David Hingtgen Posted September 19, 2007 Posted September 19, 2007 Personally I think takeoff is the best part; really nice acceleration. Granted, there aren't any afterburners on a 737, but that plane can sure move... If you thought one of Westjet's 737's could move (probably a -200) you should try to book your next trip on a 757. Those are by far the "hotrod" airliner. Many people comment the first time they get a 757 takeoff.
Nied Posted September 19, 2007 Posted September 19, 2007 It's just been the case that I've never needed to go anywhere by plane. Last Saturday a guy I know who works for Duncan Aviation in Lincoln gave me a flyer promoting that Trimotor being in Lincoln and giving rides over a four day period. I looked at the site this morning and decided that now was my big chance. I've had some previous opportunities to maybe go flying, but nothing panned out. Get thee to an airport and take a vacation somwhere far away! It'll expand your horizons in more ways than one.
Warmaker Posted September 20, 2007 Posted September 20, 2007 Being on a military transport like a C-130 doing a "combat approach" and landing was an interesting thing for us non-aviators. Especially those for weak stomachs during flight!
VF-19 Posted September 20, 2007 Posted September 20, 2007 If you thought one of Westjet's 737's could move (probably a -200) you should try to book your next trip on a 757. Those are by far the "hotrod" airliner. Many people comment the first time they get a 757 takeoff. According to Westjet's website they operate 700s, 800s, and 600s. The reason why I went with Westjet is because they're cheap. That and they have TV on the plane. It's nice to watch Dirty Jobs at 39000 feet.
David Hingtgen Posted September 20, 2007 Posted September 20, 2007 You said "first time on a plane" so I had assumed it was several years ago. But if you had TV's on the seat, it must have been recent. And a "hmmn" statement for the fact that they have -600's. -600's are decidedly uncommon, very poor seller compared to the others. (It's just mis-proportioned, too much wing and tail for such a small fuselage---the -500 was iffy for the same reason, but sold decently since it was almost tailor-made for UAL and SWA---but the -600's even worse and I didn't know anybody but SAS had picked some up)
VF-19 Posted September 20, 2007 Posted September 20, 2007 You said "first time on a plane" so I had assumed it was several years ago. But if you had TV's on the seat, it must have been recent. And a "hmmn" statement for the fact that they have -600's. -600's are decidedly uncommon, very poor seller compared to the others. (It's just mis-proportioned, too much wing and tail for such a small fuselage---the -500 was iffy for the same reason, but sold decently since it was almost tailor-made for UAL and SWA---but the -600's even worse and I didn't know anybody but SAS had picked some up) Actually it was last May I went on this trip. And the info was copied from Westjet's website.
David Hingtgen Posted September 20, 2007 Posted September 20, 2007 I wasn't doubting the info, I just found it surprising.
Nied Posted September 20, 2007 Posted September 20, 2007 Given the small fuselage size and those big CFM-56 engines mated the 737-600 ought to be a pretty hot ride. I've never ridden the -600 specifically but I have been in a few -500 and I can attest that they are pretty quick off the line and are roughly comparable to a 757. It seems like the only things I ride in anymore are members of the 737 or A320 families, with the ocasional 757 thrown in (though since moving to SF the ocasional 767 and even 777 have crept in).
Knight26 Posted September 20, 2007 Posted September 20, 2007 Iran's new super fighter, lol Iranian F-5 Knock Off Looks like a very slightly modified F-5 to me,...a 50 year old airplane design (the F-5 was designed by Northrop in the late '50s and entered production in the 60's). But, the thing I find most interesting it though is the line about "blinding their enemies eyes" makes me think that some rumors I heard a while back about Iran developing a blinding laser for their planes might be true. In which case any close in engagements could end badly for the other side.
Apollo Leader Posted September 20, 2007 Author Posted September 20, 2007 Get thee to an airport and take a vacation somwhere far away! It'll expand your horizons in more ways than one. Yeah, yeah... Seriously I'll try to find an excuse to get on an airliner somwehere one of these days.
Nied Posted September 21, 2007 Posted September 21, 2007 Yeah, yeah... Seriously I'll try to find an excuse to get on an airliner somwehere one of these days. Might I suggest my old stomping grounds of Washington DC? It's underrated in it's beauty, has plenty of history, and one of the best (if not the best) aviation museums in the country.
vermillion01 Posted September 21, 2007 Posted September 21, 2007 NYC has the 'Intrepid' air and space museum.. I thought that rocked... lots of nice planes on an aircraft carrier.. what more do u want?
David Hingtgen Posted September 21, 2007 Posted September 21, 2007 Isn't the Intrepid closed for like 18months for refurbishment?
vermillion01 Posted September 21, 2007 Posted September 21, 2007 Isn't the Intrepid closed for like 18months for refurbishment? Um..could be. I used to live in NY (i'm from and live in the U.K.) so I cant say for sure. It was one of the best aerospace museums i've ever been to, I mean, its on an aircraft carrier!
Nied Posted September 21, 2007 Posted September 21, 2007 Iran's new super fighter, lol Iranian F-5 Knock Off Looks like a very slightly modified F-5 to me,...a 50 year old airplane design (the F-5 was designed by Northrop in the late '50s and entered production in the 60's). But, the thing I find most interesting it though is the line about "blinding their enemies eyes" makes me think that some rumors I heard a while back about Iran developing a blinding laser for their planes might be true. In which case any close in engagements could end badly for the other side. I think this particular F-5 knock off has been mentioned before. Someone posted this photo of a different F-5 knock off in the Tomcat Sunset forums however unlike the Sageh I haven't been able to find any further info on it. It certainly doesn't look like a photoshop job. Note the high wing and enlarged LERX, combine this with the twin tailed Sageh and you have a YF-17! Rumours are the F/B-44 "Iranian Lion" will also be F-5 based. Honestly if the Iranians are so hard up for a modernized F-5 replacement I don't see why they don't just license produce the FC-1/JF-17 in country. Rumour has it they've successfully reverse engineered a smaller all digital version of the AWG-9 so they wouldn't even need to rely on crappy Chinese avionics.
David Hingtgen Posted September 21, 2007 Posted September 21, 2007 Dassault almost got a Rafale order from Morocco, but it seems Lockheed stepped in with a cheaper offer for F-16's. Still not decided for certain. Even I'm cheering for Dassault at this point. I'm still surprised the Rafale has NO export orders. It's a good plane AFAIK, and aerodynamically a cut above the basic F-16 design--again, AFAIK. The F-16 is just getting uglier and heavier with each upgrade. Soon it'll be nothing but a flying bundle of sensor pods and bulges, with the handling of a pregnant yak. Personally, I don't really like any F-16 past Block 30, which is where it peaked in air-to-air.
kalvasflam Posted September 21, 2007 Posted September 21, 2007 Dassault almost got a Rafale order from Morocco, but it seems Lockheed stepped in with a cheaper offer for F-16's. Still not decided for certain. Even I'm cheering for Dassault at this point. I'm still surprised the Rafale has NO export orders. It's a good plane AFAIK, and aerodynamically a cut above the basic F-16 design--again, AFAIK. The F-16 is just getting uglier and heavier with each upgrade. Soon it'll be nothing but a flying bundle of sensor pods and bulges, with the handling of a pregnant yak. Personally, I don't really like any F-16 past Block 30, which is where it peaked in air-to-air. Don't you know, Lockheed was taken over by some key guys from the old Fairchild company, and they're gradually morphing the F-16 to the A-10. Soon that intake is going to sport a large gatling gun....
Lynx7725 Posted September 21, 2007 Posted September 21, 2007 Honestly if the Iranians are so hard up for a modernized F-5 replacement I don't see why they don't just license produce the FC-1/JF-17 in country. Rumour has it they've successfully reverse engineered a smaller all digital version of the AWG-9 so they wouldn't even need to rely on crappy Chinese avionics. I don't think this is about the quality of hardware that the Iranians are concerned about. Their international situation is such that any arms suppliers may suddenly get arm-twisted into stopping shipments, and that would have impact on their capabilities. I think the Iranians are deliberately going the hard way to build up their own national capabilities so that they can use internal resources to support their own forces. Regardless of what their intent is, their strive to be nationally, industrially and economically independent is actually quite admirable IMO.
eugimon Posted September 21, 2007 Posted September 21, 2007 I don't think this is about the quality of hardware that the Iranians are concerned about. Their international situation is such that any arms suppliers may suddenly get arm-twisted into stopping shipments, and that would have impact on their capabilities. I think the Iranians are deliberately going the hard way to build up their own national capabilities so that they can use internal resources to support their own forces. Regardless of what their intent is, their strive to be nationally, industrially and economically independent is actually quite admirable IMO. regardless of their intent eh? Sounds surprisingly similar to what some out of work painter said about his nationalistic arms buildup a few decades ago.
Lynx7725 Posted September 21, 2007 Posted September 21, 2007 regardless of their intent eh? Sounds surprisingly similar to what some out of work painter said about his nationalistic arms buildup a few decades ago. Trying to invoke Godwyn's Law? It's not a good topic to discuss here, really. To get back on topic, the production of a new aircraft based on a 50-year-old frame has different meanings on a tactical and a strategic scale. I don't think very much of the aircraft if it ever gets into combat against a modern air force (US or Russian), but to be able to get to this point highlights certain other capabilities.
Apollo Leader Posted September 21, 2007 Author Posted September 21, 2007 Might I suggest my old stomping grounds of Washington DC? It's underrated in it's beauty, has plenty of history, and one of the best (if not the best) aviation museums in the country. I was DC back in June 1993 (yikes, that was 14 years ago already!) though I didn't get to see the Smithsonian. The one place I would really like to fly to would be Dayton to see the Air Force Museum again. It was on the same trip to DC that was also the last time that I got to be at the Air Force Museum. Would really like to go back there so I can see the Tacit Blue, Bird of Prey, YF-22, and the B-2 structural test bed in person.
Nied Posted September 21, 2007 Posted September 21, 2007 I was DC back in June 1993 (yikes, that was 14 years ago already!) though I didn't get to see the Smithsonian. The one place I would really like to fly to would be Dayton to see the Air Force Museum again. It was on the same trip to DC that was also the last time that I got to be at the Air Force Museum. Would really like to go back there so I can see the Tacit Blue, Bird of Prey, YF-22, and the B-2 structural test bed in person. I see your B-2 and Raptor and raise you by a Blackbird, Space Shuttle, Concorde and the Enola Gay. I'm telling you the new annex at Dulles airport is worth the price of admission alone. Plus you've got the Naval Air Museum a very short drive away at Pax River. Also the Constitution.
emajnthis Posted September 21, 2007 Posted September 21, 2007 (edited) I see your B-2 and Raptor and raise you by a Blackbird, Space Shuttle, Concorde and the Enola Gay. I'm telling you the new annex at Dulles airport is worth the price of admission alone. Plus you've got the Naval Air Museum a very short drive away at Pax River. Also the Constitution. The Annex is a really nice addition, plus it's right next to my house. It seems to be more tightly packed with aircraft than the Air & Space Museum in DC, and the layout is way more spacious and easy to navigate. It's definitely worth the price of admission and is a fun trip for the kids too (lots of little displays and buttons for them to break). I never realized how thin the SR-71 was, that thing is INCREDIBLY low profile, it always looks so massive in pictures, but the thing looks like a tooth pick straight on. Edited September 21, 2007 by emajnthis
Nied Posted September 22, 2007 Posted September 22, 2007 Iran's new super fighter, lol Iranian F-5 Knock Off Looks like a very slightly modified F-5 to me,...a 50 year old airplane design (the F-5 was designed by Northrop in the late '50s and entered production in the 60's). But, the thing I find most interesting it though is the line about "blinding their enemies eyes" makes me think that some rumors I heard a while back about Iran developing a blinding laser for their planes might be true. In which case any close in engagements could end badly for the other side. Two things I missed on this topic. Blinding Lasers are banned by the latest draft of the Geneva conventions (though I'm not sure if we or Iran are signatories to that draft). Also F-16.net has a thread with new pictures of the Sageh in new "not the Blue Angels" colors. The poster there mentions the enlarged intakes, implying that the engies need sigifcantly more mass flow (rumour has it the Iranians have crossed the J85 with the TF-30 to make a new more powerful engine), but I'm more interested in the re-shaped nose, and the deletion of one of the 20mm cannons. Maybe the Iranians have put a better radar in thier plane. If they could get something that equivelent to even the APG-66 and goose the J85s enough they could have a decent F-20 analogue. They do seem to be rather averse to BVRAAMs (they don't seem to be in any hurry to develop or buy one beyond reverse engineered Pheonix's and Hawk SAMs on thier F-14s) which gives us a decided advantage over the IRIAF should any conflict occur.
David Hingtgen Posted September 22, 2007 Posted September 22, 2007 I really wonder about that plane. TF30+J85---yet it still has the auxilliary intakes? You couldn't change a thing about the J85 and maintain those inlets as functional--they're positioned right at the first stage fan. Plus it makes little sense---turbojet vs turbofan, and an order of magnitude difference in size/power. Maybe they can use some technique they learned from the TF30 to design some new J85 stage, but there's no way to combine the two in any form. Not while still fitting in a plane that size. Also--adding a second tail is a lot of weight for a plane that small. Especially when it's twin-engined already (which is inherently heavier than a single, larger engine) Finally---Northrop planes, especially the whole F-5/17/20 family, are quite reliant on their area ruling. Speed via low drag, not high power. (The YF-23 had both, which is why it had such insane acceleration). I wonder how well they realize that, and can alter the plane without ruining it. They could have doubled the drag with those new intakes, alteration of the fuselage contours, and doubling the skin drag of the tail.
Nied Posted September 22, 2007 Posted September 22, 2007 I really wonder about that plane. TF30+J85---yet it still has the auxilliary intakes? You couldn't change a thing about the J85 and maintain those inlets as functional--they're positioned right at the first stage fan. Plus it makes little sense---turbojet vs turbofan, and an order of magnitude difference in size/power. Maybe they can use some technique they learned from the TF30 to design some new J85 stage, but there's no way to combine the two in any form. Not while still fitting in a plane that size. It looks like the exhaust pipes are a little longer so there's definitely something going on there (and would explain how the aux intakes still line up) but yeah my assumption was that they somehow incorporated a miniaturized version of the TF-30 core into the J85. Honestly I'm surprised that they kept trying to use the J85, as long as they are making radical changes to the aft fuselage they might as well put a J79 (which the Iranians have also claimed to have reversed engineered) or the RD-33 (easily obtainable from Russia and maintains commonality with their Mig-29s) either one would help make a better F-20 analogue. Also--adding a second tail is a lot of weight for a plane that small. Especially when it's twin-engined already (which is inherently heavier than a single, larger engine) Tom Cooper is adamant that Iran has a well developed composite industry, it's possible the extra weight of the twin tails is offset by the use of composites (it's tough to tell from the published pictures but the wing is supposed to be new as well).
David Hingtgen Posted September 22, 2007 Posted September 22, 2007 I've never seen a composite that was half the weight of conventional. The main purpose of composites (IMHO) is squeezing out that extra 2% of fuel economy due to a slight weight savings. It's not some miracle super-light material. Widebody airliners can save a few thousand pounds using composite--- but fighters--dozens, maybe hundreds of pounds.
Apollo Leader Posted September 22, 2007 Author Posted September 22, 2007 I see your B-2 and Raptor and raise you by a Blackbird, Space Shuttle, Concorde and the Enola Gay. I'm telling you the new annex at Dulles airport is worth the price of admission alone. Plus you've got the Naval Air Museum a very short drive away at Pax River. Also the Constitution. Let's see, I saw Space Shuttle Atlantis just a little over two months ago, I have seen multiple SR-71's (including when they were still in service) and the AFM's YF-12 and the A-12 that was in Minneapolis (while in was in Minneapolis and then when it was shipped here to Nebraska), and Bock's Car. But if I could someday get to the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum, I would.
Apollo Leader Posted September 22, 2007 Author Posted September 22, 2007 Regarding the Iranian "Lightning", the Iranian Lightning is to the F-5 as Robotech is to Macross! 'Nuff said.
Nied Posted September 22, 2007 Posted September 22, 2007 (edited) Let's see, I saw Space Shuttle Atlantis just a little over two months ago, I have seen multiple SR-71's (including when they were still in service) and the AFM's YF-12 and the A-12 that was in Minneapolis (while in was in Minneapolis and then when it was shipped here to Nebraska), and Bock's Car. But if I could someday get to the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum, I would. I see no constitution. At this point I'm impressed with how much travelling you've been able to do without ever boarding an airplane. Edited September 22, 2007 by Nied
Apollo Leader Posted September 23, 2007 Author Posted September 23, 2007 (edited) Well the 15 minute flight went pretty smooth. It was kind of like being in an amusement park ride except much higher up, in an enclosed cabin and a bit louder (the three piston engines though it was tollerable). It was interesting to see the city of Lincoln from overhead; the Husker game against Ball State had just ended and I could see all the traffic leaving Memorial Stadium and the eastbound traffic heading to Omaha was just totally backed up from airport onwards. This particular Trimotor is one of like 18 surviving aircraft and only a handful of those are still flying. Something like 199 or so were manufactured around 1929-1930. This particular aircraft has quite a bit of history to it having been used in Cuba, served as Air Force One for the Dominican Republic, was used in the Jerry Lewis movie "The Family Jewels", fought forest fires, and was used as a crop duster. From 1965-1973, the owner flew it across the country offering rides to the public. In 1973 it was severely damaged by a tornado or thunderstorm. The EAA bought the aircraft and spent the next 12 years rebuilding the aircraft. From 1985-1991, it was mainly a museum piece and only flew occasionally. From 1991 forward it has been doing these public flights. For the full story go here: http://www.airventuremuseum.org/collection...20Tri-Motor.asp When I get a chance, I'm going to download all my pictures today and I will get them onto my facebook account and will share them. Edited September 24, 2007 by Apollo Leader
Apollo Leader Posted September 24, 2007 Author Posted September 24, 2007 I just posted 60 pictures of my little journey yesterday on my facebook account. Here's the public link to the photo gallery: http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=8215...mp;id=582816193
Nied Posted September 25, 2007 Posted September 25, 2007 I just posted 60 pictures of my little journey yesterday on my facebook account. Here's the public link to the photo gallery: http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=8215...mp;id=582816193 Awesome pictures! Looks like teh EAF did an amazing job with that plane, inside and out. Wondering how smooth the ride was? The Trimotor fits right in the gap wieght wise of what I've ridden in (lots of lightweight singles and twins then a big gap to the smallest airliner I've been in which was a 717). From the looks of your pictures there should have been a fair amount of chop, I wonder how a plane of the Ford's size would deal with it.
Apollo Leader Posted September 25, 2007 Author Posted September 25, 2007 Awesome pictures! Looks like teh EAF did an amazing job with that plane, inside and out. Wondering how smooth the ride was? The Trimotor fits right in the gap wieght wise of what I've ridden in (lots of lightweight singles and twins then a big gap to the smallest airliner I've been in which was a 717). From the looks of your pictures there should have been a fair amount of chop, I wonder how a plane of the Ford's size would deal with it. All of those pictures I took were with my Canon Digital Rebel. Before Facebook downscaled them, those pictures were 3456 x 2304 pixels in dimension. As for the flight, I would say it was pretty smooth for the most part. There was a few spots I could feel the plane take a little dip and my stomach wasn't liking that. But again, I thought it went quite well for my first time. Since that was my first time up in an airplane period, it would be hard for me to compare it to anything else.
David Hingtgen Posted September 25, 2007 Posted September 25, 2007 Dips are fun. Especially big dips in big planes. Best ride ever was an MD-11 out of MIA. Like a roller coaster, but at 250 mph and 500,000lbs...
Recommended Posts