|
hobbesmaster posted:But the 767 line is still open? The Boeing website says they have 73 767-300Fs unfulfilled and then they just have the 23 KC-46s to build. AF apparently (per wiki) intended to buy at least 179 KC-46s through 2028, so Boeing listing 23 tankers is probably a technicality until another parcel are ordered. The type's supposed to be KC-135 replacement, of which there are more than 400 in service so the 767 production line's gonna be in service for a looooong time, with continued spare parts support. a patagonian cavy fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Oct 30, 2016 |
#
¿
Oct 30, 2016 03:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 11:07 |
|
|
My record is JFK->PVG on China Eastern, about 15 hours gate to gate. Being tall and broad and next to a smelly businessman made it bad, the fact that the tray tables on their 777-300ERs don't account for the mild nose-up attitude in flight and your food tray slides into your lap unless you hold it made it worse. gently caress China Eastern, never again
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:F-35 is already a done deal. Its paid for. He's literally suggesting burning MORE money to restart the F-18 lines than it would cost to replace our ENTIRE fleet of aircraft with F-35s. Super Hornet line is still going, and I'm pretty sure the USN is still taking them (in the form of growlers). So it's not an F-22 "start the line up for $billions before you see a single frame" situation. Still incredibly stupid, shortsighted, and worthless, but that's our president-elect for you.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
jammyozzy posted:I'm flying on an MD-88 and an MD-90 in succession to get to Daytona next week. I hope the stupid things are still air-worthy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Air_Lines_Flight_1288 That specific tail is still flying, more than 20 years later, because Delta. Landed about 7 and a half hours ago in Atlanta from Newark. That said, you're not gonna have a problem because Delta's good at maintenance, unlike another major US MD-80 operator I can name
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
to be even more  about it, it looks like a 737 Classic so a 300/400/500. I'd guess 300, personally.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:I'm not sure Aerolineas Argentinas flew the -300. They definitely had -500s though. They could be NGs as well because I know they flew the -700, many of which are flying for Southwest today. Pure guesswork on my part
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
Inacio posted:So it is! Looks so stubby in that photo!  It's come a long way!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
If you were flying Amerijet 827 today, October 17, they were looking for you on guard at 16:12Z today in the Miami area. Monitoring guard on training flights has finally paid off.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:
Apparently some of the early A380 concepts were envisioned using a pair of A340 fuselages side by side, which I can't find photos of what I can find is a horrible 747 full length double deck concept  hurrrrrrr
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:And to think, carriers run 5+ hour routes on 737s now. What a world. Norwegian flies them transatlantic between points in New England and the British Isles, which has been taking almost exactly 6 hours Not sure they're doing so in the winter due to the much stronger jet stream
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
PT6A posted:WestJet runs them from Halifax to Glasgow in summer as well. They don't in winter -- I'm not sure if it's because they can't, or more likely because there's no demand and they want to put more aircraft on Caribbean routes. Air Canada is going to fly their new 737 MAX 8s YYZ-SNN and YUL-DUB fairly soon after they arrive, and a lot of airlines (TAP, Aer Lingus) are going to fly the A321neoLR transatlantic as soon as it shows up and proves it's (+/- 5%) the same as a 757 rangewise Four engines to two engines to narrowbodies across the pond 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
bennyfactor posted:Regardless of certification and range etc, would something like that (but real) be flyable? Zero way you’d maintain yaw control with an engine out, or be able to keep the nose down at 100% thrust
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:
You can request whatever you want, and the controller can give it to you or say “unable”, at which point you take what you’re given. Except some situations. If you need 5,000’ to stop and the controller gives you a shorter runway than that, it is the pilot’s responsibility to refuse the clearance and insist on a runway which can accommodate the airplane. Another example might be crosswind landings- RNO has a pair of 16/34 (north-south) runways that are long as poo poo but frequently aren’t aligned with the wind, and a 7/25 (east-west) that is shorter. 99% of ops take 16/34 L/R, but what if your crosswind technique sucks and the wind is howling straight out of the west? You’d say “Reno Tower, N123AB request runway 25”. If they don’t give it to you? Tough poo poo, go somewhere else that has an appropriate runway and wait for the wind to die down at RNO, which it will never do. All of this goes out the window during an emergency, where you are allowed (per the FAR/AIM, the legal bible of flying in the USA) to do whatever it takes and break whatever rules are necessary to safely land your airplane. You’d better have had a legit emergency, though.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
Murgos posted:I was on a flight last week where we were delayed on the runway a bit as the captain came on and said that they had a runway change and so they were downloading a new profile (an American A321 ORD to BOS). Controllers can and do change stuff very frequently for a variety of reasons, be they traffic, weather, or congestion. Unless you're a controller or in the cockpit, you mostly won't realize what happened. How it works for IFR traffic (instrument flight rules, 100% of airlines fly IFR) is that when you're on the ground you file a specific route and then the controllers alter it (for traffic, weather, whatever) and read it back to you before you take off. It includes a destination airport but not a specific runway on that airport, which you'll get from Approach when you're a ways out from the field
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
SFO Class B, SJC Class C, and I think there are multiple Class D airports on that side of the bay Assuming the flight path doesn’t go above 2.5K AGL, of course.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
MrChips posted:So uh what's going to happen when it's overcast and 100 feet vertical visibility in fog? Don’t need to file or flight plan to fly IFR in class G! Also, part 91 operations don’t need any visibility to take off and you can make up whatever you want as “flight visibility” when you’re coming in to land. Can’t believe nobody has thought of this before, give me all your VC dollars
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2017 13:39
|
|
|
beep-beep car is go posted:I’m always fascinated by stories of training where the actions become automatic. In the same vein, I came home one night, got out of the car, and the neighbor’s kid was practicing his clarinet. First note was a match for a C172’s stall horn. I immediately tried to recover with full power and nose down, standing still in the middle of a street
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2017 14:36
|
|
|
At least one US carrier has done sequential cabotage in another country- Pan Am flew all flights between West Germany and West Berlin for awhile.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:That’s because the US wrote the agreement. See also US carriers based out of Narita. Several US airlines hubbed Narita, but they weren't allowed to fly traffic exclusively inside the country, only connecting (fifth freedom) traffic over NRT. Airlines based in America couldn't sell traffic *exclusively inside Japan*. Delta actually flew a NRT-KIX (osaka kansai) leg for a little while last year, but you couldn't book NRT-KIX. StandardVC10 posted:Qantas has one flight that runs something like SYD-LAX-JFK, but you can't book a strictly LAX-JFK ticket on them, as far as I know. Just like this. the JFK-LAX run is to connect passengers to SYD, MEL, or BNE- You can't buy JFK-LAX alone on Qantas.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2017 15:03
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:*somewhere in the Pentagon, early 70s*  iraqi air force
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
There's an aerostat moored close to Key West that's used to monitor drug running operations- about a decade ago somebody flew into its mooring cable. Mildly damaged the cable, cut the C182's wing off. I spent a lot of time wondering why one of the Victor airways down there has a MSA of 14,500'. That's why.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2018 20:18
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Some new seat cushions were needed after this, I suspect...  is there more of a story to this?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2018 14:51
|
|
|
I'm bad at recognizing specific models, but that looks a bit like a Piper Seneca. AOPA tells us that a Seneca's landing distance over a 50' obstacle is 2,180'. Saint Barth's airport has a runway length of 2,133'.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2018 04:00
|
|
|
At no point in my instrument training have I been asked to fly an NDB approach, and I've never flown an aircraft with an operating ADF. I'm gonna fly some approaches in the sim in advance of my CFI-I checkride (one week from today!) but unless my DPE is feeling very spicy, I doubt I'll be asked about NDBs at all other than basic orientation and navigation.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2018 02:41
|
|
|
babyeatingpsychopath posted:In test config, the P:W ratio is already better than a combat-loaded F-14. Assuming you convert the oil, fuel, hydraulic, and ESPECIALLY lavatory systems to negative-G, you could accelerate straight up in that 747. Doing some back-of-the-napkin math: A 747-400F, empty, with GE engines, weighs 360,900lbs. CF6-80C2 engines, which normally power this type, are rated at 63,000~ pounds of thrust each. All four together make 252,000lbs of thrust, which is not enough to accelerate vertically, even with zero fuel. You'd peak at about .7 TWR and then your engines would flame out. If you change the engines to GE90-115b (which power the 777-300ER and 777 freighter, and are more powerful than the GE9X engines being tested,) the math changes. Engine weight increases from 9,860lbs/engine to 18,261lbs/engine, increasing the total empty weight by a total of 33,064lbs to 393,964lbs (and you'd need to do a bit of structural beefing up which I'm going to ignore for the purposes of this exercise). However, thrust also approximately doubles to 460,000lbs of thrust. Therefore, for a T/W ratio of 1 (a hover), you could load up 66036 pounds of fuel, which is approximately 1/5th of maximum. It's doable. Doing this exercise with only one engine converted gives you about 304,000lbs thrust against about 370,000lbs of (empty) weight, so you couldn't accelerate vertically even with zero fuel. Also you have to consider the strong yaw moment of firewalling your engines, with one of them being twice as powerful as the other three, in a vertical climb. If the airspeed dips below Vmcg, even for a second, goodbye. Tl;dr- Seems dangerous. yes, I know that's not a true 747F because of the stretched upper deck, it's a BCF or BDSF, the freighter just has the lowest empty weight
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2018 04:58
|
|
|
shame on an IGA posted:Ok but now do the A340-200 4x GE90-115b would be able to make it hover at about 50% fuel. I didn't put very much effort into this estimate. however, if we're doing small quad jets...  Two GE90-115b engines would give it a TWR north of two, at MTOW. The diameter of each fan would be approximately the same as the interior diameter of the cabin.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2018 06:25
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Is there a tool to use to plan flights that also give equipment they'll be using without jumping through a bunch of hoops? Preferably something with seat previews? I like the Google flight tool, but I can't seem to see equipment/seat previews, just flight #. Expedia gives most of that, but no seating info for several flights. I've seen Lufthansa 744/748s both on final to SEA very recently, so that's another option for you.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2018 19:49
|
|
|
Krasniy Prospekt posted:
Our flight school uses a DA42 as a twin trainer and it only drinks jet-a, I never see them adding anything to it so it sounds like BS. Would also defeat the purpose of a true dual-fuel aircraft IMO
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2018 17:24
|
|
|
hey it's very important in your simulators to find out if they accurately represent stall/spin aerodynamics 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2018 18:56
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:That closely matches the bus passenger situation too. Still 400mph versus 55. Unless you’re flying a Cutlass, no 172 is going to do 131ktas in level flight. 110 is a more normal cruise airspeed. So it’s a bit worse than that.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2018 19:33
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:i liked the little animation they made showing the uber flying taxi saving you tons of time by flying a quick direct path from san francisco to san jose!!! right through the center of SFO's class B approach paths and several class D airports and SJC’s class C lol You aren’t even saved by going east because OAK is also a class C airport
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2018 01:47
|
|
|
EightBit posted:Currently eavesdropping on two tech bros discussing autonomous drones while sitting at a bar. I don't want to be the guy to ruin their plans by mentioning general aviation aircraft without transponders. I know a guy who works for Amazon in their "local delivery drones" department, and... well, they might eventually make it work. The Mode C veil around here is a thing, though.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2018 07:37
|
|
|
not far enough if you ask me
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2018 06:45
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Good news: planes age like wine. as a person who flies 152s regularly, you are absolutely correct
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2019 02:24
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Its not truly point to point though? At least not in the US. I think the real growth promoted by (relatively) small efficient twins has been enhancing specific hubs. For example, United has been able to massively expand the reach of its SFO hub including to midsize airports in China with its 787 fleet. You wouldn't see SFO- (CTU/XIY/SIN/AKL/yadda yadda) without it. You'd instead see people going XXX-SFO-NRT-YYY, and that SFO-NRT leg would be on an A380. With hubs reaching smaller points far away with 787s and to a lesser extent A350s, having huge capacity between hubs becomes obsolete.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2019 05:49
|
|
|
 I hope for their sake, in order: 1. They find Jesus and start missing approaches instead of always pressing on 2. They delete the videos before the FAA finds them
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2019 02:42
|
|
|
Dunno what y'all are talking about, flying approaches at 200KIAS just means you're really far away from Vmc, so in case of an engine failure you have a lot of excess energy to help you out
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2019 04:33
|
|
|
Spaced God posted:So has he already gotten a long talking to for breaking Beale's NFZ or did he cut that out of the video to try and prevent that If he was IFR it doesn't matter and I think he was 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2019 05:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 11:07 |
|
|
all of you are missing the obvious solution here: gyrocopter taxis.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2019 17:48
|
|