Aircraft Super Thread Mk.VII

[David Hingtgen]

National? As in merged-with-Pan-Am-in-1979 National? Do tell.

Anyways--interesting article/magazine on US carrier flightdeck ops/safety/notation: http://www.public.navy.mil/navsafecen/Documents/media/flight%20awareness/flightdeckawareness-5thEdition08.pdf

[areaseven]

National? As in merged-with-Pan-Am-in-1979 National? Do tell.

There are at least four different incarnations of National Airlines:

National Airlines (IATA: NA) (1934-1980) - The one swallowed-up by Pan Am.

National Airlines (IATA: none) (1983-1986) - Never got off the ground.

National Airlines (IATA: N7) (1999-2002) - Short-lived Las Vegas airliner.

National Airlines (IATA: N8) (2008-present) - Formerly Murray Air.

[Beltane70]

Yep, that's the one, David. I don't really remember much about them, though. I was around 8 or 9 when I flew with my mother and sister to visit my grandparents in Florida. It took me forever to even find the name of them since it was that long ago. Luckily, I was able to remember its logo and was able to find it that way.

The only thing that I can remember about that airline is seeing Pete's Dragon as the inflight movie. That, and I remember my sister spilling her soda.

[kalvasflam]

Pan Am... the second airline I ever flew on when I first came to the US. The first was a turboprop deathtrap in China, but as an 8 year old, I was fascinated.

I think the US airlines in general suck. My mileage is with United, and I'm not impressed with them. Heard good things about Virgin America, and have flown Jetblue in the early 2000s, back then, their service was pretty good.

I love flying on Asiana, Thai, and Singapore. Too bad, it's not that often any more.

[David Hingtgen]

There are at least four different incarnations of National Airlines:

That's why I specified. (specifically, the only one that counts)

[F-ZeroOne]

I've often thought it would be cool if all nations agreed to ban things like guided missiles, radar, jet engines and stealth to reducing spiralling defense procurement cost.

Then I'd love to see with today's technology, how good of a prop driven fighter plane we could build, compared with the best WWII planes.eapons to be limited to machineguns, cannon, unguided rockets or unguided bombs.

Graham

We probably wouldn't do much better than the late-model WWII planes, I think. If you ban jet engines you could well be banning turboprops - which are, essentially, a jet engine with a propeller...! If you still allow CAD at the design stage, then there might be some interesting designs allowed and also if you allow composite materials and computerised flight controls which may have a significant effect on weight and handling. Electronics are in everything these days, so fuel effiency might be better due to electronic engine controls, but if you don't allow that - well, the late war fighters were pushing the limits of conventional prop design (arguably, the P-38 with its compressibility issues was doing that in 1940!), which is why everyone started moving to jets in the first place.

Regards UAVs in movies: actually, Sidewinders being used against ground targets is not completely unrealistic (leaving asides the fact that no current drone I know of mounts them); early Sidewinders reportedly often locked onto ground targets due to reflected heat, while recently the US carried out trials with the latest model 'winders for use against ground targets...

[Bowen]

We probably wouldn't do much better than the late-model WWII planes, I think. If you ban jet engines you could well be banning turboprops - which are, essentially, a jet engine with a propeller...! If you still allow CAD at the design stage, then there might be some interesting designs allowed and also if you allow composite materials and computerised flight controls which may have a significant effect on weight and handling. Electronics are in everything these days, so fuel effiency might be better due to electronic engine controls, but if you don't allow that - well, the late war fighters were pushing the limits of conventional prop design (arguably, the P-38 with its compressibility issues was doing that in 1940!), which is why everyone started moving to jets in the first place.

We might get a nice discovery channel show about some hotrodders trying to tune fighter engines

Or MTV's new show "Pimp my warbird"

[F-ZeroOne]

Just another small point about "banning" "cutting-edge technology" - World War II fighter aircraft were, by and large, cutting edge technology at the time. In fact, some pilots of the era used to complain about the new-fangled gadgets like retractable landing gear and cockpit canopies that they didn't need in the good ol' days... At least one historian has argued that this sometimes had a detrimental effect on aircraft design, when pilots in some countires were able to exert an undue amount of influence (the example used was Japan, where the pilots preference for light, agile fighters meant sacrificing armour and firepower, though its no doubt more complicated than that as available engine power was another factor... )

Edited April 29, 2012 by F-ZeroOne

[areaseven]

Going back to the subject of airliners, how many of you are disoriented by United's current logo? I know that it's a result of the merger between United and Continental, but it's just not United. How long before they actually revert to the old "tulip" logo?

[Beltane70]

Possibly never. I was actually pretty surprised that they decided using the name United instead of Continental. I was always under the impression that Continental was the more successful and financially stable airline.

[areaseven]

Possibly never. I was actually pretty surprised that they decided using the name United instead of Continental. I was always under the impression that Continental was the more successful and financially stable airline.

Perhaps, but United is the name more people recognize.

[David Hingtgen]

Going back to the subject of airliners, how many of you are disoriented by United's current logo? I know that it's a result of the merger between United and Continental, but it's just not United. How long before they actually revert to the old "tulip" logo?

Not so much the logo, but the paintscheme. I absolutely hate United's name on CO's paint. To the point that I won't fly on them any more. UA is dead to me. (and I have more UA models in my collection than anything else)

CO already had among the oldest, most boring paint scheme in the industry---that scheme pre-dates United's PREVIOUS scheme. And United's final scheme was among the best to come out in the entire world in 20 years IMHO. Classic, with stripes and many shades of blue. CO is white with grey.

The scheme was chosen purely (and they have stated this) because it was cheaper and quicker to repaint UAL's fleet white and grey, than to paint CO's fleet with multiple shades of blue.

Still, they could have at least added another stripe or something, to break up the incredible blandness that is CO warm pale grey. (that *is* a color----CO actually has a special pale warm grey paint that only they use, for the belly and engines--it is not the "manufacturer" grey that is applied to the wings--close, but it is a unique color)

[Beltane70]

I'll still fly CO/UN since i already have quite quite a few frequent flyer miles with them.

[areaseven]

Personally, I was never used to the last CO livery. I always thought the old "meatball" livery (1968-1991) was the definitive Continental Airlines. As for UA, I prefer the 1993 "battleship" livery.

[David Hingtgen]

I prefer UA grey too, to the final blue--but it's still 1000x better than current CO. (the BEST United scheme was the "revised" Saul Bass----lowered stripes and bigger titles, 1988-1992)

As for CO---again, the 'revised' version with bigger titles and narrower stripes, 1984-1991 or so.

[areaseven]

Once again, we have another company attempting to revive the Pan Am name. However, no one's sure if this one will actually fly. But with Pan Am regaining interest after ABC recently aired a TV drama about a group of 1960s stewardesses, who knows?

Pan American Airways

[Shadow]

Another day at the office.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9uGD2upNGE&feature=related

[reddsun1]

Another day at the office.

Now everybody gimme a big "hell yeah!"

On a somewhat related note, this is pretty cool: get yerself a flight helmet in a custom scheme...

http://www.gentexhelmet.com/#02-fixed

Hmm, now which would be cooler for swooshing around the living room in, Yammie VF in hand? Jolly Rogers, or an adaptation of the Skull sqn scheme?

Edited May 3, 2012 by reddsun1

[electric indigo]

IAI's Harop UAV. Looks like an aerial Klingon vessel.

[Graham]

IAI's Harop UAV. Looks like an aerial Klingon vessel.

Does it come with a cloaking device?

Graham

[areaseven]

Since this TV series is aircraft related (though pretty loosely), I'll post my review here.

Pan Am

Jack Orman Productions/ABC Television/Sony Pictures Television, 2011-2012

Created by Jack Orman (ER, JAG)

Running Time: 43 minutes per episode

Rated TV-PG for mild language and mature situations.

Cast

Christina Ricci (Wednesday in The Addams Family, Katrina in Sleepy Hollow) as Maggie Ryan

Margot Robbie (Donna in Neighbours) as Laura Cameron

Michael Mosley as Ted Vanderway

Karine Vanasse as Colette Valois

Mike Vogel (Jason in Cloverfield, Johnny in The Help) as Dean Lowrey

Kelli Garner (Faith in The Aviator, Barb in Man of the House) as Kate Cameron

Annabelle Wallis (that blonde chick Charles was flirting with in X-Men: First Class) as Bridget Pierce

Jeremy Davidson as Richard Parks

Kal Parekh as Sanjeev

David Harbour (Gregg Beam in Quantum of Solace) as Roger Anderson

Goran Visnjic (Dragan in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011), Mark Miller in Elektra) as Niko Lonza

Ashley Greene (Alice Cullen in The Twilight Saga) as Amanda Mason

Lowdown

Normally, I don't watch TV dramas because they're just not interesting, but one day, I wanted to read a little about the fabled airline known as Pan Am. And in the middle of my searches on Google and Wikipedia, I stumbled upon this TV series.

Set in 1963 during the Jet Age boom, Pan Am chronicles the adventures of the crew of Pan Am's Boeing 707 Jet Clipper Majestic. The main focus is on four stewardesses: Maggie (who will always be Wednesday, even in a sexy Pan Am uniform), Kate (who is also working for the CIA as a low-level courier), Laura (Kate's younger sister who struggles to grow up after having run away from her wedding) and Colette (a French girl who survived World War II, but still hates the Germans). There's also some emphasis on flight captain Dean (who's still coping with the mysterious disappearance of his fiance Bridget) and first officer Ted (a former naval test pilot whose hopes for entering the Space Program were diminished by an accident).

Storywise, it's a lot of things crammed up in a 43-minute episode - a soap opera, a spy thriller and a historical re-enactment on what commercial flight was like in the old days. Some viewers may have trouble keeping up with the multiple subplots, as each character has their own share of issues. The production crew spared no expense on recreating the 1960s atmosphere and depicting Pan Am in its former glory. The uniforms have been meticulously replicated to give viewers an idea of what real stewardesses looked like.

As for the cast, viewers will have their favorites, but there's no doubt that most guys who watch this show have easily fallen in love with Colette. To call her gorgeous is an understatement. She has that look reminiscent of Sophie Marceau.

In short, Pan Am is not a perfect series, but it's worth checking out, whether you're an airline afficionado or you just want to see more of Colette. The big question is whether or not ABC will renew the series for a second season.

Rating: B

Links

ABC's Official Pan Am Homepage

Sony Pictures' Official Pan Am Homepage

References

TV.com

Wikipedia

[David Hingtgen]

but it's worth checking out, whether you're an airline afficionado or you just want to see more of Colette.

Unless you're a huge airline buff, and can't stand the gross inaccuracies and anachronisms. (and the zillion of smaller ones).

PS---would have been nice if ABC used the right logo, for starters. That's not the "60's" PAA logo. "Meticulous attention to detail"--maybe if the show was set in 1984...

[Vifam7]

Unless you're a huge airline buff, and can't stand the gross inaccuracies and anachronisms. (and the zillion of smaller ones).

PS---would have been nice if ABC used the right logo, for starters. That's not the "60's" PAA logo. "Meticulous attention to detail"--maybe if the show was set in 1984...

I doubt the series was made with airline aficionados in mind.

I screened the first episode. I do like the period "feel" of the series. It's Hollywood so ya gotta let things like accuracy slide.

But I think the series might be a bit too light and escapist fantasy for today's crowd who seem to desire more gritty or somber tones in their drama shows.

[505thAirborne]

http://news.yahoo.co...topstories.html

Interesting article about some Raptor pilots & the F-22.

[kalvasflam]

http://news.yahoo.co...topstories.html

Interesting article about some Raptor pilots & the F-22.

Kelly Johnson is probably rolling over in his grave. This is such a sad state for the F-22

[David Hingtgen]

Some things don't need to be re-invented, like "how to supply oxygen to the pilot of a fighter jet". It was perfected decades ago. "But hey, let's increase the zillion-dollar development costs and delay the program even more by trying to invent a new system".

I wonder if the F-35's system is based more on the F-22, or F-16...

Boeing is noted for almost directly copying the 727's slat deployment system for the 777, despite decades of advances in aerospace technology---because there still hadn't been anything better. Point.

[David Hingtgen]

Years ago, Jane's (and the DOD) would have paid SO much money for a shot like this:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Russia---Air-Force/Mikoyan-Gurevich-MiG-31/2082356/L/

[eugimon]

[electric indigo]

Mothership?

[David Hingtgen]

Aer Lingus A330, and I'd say a -200.

[areaseven]

I doubt the series was made with airline aficionados in mind.

I screened the first episode. I do like the period "feel" of the series. It's Hollywood so ya gotta let things like accuracy slide.

But I think the series might be a bit too light and escapist fantasy for today's crowd who seem to desire more gritty or somber tones in their drama shows.

It does get dark after the pilot, especially on episode 3, where the crew fly to Berlin during JFK's "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech.

[the white drew carey]

Sukhoi Superjet-100 with 44 on board for a demonstration flight has dropped off of the radars in Jakarta.

[pfunk]

For those unfamiliar with the legend, here's what a Kai Tak landing looks like:

Now if Kai Tak were still around, imagine landing an Airbus A380 on it.

Im still amazed at the lift at low speed of those heavy birds

[electric indigo]

Sukhoi Superjet-100 with 44 on board for a demonstration flight has dropped off of the radars in Jakarta.

Let's hope it was a demonstration of their "active stealth" device.

[F-ZeroOne]

Well, it seems a Prime Minister called Dave has decided that if the UK is going to have a plane called Dave - sorry, I mean, the F-35 - then its going to be the "B" variant after all. Just make it work, chaps, what?

Edited May 10, 2012 by F-ZeroOne