Page 28 of 29 FirstFirst ... 1826272829 LastLast
Results 541 to 560 of 566

Thread: The United debarcle

  1. #541
    Senior Member BoeingBobby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    MIA
    Posts
    1,007

    Default

    Quote 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.

  2. #542
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,067

    Default

    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 ---

  3. #543
    Member ATLcrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    635

    Default

    Quote 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...

  4. #544
    Super Moderator brianw999's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Tunbridge Wells, Kent. UK.
    Posts
    11,547

    Default

    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; 04-13-2018 at 12:27 AM.
    If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !


  5. #545
    Super Moderator brianw999's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Tunbridge Wells, Kent. UK.
    Posts
    11,547

    Default

    Quote 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 !


  6. #546
    Senior Member BoeingBobby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    MIA
    Posts
    1,007

    Default

    Quote 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?

  7. #547
    Senior Member BoeingBobby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    MIA
    Posts
    1,007

    Default

    Quote 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.

  8. #548
    Super Moderator brianw999's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Tunbridge Wells, Kent. UK.
    Posts
    11,547

    Default

    Quote 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 !


  9. #549
    Senior Member BoeingBobby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    MIA
    Posts
    1,007

    Default

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

  10. #550
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,067

    Default

    Quote 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 ---

  11. #551
    Super Moderator brianw999's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Tunbridge Wells, Kent. UK.
    Posts
    11,547

    Default

    Quote 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; 04-13-2018 at 01:17 PM.
    If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !


  12. #552
    Senior Member BoeingBobby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    MIA
    Posts
    1,007

    Default

    Quote 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!

  13. #553
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,595

    Default

    Quote 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.

  14. #554
    Senior Member BoeingBobby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    MIA
    Posts
    1,007

    Default

    Quote 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.

  15. #555
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,595

    Default

    Quote 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.

  16. #556
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,304

    Default Should they have stayed on the ground?

    A plane load of SWA passengers claim they almost did died while trying to go to New Orleans with a squall line in the area.

    I don't think they entered Boeing Bobby forbidden red returns.

    ...that being said, you don't have to have rain or even clouds to have first class turbulence.

    Was this truly nasty turbulence or do we have a mass psychology event?

    Some media embellishment "at least one passenger got sick". OH THE NEAR TOTAL DISASTER!!!!!

    And, of course the airline PR department will craft a statement that says nothing...there will be no acknowledgement if turbulence was 'moderate'.

    I do see a good bit of burnt jet fuel...then again, you can't load passengers and park them out on a hold pad- lest THAT give you a PR disaster.

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/pas...KsY?ocid=ientp

    I guess I'm going to fault the media on this one...it probably was a good decision AT THE TIME to take off...and it was probably just some honest turbulence and holding and yeah, someone got sick. Oh, one other no win scenario- What might the pilots say on the PA..."Hey folks, this is no big deal, never mind the tornado warnings on your smart phones, and that we're sitting the FA's down...this is just some fun bumps from some passing rain showers".
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  17. #557
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,067

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    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.
    The -500 was the shorter fuselage long-range version.
    The other variants had a bigger cabin and were certified for 400 pax (by the emergency egress requirements).
    I don't know if any L-1011 ever operated with 400 pax seats, though.

    --- 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 ---

  18. #558

  19. #559
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    732

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    Agreed... but what does this have to do with airlines treating pax badly?
    Be alert! America needs more lerts.

    Eric Law

  20. #560
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elaw View Post
    Agreed... but what does this have to do with airlines treating pax badly?
    (Well, there's the part about individually wrapping apples in plastic bags. Airlines treating the planet badly...)

    But I mean the experience of flying today is just so insanely, bureaucratically, inhumanly bad because passenger-facing people are so ill-trained to deal with the most manageable conflicts.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •