wings they spend a lot of money essentially to get where Airbus is now. If they put them in the rear they'll have to hang huge engines sideways. Not to mention that we don't even know what engine design they'd go with. I'd love to see them end up around where MD was with the propfan designs. I think they have them quiet enough now, don't they? Another thought would be mounting them on top of the wings like a HondaJet. That could be fun.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2011 05:27
|
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:Another thought would be mounting them on top of the wings like a HondaJet. That could be fun. I eagerly await airlines building a massive blended wing. Though I fear that when they do, I'll never get a window seat again. I like window seats 
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2011 13:10
|
|
|
You won't like those window seats.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2011 15:09
|
|
|
Something like the BWB would work best as a cargohauler. Otherwise passengers would get wildly motion sick anytime the aircraft banked more than 10-15 degrees.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 03:52
|
|
|
Butt Reactor posted:Something like the BWB would work best as a cargohauler. Otherwise passengers would get wildly motion sick anytime the aircraft banked more than 10-15 degrees. If the passengers feel they're banking then you're doing it wrong. Very wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 06:53
|
|
|
grover posted:One of the main reasons for underslung engines is for ease of maintenance. Integrating them into the aircraft itself would be more efficient aerodynamically, but is only practical where other considerations trump cost. This was a rendered picture in Popular Science wasn't it? I must've stared at it for days when that issue came out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 08:44
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:If the passengers feel they're banking then you're doing it wrong. Very wrong. Only when they're sitting close to the axis of rotation. In a blended wing body, passengers can be more than 40 feet away from the axis of rotation, so every time you bank they get dropped/elevated a good bit. A person will feel that even at much slower banking speeds. Turns during cruise would probably still be unnoticed, but any turning at all during departure or approach is going to make passengers out near the edges motion sick. (And the ones on the inside of the turn are going to start screaming because they'll feel like they're dropping hundreds of feet.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 17:08
|
|
|
What kind of climb and descent rates do airliners normally use? If you're 40' from the center and the plane banks to 45 degrees(30' vertical movement) in 5 seconds, that's a climb/descent rate of 360ft/min. Of course maneuvering requires more rapid small corrections to roll, but I don't think would be any worse than turbulence.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 17:30
|
|
|
ApathyGifted posted:Only when they're sitting close to the axis of rotation. I just realized that would feel awesome, especially during the heavy lean departures. Hell I might even pay extra for one of those seats.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 17:34
|
|
|
oxbrain posted:What kind of climb and descent rates do airliners normally use? Each airframe has it's own Vx and Vy, and the angle depends on gross weight, lift, and winds.. but both climb and roll maneuvers should be done as a single smooth movement, not a series of rapid small corrections. Doing an 8 point roll feels like fun in the cockpit, as each point jerks you to the next... but trying to break a bank into a series of "points" would just be obscene to the passengers of an airliner that simply don't want to spill their coffee.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 18:46
|
|
|
A pretty good article on the aerodynamics of turning an airplane: http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/langew/turn.htmquote:The man next to me was not about to fall into my lap. He could have relaxed, lowered the tray in front of him, and called for a coffee. Unlike a table on a sailboat, an airplane tray requires no gimbals. Flight attendants do not develop sea legs. They brew coffee on a fixed counter, deliver it without worrying about the bank angle, and fill cups to their brims. Full cups make people behave during turns: if they try to hold them level with the earth, the coffee pours out and scalds their thighs. If this is hard to believe, imagine the alternative -- an airplane in which "down" was always toward the ground. Bedlam would break loose in the cabin during turns.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 20:21
|
|
|
oxbrain posted:What kind of climb and descent rates do airliners normally use? You're assuming the angular velocity is constant throughout the roll. It is not. The aircraft has to experience an angular acceleration before it begins (and stops) rolling. Therefore, your body's ascent/descent rate relative to the aircraft is not constant, you experience some acceleration when entering into and leaving a roll maneuver, unless you are in the dead center of the aircraft. Your tangential acceleration is equal to the angular acceleration (in rad/s^2)* distance from the roll center, a = alpha*r With a 40 foot radius, you experience 0.698 ft/s^2 (0.022 G) of tangential acceleration (in this case this is the up/down axis for your body) for every 1 deg/s^2 of roll acceleration. For the life of me I can't find any info on typical roll acceleration rates in airline flight, so I can't put that into context. I can say that to feel weightless or 2G (depending on which side you're sitting) with a 40 foot radius, you'd need a roll acceleration of 46.13 deg/s^2. So it's really, really unlikely your passengers will ever feel like they're in freefall. I want to add that I deliberately lowballed when guessing 40 feet in that picture. There's no sense of real scale, the passenger cabin could be 200 feet wide for all I know. Anyway, for the ease of discussion, here's a simplified formula to determine G's : G=c*a*r c = a constant from all the known variables condensed into one number. For metric, it's 0.00178, for imperial, it's 0.000542 a = roll acceleration in degrees/s^2 r=distance from roll center in feet or meters ApathyGifted fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Apr 25, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 21:06
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:A pretty good article on the aerodynamics of turning an airplane: http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/langew/turn.htm That was a brilliant article!
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 22:04
|
|
|
oxbrain posted:What kind of climb and descent rates do airliners normally use?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 22:52
|
|
|
grover posted:If the pilots are smooth about it (and they should be), this wouldn't be much different than being on the wings of a large ship rolling in heavy seas, which is noticeable but not at all uncomfortable. Just hard to walk. I've never been on a large ship that has wings.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 23:05
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:I've never been on a large ship that has wings. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 00:09
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:A pretty good article on the aerodynamics of turning an airplane: http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/langew/turn.htm Thanks for that. It's certainly one of those things that just gets completely taken for granted - I know I did, anyhow.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 01:11
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:A pretty good article on the aerodynamics of turning an airplane: http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/langew/turn.htm That's a great article.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 01:41
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:I've never been on a large ship that has wings.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 03:02
|
|
|
grover posted:Most large ships have bridge wings that extend past the edge of the hull. They're both high above the CG and far abreast of the hull centerline, and experience just about the worst roll forces of anywhere else on the ship. Ah, last time I was on a large ship I spent no time on the bridge, and most of the awake time here: 
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 04:14
|
|
|
Some pics from my trip earlier this month: Scotland Luggage by BonzoESC, on Flickr.  MD-11 Legroom by BonzoESC, on Flickr. 2F had plenty of legroom, but 1F was actually better.  KLM Europe Business Class by BonzoESC, on Flickr. It's just economy with more legroom and nobody in the middle seats (or any seats, in this case.)  Above England by BonzoESC, on Flickr  KLM Retrojet by BonzoESC, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 04:19
|
|
|
OT: What do you think of your Saddleback?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 05:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 19:58 |
|
|
MonkeyNutZ posted:OT: What do you think of your Saddleback? It's loving heavy but amazing; it just feels awesome and durable, and I get tons of compliments on it. I alternate between long strap and backpack on it every other week it seems. That was the first time I traveled with it, so ask me in a year.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 05:25
|
|