Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The United debarcle

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
    I'm just trying to figure out by what standard is a J-3 considered a "warbird".

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_J-3_Cub Besides the fact that 99% of all WWII pilots had their primary training done in one. The L-4 Grasshopper variant was used as a reconnaissance, liaison and ground control. I have also owned a Boeing N2S Stearman (PT-13), which is also considered a War bird. A North American AT-6, also a War bird, and a Vultee BT-13 Valiant, also a War bird. I also have around 7000 hours between the 3 of them, D-18 (C-45), DC-3 (C-47) and DC-6 (C-11. All war birds! It doesn't have to have an Allison or Merlin to qualify you know.

    Comment


    • I flew a few warbirds too. The Cessna 150, 152 and the feared Cessna Skymaster which actually entered active combat in Vietnam shooting rockets and all.
      And I flew in several other warbirds, B737, B747, B704 and DC-10, not to mention the F-27 and F-28.

      And I am sort of joking. I don't know what's the official definition of warbird, but if the model never had a weapon installed with the intent to be shot/released as an act of war by some pilot or crew member action from within the plane, then it doesn't qualify. And no, the pilot with a concealed gun or a bomb transported in the cargo hold don't qualify either.

      Otherwise, my dear Tomahawk is one of the few airplanes that is not a warbird. I mean, what airplane type was never used by any armed force around the world if only for training, transportation, observation, liaison, communication or mail.

      --- 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 ---

      Comment


      • Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
        It doesn't have to have an Allison or Merlin to qualify you know.
        Certainly not. Some had DB601s, some had Shvetsovs...

        Comment


        • For the purposes of Jetphotos a Warbird doesn’t necessarily have 8 machine guns. We combine Warbird and vintage under one heading.
          The Warbird/Vintage category is required on uploaded pictures of WW1 and WW2 Aircraft, any museum aircraft, military aircraft no longer in active service, military gate guards and aircraft that are at least 50 years old and no longer in production after 1970.
          Last edited by brianw999; 2018-04-13, 00:27.
          If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

          Comment


          • Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_J-3_Cub Besides the fact that 99% of all WWII pilots had their primary training done in one. The L-4 Grasshopper variant was used as a reconnaissance, liaison and ground control. I have also owned a Boeing N2S Stearman (PT-13), which is also considered a War bird. A North American AT-6, also a War bird, and a Vultee BT-13 Valiant, also a War bird. i also have around 7000 hours between the 3 of them, D-18 (C-45), DC-3 (C-47) and DC-6 C-118. All war birds! It doesn't have to have an Allison or Merlin to qualify you know.
            Bobby..... I am now officially jealous !!
            If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
              I flew a few warbirds too. The Cessna 150, 152 and the feared Cessna Skymaster which actually entered active combat in Vietnam shooting rockets and all.
              And I flew in several other warbirds, B737, B747, B704 and DC-10, not to mention the F-27 and F-28.

              And I am sort of joking. I don't know what's the official definition of warbird, but if the model never had a weapon installed with the intent to be shot/released as an act of war by some pilot or crew member action from within the plane, then it doesn't qualify. And no, the pilot with a concealed gun or a bomb transported in the cargo hold don't qualify either.

              Otherwise, my deader Tomahawk is one of the few airplanes that is not a warbird. I mean, what airplane type was never used by any armed force around the world if only for training, transportation, observation, liason, communication or mail.
              Okay, so on the Cessna 337, Skymaster (O-2), you are correct. Actually, in essence, it replaced the L-4 after the Cessna Bird dog (L-19). The others, not so much. As an ex Boeing driver, I have never heard of the model 704?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                Certainly not. Some had DB601s, some had Shvetsovs...
                Ja and da. Did get a ride in an ME-108 when I was a kid.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                  ......As an ex Boeing driver, I have never heard of the model 704?
                  I think you’ll find that he’s referring to the 707-400. ?
                  If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
                    I think you’ll find that he’s referring to the 707-400. ?
                    No such animal!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                      Okay, so on the Cessna 337, Skymaster (O-2), you are correct. Actually, in essence, it replaced the L-4 after the Cessna Bird dog (L-19). The others, not so much. As an ex Boeing driver, I have never heard of the model 704?
                      Typo, I meant 707 (the 4 being next to the 7 in the num pad).

                      --- 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 ---

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                        No such animal!
                        The 707-420 was identical to the −320, but fitted with Rolls-Royce Conway 508 (RCo.12) turbofans (or by-pass turbojets as Rolls-Royce called them) of 18,000 lb (79 kN) thrust each.[35] The first announced customer was Lufthansa. BOAC's controversial order was announced six months later, but the British carrier got the first service-ready aircraft off the production line. The British Air Registration Board refused to give the aircraft a certificate of airworthiness, citing insufficient lateral control, excessive rudder forces, and the ability to over-rotate on takeoff, stalling the wing on the ground (a fault of the de Havilland Comet 1). Boeing responded by adding 40 inches to the vertical stabilizer, applying full instead of partial rudder boost, and fitting an underfin to prevent over-rotation. These modifications except to the fin under the tail became standard on all 707 variants and were retrofitted to all earlier 707s. The 37 -420s were delivered to BOAC, Lufthansa, Air-India, El Al, and Varig through November 1963; Lufthansa was the first to carry passengers, in March 1960.

                        Also....G-APFK. 707-436 of BEA Airtours crashed and burned at Glasgow (I think) on a training flight takeoff.

                        EDIT... And then, while I’m typing Gabriel goes and changes it ! ....... but there was a 707-400 series.
                        Last edited by brianw999; 2018-04-13, 13:17.
                        If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
                          The 707-420 was identical to the −320, but fitted with Rolls-Royce Conway 508 (RCo.12) turbofans (or by-pass turbojets as Rolls-Royce called them) of 18,000 lb (79 kN) thrust each.[35] The first announced customer was Lufthansa. BOAC's controversial order was announced six months later, but the British carrier got the first service-ready aircraft off the production line. The British Air Registration Board refused to give the aircraft a certificate of airworthiness, citing insufficient lateral control, excessive rudder forces, and the ability to over-rotate on takeoff, stalling the wing on the ground (a fault of the de Havilland Comet 1). Boeing responded by adding 40 inches to the vertical stabilizer, applying full instead of partial rudder boost, and fitting an underfin to prevent over-rotation. These modifications except to the fin under the tail became standard on all 707 variants and were retrofitted to all earlier 707s. The 37 -420s were delivered to BOAC, Lufthansa, Air-India, El Al, and Varig through November 1963; Lufthansa was the first to carry passengers, in March 1960.

                          Also....G-APFK. 707-436 of BEA Airtours crashed and burned at Glasgow (I think) on a training flight takeoff.

                          EDIT... And then, while I’m typing Gabriel goes and changes it ! ....... but there was a 707-400 series.
                          Even though Gabriel fixed the problem, I have never hit the wrong key before. LOL The 420 was only a 300 B with the RR engines and a couple of other modifications to satisfy the Brits. Same thing that killed the L-1011. One of the best A/C ever built and would still be a viable aircraft if it had GE engines on it!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                            Same thing that killed the L-1011. One of the best A/C ever built and would still be a viable aircraft if it had GE engines on it!
                            A 250 pax three-holer? Viable in the ETOPS-370 age? I don't think so. One too many for the bean counters.

                            Lovely aircraft though. Makes you wonder what we would be flying in if Lockheed had stayed in the airliner business.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                              A 250 pax three-holer? Viable in the ETOPS-370 age? I don't think so. One too many for the bean counters.

                              Lovely aircraft though. Makes you wonder what we would be flying in if Lockheed had stayed in the airliner business.
                              L-1011 carried up to 400 pax, so I am not sure where you got that.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                                L-1011 carried up to 400 pax, so I am not sure where you got that.
                                I was thinking real-world three-class configuration.

                                Wikipedia: The TriStar 500's maximum passenger capacity is 315, although no aircraft were operated with that number of seats. A typical two-class layout might include 21 first and 229 economy for a maximum of 250 passengers.

                                I suppose the cattle-class airlines might squeeze 400 in there, but then they would never spring for that third engine.

                                They say McD built the MD-11 because they were too financially strapped to clean-sheet a twinjet. But by then the three-holers were virtually obsolete.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X