|
two_beer_bishes posted:There's a Fedex DC10 on fire on the runway at FLL too. WTF? Is this some Buddhist monk 9/11?
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 23:11 |
|
|
I don't see anything open - how did the crew get out? They did get out before the fire right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
It looks like the fire was associated with the left engine, so I assume they exited somewhere on the right to avoid being, you know, in the fire.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
Who here is building one of these? https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1875384309357209&id=100006569738723
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
Vitamin J posted:Who here is building one of these? So, standing inside the prop arc to turn the thing on/off, props in plane with the passenger's head, power lines, fod blowing about... and you don't even get to hold the controls yourself?!
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I don't see anything open - how did the crew get out? They did get out before the fire right. News says crew safe. Video clip of the fire as well: http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Fed-Ex-399093511.html
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
Ola posted:News says crew safe. Video clip of the fire as well: http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Fed-Ex-399093511.html No slides on cargo planes?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:No slides on cargo planes? It's FedEx, so there's a note on the door and the pilots are available for delivery at the local parcel center.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:No slides on cargo planes? L1 is the primary door, but every conversion I've ever seen retains the slides on L1 and R1. UPS operates a bunch of 757-200Fs that were built without R1 doors.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:No slides on cargo planes? Nope, only hammers and a speargun.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
Okay I know about the hammer but I have never heard about a speargun 
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 03:19
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:Nope, only hammers and a speargun.  For the confused: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Express_Flight_705
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 03:21
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:No slides on cargo planes? I'm guessing it was removed by the firefighters after things started to settle down because they tend to blow around in the wind.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
Given the attitude of the plane the slide on R1 would have been nearly vertical and L1 puts you out the side with the fire so the crew elected to exit the FO's cockpit window down the rope. If you watch the video on the page Ola linked you can see it hanging down the side of the nose.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
Well well well, looks like the old girl is here to stay http://www.businessinsider.com/air-force-keep-a10-indefinitely-2016-10 quote:Air Force Materiel Command chief Gen. Ellen Pawlikowski recently told AviationWeek that the depot line that maintains and repairs the Air Force's 283 A-10s has been reopened to full capacity. http://i.imgur.com/Q0RoPyF.mp4 Duke Chin fucked around with this message at 04:09 on Oct 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 03:56
|
|
|
we're in jail dude
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
Ola posted:It's FedEx, so there's a note on the door and the pilots are available for delivery at the local parcel center. This made me laugh harder than it should've.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
Soooooooooooooooooooooo.... think it's a write-off?   Scratch, Dent & Ding sale, perhaps? also: RIP luggage
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
Nah, Allegiant is probably already on the phone wondering how much American wants for the airplane.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
Meanwhile, the FedEx plane is a trijet, so I can only imagine that Delta is angling for it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Meanwhile, the FedEx plane is a trijet, so I can only imagine that Delta is angling for it. Delta hasn't flow a trijet in over a decade. I mean, yes they were flying 727s in the 21st century but hey they stopped!
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 06:20
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Delta hasn't flow a trijet in over a decade. The 727 was the coolest airliner Boeing ever built. I miss seeing them in the air.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 07:58
|
|
|
OBL killed passenger 727s.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 08:02
|
|
|
Previa_fun posted:The 727 was the coolest airliner Boeing ever built. I miss seeing them in the air. I'll bite: why?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I'll bite: why? Trijets best jets. v  v
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I'll bite: why? Because there aren't many airliners with the kind of performance that the 727 has. It could fly in and out of 5000-foot airfields all day long, cruise at up to Mach 0.9 (which back in the bad old days they would do all the loving time) and/or fly transcontinental non-stop. It was at home flying off of a gravel or dirt runway (as First Air and others would do north of 60) as it was in a conventional hub-and-spoke system. Beyond that, it was a rugged and dependable aircraft that was a dream to fly; I've mucked around in a 727 sim and I can vouch for that aspect.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
Also: License to Ill
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Because there aren't many airliners with the kind of performance that the 727 has. It could fly in and out of 5000-foot airfields all day long, cruise at up to Mach 0.9 (which back in the bad old days they would do all the loving time) and/or fly transcontinental non-stop. It was at home flying off of a gravel or dirt runway (as First Air and others would do north of 60) as it was in a conventional hub-and-spoke system. Beyond that, it was a rugged and dependable aircraft that was a dream to fly; I've mucked around in a 727 sim and I can vouch for that aspect. Why don't modern airliners, with superior metallurgy and engine technology, have similar performance?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
Specialization makes the engineering easier. Why have one plane with short-field performance, transcontinental range, survive rough runways and fly well, when you can build a large agile ocean-crosser and a smaller more rugged regional plane? Extra-strong landing gear, for example, add weight, which runs at cross purposes to a lightweight aircraft that gets maximum fuel economy on long flights.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Why don't modern airliners, with superior metallurgy and engine technology, have similar performance? It has three engines on a plane that’s basically 737‐sized, and those engines make no concessions for noise or fuel economy. High‐bypass turbofans are large and they hang low. That is a major damper on the potential to operate from gravel strips, plus there’s just no demand for that nowadays. The 727 is over fifty years old.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Why don't modern airliners, with superior metallurgy and engine technology, have similar performance? Well the 757 matches and exceeds the 727 in nearly every way, which should come as no surprise when you consider it was designed to be a direct replacement for the 727. The thing is that performance is very expensive, not just to develop and build but to care for and feed on a daily basis. Oversize engines are less efficient at cruise than a smaller engine that runs closer to its maximum power; wings with complicated high-lift devices to get in and out of short fields are complicated to design and manufacture as well as being very maintenance-intensive. And Enourmo touched on the landing gear issue. Facilities at these smaller airports have improved to the point that a lot of the performance points that drove the 727 and even the 757 design are obsolete, though admittedly a whole new set of performance points have emerged that suddenly make the 757 a very attractive aircraft on a new class of routes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Because there aren't many airliners with the kind of performance that the 727 has. It could fly in and out of 5000-foot airfields all day long, cruise at up to Mach 0.9 (which back in the bad old days they would do all the loving time) and/or fly transcontinental non-stop. It was at home flying off of a gravel or dirt runway (as First Air and others would do north of 60) as it was in a conventional hub-and-spoke system. Beyond that, it was a rugged and dependable aircraft that was a dream to fly; I've mucked around in a 727 sim and I can vouch for that aspect. It was a good aircraft, for sure, but Boeing has built a lot of cool airliners with relatively revolutionary capabilities, relative to the markets that need serving when they're being designed and built. 727 is definitely in the running for coolest Boeing airliner, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
The 707 is the best because Tex Johnson rolled it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:The 707 is the best because Tex Johnson rolled it. This is true. Really, the only uncool Boeing airliner is the 767, and it's still a very good plane even if it's not cool. EDIT: Unless operated by WestJet apparently, in which case it has the reliability of Lada.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
Is the argument of "what's the uncoolest airliner" exactly overlapping with the argument of "what's the boringist airliner?" Because either way, I have perversely strong opinions
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:OBL killed passenger 727s. Osama Bin Laden?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:The 707 is the best because Tex Johnson rolled it. Agreed. And is also Boeing's most visually arresting civilian aircraft. It's a timeless beauty.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:The 707 is the best because Tex Johnson rolled it. You mean the dash 80. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Agreed. And is also Boeing's most visually arresting civilian aircraft. It's a timeless beauty. Only with the original JT3D nacelles, preferably unpainted.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 23:11 |
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Only with the original JT3D nacelles, preferably unpainted. JT3C > JT3D, even with the goofy hushkits. Old jet nacelles were so drat futuristic looking, in that "future as seen from the 1950s" way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 19:41
|
|