|
Godholio posted:Yeah, none of this applies in the US. I did this calculation for my Irma evacuation, from Miami to Detroit, and what you're missing is any valuation of time. I spent about $1200 on airfare (mixed premium economy and first), rental car (Camaro SS  ), and parking at MIA (the garage at my building flooded, so that was a win). While a drive to Atlanta would've probably only cost me $200 in gas, it'd've been over 12h of driving each way, as opposed to flying, which each way is 3h of time I can't work through. I'm lucky to be able to afford the extra $1000 for 18h of my time, and doubly so that I could use the time saved to do paying work.
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 16:40 |
|
|
Mortabis posted:Actually the pay of commercial pilots and airline CEOs should be the market clearing price, which is what it presently is. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
Cocoa Crispies posted:valuation of time. This is a classic in cost justification. Unless your time would otherwise have been spent making money, your time is worthless to everyone apart from yourself. Being able to afford to pay for convenience is one thing, time valuation is something else entirely. That's not to say that you're wrong or even wasteful spending $1000 to save 18 hrs extra travel time (involving some potentially risky driving), it's just that the "value" of your time depends entirely on how much money you have to spend, not that your time is actually worth anything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
Cocoa Crispies posted:I did this calculation for my Irma evacuation, from Miami to Detroit, and what you're missing is any valuation of time. I spent about $1200 on airfare (mixed premium economy and first), rental car (Camaro SS I'm not missing it, I left it out because it's not quantifiable to any kind of standard. I also like highway driving, so a road trip isn't quite the horror that it is to some people. On the flip side, I hate everything about domestic flying in the post-9/11 era. Even if the costs were on par, I'd probably drive most of the time anyway, up to 2 days each way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
Ugh, just doing a web check in with United and was reminded(I somehow forgot) my flight tomorrow to Denver starts in a CRJ200 in economy  Luckily from there I am in an E175 to Nashville in "First" but I am dreading that earlier flight even more now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Ugh, just doing a web check in with United and was reminded(I somehow forgot) my flight tomorrow to Denver starts in a CRJ200 in economy Bet it's in row 13 too, the blue juice special.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
Looks like 5A. IIRC it will be a very concave window seat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
KLM retired their last Fokker 70 over the weekend. Why is this significant? Well, the airline has had Fokkers in their fleet of one model or another continuously since 1921. That's some kind of record, I suspect.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Ugh, just doing a web check in with United and was reminded(I somehow forgot) my flight tomorrow to Denver starts in a CRJ200 in economy Wait, someone operates a CRJ-200 with a first/business class?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
MrChips posted:KLM retired their last Fokker 70 over the weekend. Why is this significant? Well, the airline has had Fokkers in their fleet of one model or another continuously since 1921. That's some kind of record, I suspect. I had to look it up but Boeing founded what would become United in 1927 so probably.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
Thomamelas posted:Wait, someone operates a CRJ-200 with a first/business class? Don’t be silly. It’s economy plus. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
MrChips posted:KLM retired their last Fokker 70 over the weekend. Why is this significant? Well, the airline has had Fokkers in their fleet of one model or another continuously since 1921. That's some kind of record, I suspect. The new Fokkers are Airbuses, apparently.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Southwest's 737-700s are so goddamned adorable. A318s and 319s just look like short buses with wings. I think the pointy nose makes all the difference. Six-hundred supremacy: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
Random question: what do people think was the best fighter aircraft of the 1920s?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:Random question: what do people think was the best fighter aircraft of the 1920s? Boeing P12?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
Curtiss P-6? Bristol Bulldog? joat mon fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Oct 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:Random question: what do people think was the best fighter aircraft of the 1920s? Which end of the 1920s are you talking about? Because there is a pretty big gap between fighters at the start of the decade and at the end.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 00:22
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Which end of the 1920s are you talking about? Because there is a pretty big gap between fighters at the start of the decade and at the end. The 1920s were hilarious, in terms of aircraft development. There can be a big gap between two aircraft that first flew in the SAME year.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
I'll throw the NiD-52 and the Dewoitine D.27 in the mix as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:Random question: what do people think was the best fighter aircraft of the 1920s? I'm gonna say the Prajadhipok.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 01:46
|
|
|
Blackburn Blackburn
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 03:10
|
|
|
The best fighter of the nineteen twenties was whatever was cheap and a good trainer because you don’t get to use it in either of the world wars.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 03:19
|
|
|
In the early 20s it's probably still the Fokker D.VII
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 03:29
|
|
|
I'd just say "whatever was first flown just before December 31st, 1929." I agree that the state of the art of aviation was changing so quickly in that decade that there's no real comparison between early-20s designs and late-20s ones. For instance, the first Polikarpov I-5 was designed and built before the end of 1929, though its first flight wasn't until the snow had thawed the following March, and the I-5's descendants (I-15 and I-153) were still somewhat competitive in the first year or two of WW2.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 04:43
|
|
|
The changing technology thing was a big deal for the interwar period. The Soviets got bit by being early adopters in the 20s/30s of mech and plane tech because it was all worn out or obsolete by their time in WW2, though they kinda made up for it by starting the war with as many aircraft as everyone else put together. New techs supported new operational theories but command and control systems weren't yet fielded to enable them fully...doesn't help when you fire/murder the head of the air force multiple times while ignoring the enemy buildup. Oops. I guess what I'm saying is that it's hard to say what was 'best' during the 20s because even if it technically was best it might not have mattered at all, if it ever even saw combat. Turn of the decade tech rendered some 20s stuff rapidly obsolete in the 30s, fun domestic example being the airmail beacons: http://sometimes-interesting.com/2013/12/04/concrete-arrows-and-the-u-s-airmail-beacon-system/
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 05:55
|
|
|
After all the crosswind landings, I thought I'd see if I could find any good rejected takeoff videos. They mostly look pretty boring, but something interesting happens in this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PS1YAX70edc
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 08:55
|
|
|
Buttcoin purse posted:After all the crosswind landings, I thought I'd see if I could find any good rejected takeoff videos. They mostly look pretty boring, but something interesting happens in this one: That's the poster boy example. Even the engine follows safe procedure by failing well before V1. Here's an (oft repeated ITT) Il-18 taking off from Cabinda, Angola, a takeoff I myself would have rejected months in advance, but which the pilots were a bit late with. According to the description, they also had a tail wind and didn't start quite at the far end so they didn't use full length. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDsqP30JE_A
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 09:19
|
|
|
Ola posted:That's the poster boy example. Even the engine follows safe procedure by failing well before V1. Here's an (oft repeated ITT) Il-18 taking off from Cabinda, Angola, a takeoff I myself would have rejected months in advance, but which the pilots were a bit late with. According to the description, they also had a tail wind and didn't start quite at the far end so they didn't use full length. Is this just you being funny or am I missing something? Also, as I hadn't seen that video before now: lol at zoom of the pilot having a tantrum in the cockpit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 09:59
|
|
|
All things considered, that could've gone one hell of a lot worse than it did...
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 09:59
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Is this just you being funny or am I missing something? A takeoff should be rejected when certain parameters are outside their safe values. An IL-18 operating from Angola busts several safety parameters just by being scheduled (this is me trying to be funny).
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 10:20
|
|
|
Ola posted:A takeoff should be rejected when certain parameters are outside their safe values. An IL-18 operating from Angola busts several safety parameters just by being scheduled (this is me trying to be funny). Ah, yeah. Joke's on me for not knowing poo poo about airplanes. At least I got a cool g-1 bomber jacket now so I can roleplay tom cruise, that ought to help.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 10:40
|
|
|
Buttcoin purse posted:After all the crosswind landings, I thought I'd see if I could find any good rejected takeoff videos. They mostly look pretty boring, but something interesting happens in this one: My takeaway: "LOOVELY" Dr_Strangelove fucked around with this message at 14:47 on Nov 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 14:31
|
|
|
I was waiting on an inbound flight one night (loving off) at MIA and watched an A300B4 reject a takeoff a couple hundred yards late. Blew three or four mains outright on the roll, and the others all deflated on the high-speed turnoff before they could clear the runway, when the plugs melted out of them. I think 9 was closed for like four hours while they changed all the tires. (That airline was lucky they had eight spare MWAs laying around...)
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 14:37
|
|
|
I've been on a 737-200C during a rejected take-off. poo poo got loud. Mostly because of all the passengers going "ah, gently caress" as soon as the thrust reversers came out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
I thought you weren’t supposed to use thrust reversers on a rejected take off?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
The wheel brakes have to be capable of stopping the plane without them for safety rating reasons, but you can absolutely use them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
I'm not sure how many rejected takeoffs I've had. Probably 3 or 4. Only one was what we called a high-speed abort. Fortunately no major issues with that. But E-3 83-0009 had a good one while TDY to Langley AFB, VA. This aircraft was notorious for electrical problems, and more than a few people were waiting for something seriously bad to happen as a result. Anyway, during the takeoff roll something arced behind the FE's panel, pumping a bunch of smoke into the flight deck, so they pulled a high speed abort. Something in the brakes fused (not sure exactly what happened, but the tire plugs did not melt so I don't think it was a fire), and the aircraft was stuck on the runway (at a single-runway AFB) for several hours while they had to truck in heavy equipment capable of moving the drat thing out of the way. Langley, being a fighter base, didn't have anything so they had to borrow it from NAS Oceana. My favorite part is that when the crew tried to egress from the aft door, the slide deployed normally but as it inflated it detached from the aircraft and blew away. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
Enourmo posted:The wheel brakes have to be capable of stopping the plane without them for safety rating reasons, but you can absolutely use them. Right, during cert the RTO performance of the plane is tested at max weight and without thrust reversers, but that's intended to represent the "worst case" performance. I don't see why you wouldn't be allowed to use thrust reversers during a RTO, since I would think that once you decided to abort you would be committed to stopping, and every bit helps. There's a NASA survey about the use of thrust reversers, and added safety margin during RTO was one of the reasons airlines liked to have them. (Interestingly, the overall conclusions of that survey were mixed. Airliners are designed to operate and minimums calculated without considering thrust reversers, so they're totally optional equipment. Airlines like them because using reverse thrust reduces the need to brake, with can increase brake lifespan. But the airframers know that the costs of buying and maintaining a reverse thrust system are actually the same or higher than the cost of extra brake wear from not having them. So, the mystery is, why do airlines keep ordering planes with reverse thrust?)
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 16:40 |
|
|
Is it even possible to buy a high pass turbofan that'll fit on an airliner these days that doesn't have thrust reversers?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 16:35
|
|
