If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
A321 takes off from STN and climbs to 14000 ft with missing window panes
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
NO! I know very very cute airplane movies! After almost 15 years, I still don't know how old you are.
I only know that 3WE and Gabriel are one or two years younger than me...
So, I'm old enough to know an airport movie which is called 'Airport 1970', who amongst others is the reason why I know and love the KMSP Minneapolis St Paul International airport.
In the movie, alot of scenes are filmed on the so called 'Lincoln Airport' .... "near Chicago". But this is not the truth. The whole movie has been filmed on KMSP, a fact which has been confirmed by the en wiki of 'Airport 1970', in the 'production notes' section: "Most of the filming was at Minneapolis–Saint Paul International Airport."
More than 50 years ago. And the KMSP rwy 22 hasn't changed since (?). I very much love International airports with a long aviation history,
and KMSP is even older than my home airport, established July 1920, so more than one whole century of aviation on KMSP. And I very VERY much love it, my home airport is less than
7 years younger... (!)
Evan, you are not able to ban airport movies, not as long as I'm here.
Burt Lancaster, Dean Martin, George Kennedy (as Joe Patroni, the chief mechanic who knows a fast way out of the snow),
Helen Hayes as the most likable female stowaway (dt.: blinder Passagier) I've seen in years, ...
Movies who you like to watch on TV until the end of the year? 'Airport 1970', if you ask me!
PS: Not to mention a Donald Duck or Disney movie scene, which contains a small animated movie airplane who tries to cross the Andes in a severe snow storm
between Mendoza, Argentina, and Santiago de Chile, Chile. And as far as I remember, it was not a twin engined turbine propeller with a pressurized cabin like the Beech B200,
and so the small animated movie airplane only survived the flight by an inch. But it survives, it is a Disney movie.
Back on topic. Better don't you try to cross the Andes on 14000 ft (!). Due to that animated movie, I've had a look on that route with my p3dv4 simulator, with the default
Lockheed C-130 Hercules four engined big turbine propeller (4 x 4590 hp). And the MEA (minimum elevation altitude) on that flight was... 25,500 or 26,000 ?
A very interesting flight, a rather short distance (!) with a comparable very high MEA.
Don't you ban airport movies, Evan. I love them.
The German long haul is alive, 65 years and still kicking.
The Gold Member in the 747 club, 50 years since the first LH 747.
And constantly advanced, 744 and 748 /w upper and lower EICAS.
This is Lohausen International airport speaking, echo delta delta lima.
Hm. Obviously the threadstarter lives on this side of the pond.
And I also live on 'this side of the pond', but nevertheless I tried to add a 'K' to receive the ICAO airport code.... stupid idea. This is the airport where it happened:
London Stansted, IATA STN, ICAO EGSS .
A Titan Airways Airbus A321 Neo, heading for Orlando, Florida with 21 staff on board, was forced to turn back on 4 October.
The Florida-bound Titan Airways plane was forced to return to Stansted, as investigation begins.
Hm again. Nowadays there are pilots who dare to try to cross the pond in a Beech B200? I mean, always in time there have been pilots who dare quite alot,
cross the pond in a 59 hp motor glider, or cross the pond in a single engined Antonov AN 2P from 1974...
But together with let's say 100 passengers, or more? One minute ago, I've asked somebody. From EGSS Stansted to KMCO Orlando, 3778 nautical miles straight, without sid and star and without waypoints.
That's not possible with an A321neo (range with MTOW: 3500 nmi), that's only possible since 2018 with the new A321LR (range: 4000 nmi), seen also with TAP Air Portugal.
So, now in the year 2023 you can cross the pond indeed with an A321. Completely impossible when I became a jetphotos member.
If you ask me, I still prefer my avatar for the long haul (3700 nmi and more), and not a 'small narrow body' / 'single aisle' . I prefer to have legs and healthy feet also after the long haul...
The German long haul is alive, 65 years and still kicking.
The Gold Member in the 747 club, 50 years since the first LH 747.
And constantly advanced, 744 and 748 /w upper and lower EICAS.
This is Lohausen International airport speaking, echo delta delta lima.
Hm. Obviously the threadstarter lives on this side of the pond.
And I also live on 'this side of the pond', but nevertheless I tried to add a 'K' to receive the ICAO airport code.... stupid idea. This is the airport where it happened:
London Stansted, IATA STN, ICAO EGSS .
The Florida-bound Titan Airways plane was forced to return to Stansted, as investigation begins.
Hm again. Nowadays there are pilots who dare to try to cross the pond in a Beech B200? I mean, always in time there have been pilots who dare quite alot,
cross the pond in a 59 hp motor glider, or cross the pond in a single engined Antonov AN 2P from 1974...
But together with let's say 100 passengers, or more? One minute ago, I've asked somebody. From EGSS Stansted to KMCO Orlando, 3778 nautical miles straight, without sid and star and without waypoints.
That's not possible with an A321neo (range with MTOW: 3500 nmi), that's only possible since 2018 with the new A321LR (range: 4000 nmi), seen also with TAP Air Portugal.
So, now in the year 2023 you can cross the pond indeed with an A321. Completely impossible when I became a jetphotos member.
If you ask me, I still prefer my avatar for the long haul (3700 nmi and more), and not a 'small narrow body' / 'single aisle' . I prefer to have legs and healthy feet also after the long haul...
If you had used the links provided in this thread, you would have seen that both articles links provided here (the CNN one and the AvHerald one) say, in the first line, that it was a flight from London Stansted to Orlando.
And regarding having legs after a long-haul flight, give me a break. As if big airplanes had any more legroom than small airplanes.
For your next Lufthansa flight, use this seating chart to get the most comfortable seats, legroom, and recline on .
Legroom wise, my worst flight ever was in 1988 in an El Al 747-200. And I had not yet reached my full height back then.
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
Is no one concerned about the crummy performance of the cheap composites that is evidenced here? It’s not like aeroplanies aren’t sometimes subjected to fierce heat and sunlight in hot places.
Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Is no one concerned about the crummy performance of the cheap composites that is evidenced here? It’s not like aeroplanies aren’t sometimes subjected to fierce heat and sunlight in hot places.
We really should go back to dependable metal windows.
Is no one concerned about the crummy performance of the cheap composites that is evidenced here? It’s not like aeroplanies aren’t sometimes subjected to fierce heat and sunlight in hot places.
Not just sunny and hot places. Crackerbox Composites are still a problem In The Shade.
Black and white much? I was thinking of some angle iron around the outside of the plexiglass.
Sure. Angle iron. There really isn't enough angle iron used in airplane design. It's always safer to use the most massive, albeit readily oxidizing metal available. What's a little rust compared to the solid assurance of iron. I mean, look at the Ostrich... that is one sturdy bird... except that, well, it can't get off the ground...
I'm willing to bet that the engineers who designed the cheap composite airplane did a few calculations using a factor beyond the limits of the expected operational envelope and so did the engineers who certified it. It's worth mentioning that focused electric heat rays originating from a meter away are not part of that envelope. Naive of them.
An alternate solution would be to not allow dunderheads near the airplane. But maybe that's impractical.
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Tweet
Comment