|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:It's a lot quieter and the original wasn't that good to begin with. The Dash 8-100 to -300 are well-liked by pilots; it's a solid, reliable, honest aircraft. The Q400 is even better; to put it in automotive terms, it's the Shelby Cobra of turboprop airliners. Each engine in the Q400 has as much power as both engines combined in the older Dash 8s, which make it a super climber and really quite fast. Airlines don't really care for the Q400, as the super speed comes with super fuel bills.
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 04:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 18:31 |
|
|
Terrifying Effigies posted:Having lived in ATL for a number of years I got used to the airport and honestly never had any problems with it on domestic flights, but I will admit that the terminals are far too claustrophobic with their low 80s ceilings.. If you think ceilings in ATL are low, the terminal UA uses for domestic at MIA is way worse. I literally hit my head on the ceiling there last time I suffered United. The AA and DL terminals at MIA are great though.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 05:15
|
|
|
grover posted:That is some excellent news! CRJ-100/200s don't bother me so much since I got a rollaboard backpack, but DC-9s... It's extremely disturbing getting onboard an aircraft that I know ceased production 30 years ago, and then sat in a boneyard for god knows how many years before being pressed back into service with a low-bid overhaul. I can buy into being weirded out by old rear end jets still in service. The E-3 is a different story since I'm so well familiar with the plane. It's also over-engineered to the hilt. That's comforting. Today, we aerial refueled with a 58 model KC-135. Mind boggling. On a civilian airliner note, I have a healthy dislike flying on any of the prior NG model 737's. Can't tell you why, but they freak me the hell out. Alaska Airlines operates a 737-400 Combi which I've flown on a few times. That one is highly unsettling to me.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 06:37
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:If you think ceilings in ATL are low, the terminal UA uses for domestic at MIA is way worse. I literally hit my head on the ceiling there last time I suffered United. That's the way I feel about FLL (except T1.) The ceilings are way too short and it almost feels like a subway terminal. I hate that airport so much. On the other hand I love TPA for its bright airy terminals and easy security. One of the best airports i've been through.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 07:22
|
|
|
Hey you can save literal tens of dollars a day by dropping the ceiling, out of the thousands your spending. 2025, rooves are all 5'9.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 07:35
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Airlines don't really care for the Q400, as the super speed comes with super fuel bills.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 08:06
|
|
|
While you are busy contemplating the miracle of human legroom, some Australian accountants (??) have been chatting with Neil Armstrong. An hour with the commander himself here: http://thebottomline.cpaaustralia.com.au/
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 08:25
|
|
|
HeyEng posted:On a civilian airliner note, I have a healthy dislike flying on any of the prior NG model 737's. Can't tell you why, but they freak me the hell out. Alaska Airlines operates a 737-400 Combi which I've flown on a few times. That one is highly unsettling to me. Cygni posted:Hey you can save literal tens of dollars a day by dropping the ceiling, out of the thousands your spending. grover fucked around with this message at 10:46 on May 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 10:44
|
|
|
MrChips posted:The Dash 8-100 to -300 are well-liked by pilots; it's a solid, reliable, honest aircraft. The Q400 is even better; to put it in automotive terms, it's the Shelby Cobra of turboprop airliners. Each engine in the Q400 has as much power as both engines combined in the older Dash 8s, which make it a super climber and really quite fast. I was speaking from the passenger standpoint. I do like the Q a lot especially since it is noticeably quieter than either the older ATRs or the -300 (never been in a -100 or -200). Porter has really nice Q400s. I don't like 737s due to fuselage diameter. The A320 is ever so slightly larger and I find that it makes a huge difference in terms of my ability to fit my vastly oversized two-laptop computer bag under the seat in front of me. If you hate low terminal ceilings, Memphis is not your friend.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 12:32
|
|
|
Mobius1B7R posted:That's the way I feel about FLL (except T1.) The ceilings are way too short and it almost feels like a subway terminal. I hate that airport so much. On the other hand I love TPA for its bright airy terminals and easy security. One of the best airports i've been through. TPA and MCO are both quite nice. I'm done with FLL, it's too hard to get to (I have to contend with the really jammed up part of US-1 in Coconut Grove to get to I-95) compared to MIA.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 12:49
|
|
|
Terminal B at IAH is by far the weirdest smelling / cramped terminal I can think of. I'm used to flying regional (most of my miles are on CRJ200 and ERJ), so cramped gates at the rear end end of terminals are normal, but that one gives an air of cattle chute every time I go through there. Also hate having to go through DFW. For a place that has to deal with weather constantly, it sure seems like they still have no idea what to do when it hits. Detroit is my current favorite when I have to connect. The layout aside from the somewhat nonsensical gate ordering in some places is pretty straight forward and getting from one terminal to another is efficient. I wouldn't necessarily want to be stuck there for a long layover, but it's good for getting you in and out.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 14:16
|
|
|
grover posted:The most unsettling flight I've been on was a 737-200 in Africa. There were a lot of things going wrong on that plane, but it was the duct-tape on the wings that really had me worried.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 14:40
|
|
|
Helado posted:Detroit is my current favorite when I have to connect. The layout aside from the somewhat nonsensical gate ordering in some places is pretty straight forward and getting from one terminal to another is efficient. I wouldn't necessarily want to be stuck there for a long layover, but it's good for getting you in and out. Detroit loving blows if you have to change terminals. The other terminal is across the runway in another county.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 16:17
|
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:Detroit loving blows if you have to change terminals. The other terminal is across the runway in another county. Oh it is not. North Terminal is still in Wayne County. The edge of Wayne County sure, but it's still in there 
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 16:33
|
|
|
Helado posted:Detroit is my current favorite when I have to connect. The layout aside from the somewhat nonsensical gate ordering in some places is pretty straight forward and getting from one terminal to another is efficient. I wouldn't necessarily want to be stuck there for a long layover, but it's good for getting you in and out. Is that the one with the internal monorail, that never seems like the fastest option?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 18:32
|
|
|
smackfu posted:Is that the one with the internal monorail, that never seems like the fastest option? Yes it is.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 19:01
|
|
|
smackfu posted:Is that the one with the internal monorail, that never seems like the fastest option? Yes, and it's never the fastest option. However the Drug Tunnel is pretty neat
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 19:01
|
|
|
HeyEng posted:On a civilian airliner note, I have a healthy dislike flying on any of the prior NG model 737's. Can't tell you why, but they freak me the hell out. Alaska Airlines operates a 737-400 Combi which I've flown on a few times. That one is highly unsettling to me. You big baby, you obviously have never done the Seattle-Ketchikan-Sitka-Juneau or Juneau-Yakutat-Cordova-Anchorage milk runs in a -200 Combi.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 19:13
|
|
|
smackfu posted:Amsterdam Schiphol is pretty annoying because a lot of the flights use the newest Polderbaan runway which is like 4 miles from the terminal. So if you connect through there it's like 40 minutes longer than through another airport. Any time I ever fly to The Netherlands it's for a big weekend like a festival. This means lots of drinking pre/during flight. There has been a few occasions where I have been toying with a trip to the loo when the seatbelt signs come on, and therefore a few tortuous taxis to the terminal. Other than that I quite like Schiphol. Especially getting to stand in the engine and eat curly fries in the public area of the terminal.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 19:32
|
|
|
SyHopeful posted:You big baby, you obviously have never done the Seattle-Ketchikan-Sitka-Juneau or Juneau-Yakutat-Cordova-Anchorage milk runs in a -200 Combi. I like Classics because you can see the clamshell thrust reversers deploy on the aft of the JTD-8s :metal:
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 19:45
|
|
|
SyHopeful posted:You big baby, you obviously have never done the Seattle-Ketchikan-Sitka-Juneau or Juneau-Yakutat-Cordova-Anchorage milk runs in a -200 Combi. Carry-on? Why would you want to bring anything onto the plane with you? I'm sorry, I can't hear your response because I'm deaf due to the NOISE OH GOD THIS PLANE IS LOUD AS gently caress. Alaska once tried to send me from Fairbanks to Juneau on not one but 2 milk runs. That would have been an all day adventure. Fairbanks-Barrow-Deadhorse-Anchorage-Cordova-Yakutat-Juneau. Though, that would still beat any trip involving Kuparuk before they paved it.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 20:07
|
|
|
EnergizerFellow posted:How bad we talking here? Sales seem pretty solid. Of late, the Q400 has been massively outsold by the ATR 72. Bombardier has something like a 40 aircraft backlog, whereas ATR has almost a 250 aircraft backlog. Part of the problem is that the Q400 is more expensive to purchase (about 20 to 30 percent more than the ATR, depending on who you believe), but also to operate as well. As an example, the ATR 72-600 cruises at roughly 270 knots, burning about 2000 lb. of fuel per hour. The Q400 typically cruises at roughly 340 knots, but burns a bit more than 3000 lb. of fuel per hour, which depending on the length of the flight means there is very little fuel savings over a comparable regional jet. The Q can cruise slower, but below about 280-290 knots, your fuel burn per mile starts to increase pretty dramatically. That said, the Q still has some key advantages over the ATR. Here in western Canada, where we have lots of airways over mountainous terrain, the ATR would suffer a pretty severe weight penalty on account if its comparatively poor single-engine cruise performance. In many cases, the ATR wouldn't be able to maintain the minimum safe altitude on a lot of these airways, whereas the Q would have margin to spare. MrChips fucked around with this message at 21:41 on May 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 20:19
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Airlines don't really care for the Q400, as the super speed comes with super fuel bills.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 20:20
|
|
|
Beerios posted:How does the fuel burn compare with RJs of similar capacity? Does the Q400 actually have any advantages or is it just preferred when union contracts are less restrictive with turboprops than jets for regional routes? Basically all contracts are based on capacity, not engine type.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 20:26
|
|
|
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/05/massive-spy-blimp/ Looks like the LEMV is finally going to
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 21:09
|
|
|
Pretty sure it's nonviable as civilian air transport unless it's going to be some sort of cruise liner /sightseeing type thing (which would be rad as hell) but it could definitely have heavylift utility, potentially.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 21:36
|
|
|
Yeah, that's more along the lines of what I was thinking. A flying club/restaurant/lounge in the truly giant models would be pretty boss. On the flip side, their supposed ability to deliver 500 or 1000 tons of aid to somewhere remote like Haiti in a relatively quick fashion will save lives. We'll know for sure how viable any of this in a couple weeks.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 21:46
|
|
|
So I'm done seeing posts about airports and I'll actually post some useful info here. If you've got The Military Channel they have a show called "Great Planes". Next Wed they are airing an Episode about the XB-70. For those of you interested in it might be a good show to watch. Here's the schedule for the show. http://military.discovery.com/tv-schedules/series.html?paid=52.16939.135733.42906.6
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 21:51
|
|
|
Beerios posted:How does the fuel burn compare with RJs of similar capacity? Does the Q400 actually have any advantages or is it just preferred when union contracts are less restrictive with turboprops than jets for regional routes? The Q400 burns quite a bit less per hour than, for example, the similarly-sized CRJ-700 (something like 25-30 percent less per hour at cruise, and a lot less on takeoff and climb) and on short routes it has an advantage in trip fuel burn. On longer flights (more than 700 nautical miles, though this number varies quite a bit), the additional speed of the CRJ-700 will actually work in its favour for trip fuel burn. As for contracts and scope clauses, every mainline airline in the US has contracted their 70-seaters out to the regionals, so props vs. jets has no effect on them whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 21:52
|
|
|
MrChips posted:As for contracts and scope clauses, every mainline airline in the US has contracted their 70-seaters out to the regionals, so props vs. jets has no effect on them whatsoever. For pilot contracts, sure. I bet SkyWest doesn't have the option to run Delta's LAX-SFO service as a turboprop though.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 21:56
|
|
|
Tekne posted:http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/05/massive-spy-blimp/ Looks like the LEMV is finally going to I like how that article ends. "gently caress you Pakistan, we'll build a giant blimp to make up for your closed supply lines." Only in America.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 21:57
|
|
|
 From one of those post-photos-to-generate-likes pages on Facebook.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 22:10
|
|
|
The break-even load factor on the Q400 is supposedly really good on 60 minute and shorter flights in comparison to turbofan RJs of similar size but that could also be Bombardier propaganda and bullshit.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 22:24
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Pretty sure it's nonviable as civilian air transport unless it's going to be some sort of cruise liner /sightseeing type thing (which would be rad as hell) but it could definitely have heavylift utility, potentially. Just FYI, if you wanted to fly on a proper airship, a company flying out of moffet field in California has a Zeppelin NT doing sightseeing flights. Also, 
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 22:32
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:I like Classics because you can see the clamshell thrust reversers deploy on the aft of the JTD-8s :metal: I never actually hated the pre-NG 737s, but again I grew up flying out of JNU on Alaska's 727s and 737s, back when I could be comfortable in coach and before these draconian security measures sucked the joy from flying. I still remember the whine of those 727s taxiing at the airport, could hear them from my house in the Valley.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 22:50
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Just FYI, if you wanted to fly on a proper airship, a company flying out of moffet field in California has a Zeppelin NT doing sightseeing flights. I see that drat thing in the sky all the time, but it's far too expensive for me to justify: 45 minute flights, the shortest they offer, are like $400. http://www.airshipventures.com/
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 22:55
|
|
|
SyHopeful posted:I never actually hated the pre-NG 737s, but again I grew up flying out of JNU on Alaska's 727s and 737s, back when I could be comfortable in coach and before these draconian security measures sucked the joy from flying. My favorite thing about this story is those whiny-rear end engines are what the AF is now looking to use on the JSTARS, as an upgrade. I know they're on at least one airframe so far, not sure if it's a testbed or not though.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 22:57
|
|
|
SyHopeful posted:I never actually hated the pre-NG 737s, but again I grew up flying out of JNU on Alaska's 727s and 737s, back when I could be comfortable in coach and before these draconian security measures sucked the joy from flying. When I was at MEM last week I was struck by how god drat mother loving loud the FedEx 727s and even Delta DC-9-51s are, especially compared to your IAE-2500 and CFM56 engined aircraft. We've made a lot of progress. I don't have trouble being in coach because usually I get economy comfort  and I ain't that big. Security can gently caress off, though.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 23:24
|
|
|
I haven't flown out of O'Hare in years, but holy poo poo is it easier to get to than Midway.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 23:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 18:31 |
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Just FYI, if you wanted to fly on a proper airship, a company flying out of moffet field in California has a Zeppelin NT doing sightseeing flights. That's kind of cool but I want a black man in a white tuxedo to play jazz on a specialty aluminum piano while I gaze out over New York City drinking a Sazerac in a nice dinner jacket with a beautiful girl on my arm. If I can't have that in a Zeppelin, I'm not interested.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 23:27
|
|