Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

At about 50 feet AGL you'll receive some clips around the ears...

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by 3WE View Post
    I thought this thread was about how to do a crosswind landing and a very slight diversion on whether humans or machines are better at doing them.
    This thread is about the wisdom of even attempting them beyond a vague line of wisdom and caution (and an example of a rather well-executed go-around). Up to their limitations, I think machines are better at doing them because they aren't prone to overcontrol, but then again, maybe they still don't have enough of a predictive feel for them over a span of time. I know that autothrust can be a real bitch in gusting conditions.

    I just landed in JFK in a pretty good crosswind on a Lufthansa A330. The IFE has a crude synthetic vision, and it was pretty cool to watch the runway approaching on final well to the right of the heading, and lining up a moment before touchdown.

    But never mind, I will always recall seeing a Lufthansa 747-400 operating in dense fog at 5:00 AM local time in Düsseldorf.
    Or is is called a 747-4? (goodbye, thread)

    Comment


    • #47
      [QUOTE=Evan;656173 Or is is called a 747-4? [/QUOTE]



      Unfortunately (or maybe not) for you, is that YOU never got to fly a real 747. Those of us that were and are lucky enough, and I consider myself to have been very lucky in my aviation career, got to fly many of the old "Classic's". And I am not just talking about the 747-200. The 707, 720, DC-8, 727, CV-880, these were all "Classic as well. However, the DC-3 of jet's, the "Queen" of the sky will always be the 747. Again I have been lucky and flown almost every variant except the military and water bomber ones. Every Boeing 747 model is given it's designation by Boeing. Us "purists" tend to go what the company that manufactured it seemed to like to call it.


      Happy Thanksgiving to EVERYONE!

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
        ***Us "purists" tend to go what the company that manufactured it seemed to like to call it.***
        ...does that rule extend to Mad Dogs and Mighty Dogs and Jungle Jets?
        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by 3WE View Post
          ...does that rule extend to Mad Dogs and Mighty Dogs?
          And to TORA TODA ASDA LADA

          --- 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


          • #50
            Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
            And to TORA TODA ASDA LADA
            What aircraft are those?
            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by 3WE View Post
              What aircraft are those?
              Disregard. Misread the previous comments.

              --- 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


              • #52
                Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                Disregard. Misread the previous comments.
                But...do you agree that the 787 is a 1960's design?

                I guess it sort of resembles a 737-100...at least the number and general location of the engines (and wings and tail and cockpit and yoke and rudder pedals and power levers are indeed similar.)
                Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Below I quote the actual original post with slight modification...

                  Originally posted by Evan View Post
                  Almost there... alllmost there... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BoZAd8z0L0
                  Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                    But...do you agree that the 787 is a 1960's design?

                    I guess it sort of resembles a 737-100...at least the number and general location of the engines (and wings and tail and cockpit and yoke and rudder pedals and power levers are indeed similar.)
                    Wow. Now I know who I only a few weeks ago tried to defend against (younger?) jp members who sometimes don't know yet how to properly behave on a platform which is read between Ezeiza, Suvarnabhumi and SFO (and DUS).

                    1967. That's a year when I definitely have not (yet) been an aviation enthusiast. And I need a minute, do I have the comparison between a B737-100 and a 787, here on my home airport? Here we have (had) all a/c types which have ever been available on this planet. That's what I always say. And I think that still is true for DUS.

                    But 737-100 and 787 at the same time? I'm not sure. The B731 had those very narrow lengthy engines, which, as some of the really experienced aviation enthusiasts say, were louder than a DC-8 with full throttle...
                    Back in those days when not only jet engines were allowed to smoke...
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                      But...do you agree that the 787 is a 1960's design?

                      I guess it sort of resembles a 737-100...at least the number and general location of the engines (and wings and tail and cockpit and yoke and rudder pedals and power levers are indeed similar.)
                      I have a hard time sometimes figuring out if you are joking or not! I flew many flights in the Dreamlifter carrying parts from Japan, Italy and Canada to Seattle and Charleston. I can tell you for a fact that it is not a 1960's design.


                      Discover what goes into creating the industry-leading technology of the 787 Dreamliner family.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                        I have a hard time sometimes figuring out if you are joking or not! I flew many flights in the Dreamlifter carrying parts from Japan, Italy and Canada to Seattle and Charleston. I can tell you for a fact that it is not a 1960's design.
                        he was being sarcastic, as in both aircraft have two wings, two engines, a tail etc etc.

                        3Dub, get back to using blue!

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                          I have a hard time sometimes figuring out if you are joking or not! I flew many flights in the Dreamlifter carrying parts from Japan, Italy and Canada to Seattle and Charleston. I can tell you for a fact that it is not a 1960's design.


                          http://www.boeing.com/commercial/787...ign/#/featured
                          Yes, sarcasm is involved [Hint: It USUALLY is when I am posting] BUT to be clear, those words (a 1960's design) were spoken by Evan. (Read several posts up).

                          Being 100% serious (a rarity for me), I tend to disagree with him, other than my statement: Two wing mounted jet engines, swept wing, swept tail, rudders, elevators, ailerons, spoilers, yoke, rudder pedals, throttle levers were all used in the 1960s' so I guess we literally have not progressed from that...

                          A totally accurate statement, yet one which contains some ironing and sarcasm...

                          Finally getting to the bottom line. It struck me as one of those irritating Evan comments that somehow a 787 is a POS airplane...maybe the 1960's design is that it has two seats up front with steering wheels and a click clack button......it is indeed an ignorant design if it allows for human control inputs... (Remove blue font if you think like Evan).
                          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Not to nitpick too much but most jets flying in the 1960's had *four* wing-mounted engines. Or 3 near the tail...
                            Be alert! America needs more lerts.

                            Eric Law

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by elaw View Post
                              Not to nitpick too much but most jets flying in the 1960's had *four* wing-mounted engines. Or 3 near the tail...
                              I indeed struggled with that, until I remembered the little econo fireplug 737...

                              I decided to so some searching on a strange Internet website: https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/8293030

                              I need to go review history...as to how the DC-9 and 737 came about...definitely seemed to be a need for a little jet, instead of the Jumbo 707/DC-8...Did the 737 come as a response to the DC-9 or vice versa or in parallel...

                              Then the realization that that went too far- gotta have 3 engines to go over the water- then we have the 727 'jeep' you allude to...and let's put some crazy big ass flaps on it so it can land 'anywhere' the baby planes can...
                              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Well the 3-holer's first flight was in 1963, the DC-9's in '65, and the 737's in '66. To me that's close enough together that probably none was a "response" to any other, they just resulted from the manufacturers perceiving (or imagining) the needs of the airlines.

                                But given those dates, it doesn't seem like there would have been "a lot" of 737s flying in the 1960s... it would mostly have been DC-8s, 707s, some 727s, and the odd Trident, Caravelle, and Comet. And while some of those had 2 engines, and some had the engines on the wings, none had 2 engines on the wings.
                                Be alert! America needs more lerts.

                                Eric Law

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X