Aircraft Vs Thread 3

[Macross73]

Changing the focus slightly.  I don't know how many of you travel, but do you have preference for Boeing aircraft or Airbus models?

Speaking from personal experience, I tend to like the 737 just a bit better than the A320 (???), if nothing else, the luggage spacing is better so that my carrying on can fit wheels in first.  But beyond that, have any of you flown the current long range airbus, which I think is the A330 and/or 340?

What do you think?

I would think the A380 might be a nice aircraft to fly on when it finally gets deployed, just for the experience.  Same for the 787.

What is your flight experience like?

421457[/snapback]

Right now I have a soft spot for A320s, but I think that's more because I'm flying JetBlue quite often (they're the only airline to offer direct service from SF to my parent's house in DC at anything close to a reasonable price). I'd say that the most comfortable cabin I've been in was the 717, I used to fly on one of those at least twice a year when I was in college, nice comfortable seats good view out the window and surprisingly quiet for an aircraft with fuselage mounted engines.

421574[/snapback]

I just flew back from Palm Beach FL on a 717 Boeing TransAir.

it wasnt bad but thank goodness its a short flight. Im usualy

flying Delta out of the country. i think those flights were 737 Boeing.

edit : yeah Air Tran. apparently this flight didnt leave a lastig impression with me

Edited August 2, 2006 by Macross73

[David Hingtgen]

Remember, KC-135's were built to stick their boom into a USAF receptacle, not have a probe stuck into a basket. They have to put a basket onto the boom to refuel any non-USAF plane, and it IS that close on the F-14---the basket practically eats the probe, and it is very stiff/strong compared to most baskets---thus parts tend to break off if there's any contact or bending. F-14 pilot's nickname for the KC-135 is the "Iron Maiden"---unforgiving.

Macross73--you mean Air Tran? Also, the main difference between the 777 wing and 767 wing is that the 777 wing has a much higher aspect ratio, and also has greater sweep for higher speed. 777 airfoil is generally similar to the 767. (Most of a 777 is like a 767) The 777 finally reversed a trend of ever-slower airliners. If you chart jet airliner speeds, it's gone downhill ever since the first ones, excluding a brief spike for the early widebodies. The 777's the fastest airliner in 20 years. 747 still beats them all of course (and it SHOULD be even faster, if the other airlines had gone along with Pan Am)

Overall I find 777's incredibly boring and non-distinct to fly on. (Ironically I really like 767's, which are probably the most indistinct airliner of all---but I think it's just that it's so well balanced and designed the whole effect just really looks right)

United is one of the few to keep the 2-5-2 777 seating, as they used that on their DC-10's (most airlines had their DC-10's like that). Most airlines have gone to 2-4-3 for 777's AFAIK. (or rarely 3-3-3 I think)

Edited August 2, 2006 by David Hingtgen

[Nied]

Remember, KC-135's were built to stick their boom into a USAF receptacle, not have a probe stuck into a basket.  They have to put a basket onto the boom to refuel any non-USAF plane, and it IS that close on the F-14---the basket practically eats the probe, and it is very stiff/strong compared to most baskets---thus parts tend to break off if there's any contact or bending.  F-14 pilot's nickname for the KC-135 is the "Iron Maiden"---unforgiving.

421814[/snapback]

I suppose this explains why the IIAF had their F-14s (which were re-fueled almost exclusively by Boeing boom tankers fitted with baskets) delivered without the doors.

[buddhafabio]

here is a neato pic of wake turbulance

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1091105/L/#

[Zentrandude]

here is a neato pic of wake turbulance

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1091105/L/#

423456[/snapback]

Thats pretty cool. It has the artistic feel to it.

[Noyhauser]

As for Boeing vs Airbus sales-wise:

Well the 787 is as revolutionary a design as has ever been seen in the industry, and is promising BIG fuel gains.   The A350 has been changed again and again to try to match it, but no amount of redesigning the A330 will make it come close to a 787.  You'd be paying the price of a brand-new plane, for minimal improvement.   The A330 wing is already about as low-drag and high-aspect-ratio as a "normal" wing can be---anything more requires a very different design, like the 787.   Maybe tremendous blended, raked winglets could help the A350 but I still think sales will be poor, or heck, maybe even cancel the project.  Even all-new wings (current A350 design I think) would still be attached to an A330 fuselage with A330 systems---a lot of the 787 advancements are the SYSTEMS, not aerodynamic.

421658[/snapback]

Didn't they announce at farnborough that they would create a new A350 completely, rather than a redesign?

Edited August 8, 2006 by Noyhauser

[David Hingtgen]

They change what the A350 is every week...

PS--you want artisic airliner shots? This is the best one in years:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1088680/L

Now THAT is a contrail! Plus quite clearly defined wingtip vortices--which will eventually lead to what you see in the shot above.

[Nied]

I had some down time at work so I did some digging. The current A350 concept diteches the A330 body and has a new "Xtra Wide Body" (god is that ever lame marketing). It's now supposed to compete with the larger 787s and the smaller 777s. Sounds like Airbus is grasping at straws.

[Phyrox]

speaking of photos...

Does anyone have a link or scan of a photo of a Ju-87 w/o gear? I know there is one in the Schiffer book on Rudel, but mine is in another state at the moment.

edit:

the one i have seen is much like this one. Ju-87 at low alt., and taken from a similar angle...except of course it has no main gear.

Edited August 10, 2006 by Phyrox

[Mislovrit]

Not just a steel rail, but a steel rail with several hundred pounds of armed high explosives at the end of it. A good bump would pretty much leave nothing left of your plane (or you).

Aren't fuses located on the front end of the bomb or missile while the first part of said objects coming into violent contact with the aircraft is the @$$-end?

[Mislovrit]

I guess they've been watching too much Macross Zero, especially Focker's aerial rearming scene with the gunpod. 

Graham

420562[/snapback]

More likely they're After Burner fans.

[F-ZeroOne]

speaking of photos...

Does anyone have a link or scan of a photo of a Ju-87 w/o gear?  I know there is one in the Schiffer book on Rudel, but mine is in another state at the moment.

edit:

the one i have seen is much like this one.  Ju-87 at low alt., and taken from a similar angle...except of course it has no main gear.

423846[/snapback]

Er... do you mean the spats? (the fairings that went over the landing gear). Its just that the JU-87s landing gear was fixed and, AFAIK, not removable...?

[Phyrox]

No. I mean the gear. Legs and wheels, not just streamlined fairing (which the one in the photo I attached doesn't even have).

I have read that a few 87s had jetisonable main gear (precaution designed into naval version that found its way into production models somehow), but I've also read that D and G models didn't have this ability. The one in the photo I've seen might have had very coincidental battle damage maybe...?

That's why I want to see the picture again, or another like it.

edit: reread post and realised it unintentionally sounded a bit snippy. fixed (i hope)

Edited August 10, 2006 by Phyrox

[buddhafabio]

i have been googling for a few hours. so let me get this straight the asw role is suspended in 1999 and the s-3b viking is to be retired in 2009 with with the superbug to take over its roles as a tanker? we have learned in the pasts not to axe certian missions and capabilites for aircraft (guns for instance) and sub are sneaky we need all the weapons we can get for the threat of them. i under stand that the best subkiller is another sub. but the must invulnerable while attacking a sub is aircraft

[Noyhauser]

I had some down time at work so I did some digging.  The current A350 concept diteches the A330 body and has a new "Xtra Wide Body" (god is that ever lame marketing).  It's now supposed to compete with the larger 787s and the smaller 777s.  Sounds like Airbus is grasping at straws.

423813[/snapback]

From what I read in the Financial times, this will be something new entirely, and was to enter service in 2012, so its not just "another redesign." Its a completely new project by Airbus after the A-380 debacle. I don't think Airbus is "grasping at straws" either, they are going through some troubles, but to be honest, so was Boeing four years ago... everybody thought boeing was done for then. Here's a good article about how short sightedness in the aircraft industry.

http://www.newyorker.com/printables/talk/0...talk_surowiecki

[Phyrox]

i have been googling for a few hours.  so let me get this straight the asw role is suspended in 1999 and  the  s-3b viking is to be retired in 2009  with with the superbug to take over its roles as a tanker?  we have learned in the pasts not to axe certian missions and capabilites for aircraft (guns for instance)  and sub are sneaky  we need all the weapons we can get for the threat of them.  i under stand that the best subkiller is another sub.  but the must invulnerable while attacking a sub is aircraft

424000[/snapback]

I haven't paid attention to modern military procurement/policy in years, so I wasn't aware that the idea of having the new Hornet take over fixed-wing ASW was not gonna happen. If it isn't, and the fleet only has ship-borne rotary-wing and P-3s for ASW...I think it is a mistake.

Although I doubt the U.S. Navy will be in real need of serious ASW capability in the immediate, or even near future, I have always thought that if the ballon goes up again in a major conventional war submarines will be key for both sides. Especially as several 2nd and 3rd tier navies have taken pages from the Soviet playbook concerning the appropriate way to deal with carrier groups (minus the nuclear aspect of course).

John Keegan might not be the best naval historian, but I think he was right...the submarine is the future of naval warfare, whether we realize it now or not. The more the U.S. can counter submarine threats to its major surface units, the better.

[F-ZeroOne]

No.  If i had meant spats or fairings I would have said so.  Hell, the one in the photo I posted doesn't have fairings on.  I mean the gear.

I have read that a few 87s had jetisonable main gear (precaution designed into naval version that found its way into production models somehow), but I've also read that D and G models didn't have this ability.  The one in the photo I've seen might have had very coincidental battle damage maybe...?

That's why I want to see the picture again, or another like it.

423982[/snapback]

Okay, just wanted to be clear.

[Nied]

From what I read in the Financial times, this will be something new entirely, and was to enter service in 2012, so its not just "another redesign." Its a completely new project by Airbus after the A-380 debacle. I don't think Airbus is "grasping at straws" either, they are going through some troubles, but to be honest, so was Boeing four years ago... everybody thought boeing was done for then. Here's a good article about how short sightedness in the aircraft industry.

http://www.newyorker.com/printables/talk/0...talk_surowiecki

424033[/snapback]

Well the baseline A350 was an A330 fuselage mated to new wings and engines. So if they decided to design a new fuselage it is a whole new design. But yeah you're right about me passing quick judgement, hell I can remember reading stories predicting Boeing's immenint doom just last year! Of course that was in Air International which tends to take a rather eurocentric view of the industry.

[David Hingtgen]

Re: fuse location at front: On bombs, yes, on missiles, no. Missiles don't make direct contact (unless you're really lucky). Missiles simply get close (proximity fuse), then fragment into shrapnel, shredding the plane. Nastiest is the 'expanding rod' style like a Sparrow, which basically creates a buzz-saw to slice the plane in half. (in theory--in practice it just goes boom like any other--but its a big boom) The proximity fuse on most missiles is behind the warhead. Always in the front half, never the very front.

Front to back, most missiles go: seeker/guidance, warhead, fuse, motor.

Re: ASW. The P-3 is to be replaced by modified 737-800's, the P-8 MMA (Multimission Maritime Aircraft). Yup, Harpoons on pylons (and torpedoes and sonobuoys) on an airliner. Plenty of concpet pics out there.

Edited August 10, 2006 by David Hingtgen

[Phyrox]

Re:  ASW.  The P-3 is to be replaced by modified 737-800's, the P-8 MMA (Multimission Maritime Aircraft).  Yup, Harpoons on pylons (and torpedoes and sonobuoys) on an airliner.  Plenty of concpet pics out there.

424126[/snapback]

Well, I'm no airliner nut, and just did a cursory overview of some stuff on the net. I WANT to find something wrong with the concept...but I guess it'll work.

If it were up to me I would REALLY want something with better ditching/water-landing characteristics, but I guess the Navy is willing to trade crew safety for devolopment costs. Or maybe it'll get jetisonable nacelles?

Interesting idea though.

[Mislovrit]

Re: fuse location at front:  On bombs, yes, on missiles, no.  Missiles don't make direct contact (unless you're really lucky).  Missiles simply get close (proximity fuse), then fragment into shrapnel, shredding the plane.  Nastiest is the 'expanding rod' style like a Sparrow, which basically creates a buzz-saw to slice the plane in half.  (in theory--in practice it just goes boom like any other--but its a big boom)  The proximity fuse on most missiles is behind the warhead.  Always in the front half, never the very front. 

Thank you for the information, now all that's left is how much abuse can they take before exploding, i.e. the dos and don'ts of storing, loading, arming and etc.

[David Hingtgen]

Boeings float pretty well, historically.

And airliners don't jettison engines. Of the few with structural fuses to have clean breakaways from certain types of failure/damage, I seriously doubt it'd be possible to get it to work on a newer 737, due to how the pylons are integrated with the wing (both ahead and behind) and the mounting of the engine (more in front than below). Basically the 737's engine mounting has been F'd up since the initial design, due to using 727 engine and nacelles--designed for tail-mounting! Also, in almost all cases you'd want engines to flip up and over the wing--rear mount fails first. On a water landing however, the engines will dig in the water and flip down, forward mount failing first. There's not much you can do to try to make the engine mounts fail oppositely of how the water will force them.

[buddhafabio]

how does this fight forrest fires?

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/...okes+blaze.html

[kalvasflam]

how does this fight forrest fires? 

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/...okes+blaze.html

424505[/snapback]

Ha ha, that's so funny, OMG, we're out of fuel, we're gonna crash. But thank God we have this plane load of water to weigh us down.

I believe they've recently refitted 747 to do fire fighting, although the water is expelled via nozzles on the side of the plane

[Phyrox]

Again, airliners aren't my forte so I am not very familiar with the 747s performance envelope.

That said, I imagine it would make a very, very poor firefighter.

Too bad about the Beriev. I have a soft spot for the flying boat genus and like to see them succeed when possible. Maybe this won't effect Portugal's ultimate decision though...

and I don't get this joke:

Ha ha, that's so funny, OMG, we're out of fuel, we're gonna crash. But thank God we have this plane load of water to weigh us down

It doesn't seem to have much to do with the story.

Plane hits tree while getting water -> damages engine -> dumps fuel and water to prepare for emergency landing -> lands safely.

edit for spelling

Edited August 12, 2006 by Phyrox

[David Hingtgen]

747's are quite agile for their size, and have an incredibly low stall speed for their size----triple-slotted fowler flaps, plus variable camber flaps, plus kruger flaps. Yes it needs the flaps out to fire-fight, but it's not "5kts from stalling". 747's can than their own weight in fuel (actually, slightly more). When a 747 is empty, its thrust:weight ratio is doubled (again, actually slightly more). Being full of water is nowhere near its max weight. Most people only see 747's lumbering along at 99% MTOW for trans-pacific flights. But when empty--very impressive.

Sheer quantity---drop as much as 10 other planes. Can be refilled fairly quickly AFAIK. Better to drop 10x as much, rush back to base at 500mph, refill, then do it again, than wait for a bunch of other planes to lumber back home slowly, get refilled, slowly make their way there, and drop a few gallons.

It's been so impressive to most places they're looking at converting some DC-10's as well.

[Phyrox]

I read somewhere that the DC-10 firefighter was tested and went nowhere...

But I wouldn't be concerned about the 747's ability to fly slow enough and drop accurately as I would about its ability to fly into and out of tight spaces easily. How rapidly can it change its direction of flight? Most of the firefighting AC I've seen in action are forced to dive into canyons/valleys and pull out rapidly after the drop. I wouldn't want to try that in a 747...at least I don't think I would. Even just its size would limit its uses.

I guess it could serve a small niche, like the Mars do I guess.

I wouldn't want to be doing it in 50 year old warbirds either, so some good replacement is certainly necessary. You can only fly old Neptunes, Orions, Catalinas, Invaders and Trackers for so long.

[Knight26]

Yes a new firefighting airplane is badly needed in the US too many of the ones we have are getting on in years and are starting to break down because of it. The problem is that no one wants to invest the money to build up firefighter from the ground up, they would rather retrofit something that already exists.

[buddhafabio]

i think the best not from scratch firefighting plane they use is the c-130

for it can go slow and haul lots of water. they are pretty stoked to be using converted 747s but i just dont see those going in a dive like they do.

what did we use for defoliators in vietnam? that may be a good plane.

Edited August 13, 2006 by buddhafabio

[renegadeleader1]

IIRC the planes we used for defoiliators in vietnam were the A-26 invader, C-130 and the C-123. The C-123 looks similar to the C-130 except its smaller, and has two engines.

[David Hingtgen]

Whatever the Army picks to replace the Chinook would be a good choice, since they basically want a modern version of the C-123. Or just new-build C-27's. They lost an entire category of air transport when they got rid of the C-27, and have realized that mistake many times. They have no "smaller turboprop" so they have to use Chinooks and Humvees. And they've used up like 10 years of Chinook airframe hours in like 2 years now, they're flying them so much, doing jobs they really shouldn't be doing. And Humvees are much more vulnerable and carry far less of course.

C-295 is a good option. Basically anything that looks like a smaller, 2-engine C-130.

[Nied]

I read somewhere that the DC-10 firefighter was tested and went nowhere...

But I wouldn't be concerned about the 747's ability to fly slow enough and drop accurately as I would about its ability to fly into and out of tight spaces easily.  How rapidly can it change its direction of flight?  Most of the firefighting AC I've seen in action are forced to dive into canyons/valleys and pull out rapidly after the drop.  I wouldn't want to try that in a 747...at least I don't think I would.  Even just its size would limit its uses.

I guess it could serve a small niche, like the Mars do I guess.

I wouldn't want to be doing it in 50 year old warbirds either, so some good replacement is certainly necessary.  You can only fly old Neptunes, Orions, Catalinas, Invaders and Trackers for so long.

424586[/snapback]

Part of the 747 tanker concept is a pressurized water release system that allows it to dump from a higher altitude, so it's not going to fly the same kind of profile as the current waterbombers. The same thing allows it to put more water on one spot than anything out there. I'll see if I can pull up some info on the web.

[buddhafabio]

what about designing modern flying boats with landing gears for fire fighting? it swoops in like prevouis flying boats gulps water like some and dumps it out. and if water source is not near by it can land and get filled up.

on side a neato f-15 pic showed up on fark.com via airliners . net

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0804...ev_id=&next_id=

[Mislovrit]

Whatever the Army picks to replace the Chinook would be a good choice, since they basically want a modern version of the C-123.  Or just new-build C-27's.  They lost an entire category of air transport when they got rid of the C-27, and have realized that mistake many times.  They have no "smaller turboprop" so they have to use Chinooks and Humvees.  And they've used up like 10 years of Chinook airframe hours in like 2 years now, they're flying them so much, doing jobs they really shouldn't be doing.  And Humvees are much more vulnerable and carry far less of course.

C-295 is a good option.  Basically anything that looks like a smaller, 2-engine C-130.

424659[/snapback]

What the U.S. Army needs is more C-17s [or similar sized aircraft like the C-5] and even more sealift capacity as most of it gear and supplies is still going to be put on boats.

Latest report on the FCS link.

[Warmaker]

Well, remember the 1980's Van Halen video for "Dreams" on MTV? You know, back when they actually showed music videos? I got 2 videos I easily dug up on the 'net.

The 1st is the "Dreams" video as was regularly shown on MTV, showcasing the Blue Angels flying the A-4 Skyhawk (one of my favorite aircraft).

The 2nd is one that's much more recent and fanmade. This time, it's the Blue Angels flying the F/A-18 Hornet.

No stages, no half-nekkid chicks prancing around (kind of bad not to have them, I guess), etc. Just aircraft and flying.

Blue Angels with A-4 Skyhawks

Blue Angels with F/A-18 Hornets