Official Aviation Thread...

[jpod999]

It’s like the people who got Altamont closed after they moved in next door and didn’t like the racing noise.

[hoveringuy]

fucking shit man! the airport was there for years. move somewhere else if you don't like it.

This always triggers me. Site 6 in Pensacola is a giant, green field where the helicopters practiced landings and run-on autorations (too hot for full auto's to the spot). That made it attractive to build next to, and then of course the new residents complain about the noise..
I have a little more sympathy for the folks around OLF Fentress, which was shut down for a few years for paving. During that break, the builders took advantage of the quiet and sold a ton of homes to people that didn't do their research.
I still don't understand why Cecil closed, those people LOVED jet noise, but that's another topic.

[flyboyx]

On a lighter note, imagine being the kind of person who calls an airport 86 times to complain about noise, in a month http://bocaairport.com/wp-content/up...kage-Final.pdf (page 22)

this sounds like all those quinoa bowl eating douche bags that live in and around John wayne (or white plains)

fucking shit man! the airport was there for years. move somewhere else if you don't like it.

[george graves]

At least that is what my hornet mind thought looking at their fuel burn :)

I LOL'ed

[FLYNAVY]

I used to fly DC-9's in the Navy. One of our recurring missions was Air Wing moves out of Fallon, NV. Usually these were going to Norfolk, VA.


If it was Summer, or even remotely warm, the best we could with our performance at that altitude was fill about 70 of our 90 seats and just enough gas to make the short hop to NAS Lemoore. With the lower elevation and long runway in the Central Valley, we could fill all 40,000lbs to make it all the way to Kansas for refueling. Yes, we had to go West to go East!


Meanwhile, the new C-40's (737) could fill all 121 seats and take enough gas to go direct to Norfolk, and they were probably at reduced power.


I never did get to fly the C40, but the cool thing about the DC-9 was that our limitations meant that we stopped in cool places like Wake Island and Greece, and we had comfortable seats.

I remember a number of NALO rides in the C-9. First one was from Meridian, to my first 'Hook. My biggest memory was watching the one board fly by, and the LSO shack, and we were still firmly on the runway. Eventually got airborne, barely cleared the trees (as I have since learned, we prob were in the "clearway", never knew that was a thing in the last 18 years of flying). We stopped for gas at willy in AZ, and then had to hold for about 45 mins on the next leg, overhead Fallon troubleshooting some hyd failure. Crash crew came and met us on the T-line in their space suits.

The other rides were less memorable, but if they had one thing in common, it was an inability to get to our destination in less than 3 legs, regardless of destination :) Cool plane though, I remember watching the whidbey jets come into the overhead at KEUG as a kid and do some bouncing.

As for the C-40 gas, I don't know about that, but I did ride along/jumpseat a P-8 from Fallon to JAX and back.....those clowns flew the entire trip at max E.....took like 6 hours. Guess they just wanted the flight time. But we did have plenty of gas to meet 121 mins flag/domestic/supplemental or otherwise, and still fly for another 5 hours, and then return to the most distant alternate, hold at 1500 feet for 12 more hours, and then fly back to the destination, hold for 5 more hours, and then return to the departure airport. At least that is what my hornet mind thought looking at their fuel burn :)

[varg]

Still preliminary at this point but from the evidence I saw it definitely appeared to be the same type of thing that was a factor in the lion air crash. I am very curious to see a more complete report about the lion air crash based on what I have read here: http://avherald.com/h?article=4bf90724/0009&opt=0 where it appears a previous crew had encountered the same issue and handled it safely, which despite the failure of the mechanics to repair the problem would make the primary cause of the crash the crew's failure to handle the situation in a timely manner. The Ethiopian plane never got close to the AGL altitude that the lion air plane did, making the time to deal with such an issue much shorter and less likely to be handled correctly by the crew. There is no doubt that what is essentially an electric trim runaway needs to be an item of utmost importance in training, no matter what you're flying if it happens at the wrong time you need to be on the ball and know how to shut the system off immediately. I am not trying to minimize the responsibility of pilots in such a situation, but we all have the benefit of ample time to think about such things when discussing it online, unlike the crews involved who may or may not have been properly trained to deal with it.

On a lighter note, imagine being the kind of person who calls an airport 86 times to complain about noise, in a month http://bocaairport.com/wp-content/up...kage-Final.pdf (page 22)

[LateFan]

New evidence from the Kenyan crash site triggered a full grounding of all 737 Max. Curious if it was the recorders and an erratic attempt to climb?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/03/12/two-plane-crashes-five-months-what-lion-air-ethiopian-airlines-flights-have-common/?utm_term=.03b054fe8479

[hoveringuy]

I used to fly DC-9's in the Navy. One of our recurring missions was Air Wing moves out of Fallon, NV. Usually these were going to Norfolk, VA.


If it was Summer, or even remotely warm, the best we could with our performance at that altitude was fill about 70 of our 90 seats and just enough gas to make the short hop to NAS Lemoore. With the lower elevation and long runway in the Central Valley, we could fill all 40,000lbs to make it all the way to Kansas for refueling. Yes, we had to go West to go East!


Meanwhile, the new C-40's (737) could fill all 121 seats and take enough gas to go direct to Norfolk, and they were probably at reduced power.


I never did get to fly the C40, but the cool thing about the DC-9 was that our limitations meant that we stopped in cool places like Wake Island and Greece, and we had comfortable seats.

[flyboyx]

The 737 was originally certificated in 1967 from a re-hashed 707 fuselage and nose. The concept was that the cargo was supposed to be at chest height so that it wouldn't need special ground equipment that smaller airports didn't have. The small JT8D engines were great for that.


All versions since then have been an amendment to the original type certificate (based on 1960's certification rules).


I've heard that if the 737 was re-designed into a modern jet the changes in certification requirements alone would add 1000's of lbs of weight. For example the, the similar A320 has additional redundancy and has overwing slides because the wing is higher off the ground to actually fit the engines.


So, the 737 has a competitive advantage because it can be built lighter to old rules, but there's only so far that the design can be tweaked. The NG is super-reliable and has one of the best safety records of any jet, ever.

well, this is partially true. the a320 does indeed have slides on all doors-a requirement based on the height from the bottom of the door. the 737's height above the ground has actually turned out to be a huge problem for the longer models such as the 900 series. they are extremely prone to tail strike issues on takeoff or landing.

the bus is indeed a much more modern airplane in many ways. as to weight, both airplanes are commensurate for a given version(ie: 737-700...A319, 737-800...a320, 737-900....a321) but the 320 has a much better lift capacity in regard to fuel and payload. in 4 years of flying the bus, i have never once had to bump a passenger or a bag because we couldn't carry everything to its destination. this includes severe weather days where 2 alternates are required and the extra fuel needed to meet those requirements. i can promise you that no guppie driver can say that.

the fuel burns on the 73 seem to be higher for a given category than the bus also. landing and takeoff speeds on the 73 are much higher for a given weight. landing distances are much longer on the 73 than the airbus.... i can easily stop a fully loaded A320 in about 4000 feet. in the case of a good headwind, much less. pilots will dispute which plane is better until the last days of the earth, but those that have flown both generally always say the bus is a better airplane.

if we would like to discuss my thoughts on the latest mishaps, i have opinions on this too.

[hoveringuy]

The 737 was originally certificated in 1967 from a re-hashed 707 fuselage and nose. The concept was that the cargo was supposed to be at chest height so that it wouldn't need special ground equipment that smaller airports didn't have. The small JT8D engines were great for that.


All versions since then have been an amendment to the original type certificate (based on 1960's certification rules).


I've heard that if the 737 was re-designed into a modern jet the changes in certification requirements alone would add 1000's of lbs of weight. For example the, the similar A320 has additional redundancy and has overwing slides because the wing is higher off the ground to actually fit the engines.


So, the 737 has a competitive advantage because it can be built lighter to old rules, but there's only so far that the design can be tweaked. The NG is super-reliable and has one of the best safety records of any jet, ever.

[LateFan]

Bad day to be holding any Boeing stock.

Did they ever dig up the 737 flight recorders out of the mud in Asia? Last I heard they needed money for ocean equipment to get to them. That could be critical information right now.

[LateFan]

[ATTACH]126134[/ATTACH]

[LateFan]

^^ Nice pics. Great color. I love the blue exhaust flames.


Sort of aviation related - they found the USS Hornet, the ship the Doolittle Raid took off from, and the ship that helped win the Battle of Midway.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/uss-hornet-wreckage-world-war-two-warship-discovered/

So cool to see. Just sitting there with the guns pointed up. That tractor sitting there. Those shot-up planes laying in the sand.

Imagine being 18 yrs old, out there on that empty horizon getting shot to pieces.

[BlackbirdM3]

Here are a few more from Reno.









Will

[BlackbirdM3]

nice Will!

my favorite is the guy leaning against the running p51 looking like he's bored out of his skull.

hey!! here is a bazillion horsepower attached to a blender about 10 feet from your face!

*yawn*.......I sure wish I was home on my couch binge watching episodes of "the guiding light" right now.......

That was a morning test run to make sure nothing was leaking or anything like that. For what its worth, that plane has been racing off and on for the past 49 years, and is still wearing a variation of the same paint scheme it wore the first time it raced. Its one of three planes to still wear its original paint scheme, the other two haven't raced in a very long time. (The other two are P-51 "Miss Van Nuys" and Sea Fury "Miss Merced" )

Will