Non-Military Aviation

Shyster
Posts: 13091
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Non-Military Aviation

Postby Shyster » Tue May 29, 2018 8:27 pm

Interesting video discussing the pros, cons, and differing characteristics of underwing engines versus tail-mounted engines.


Shyster
Posts: 13091
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Non-Military Aviation

Postby Shyster » Wed May 30, 2018 8:48 pm

Ran across this video today on YouTube. Spot what is wrong here.

Nopenopenopenope letmeoffletmeoffletmeoff!



No flaps set until takeoff roll starts, and after (we hope) the alarms go off in the cockpit the pilots just set flaps and continue. Flaps for a MD-80 are on the Before Take Off Checklist, but they aren't the only entry. If the pilots missed setting the flaps, that probably means they missed the entire checklist. The pilots should have immediately aborted the takeoff and then re-run all applicable checklists before trying again.

Video is dated 2012. Airline is Air Uganda, which went out of business in 2014 because the International Civil Aviation Organization pulled the license for the entire Uganda Civil Aviation Authority (functionally blacklisting and grounding every Ugandan airline) because the Authority failed a safety audit. Big shocker there.

tifosi77
Posts: 51511
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:07 pm
Location: Batuu

Non-Military Aviation

Postby tifosi77 » Wed May 30, 2018 9:04 pm

I was gonna say, "Are they really on the active?" Then I got to the end and saw there were only like nine people on board.

Shyster
Posts: 13091
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Non-Military Aviation

Postby Shyster » Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:20 pm

From the same person as the video on engine placement, an informative video on what happened to trijets:


shafnutz05
Posts: 50378
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 7:27 pm
Location: A moron or a fascist...but not both.

Non-Military Aviation

Postby shafnutz05 » Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:12 pm

I know it was probably terrible, but I can't help but laugh.

https://www.express.co.uk/travel/articl ... gers-vomit
Alarming footage has captured an aircraft cabin on board an AirAsia flight to India filling with mist as the captain blasted the air conditioning on full power in a bid to make the passengers leave the plane.

The flight, departing from Kolkata was delayed by over four hours for its journey to Bagdogra, West Bengal.

When passengers began growing frustrated, the aircraft’s captain told them to disembark the plane without any explanation.

However, when they refused due to heavy rain outside, he forced them out by turning the air conditioning on high, it is claimed.

tifosi77
Posts: 51511
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:07 pm
Location: Batuu

Non-Military Aviation

Postby tifosi77 » Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:47 pm

Image

Shyster
Posts: 13091
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Non-Military Aviation

Postby Shyster » Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:16 pm

Turning on the air conditioning isn't going to get me off an aircraft.

NTP66
Posts: 60742
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 2:00 pm
Location: FUCΚ! Even in the future nothing works.

Non-Military Aviation

Postby NTP66 » Wed Jun 27, 2018 7:01 am

A while back, American announced that they were dropping seat-back entertainment screens on their new Boeing MAX orders. Understandable, given that most people have their own devices these days. However, I personally like the seat-backs. For the life of me, I can't recall where I heard this - either from the crew of one of our flights, or reading it somewhere on the plane - but it was mentioned that seat-back screens would be coming to more planes in the near future. I know I was on an A321 from PHL-LAX, and assume that this would be the target plane to receive the screens; The A321S that flies LAX-OGG already has them.

IMO, the A319 and above should all have them. Having slightly less space under the seat for the boxes is an acceptable trade-off for me.

dodint
Posts: 59160
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: Cheer up, bіtch!
Contact:

Non-Military Aviation

Postby dodint » Wed Jun 27, 2018 9:26 am

WRONG

As a 6'4" tall guy with size 15 feet, anything that takes away space can honestly go **** itself.

Shyster
Posts: 13091
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Non-Military Aviation

Postby Shyster » Wed Jun 27, 2018 6:34 pm

Boeing has reportedly set a deadline of this week for engine manufacturers to submit proposals to power the new "middle of market" aircraft, which everyone presumes will be called the 797.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/27/boeing- ... plane.html

The 797 is reportedly a multiple-aisle aircraft with an ovoid—rather than round—fuselage shape, which means it can carry more passengers than a single-aisle narrbowbody but might be able to fit the same gates because it won't be much longer. A lot of airlines now use the out-of-production 757 for "thin" transatlantic routes with lower passenger numbers, which is a role the 757 really wasn't originally intended to fill, but one it is capable of performing due to its substantial range advantage over the 737 and A320 families. Delta's Pittsburgh-to-Paris flight has often been handled by a 757, for example. This new aircraft is supposed to offer that "long and thin" capacity in a new aircraft, as well as offer airlines a larger passenger capacity than a narrbowbody without having to upsize to something as large as a 787 or A350.

Boeing is reportedly looking at two versions: a 228-passenger version with a 5,000 nm range and a 267-passenger version with a 4,200 nm range. Those capacities are around 50-80 more passengers than what an A321 or 737 MAX10 can carry, and either version offers substantially more range than even the A321LR. Those passenger capacities are slightly greater than the 757-200 and 757-300 offered, respectively, but with close to a thousand nm greater range than those 757s. Either aircraft would easily be capable of transatlantic flights deep into the US or Europe.

When Boeing asked for engine proposals for the 787, it was only a couple of weeks before the formal announcement of the aircraft and the opening of the order book. If Boeing keeps the same pattern here, we might have a formal announcement soon.

tifosi77
Posts: 51511
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:07 pm
Location: Batuu

Non-Military Aviation

Postby tifosi77 » Wed Jun 27, 2018 11:12 pm

I always feel happy when I see Shyster has promoted the aviation thread. :thumb:

NTP66
Posts: 60742
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 2:00 pm
Location: FUCΚ! Even in the future nothing works.

Non-Military Aviation

Postby NTP66 » Thu Jun 28, 2018 8:20 am

**** Boeing.

Saw an A330 for the first time in Maui. You really can't appreciate its size until it's sitting next to an A321, IMO.

Shyster
Posts: 13091
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Non-Military Aviation

Postby Shyster » Thu Jun 28, 2018 4:53 pm

The A330-800neo would probably be the closest Airbus in size to the 797, although the A330 is still going to be larger and heavier. The article mentions that Boeing is looking for engines in the 45,000 lbs thrust range, while the A330neo is packing engines with 67,000 to 72,000 lbs thrust depending on the version, so we know the 797 is going to be smaller and lighter than the A330. Airlines are looking for something that has widebody capacity but is optimized for shorter routes.

When you design an aircraft capable of flying over 7,000 nm (such as the 787 and A330), that necessarily requires design features like large fuel tanks in order to provide that range. That makes the aircraft less efficient to operate over shorter distances because even an empty fuel tank has weight and mass to haul around, and there are other compromises built into long-haul aircraft like the size of the water and sewage tanks. That inefficiency for current widebodies over short routes is why most US airlines reserve their widebodies for long international flights and operate narrowbodies even on very busy domestic routes. For example, if you look up NY <—> Los Angeles flights on Google flights, while you will see a few flights using A330s and 767s, a lot of the aircraft used by the Big 3 on that busy route will be the bigger narrowbodies like the A321 (for American) and 757 (for United and Delta). It's actually cheaper on a per-seat basis for an airline to run multiple narrowbody flights on that route than a single widebody flight. Boeing is hoping that the 797 can deliver narrowbody economics for transcontinental/transatlantic distances and shorter.

tifosi77
Posts: 51511
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:07 pm
Location: Batuu

Non-Military Aviation

Postby tifosi77 » Thu Jun 28, 2018 4:56 pm

As someone who has flown across the country in 57, I say **** that noise.

NTP66
Posts: 60742
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 2:00 pm
Location: FUCΚ! Even in the future nothing works.

Non-Military Aviation

Postby NTP66 » Thu Jun 28, 2018 5:13 pm

As someone who has flown across the country in 57, I say **** that noise.
Yesssss. I haven’t flown on a Boeing in years and have zero intention of ever doing it again unless I’m forced to.

Shyster
Posts: 13091
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Non-Military Aviation

Postby Shyster » Thu Jun 28, 2018 5:28 pm

IMO, how an airline outfits its aircraft is going to have a greater impact on comfort than who makes it. For example, you'd be more comfortable in a Boeing 787 with eight-abreast seating than an Airbus A330 run by one of the operators that cram in nine-abreast seating on that model. And the seats on a seven-abreast 767 are usually wider and more comfortable than the standard eight-abreast A330. It really depends on exactly which aircraft it is and how it's configured. Even the slight width advantage for the A320 family over the 737 family can disappear depending on how wide an aisle the operator selects. I think the best option is to use a site like Seatguru where you can see and compare the specs.

NTP66
Posts: 60742
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 2:00 pm
Location: FUCΚ! Even in the future nothing works.

Non-Military Aviation

Postby NTP66 » Thu Jul 05, 2018 10:45 am

Piedmont has finally retired its last DASH-8. I used to take them from PHL-CLT-HHH until I switched to PHL-SAV. Won't miss them, really.

Image

Shyster
Posts: 13091
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Non-Military Aviation

Postby Shyster » Thu Jul 05, 2018 5:49 pm

I think the future of the turboprop will depend on fuel prices. Most US operators have retired their ATRs and Dash-8s in favor of the small regional jets like the Embraer ERJs and the smaller Bombardier CRJs. But if oil heads back over $100 a barrel, I think we could see a renewed interest in the turboprops, which IIRC are still more fuel-efficient for short hops than the small regional jets.

Shyster
Posts: 13091
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Non-Military Aviation

Postby Shyster » Wed Jul 11, 2018 2:01 am

Interesting aviation developments in the last couple days. First, Airbus has renamed and rebranded the Bombardier C-Series as the Airbus A220. The former CS100 is now the A220-100, and the CS300 is now the A220-300.



JetBlue and Airbus also announced an order for 60 A220-300s with delivery starting in 2020, with the option for 60 additional aircraft starting in 2025. Supposedly JetBlue will use the A220s for a new spinoff airline (tentatively called "Moxy Airways") which will be a ultra-low-cost carrier with a focus on smaller, secondary airports such as Providence, RI; Fort Worth, TX (presumably Fort Worth Meacham and not DFW); and Burbank, CA.

Second, while the deal is not final, Boeing and Embraer have announced a formal memorandum of understanding for the formation of a joint venture that would take ownership of Embraer's lineup of commercial jets (the ERJs, E-Jets, and E-Jet E2s). The venture would be a Brazilian company but with 80% Boeing ownership, which functionally means that Boeing would be buying Embraer's passenger aircraft lineup. Embraer keeps its business-jet business, its military business (like the Super Turcano light turboprop fighter), and the services businesses associated with those products. There is mention that Boeing and Embraer might form a separate joint venture that would own and produce the Embraer KC-390, which is a twinjet military transport/tanker aircraft that's of similar size and capabilities to the Lockheed C-130 Hercules.

So over the last couple years, this all started when Boeing got all pissy that Delta ordered the CS100/A220-100. Boeing then filed a claim of unfair trade practices and unfair competition with the U.S. International Trade Commission even though Boeing no longer makes any 737s (or any other aircraft) the size of that aircraft, and therefore the A220-100 didn't actually compete with any Boeing product. The trade litigation cost (relatively small and poor) Bombardier a lot of money, and it basically drove Bombardier into Airbus's arms. Boeing's claim was rejected to boot. Airbus ended up buying the entire C-Series program for a song and in a flash acquired an entirely new lineup of state-of-the-art regional jets that could easily be expanded. The A220-300 is already the size of the A319, and it could easily be given a second stretch to make a A220-500, which would offer roughly the same passenger capacity as the A320. That would permit Airbus to in turn focus on the bigger members of the A320 family (such as adding larger wings and making an even-larger A322 stretch over the A321) in order to compete with the Boeing 797 "middle of the market" aircraft. Boeing couldn't stand by and let Airbus become a regional-jet player too, so it went off and bought Embraer, which means the Airbus/Boeing duopoly will be even more firmly cemented in place.

NTP66
Posts: 60742
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 2:00 pm
Location: FUCΚ! Even in the future nothing works.

Non-Military Aviation

Postby NTP66 » Wed Jul 11, 2018 8:45 am

A350-900 landing/stopping within 500 meters during testing in NZ. And before you ask, they had water tanks to simulate the weight of a fully loaded aircraft. That's crazy impressive.


tifosi77
Posts: 51511
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:07 pm
Location: Batuu

Non-Military Aviation

Postby tifosi77 » Wed Jul 11, 2018 10:59 am

While I agree that's crazy impressive (that's only like 7 or 8 aircraft lengths) I don't think I would want to be a passenger on that kind of ride.
Last edited by tifosi77 on Wed Jul 18, 2018 8:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

NTP66
Posts: 60742
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 2:00 pm
Location: FUCΚ! Even in the future nothing works.

Non-Military Aviation

Postby NTP66 » Wed Jul 18, 2018 8:02 pm

Speaking of the A220, their PW1500G powerplants were just cleared for ETOPS 180, and carriers are already considering using them for flights from the west coast to Hawai’i. Yeah, no thank you.

Shyster
Posts: 13091
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Non-Military Aviation

Postby Shyster » Wed Jul 18, 2018 8:20 pm

Speaking of the A220, their PW1500G powerplants were just cleared for ETOPS 180, and carriers are already considering using them for flights from the west coast to Hawai’i. Yeah, no thank you.
:?: Why? Is your objection based on comfort or something else like reliability? The seats on the A220 are typically wider (at least 18") than the economy seats one would find on other narrowbodies, like the A320 family, and even many widebodies. IIRC, the middle seat on the three-wide side of the aisle (the A220 has an asymmetrical 2–3 seating layout like the DC-9 and MD-80) is even wider than the other two at nearly 20 inches. It might depend on exactly how each airline would choose to configure it, but I don't think I'd have any greater problem making that flight on an A220 over, for example, an A321 or 757, and the A220 might actually be more comfortable. I understand they're supposed to be really quiet inside as well.

NTP66
Posts: 60742
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 2:00 pm
Location: FUCΚ! Even in the future nothing works.

Non-Military Aviation

Postby NTP66 » Thu Jul 19, 2018 6:39 am

Because you know damn well that the airlines aren't going to go with the optimal configuration; you're not getting a 20" wide seat in the middle (even though that would do me no good, as I only sit in window seats). It's purely comfort, from my perspective. Their seat pitch isn't exactly conducive to comfort for anyone over 6' tall.

NTP66
Posts: 60742
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 2:00 pm
Location: FUCΚ! Even in the future nothing works.

Non-Military Aviation

Postby NTP66 » Thu Jul 19, 2018 10:44 am

It's ugly as sin, but the new Beluga XL made its maiden voyage today:

https://twitter.com/chi_ernest/status/1 ... 3946458112

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], MrKennethTKangaroo, pens9192, skullman80 and 115 guests