|
My first flight was in the mid 80s from BDL to IND via Presidential Airways. It was probably in a 737 or something.
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 14:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 12:53 |
|
|
Buttcoin purse posted:What? You can go in there? gently caress! Only on special occasions, like this was for memorial day when they had docents hosting aircraft tours. But they've got extra lighting installed for tours so it obviously wasn't a one time thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 15:10
|
|
|
When I was a kid my sister and me used to fly unaccompanied a lot, and every single time I asked to be taken to the cockpit. I amassed a pretty good collection of free plane stuff - postcards, badges, foot long models of the plane, that kind of thing. I suspect the pilot was liberating the stuff we were given from the in flight shop, in hindsight. It was cool as gently caress though. Nothing interesting planes wise though, just BA and BM 737s, 757s, maybe the odd 767 I guess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:I was going through some photos to try and find one of me as a toddler on a BAE 146 in the 80's, which I think I've posted here before. I couldn't find that, but I did find a neat picture of the back end of the early model E-2 that's on display at the USS Midway Museum in San Diego. The current E-2s (not the D model) look very similar. I've only seen the E-2D from outside so far.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
First I remember, forget airline, November 7, 1995, 737-200 JAX-BOS with a stop at BWI Next was United 737-3 or 400, BOS-IAD, then a United 737-200 back
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
Now I'm sad. I never got wings or any of the souvenirs that people say you could get at the cockpit back then.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
the return of BY OVERWHELMING DEMAND What's broken in Gander, NL, Canada RIGHT NOW.jpg! An RAF....(checks wikipedia) RC-135 Rivet Joint SIGINT aircraft. I was speaking to the head commissionaire around here, and he said that it had hydraulic problems, which ordinarily wouldn`t be hard to fix...but given the aircraft`s intelligence role, it has to be a RAF mechanic, and I`m guessing most of those took jobs in Dubai or similar, as it`s been a week so far.  May or may not be related: a private jet belonging to the Spanish AF(?) came in last night.  Videos: USAF KC-135 tries a crosswind landing, fails old footage of the last of the DC-8s[at Gander] Antonov-12BK Larger, cleaner burning Antonov To contribute to 747-chat: Two 747 cargo honkies e: this is a treat:There's apparently one An-22 still flying, and it's doing commercial cargo. e2: view of the landing from the glass nose Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Oct 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
Zemyla posted:Now I'm sad. I never got wings or any of the souvenirs that people say you could get at the cockpit back then. Look on the bright side.. you are probably a lot younger than most of us that got those plastic wings! The airline I got my plastic wings from stopped operations in 1980 (was bought out).
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:
Wikipedia posted:NATO reporting name "Cock" 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
My first flight (which I was too young to remember) was on a Monarch (RIP) Airbus A300 in early 1988: The first flight I can remember was in a Dan Air BAe 146 (double retro whammy!):  The only flight I've been able to get 'flight deck' time on was in about 1999 in the right-hand seat of the Isle of Scilly Skybus B-N Islander!
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
My very first flight was when I was only a few months old, on an absolutely brand spanking-new Air Canada 767-200 from Edmonton to Toronto. The first flight I actually remember being on was a couple of years later, going Calgary-Winnipeg-Toronto in the very back row of an Air Canada 727. I think my ears are still ringing to this day from it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
First flight I was old enough to remember was a British Caledonian TriStar, Birmingham to somewhere in Portugal, including obligatory cockpit visit. Phone posting but BCal had a sweet livery. Third flight was a joyride in a Jetranger that my rich uncle paid for, no-one at school believed me. Nebakenezzer posted:but given the aircraft`s intelligence role, it has to be a RAF mechanic, and I`m guessing most of those took jobs in Dubai or similar, as it`s been a week so far.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
The other day I was thinking about 747-8 being used to replace the VC-25 and I concluded that some knob would get hung up on the wings being to graceful to properly project the power of the office or some poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
inkjet_lakes posted:Third flight was a joyride in a Jetranger that my rich uncle paid for, no-one at school believed me. Was it your uncle that worked @ Nintendo?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
BalloonFish posted:My first flight (which I was too young to remember) was on a Monarch (RIP) Airbus A300 in early 1988: Now that is livery.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 22:18
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:Now that is livery. For when you want your airline to look like a city bus For when you don't, there's Hekla Aurora- 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Now that is livery. It's good apart from the twiddly M on the tail. a patagonian cavy posted:For when you don't, there's Hekla Aurora- Galaxy Print Leggings 💖
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
Pretty sure it was Piedmont for me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
It was an ultralight for me. Then some airliner, I dunno.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
She definitely was a "legacy" stewardess, but the service was impeccable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:The rest of the plane might look ungainly, but from above, the wing on an A380 is a thing of beauty. correct opinion
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
Randomass question of the day: we all know it's easier to go fast higher up, but at cruise throttle settings, how fast could a typical airliner go if they flew at an altitude that did not require pressurization of the cabin?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
Depends on the model, but 340kts is about right for 737s/A32xs. Heavies maybe 20kts faster.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
Inacio posted:Randomass question of the day: we all know it's easier to go fast higher up, but at cruise throttle settings, how fast could a typical airliner go if they flew at an altitude that did not require pressurization of the cabin? Do you mean "at an altitude where pressurization is not required because the atmosphere is dense enough you can breathe normally" or "at the highest reachable altitude for that aircraft, with no requirement that the aircraft be able to be pressurized at that altitude?" If it's the second, I'm not certain, but I believe the limiting factor in service ceiling for most airliners is engine and aircraft performance, not cabin pressurization.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
Inacio posted:Randomass question of the day: we all know it's easier to go fast higher up, but at cruise throttle settings, how fast could a typical airliner go if they flew at an altitude that did not require pressurization of the cabin? I don't think they're typically speed limited at lower altitudes, they just burn a shitload more fuel. In fact since the speed of sound is slower in less dense air, you're more likely to approach your Mach limit at cruising altitude than at 8000'.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 00:22
|
|
|
BalloonFish posted:My first flight (which I was too young to remember) was on a Monarch (RIP) Airbus A300 in early 1988: I like to look up some of the airlines people mention here, if I've never heard of them. Turns out Monarch just ceased operations last week.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
"Hey guys, should we paint the orange stripe so that the windows are centred in it and it doesn't look like poo poo?" "Nah, gently caress it."
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 00:32
|
|
|
Tu-95 "Bear" MiG-15 "Fagot" MiG-23 "Flogger" Il-40 "Brawny" An-22 "Cock" Ka-25 "Hormone" Yak-30 "Magnum" SA-21 "Growler" SS-17 "Spanker" AT-1 "Snapper" :bigtran:
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 00:38
|
|
|
I do short haul trips all over Europe for work and getting dumped on a Monarch flight was always a good way to ruin a day. I'd rather fly on Ryan Air.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Tu-95 "Bear" Seeing it laid out like that, it has to be intentional. Only question is, intel analyst prank or dumb CIA psy-op?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
My first airline trip was Little Rock to Baltimore to Frankfurt when I joined the USAF in 2004. I don't remember what plane the LIT->BWI leg was on, but the BWI->FRA leg (technically, to Rhein-Main Air Base - not long before it closed down) was an AMC chartered flight on an L-1011, I'm guessing with ATA. Pretty sure I used to see them come into Ramstein every so often too. Along with other neat stuff like those commercial C-130s.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 01:25
|
|
|
My first flight was on a Continental 727. Upgraded to first class, even. I was 10 or 11.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 01:37
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Do you mean "at an altitude where pressurization is not required because the atmosphere is dense enough you can breathe normally" or "at the highest reachable altitude for that aircraft, with no requirement that the aircraft be able to be pressurized at that altitude?" I meant the first, sorry. Finger Prince posted:I don't think they're typically speed limited at lower altitudes, they just burn a shitload more fuel. In fact since the speed of sound is slower in less dense air, you're more likely to approach your Mach limit at cruising altitude than at 8000'. I imagined that efficiency would be a problem, but MrYenko posted:Depends on the model, but 340kts is about right for 737s/A32xs. Heavies maybe 20kts faster. suggests speeds would be much slower. All of this because I work under the finals path of an airport and I wondered how hecking cool an airliner going at Mach 0.8 would look at a height where you can see rivets in its belly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
After a bit more googling, an A32x structural never exceed speed is 381kts. Roughly. Maximum Mach is .82. Again, roughly: these were not sourced from Airbus. I’ll let someone who uses words better than I give the detailed explanation. Short version, you would sure as hell know the difference between an A320 at 180kts on final and one doing 320kts at the same altitude.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 02:22
|
|
|
Finger Prince posted:I don't think they're typically speed limited at lower altitudes, they just burn a shitload more fuel. In fact since the speed of sound is slower in less dense air, you're more likely to approach your Mach limit at cruising altitude than at 8000'. Well actually, for an ideal gas (e.g., air) the speed of sound is purely a function of temperature--the density is irrelevant--the reason Mach numbers are higher for the same true airspeed at higher altitudes is simply because it's colder up there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
AzureSkys posted:My first plane ride was at the age of 7 in a Cessna 172 that belonged to the son my dad's boss. My dad worked for Flying J truck stops and traveled a bunch on business aircraft, so I often got to go inside and look around before he'd depart. He flew with Jay Call, the founder of the company, a lot, too and I was told I'd get a ride with him sometime but my dad left the company not long later. Years later, Jay crashed in his Citation. http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/flying-j-founder-killed-in-plane-crash/article_d2605ecc-7232-5697-bcdd-4eafeaee3c07.html  brb going to change your forums name to FINAL DESTINATION
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 03:19
|
|
|
Tetraptous posted:Well actually, for an ideal gas (e.g., air) the speed of sound is purely a function of temperature--the density is irrelevant--the reason Mach numbers are higher for the same true airspeed at higher altitudes is simply because it's colder up there. Lemme guess, Pats fan?  You're right of course, one of those things the brain forgets so it fills in the missing info with the wrong stuff.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 03:27
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:Seeing it laid out like that, it has to be intentional. Only question is, intel analyst prank or dumb CIA psy-op? Having spoken to a few guys (both active and retired, from both the ASCC and more current ASIC) in the department(s) that cooperate with NATO intelligence agencies to come up with those reporting names, I can say that most of the names are decided upon due to easy phonetic pronunciation (hence the fact they're all one or two syllables, max - even longer ones like Blackjack and Foxhound)... ...but I can also say those particular department(s) are largely joyless places mired in international bureaucracy and they take mirth and pleasure where they can get it. So to answer your question...a bit of both, and neither. Kind of related, but an *amazing* article (not sure if it's been linked here or in the Airpower thread): https://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/though-a-glass-darkly-bill-sweetman-technically-speaking-column-180957300/
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 03:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 12:53 |
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:I can say that most of the names are decided upon due to easy phonetic pronunciation (hence the fact they're all one or two syllables, max - even longer ones like Blackjack and Foxhound) There is a logic to it, actually Fighters get words starting with "F" B for bombers C for cargo M for miscellaneous H for helicopters One-syllable names, e.g. "Bear", "Frank" are prop-driven, while two-syllable names like "Coaler" or "Fishbed" are jet-powered. Doesn't apply to helicopters obviously. And for weaponry: A for air-to-air missiles G for ground-to-air missiles S for surface-to-surface missiles K for anti-ship missiles, because the Russians initially classified these missiles with an X, for eXperimental, but the cyrillic X is transliterated as Kh, and NATO picked that because what would an international standard be without one batshit out-of-nowhere spec that doesn't follow any of the logic Anyway, yeah, it's meant to reduce confusion. Even if you don't know exactly what it means when the radio is screaming that a Backfire has shot a Kitchen at you, you can understand that a jet-powered bomber has launched an anti-ship missile and take the appropriate actions. Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 04:03 on Oct 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 03:57
|
|