|
Animal posted:I've flown CRJ-200/700/900. The CRJ-700/900 is like a Mercedez Benz compared to the CRJ-200 (a beat up 97' Camry). The CRJ-200 is not only underpowered, the engines are optimized for lower altitudes, so it climbs and performs like poo poo. It has no FADEC to control the engines so you manually have to adjust them, constantly compensating for asymmetric thrust just like you would on a prop plane. Systems such as hydraulic controls make no sense. As far as the passengers, the CRJ-700/900 has MUCH better air conditioning which makes a huge difference in the summer. I almost stood up and walked away from an Endeavor CRJ-200 last summer during a deadhead, it had a broken pack and I was about to pass out as we waited and waited for push-back. Also two lavatories on the 900 which can be important to some people. The passenger windows are reasonably located in the CRJ-700/900(seriously, who thought of putting the windows down to your elbow level on the CRJ-200?). Seating can be more comfortable depending on your airline's configuration. I remember being on an Air Canada CRJ-705 and it had two lavs, one for business class and one for economy. It was not constructed in such a way that an adult male could use it in the "usual fashion" but it was indeed there. Even in business class, that was a piece of poo poo cramped-rear end aircraft. I had originally booked United, which runs a 737 or an A320 on that route (YYC-IAH), but apparently it had a mechanical issue. The CRJs I flew on in Spain last year (200 one way, 1000 the other way) were tolerable, but that's because you were only on them for an hour and the flights were empty enough that I never had a neighbour in the next seat.
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 09:40 |
|
|
The E175 has a really nice passenger experience, with the 2 lavs and the fairly spacious seating and actual overhead bins. I like it better than the CR9's I have been on. Whoever designed the main cabin door was an idiot, though, it's really easy to get your finger sliced off in that thing if you aren't paying attention.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
The Slaughter posted:The E175 has a really nice passenger experience, with the 2 lavs and the fairly spacious seating and actual overhead bins. I like it better than the CR9's I have been on. Whoever designed the main cabin door was an idiot, though, it's really easy to get your finger sliced off in that thing if you aren't paying attention. Or if you're a flight attendant, accidentally deploying the slide like some of our FAs did  Also CRJ chat: one of my sim instructors had good descriptors for the variants: the -200 is the classic, the -700 is the stretch, and the -900 is the heavy. Butt Reactor fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Aug 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
Animal posted:I've flown CRJ-200/700/900. The CRJ-700/900 is like a Mercedez Benz compared to the CRJ-200 (a beat up 97' Camry). The CRJ-200 is not only underpowered, the engines are optimized for lower altitudes, so it climbs and performs like poo poo. It has no FADEC to control the engines so you manually have to adjust them, constantly compensating for asymmetric thrust just like you would on a prop plane. Systems such as hydraulic controls make no sense. As far as the passengers, the CRJ-700/900 has MUCH better air conditioning which makes a huge difference in the summer. I almost stood up and walked away from an Endeavor CRJ-200 last summer during a deadhead, it had a broken pack and I was about to pass out as we waited and waited for push-back. Also two lavatories on the 900 which can be important to some people. The passenger windows are reasonably located in the CRJ-700/900(seriously, who thought of putting the windows down to your elbow level on the CRJ-200?). Seating can be more comfortable depending on your airline's configuration. Awww, you completely skipped the Flap issues, lack of bleed air, and horrible APU.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Did windshear encounter after takeoff, during final, and while still on the runway tonight. gently caress. That. poo poo. That is all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 09:25
|
|
|
The Slaughter posted:Did windshear encounter after takeoff, during final, and while still on the runway tonight. Its more "fun" IRL
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 13:50
|
|
|
I was told by a -200 first officer the windows are down so low because the corporate variants have seats which sit that low. It's a design flaw Canadair didn't address converting it to commercial use. The -700 and -900 are nice rides, but the Ejets blow them away.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
CBJSprague24 posted:I was told by a -200 first officer the windows are down so low because the corporate variants have seats which sit that low. It's a design flaw Canadair didn't address converting it to commercial use. The E170-190. The E135-145 suck worse than a -200.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
E145s are pretty poo poo to ride in unless you're in 1A. They seem like they have decent climb performance when not at max weight though. I fly from RIC to IAD on one pretty frequently and it seems to climb like a rocket.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
I flew a 145 from Moline, IL to Chicago a few summers back. Seemed like a decent enough ride (all 40 minutes of it), though I am on the smaller side. I just couldn't stop thinking the whole time how loving ineffecient that flight was. We couldn't have gotten above FL180. A turboprop would be so much more efficient for that route.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
Rickety Cricket posted:We couldn't have gotten above FL180. A turboprop would be so much more efficient for that route. The issue with turboprops is that there are currently only two on the market (the ATR-72 and Bombardier Q400), and they're both not terribly attractive in the US for various reasons. Since the ATR-72 is relatively slow, only has 68 seats, and has somewhat limited hot/high performance, it doesn't work terribly well for American regionals that generally need the airplane for longer routes and/or more flights per day and need more seats. While the Q400 is a more capable airplane than the ATR by most standards, it requires more maintenance than something like a CRJ, and unless an airline is willing to invest the money to build up a decent sized fleet and properly support it, the increased "touch time" and some reliability issues can make the Q400 lose substantial amounts of money. When you combine those issues with the fact that regional airlines in the US operate a substantial number of routes that are simply too long for a turboprop (anything past about 500NM), and the public perception that "propellers = dangerous", it's not terribly surprising that large turboprops don't sell well in the US. azflyboy fucked around with this message at 08:08 on Aug 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 08:06
|
|
|
A quick question. Does military simulator time count towards total time when applying for a job? I have 1900 hours logged in aircraft and another 330 hours in the simulator. Would this satisfy the 2000 hour requirement most employers have as a minimum?
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 14:49
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:The issue with turboprops is that there are currently only two on the market (the ATR-72 and Bombardier Q400), and they're both not terribly attractive in the US for various reasons. Since the ATR-72 is relatively slow, only has 68 seats, and has somewhat limited hot/high performance, it doesn't work terribly well for American regionals that generally need the airplane for longer routes and/or more flights per day and need more seats. On the other hand, WestJet, Porter, and Air Canada are all operating significant fleets of Q400s at this point in a country that's at least as spread out as the US, so I think it mostly comes down to your last point -- public perception of turboprops being slow and more dangerous. To be fair, that's probably why Air Canada and WestJet took so long to operate them -- Porter took the plunge and showed it could be successful.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:A quick question. Does military simulator time count towards total time when applying for a job? As far as I know, most airlines don't count simulator time as being part of total flight time, but they often allow a flight time adjustment of some type (usually an extra .2 or .3hrs per sortie) for military pilots to account for differences in how the military logs flight time compared to civilian operations.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
Why am I looking at Piper Cherokees.....
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
Rickety Cricket posted:I flew a 145 from Moline, IL to Chicago a few summers back. Seemed like a decent enough ride (all 40 minutes of it), though I am on the smaller side. I just couldn't stop thinking the whole time how loving ineffecient that flight was. We couldn't have gotten above FL180. A turboprop would be so much more efficient for that route. My uncle rode a Shorts on this route (for John Deere's management trainee program) in the late 70's/early 80's and raced lobsters down the aisle. Alcohol was involved. I picked the wrong major :-(
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
FIA and AGI done, 85 and 91 respectively  If everything stays on track I'll be a CFI by the end of the month.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Tide posted:Why am I looking at Piper Cherokees..... Why not. They are good cheap aircraft. Mine got beaten up by hail on Monday. Guy next to me had his fabric hosed up pretty good, every hit took off a quarter sized chunk of paint.    
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
Uh - Cherokee 180 owner here These things are impossible to break. And when you do? 30 dollar replacement parts. Hilarious. If you are really interested, a 1.99 subscription to the NAAA evaluator will give you a 100% accurate estimate on what it's worth. You can find he evaluator at the bottom of the trade a plane website.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
^^^good to know, thank ya sir I love the Cherokee. Flew one the other day and adored it. Once on the ground, I just...stared at it for a good 45 minutes taking in the shape. I don't know what it is, but I love the lines. It's handsome, it's classic. Hard to explain. Looking at the Cherokee 180 took me to the Arrow. Ooof.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 03:53
|
|
|
I've yet to land a plane that lands as nice as a Cherokee.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
So - this leads me to a story. Been flight instructing out of my Cherokee 180 lately. All local pilots are flying Cessna planes. So they are skeptical of mine. They say things like "oh a piper oh ok hrmmm" Then we apply full power on takeoff and then they exclaim how AMAZING the power is on takeoff in my 180. So; I guess the pipers for rent around here are all warriors. So people aren't used to having a 180 HP engine. Elevation here is 700 ft. My old town was 3200. A 180 was a bare minimum airplane anyway!
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
But anyway Mooney's are better and probably a much better deal financially right now. A C model goes for NOTHING and is fastened better in every single way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
e.pilot posted:FIA and AGI done, 85 and 91 respectively Out of curiosity, why are you going for a ground instructor cert if you are getting your CFI?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 06:17
|
|
|
Rickety Cricket posted:Out of curiosity, why are you going for a ground instructor cert if you are getting your CFI? Essentially the same question bank so zero extra studying and it's needed if I ever plan on making gold seal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 08:53
|
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:These things are impossible to break. And when you do? 30 dollar replacement parts. Hilarious. How long have you owned it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
What am I at now, 2 months?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
AWSEFT posted:The E135-145 suck worse than a -200. The 145 is a bad turboprop conversion. The -200 is a bad bizjet conversion. I've heard plenty of arguments about which one sucks less/more. Captain Apollo posted:But anyway Mooney's are better and probably a much better deal financially right now. A C model goes for NOTHING and is fastened better in every single way. I will admit that I don't know
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
KodiakRS posted:
You've hit the nail on the head pretty much. The general feeling I get from people I've spoken to in the UK about them is that they're a little cramped, with fairly poor prop clearance and difficulty getting some parts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
e.pilot posted:FIA and AGI done, 85 and 91 respectively How was the AGI test? I'm studying for mine. I'm getting the stuff I'm familiar with out of the way first and am doing pretty well, especially considering I haven't seen some of the questions in up to 10 years. I'm saving the questions with the formulas for last because I'd never seen them before and my initial reaction was  .
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
Anyone else have bizarro flying dreams? I am a very vivid dreamer and I have a few recurring aviation dreams: -Plane can't climb: I'm flying a few dozen feet off the ground, barely avoiding power cables and buildings, for some reason unable to climb. -Land somewhere stupid: Land the plane, realize taking off from here is impossible. Also there's no 100LL available. -Backseat flying: Plane is in cruise or taxiing but I'm in the back seat for some reason?? -Brakes don't work: Can't stop the plane from slowly taxiing into a collision with a hangar or a fuel pump or whatever. Engine refuses to idle usually too. I recently had one where I landed on a nice little path in a park, and taxied past a snack stand to get some 100LL. While I was dealing with the pump, I realized that I had somehow suffered serious prop strikes (in my tricycle gear 172) during taxi. Waking up from that was quite a relief.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
CBJSprague24 posted:How was the AGI test? I'm studying for mine. I'm getting the stuff I'm familiar with out of the way first and am doing pretty well, especially considering I haven't seen some of the questions in up to 10 years. I'm saving the questions with the formulas for last because I'd never seen them before and my initial reaction was Wasn't bad at all, a lot like the private and commercial tests with some teaching stuff thrown in.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
KodiakRS posted:The 145 is a bad turboprop conversion. The -200 is a bad bizjet conversion. I've heard plenty of arguments about which one sucks less/more. I too would be curious about actual costs after purchase.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
DNova posted:Anyone else have bizarro flying dreams? I am a very vivid dreamer and I have a few recurring aviation dreams: After getting my PPL I had a dream where I was gonna take a friend up. All the 172s were booked, no problem I'll just take the Arrow (which I had never flown). Once we were in the air I learned the controls were backwards and we ended up inverted scud running inches off the ground. That was loving bizzare
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
It's weird you mention that because I have a recurring dream where I'm just not paying attention and totally violate airspace, hard. And then I totally freak out and that's usually when I wake up. Also funny since I won't even be flying VFR anymore!
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 08:20
|
|
|
Insert generic "living the dream" joke here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
Politics airplanes chat Trumps airplane : https://www.youtube.com/embed/UZq3iCn2y74?rel=0 I'll know if you're gay by reading the comments.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:Politics airplanes chat He has good taste in airplanes. 727, then 757.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
Apollo Airplane Ownership Update Within 2 months of purchasing the airplane, I've put 50 hours on it. So - It's time for an oil change. I am legally allowed to change my own oil because I own this airplane. However, I am no dummy and refuse to fly any airplane that I have worked on. So I hired the local A&P that everybody recommends. I saved a lot of money by buying my own oil from that distributor, and also purchasing a bulk collection of oil filters. The Piper Cherokee manual says to replace the oil and filter every 50 hours. However, some decide to replace the oil every 25 hours and then oil AND filter every 50. Your call. Piston engines tend to have a lot of corrosive chemicals in the oil so some like to replace the oil more often. Anyway - to change the oil in a cherokee is so straightforward it's just like my motorcycle. Remove the top cowling. In a cherokee this is accomplished by 4 latches. In a mooney its accomplished by 52 screws PER SIDE of the cowl. Insanity, because the cherokee is retardedly easy to open the cowl. Unlatch the latches, pull straight up. Voila. Cowls off. Full ability to do an entire preflight accomplished in 5 minutes TOTAL. (its impossible to do a good thorough preflight in a mooney, just impossible). Compare this even with a bonanza where the top cowl has gull wing doors on it. You can open both sides very easily to have a full inspection. My Cherokee is equipped with a Curtis Quik Drain Valve. AKA Cheat mode for draining oil. Attach a 3/8 tube to the valve that runs from the engine to the oil bucket you've placed below. Turn the valve, out comes the oil. When it's all drained out, close the valve. Stupid simple. While we continued to let it drip, we punched a hole in the top of the Oil Filter to allow air to get into the system without creating a vacuum. This was considered a 'little trick' byt the A&P. Then, busted out an Air Gun with a compressor and blew compressed air into the hole he just made in the oil filter. I rotated the prop 'backwards' to help get rid of the excess oil still left in the filter while he was still using the air gun. Then it was time to clip the safety wire on the oil filter and change the filter. Oh that's weird - seems that the oil filter is really tight. Hrm, regular wrenches weren't able to pry it off. So the A&P ran back to his shop and got the huggest pair of vice pliers I've ever seen in my life. Instead of gently rotating the filter off, he smashed into it and had to use every bit of his leverage to get it off. 'Way too tight.' I'm not sure why it was so tight. The last oil change was done by an A&P - Maybe he just was unusually strong. We lubed up the filter with a little bit of something....I can't remember what it was. The other thin you can use it new oil. We spun it on, and then safety wired it in place! We ran up the engine and everything looked great. Except Except I finally found where my oil leak has been coming from. It turns out that amazing Quik Drain had failed and was now leaking oil at a solid rate. I lost about half a quart in 8 hours. So - we ordered the new drain and decided to come back in a couple days. The drain was procured for 30 bucks. It's 15 online, but that might not be the one that fits my lycoming. Oh well. We came back today and took off the lower cowl ( 12 screws total, so easy). He washed it and the entire engine with mineral spirits so we could clearly see the engine and make sure nothing else was leaking. I could probably use a new gasket on the oil sump but for now it's fine. Took off the Lower Cowl (which removes unhooking the landing light wire) and then got a wrench to remove the old bad faulty Quik Drain. It says they are to be replaced every 10 years. I haven't seen any entry about it for at least 20. With the oil bucket in place, we drained out all the oil we had just put in a day prior. It's amazing how some old oil will still be in the engine. It wasn't completely black but it wasn't beautifully gold still either. Put on the new Quik Drain - safety wired it back. Hooked up the lower and upper cowling. Ops check - No leaks to be found and oil pressure is great. Half Case of Oil - $35 Cost today - $75 Cost Two Days ago - $75 Total cost for oil change - and then taking apart the cowls and replacing Quik Drain - $185 I am really glad I watched what he did and turned some screws/wrenches. It'll make this a lot easier for me to do it in the future. An interesting note. The oil I bought is 6 dollars a quart when I buy it in cases. But, if I'm changing the oil every 25-50 hours, I really need to double that approximation to not 'lose' money on my reserved. (not that I'm putting any money into reserves LOL)
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 09:40 |
|
|
If anyone was considering buying a Stratus, consider this, from Reddit. Part 1 Part 2 I just ordered my parts and hope to test it out this week. gently caress Sporty's
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 23:57
|
|