|
CRJ7/CRJ9 don't seem so bad from a passenger perspective. Do they still hold up traffic? They have significantly more engine than the CRJ2.
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 07:31 |
|
|
How are the SAS A340s? I'm flying on one from Dulles to Copenhagen in a few weeks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Some cool poo poo in this video. Related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBwEFz_WIdQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxLg2iRkOdQ
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:How are the SAS A340s? I'm flying on one from Dulles to Copenhagen in a few weeks. 2-4-2 in economy, so try and get a window seat because being stuck in a 4 block sucks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
inkjet_lakes posted:Related: I love that poo poo. Reminds me when I am one of the idiots @ SXM.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:CRJ7/CRJ9 don't seem so bad from a passenger perspective. Do they still hold up traffic? They have significantly more engine than the CRJ2. Cramped and unusually loud. Maybe the airframe I was on was just extra loud for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Cramped and unusually loud. Maybe the airframe I was on was just extra loud for some reason. Were you sitting at the back?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
D C posted:Were you sitting at the back? Closer to the back than front, but I've sat at the back of jets with rear engines that were quieter. Just constant bassy droning and rattling.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Some cool poo poo in this video. Good thing Asiana doesn't fly into that show! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:The most relevant incident is United 173 where the crew of a DC-8 literally ran out of fuel while the captain was absolutely obsessed at fixing a landing indicator light. He worked the problem until they crashed because the co-pilot and flight engineer (they still had engineers in those days, natch) were too scared to question him. Nobody dared correct the captain, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
Well, the plus side of requiring 2 persons in the flight deck at all times now means I got to fly in the jumpseat of a 777 today! Best seats in the house!
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
All y'all whining about CRJ's have never experienced the joy of a three stop flight in a Dash 8-100.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:CRJ7/CRJ9 don't seem so bad from a passenger perspective. Do they still hold up traffic? They have significantly more engine than the CRJ2. Short answer yes, they fly same speeds as the 200 (at least at my company). They're supposed to be better from a pax perspective due to bigger windows and better lighting, but really anything compared to the sardine can that's the 200 is probably going to be more comfortable...I'll see if I can post cabin specs when I'm not on my phone e: Ah yes here we go:  NextGen has even bigger windows and LED mood lighting  
Butt Reactor fucked around with this message at 04:06 on Apr 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 03:14
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:All y'all whining about CRJ's have never experienced the joy of a three stop flight in a Dash 8-100. The Dash is downright heavenly compared to a Learjet. gently caress those moronic little aircraft now and forever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
This has been beaten to death, and I've trolled google for an answer, lots of results on airliners.net, but no good answer(s) that I've seen -- What benefit does the 787 have over the 777? As near as I can tell, the 777 is designed as a drop in replacement for the 747. And the 787 is an 80% scale carbon fiber version of the 777. The 787 I rode home on, besides the giant window with no manual override on the electronic window shade, felt exactly like a 777. I guess the 777 is 6.2m while the 787 is 5.8m which is about 1.3 ft difference. Is the 787 due for another upgrade, the 787-11 that would replace the 777? Wikipedia says the 787-10 would replace the 777-200 which seems to be pretty common in China and trans-pacific between North America and eastern China. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
It's more of a 767/transoceanic 757 replacement.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
Sure they look the business, but like the beautiful woman sitting at the end of the bar, under the skin a Learjet is a total loving mess. Full disclosure; I have never personally flown a Learjet, but the company I used to work for flew a pile of them and I got to see firsthand the problems these aircraft caused from the perspective of the pilots, the mechanics and management. First of all, the cabin is shaped like a giant megaphone, which has a rather predictable effect on cabin noise levels...particularly in the cockpit. It was bad enough in the turbofan powered 35, I can't even begin to comprehend how bad it was in the CJ610-powred 20 Series models, which positively screamed inside and out. Speaking of the cockpit, it's absolutely loving tiny; if you're 5'8" or taller, you're going to have a miserable time...not that the cabin is any better, what with 4'11" of headroom in pre-Lear 60 models. On the subject of the cockpit, the size issue carries over into switches and circuit breakers; they're tiny in every way, and stashed away in places that make as little sense as possible. Pretty sure Bill Lear just stuck a claymore full of switches in the cockpit, set it off and where the landed is where they stayed. God help you if you needed to find a circuit breaker while seated; you better have arms like Gumby to find most of them. The cockpit lighting was stupid and inadequate; they used lights on flexible stalks like those cheap reading lights you get from IKEA, and inevitably you'd brush against one and burn your arm on it...not like it was totally unwelcome because unless you had the cockpit heat set to unbearable levels while climbing, you'd be freezing your rear end off at cruise no matter how high you cranked the heat. The airplane also flew like crap and its looks made promises it could not possibly hope to deliver. Typical cruise speed for a Lear is Mach 0.76-0.78, and anything over Mach 0.80 was seriously dangerous as the aircraft would go into Mach tuck real bad. Not like you'd ever get there without noticing that the ailerons were buzzing beforehand. Landing speeds were hilarious, with early 35s having a speed over the fence in the neighbourhood of 140-150 knots. To their credit, Lear did try to fix this with a number of wing mods for the 35, but you were still looking at a 130-140 knot Vref and these mods had the effect of seriously affecting the range of the aircraft. Also you know that whole "the Learjet is derived from a JET FIGHTER" thing? Not really true. That 7-spar wing they always bragged about actually had two full-span spars only (just like every other loving aircraft ever basically) and besides, you'd shear off the dainty little vertical stabiliser before you'd ever need that kind of strength from the wing. Those badass looking tip tanks were a problem, because you could get yourself into an unrecoverable fuel imbalance if the fuel system broke, and it did frequently because of course it would. Speaking of fuel, refueling a Learjet on the ground was a nightmare. Each tank had to be filled to a specific level and in a specific order, with the poor ramp agent taking a dozen or more trips from side to side to complete the task. If the procedure wasn't followed to the letter, you'd drop the jet on its side in a heartbeat. And it isn't like you could get away without filling the tip tanks too; even with them the 35 only had four and a half, maybe five hours of fuel available. I can't imagine how bad the range in the thirsty, CJ610-powered 20-Series aircraft was; presumably they were in a state of fuel emergency from engine start... From a maintainer's perspective, it gets worse. The rear equipment bay is the worst little hellhole you could possibly imagine; it made me wonder if Bill Lear envisaged a horde of child-mechanics to work on his aircraft, not that their little arms would be long enough to reach some of the items in there. The nosewheel steering system not only never worked properly but it was impossible to rig correctly too; no Learjet has ever taxiied perfectly straight to my knowledge. But the worst thing was the windscreens; the bleed air deicing would warp the screen in about three milliseconds, and replacing the newly warped screen would take forever because they were not mounted in a frame, nor were they pre-drilled to be installed in the aircraft either. Since no two aircraft were exactly the same, every windscreen panel needed custom drilling for each of the hundred-odd bolts that held them into the fuselage. Imagine the stress of drilling that many holes in a $35,000 piece of polycarbonate, where one tiny screwup meant throwing the whole thing in the garbage. All of these issues are basically as a result of Bill Lear meddling in the design of the aircraft when he should have been doing just about anything else. He was constantly looking over the shoulders of his engineers, suggesting changes and new features, which ultimately ended up with the Learjet 23 being what was for all intents and purposes a jet-powered homebuilt (calling it that is probably an insult to homebuilders) full of haphazard systems and halfassed solutions to problems caused by other halfassed solutions. Not that Bill Lear was a bad engineer - far from it; there are countless innovations in the aviation and automotive industries that trace their lineage directly back to Lear, but his impulsiveness and impatience caused him to cut corners and rush things a bit too much. The miserable legacy of this lived on well into the 1990s, as every Learjet model was derived from a previous model. It wasn't until Bombardier finally got them to smarten the gently caress up, told Learjet to throw away all their old blueprints and design a new aircraft from the ground up. The resulting aircraft, the Learjet 45 (and its derivatives), is actually a semi-respectable machine, instead of a nightmare mix of blowtorch lights, bruised foreheads and misrigged control linkages. Oh and the cherry on top of the poo poo sundae; the Lear 23, from which all subsequent Learjets up to the 45 were derived, probably should never have been certified in the first place in the shape it was at the time. After an FAA inspector crashed the prototype during a trial, Bill Lear is said to have called up his old pal Barry Goldwater to lean on the FAA to certify his aircraft, as he was basically out of money and needed to deliver airframes. MrChips fucked around with this message at 11:35 on Apr 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 04:53
|
|
|
MrChips posted:*awesome tear down of Learjets* More of this sort of thing, please 
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Typical cruise speed for a Lear is Mach 0.76-0.78 To be fair, the cruise for a comparable older Citation seems to be like Mach 0.64.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
Hey there kids! Did you know that the learjet isn't the only aircraft that Bill Lear created? Can you guess which other widely
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 08:43
|
|
|
He named his daughter Shanda Lear... He named his daughter Shanda frickin' Lear 
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 09:36
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Learjet character assassination So you, uh, don't care much for Learjets then?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 09:41
|
|
|
Tsuru posted:Hey there kids! Did you know that the learjet isn't the only aircraft that Bill Lear created? Well in fairness, said aircraft is actually a very good business jet, as long as you stay away from the frankly dreadful first version. Presumably it's as good as it is because they designed the Learness out of it For those who don't know, Tsuru and I are referring to the Learstar 600, which was sold to Canadair after Learjet ran out of money for the umpteenth time. Canadair then revised the Learstar 600 into what eventually became the Challenger business jet, which in turn evolved into the thoroughly mediocre CRJ. MrChips fucked around with this message at 11:42 on Apr 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 11:39
|
|
|
All completely true. However, much like the aforementioned woman at the end of the bar, or a vintage Ferarri, you overlook her flaws, because she's so godamned good looking. Just don't marry (buy) one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 11:41
|
|
|
Hadlock posted:This has been beaten to death, and I've trolled google for an answer, lots of results on airliners.net, but no good answer(s) that I've seen -- You realize that airlines fly different sized planes, right? This is extremely simplified, but at a high level the 777 costs more to operate than a 787, and if you can't fill the 777 (say, San Francisco to Chengdu or something like that), you use a smaller aircraft on the route. The 787 is mostly replacing 767s.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 12:04
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Well in fairness, said aircraft is actually a very good business jet, as long as you stay away from the frankly dreadful first version. Presumably it's as good as it is because they designed the Learness out of it All Canadair took was the general layout of the aircraft, Lear had almost zero influence on the design, so even saying the Challenger was Lear designed is a *HUGE* stretch, and to suggest that the CRJ therefore has Lear heritage is practically laughable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 12:12
|
|
|
https://www.nfb.ca/film/challenger_an_industrial_romance An old 1980 film about the creation of the Challenger. It's actually worth an hour if you have one to kill.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 14:30
|
|
|
  I assume zero-length launch was only used to make the F-104 a genuine rocket. The Balkenkreuz makes the whole thing perfect.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
The NF-104 is a good rocket 104.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 15:18
|
|
|
A Handed Missus posted:
The soviets tried ZEL too... 
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
West Germany had some interesting ideas for the F-104. http://www.bredow-web.de/Luftwaffenmuseum/Kampfjets/Starfighter/F-104_Geschichte/f-104_geschichte.html
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
LostCosmonaut posted:West Germany had some interesting ideas for the F-104. The Luftwaffe plan to reduce pilot manpower by 50%.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
Nah, it's just German efficiency. Kill twice as many pilots at once! 30% losses, now 60%!
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:The Luftwaffe plan to reduce pilot manpower by 50%. Didn't you just need the regular 104 for that?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
Oh man, that thing would have been amazing. Did it ever get beyond the 'stupid rear end idea on paper' stage like the P-82 did?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vqxs7-8OUIc&feature=youtu.be Jeremy Clarkson: "That's not gone well!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vqxs7-8OUIc&feature=youtu.be They did do slightly better after all. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdrlWR-yFM
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
LostCosmonaut posted:West Germany had some interesting ideas for the F-104. Jesus, Germans just fuckin love siamesing planes together, don't they? I'm sad that one never got off the drawing board, but it was probably for the best.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 07:31 |
|
|
LostCosmonaut posted:West Germany had some interesting ideas for the F-104. Ah yes, the hotly contested race to be the second weirdest thing that ever happened to an F-104.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 22:40
|
|
