|
I'm on an ERJ145 about to depart on a ~45 flight through some rough weather. They limited the passenger count to 45 saying the flight was 'weight restricted'. The captain is very concerned about how many bags have been loaded and went down to count them himself. Is this due to the bad weather? I've taken 3 hour flights with every seat filled on these things, so this seems weird.
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 12:51 |
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:I'm on an ERJ145 about to depart on a ~45 flight through some rough weather. Is it raining? They may be dumping weight to make a safe (by the data) take off, or to carry extra fuel for a divert location or two.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
Are you in a place that would qualify as hot and high?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:I'm on an ERJ145 about to depart on a ~45 flight through some rough weather. If its unusually bad weather your short flight could be turning into a very long (for a regional jet anyways) flight to get around it. I had a 45 minute flight in an EMB-120 turn into somewhere in the range of 90min-2 hours due to weather once. It was at night during the spring or summer so there was a very pretty light show off in the distance at least. Or bad weather could mean than they can't use certain divert locations so they need to use ones further away (perhaps only cat I approaches are available at some of those locations).
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Or company loaded ten thousand pounds of belly cargo before boarding the first pax... There's a lot of possible reasons, none of them are alarming.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
Yeah, that was my guess too - if there was cargo on this flight, perhaps an unusual amount of it? That required a greater fuel load, which is more weight, and it may be extra divert fuel is required and more of that is required than normal because of the cargo, and ... continue this spiral to "45 passengers" because that's the easiest variable to control for. I would also guess it's a lot easier to overload a small regional jet than it is to overload a 777 despite both of them having strict weight limits. Or at least something with greater total capacity gives you more room to work with while still conforming to their respective limits. Relative size of load to total carrying capacity, or whatever. Psion fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Feb 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
Psion posted:Yeah, that was my guess too - if there was cargo on this flight, perhaps an unusual amount of it? That required a greater fuel load, which is more weight, and it may be extra divert fuel is required and more of that is required than normal because of the cargo, and ... continue this spiral to "45 passengers" because that's the easiest variable to control for. Yeah, generally the smaller the plane, the less leeway you have on load. Dash 8s are really critical for weight. (that said, super long haul flights with lots of cargo can weight restrict you pretty bad even on a 777). Also, the 145 being rear engined, weight and balance becomes a major factor too. They might just be shifting extra bags from an earlier cancelled or delayed flight.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:If its unusually bad weather your short flight could be turning into a very long (for a regional jet anyways) flight to get around it. Also on a short-ish leg, they're more likely to be weight restricted based on max landing weight because less fuel is planned to be burned off enroute. In my experience with RJs, anything under an hour of flight time is likely to be landing weight restricted. 1-2 hours you're typically ok unless you have to carry a stupidly far alternate. Anything over 2hrs and you start worrying about max takeoff weight (although God help you if you're doing more than 2 hours in a CRJ-200 anyway).
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
Just About Done posted:Also on a short-ish leg, they're more likely to be weight restricted based on max landing weight because less fuel is planned to be burned off enroute.  Quick someone find the longest regular leg flown domestically on a 200. Edit: I've got YYG to YYZ for 2:26 enroute SeaborneClink fucked around with this message at 04:18 on Feb 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
SeaborneClink posted:I mean I had a CRJ8 AUS->SFO and I was less than pleased, but a 200? I think Air Canada was flying a 200 on the YVR to SAN route? I think it was about 3 hours too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
Man that was a fun flight. The last 20 mins were in IMC and we didn't break out of the clouds until I could see the exits off the Van Wyck for JFK. When I could make out the ground i could see the crazy crab angle we had going. I'd love to see a video of that landing. It felt loving wild. I've done RIC-IAH in an EMB145. I can't imagine doing a similar length flight in a CRJ200. I loving hate those things so much, if only for the fact that my eyes are a good foot above the top of the windows while seated.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
Once my airline was forced to downgrade MSP-IAH from a CRJ900 to a -200 because of maintenance issues. Not only did 26 people and their bags not get to go, but those who went didn't get their scheduled meal because the catering is different between aircraft. I really felt for them. Normally you should never volunteer to give up your seat, but had it been me I would have jumped ship immediately.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
ehnus posted:I think Air Canada was flying a 200 on the YVR to SAN route? I think it was about 3 hours too. Their advertised maximum range is 2004 nmi, great circle mapper says that is more or less its max range. Just About Done posted:Once my airline was forced to downgrade MSP-IAH from a CRJ900 to a -200 because of maintenance issues. Not only did 26 people and their bags not get to go, but those who went didn't get their scheduled meal because the catering is different between aircraft. The real question is how many zillion skymiles did the bumped first class passengers get.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
YZR-SAN on a CRJ200 sounds like a loving nightmare.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
Bombardier. Good news/bad news: Good news! Bombardier just 'sold' 75 C-series jets to Air Canada ('sold' here being some sort of vague promissory note from AC to buy these jets sometime in the future.) Bad news! Bombardier at the end of the press conference announcing that sale said 'oh btw we're cutting 7000 people from the company.'
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
I enjoyed the presentation of said news this morning.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
I remember our plane taking off before the Iron Maiden 757 years ago and seeing it out the window.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
That the must cost a fortune for a tour. I would be curious to see how much.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
slidebite posted:That the must cost a fortune for a tour. I would be curious to see how much. I think I remember reading somewhere that they ran the numbers back in the day and it worked out cheaper to operate their own aircraft for touring than the logistics of using third party cargo operations.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Bombardier. Good news/bad news: Also in similar news is a law suit settlement between Air Canada and the government of Quebec where AC promises to maintain the new aircraft in Montreal. Possibly to absorb the jobs lost at Bombardier? Who knows. Because it just wouldn't be Air Canada without extensive government meddling.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
Linedance posted:I think I remember reading somewhere that they ran the numbers back in the day and it worked out cheaper to operate their own aircraft for touring than the logistics of using third party cargo operations. Especially if you fly the plane yourself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
I am looking forward to Delta buying a lot of Cseries at extremely cheap prices in about six months.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
Linedance posted:Also in similar news is a law suit settlement between Air Canada and the government of Quebec where AC promises to maintain the new aircraft in Montreal. Possibly to absorb the jobs lost at Bombardier? Who knows. Because it just wouldn't be Air Canada without extensive government meddling. It comes from the Air Canada Public Participation Act, where there was a requirement that Air Canada keep their heavy maintenance bases open in both Winnipeg and Montreal. Since that is largely no longer the case, the federal government has been threatening to sue AC for their breach for quite a while now...this just settles that issue, and with AC promising to perform heavy maintenance in Montreal for 20 years, makes them compliant once again with the law (and likely softens the blow from the job losses at Bombardier).
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:I am looking forward to Delta buying a lot of Cseries at extremely cheap prices in about six months. They are getting the shitbox Embraers that Boeing bought from AC in exchange for 737max orders.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 03:38
|
|
|
Saw this beauty sitting at MKC when I drove by today: I had no idea it was there. I really need to visit the TWA museum there since my family has a lot of history with it(TWA itself).
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
D C posted:They are getting the shitbox Embraers that Boeing bought from AC in exchange for 737max orders. I guess they loved the 717s that much that they're grabbing whatever cheap 100 seaters come on the market?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I guess they loved the 717s that much that they're grabbing whatever cheap 100 seaters come on the market? Apparently they already bought some ten year old Chinese-built md90s; at $30 bbl they're probably dusting off the dc9s in the desert.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 06:31
|
|
|
Why is modern livery in the US such garbage? Give me old-school Pan-Am, TWA, or American any day.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 07:02
|
|
|
"Let's make a Aeolipile into a JATO bottle and put it on a helicopter." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84MG9OH4Mds
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 10:29
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Why is modern livery in the US such garbage? Give me old-school Pan-Am, TWA, or American any day. Patrick Smith is kinda obsessed with this question. Not sure if there is a definitive answer, but a lot of it IMO is marketing types trying to prove their worth by redesigning classic designs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 11:55
|
|
|
PCjr sidecar posted:Apparently they already bought some ten year old Chinese-built md90s; at $30 bbl they're probably dusting off the dc9s in the desert. According to wikipedia Delta is still missing 2 MD-90s and around 60 717s. Gotta catch 'em all!
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 15:20
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Why is modern livery in the US such garbage? Give me old-school Pan-Am, TWA, or American any day. Pan Am, TWA and Eastern were good, but AA's polished metal scheme was loving hideous and I'm glad they put some loving paint on. The old logo was pretty great though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
PCjr sidecar posted:Apparently they already bought some ten year old Chinese-built md90s; at $30 bbl they're probably dusting off the dc9s in the desert. I'm pretty sure someone else is already flying them. I can't remember the call sign, but I still see them somewhat regularly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:Pan Am, TWA and Eastern were good, but AA's polished metal scheme was loving hideous and I'm glad they put some loving paint on. The old logo was pretty great though. I like polished metal  But I imagine that might be sort of tough to keep going forward as CF and other fancy stuff becomes more the norm than the exception.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
Polished metal just needs a bit of anodizing or clear coat but saves a person worth of weight. That polished metal was some accountant poo poo I just know it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:Polished metal just needs a bit of anodizing or clear coat but saves a person worth of weight. That polished metal was some accountant poo poo I just know it. Yeah, it's several hundred pounds, with all the primer, base layer, and graphics. I prefer my airplanes in flat grey. Finally stayed in Bossier instead of just driving through, so these photos are not from a moving car!: The view from my hotel:  They were doing their daily pattern work or whatever it's called, just circling and doing touch-and-goes a couple minutes apart. With a pause for this guy to land:  What's that doing landing at the USAF base? The regional airport is across the river to my back, there, it's clearly on final to the base. Then they kept circling and I went and found a place to park (the back driveway of an RV sales place). This lil' guy hit the afterburner and climbed out over the landing path:  Judging from the curtain in back, it's most likely a student shooting an instrument approach and they either hosed up or were only practicing the farther-away part. This guy landed, I'd put away the camera and was having a snack, so I didn't get a good shot, but it appears to be a P-8, judging solely from the fact that it's a 737 with "NAVY" on the side.  And now, what you all came here to see, BUFFs up close and personal:      (The last one, a different airframe from the others, is smaller because I forgot to swap the crop thingy in photoshop after processing a vertical -- I usually set the shortest side to 1000px, but that'n's 1000 wide) Also a video, because why the hell not: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnYFRoxsKWw Put on headphones and crank up the volume And then I went to the casino just as the sun set:   The latter is from a B-52 on the way out, at about the same place as the one pointing to your left in the fist photo in this post.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 02:11
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
Anyone know where they keep the explosion machine on that thing?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:This guy landed, I'd put away the camera and was having a snack, so I didn't get a good shot, but it appears to be a P-8, judging solely from the fact that it's a 737 with "NAVY" on the side. Yup, P-8, though the Navy does use a different 737-derived model, the C-40A Clipper, which is for all intents and purposes an of-the--shelf 737-700 Combi, and can be distinguished from the P-8 by having a full row of windows along the side, a shorter fuselage (P-8 is based on the 737-800), and having winglets instead of raked tips.  EDIT: Also the C-40B and C-40C are used by USAF and ANG as VIP transports. Kilonum fucked around with this message at 02:52 on Feb 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 12:51 |
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:And now, what you all came here to see, BUFFs up close and personal: These are rad as hell and I  to you for posting them. And your video, plus that "BUFF lands at Oshkosh for 1st time!" video from whenever-ago got me thinking: Are B-52 approach speeds pretty fast? They seem kinda fast for something that loving big / those big rear end wings. Yes/No/Just The Vids Make it Seem Like It?...And in less happier news, there's this.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sTTGlqZDx0 Duke Chin fucked around with this message at 02:59 on Feb 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 02:55
|
|
