Aircraft Vs Thread 3

[David Hingtgen]

Not in a million years. In addition to NO plane could ever hold position well enough, you'd need new pylons, launchers, and IMHO new WEAPONS to be compatible. There's a lot of connections for a missile, and many locks/safeties on them. Even a Mk 82 dumb bomb isn't "plug and play". Not to mention the infinite variations---you could probably only ever re-load a plane having one of the three most common loads, due to clearance/weight/balance issues.

And you'd need cartridge replacement for bomb racks after every launch.

[eugimon]

Not in a million years.  In addition to NO plane could ever hold position well enough, you'd need new pylons, launchers, and IMHO new WEAPONS to be compatible.  There's a lot of connections for a missile, and many locks/safeties on them.  Even a Mk 82 dumb bomb isn't "plug and play".  Not to mention the infinite variations---you could probably only ever re-load a plane having one of the three most common loads, due to clearance/weight/balance issues. 

And you'd need cartridge replacement for bomb racks after every launch.

420520[/snapback]

my god, did you watch the animation they have? They have an F-16 actually DOCKING to a guide rail before the missiles are sent along a second rail to be loaded. That's freaking crazy.

[David Hingtgen]

Fastest way to remove an ERJ's tail? Boeing's patented "winglet slice".

As for docking fighters--well there was the famous Harrier "skyhook" and even THAT was "white knuckle" for the pilots, and the Harrier could HOVER and COME TO A STOP IN MIDAIR to dock with it...

Edited July 29, 2006 by David Hingtgen

[Graham]

Not in a million years.  In addition to NO plane could ever hold position well enough, you'd need new pylons, launchers, and IMHO new WEAPONS to be compatible.  There's a lot of connections for a missile, and many locks/safeties on them.  Even a Mk 82 dumb bomb isn't "plug and play".  Not to mention the infinite variations---you could probably only ever re-load a plane having one of the three most common loads, due to clearance/weight/balance issues.  

And you'd need cartridge replacement for bomb racks after every launch.

420520[/snapback]

my god, did you watch the animation they have? They have an F-16 actually DOCKING to a guide rail before the missiles are sent along a second rail to be loaded. That's freaking crazy.

420525[/snapback]

I guess they've been watching too much Macross Zero, especially Focker's aerial rearming scene with the gunpod.

Graham

[David Hingtgen]

Sigh, last F-14 carrier takeoff and landing: http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=37552

On a positive note, one of the coolest "vapor shockwave" pics ever--a unique pattern I've never seen before: http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=37558

And a just plain huge vaporwave: http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=37555

[Warmaker]

Sigh, last F-14 carrier takeoff and landing:  http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=37552

On a positive note, one of the coolest "vapor shockwave" pics ever--a unique pattern I've never seen before:  http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=37558

And a just plain huge vaporwave: http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=37555

420696[/snapback]

Cool, that last launch of the Tomcat got a good treatment by flight deck personnel... lots of yellow shirts attending to the launch.

And that's that, I guess.

[KingNor]

I'm going to miss those planes... I remember watching them dogfight each other from my home on base back in 1986 in the Phillipines.

How could a kid NOT fall in love with a plane that cool?

[Coota0]

As for docking fighters--well there was the famous Harrier "skyhook" and even THAT was "white knuckle" for the pilots, and the Harrier could HOVER and COME TO A STOP IN MIDAIR to dock with it...

420526[/snapback]

I've heard about the 1930's experiments, but never this. Can you educate me or direct me to somplace with some information.

[kalvasflam]

Not in a million years.  In addition to NO plane could ever hold position well enough, you'd need new pylons, launchers, and IMHO new WEAPONS to be compatible.  There's a lot of connections for a missile, and many locks/safeties on them.  Even a Mk 82 dumb bomb isn't "plug and play".  Not to mention the infinite variations---you could probably only ever re-load a plane having one of the three most common loads, due to clearance/weight/balance issues. 

And you'd need cartridge replacement for bomb racks after every launch.

420520[/snapback]

my god, did you watch the animation they have? They have an F-16 actually DOCKING to a guide rail before the missiles are sent along a second rail to be loaded. That's freaking crazy.

420525[/snapback]

Well, about 200 years ago ... it would've been crazy to think that large number of people can fly.

so, far fetched today is tomorrow's reality.

[Nied]

Sigh, last F-14 carrier takeoff and landing:  http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=37552

On a positive note, one of the coolest "vapor shockwave" pics ever--a unique pattern I've never seen before:  http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=37558

And a just plain huge vaporwave: http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=37555

420696[/snapback]

Man I love the Tomcatters, it's too bad they're getting F/A-18Es instead of Fs (the E's cockpit just looks too small on that big body).

[David Hingtgen]

Well, about 200 years ago ... it would've been crazy to think that large number of people can fly.

BIRDS can't hold position well enough for that. But give planes another 200 years...

Hmmn, not much online about Skyhook, best reference is books of the period. But some stuff and a pic here: http://www.vectorsite.net/avav8_3.html Scroll down to section 3.5

It's actually quite Macross-esque (heck, maybe a Kawamori inspiration)---you grab a Harrier in midair, then bring it down to the deck. Or, lift it off the deck when it's too heavy to takeoff normally, then let it go and fly off---just like DYRL Strike valk launches!

[Zentrandude]

Anyone went to skyfest 2006 at fairchild afb? I heard the osprey had its first on road demo there. Would love to see it in action lifting off and tilt its wings in person.

[Knight26]

I get to see the V-22 fly all the time, it is quite interesting to watch.

[eugimon]

Well, about 200 years ago ... it would've been crazy to think that large number of people can fly.

BIRDS can't hold position well enough for that. But give planes another 200 years...

Hmmn, not much online about Skyhook, best reference is books of the period. But some stuff and a pic here: http://www.vectorsite.net/avav8_3.html Scroll down to section 3.5

It's actually quite Macross-esque (heck, maybe a Kawamori inspiration)---you grab a Harrier in midair, then bring it down to the deck. Or, lift it off the deck when it's too heavy to takeoff normally, then let it go and fly off---just like DYRL Strike valk launches!

420790[/snapback]

nah, a bird could do it. Hummingbirds are freaking crazy, they hold position to feed out of flowers and feeders all the time and can even go backwards...

and raptors frequently grab smaller prey birds right out of the air.

[David Hingtgen]

Yeah, but not while operating in a C-130's massive 4-engine wake and the buffet from the open cargo door. Let's see how well hummingbirds do with a 300mph turbulent slipstream in their face.

KingNor--if anything, I'd guess you're talking about this pic: http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=6869

[buddhafabio]

Yeah, but not while operating in a C-130's massive 4-engine wake and the buffet from the open cargo door.  Let's see how well hummingbirds do with a 300mph turbulent slipstream in their face.   

KingNor--if anything, I'd guess you're talking about this pic: http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=6869

421349[/snapback]

i wonder if any one has seen a model that matches that plane weathering wise

[Lynx7725]

KingNor--if anything, I'd guess you're talking about this pic: http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=6869

421349[/snapback]

Woah, great pic. What's those patches on the top? Literally patches?

[kalvasflam]

Changing the focus slightly. I don't know how many of you travel, but do you have preference for Boeing aircraft or Airbus models?

Speaking from personal experience, I tend to like the 737 just a bit better than the A320 (???), if nothing else, the luggage spacing is better so that my carrying on can fit wheels in first. But beyond that, have any of you flown the current long range airbus, which I think is the A330 and/or 340?

What do you think?

I would think the A380 might be a nice aircraft to fly on when it finally gets deployed, just for the experience. Same for the 787.

What is your flight experience like?

[buddhafabio]

well i am not a pilot but i do keep up with what is published in the press. and the general consensas is that before last year the airlines outside of the us were drooling over them selves to get the a380 and Beoing was in decline.

because of cost and design issues airbuss had to insert the same old fuesulage that they have been manufacturining to try to keep some manufacturing schedule and that the future orders have fallen off as.\\and so boeing is ahead in the airlines ordering department

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

Changing the focus slightly.  I don't know how many of you travel, but do you have preference for Boeing aircraft or Airbus models?

421457[/snapback]

747 for me. Feels less cramped even though it carries more passengers.

[Akilae]

Boeings for me... for some reason all the Airbus planes I've flown in have been cramped to hell (knees touching the front cramped, my last trip a month ago left me circling over Hong Kong for five hours in an Airbus...) and have poor luggage space under the seats (there's always this box or some other thing in the way for some reason).

On the other hand, Airbus planes are the only ones I've flown in that have personal entertainment and the occasional power outlet in economy.

I'd still rather fly Boeing.

[buddhafabio]

looking for videos for another forum i found this add

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5140493079085653369

[Warmaker]

KingNor--if anything, I'd guess you're talking about this pic: http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=6869

421349[/snapback]

Woah, great pic. What's those patches on the top? Literally patches?

421384[/snapback]

Are you talking about the Dark Grey rectangles?

They're Non-Skid for personnel. Either glued on patches or an applied compound.

As for the rest of the panels of the jet... touch up jobs done by the squadron Corrosion Control (C/C or 12C) personnel. On a deployment, especially on ship, there's no time for "Nice and Pretty Paintjobs." C/C does touch up jobs to prevent corrosion. Corrosion is a no joke issue on a carrier... proximity to the salty ocean water and all that!

All Navy / Marine aircraft coming back from a carrier deployment don't look pretty.

[Noyhauser]

Changing the focus slightly.  I don't know how many of you travel, but do you have preference for Boeing aircraft or Airbus models?

Speaking from personal experience, I tend to like the 737 just a bit better than the A320 (???), if nothing else, the luggage spacing is better so that my carrying on can fit wheels in first.  But beyond that, have any of you flown the current long range airbus, which I think is the A330 and/or 340?

What do you think?

I would think the A380 might be a nice aircraft to fly on when it finally gets deployed, just for the experience.  Same for the 787.

What is your flight experience like?

421457[/snapback]

Isn't the cabin spacing arrangement determined by the Airline, not the manufacturor?

[kalvasflam]

Isn't the cabin spacing arrangement determined by the Airline, not the manufacturor?

421522[/snapback]

I think the seating arrangements is done by airlines, but I don't know about the cabin bin though. My experience so far is that Boeings (no matter the airline) seem to have slightly larger cabin space.

Heh heh, nice video about A350 vs 787. But I understand the new design A350 is well received by the public, the one that airbus just came out with. But like the 787, the jury is out. Until those planes make it through production, nothing is certain.

My thought on the 787 right now is that there is a ton of hype, but until the plane makes its maiden flight, and proves manufacturability, it's just nice marketing.

[Akilae]

Isn't the cabin spacing arrangement determined by the Airline, not the manufacturor?

421522[/snapback]

Yeah, but I think some of the small hardware design details are still from the manufacturer, such as the aforementioned storage bins, seat design, etc...

[Nied]

Changing the focus slightly.  I don't know how many of you travel, but do you have preference for Boeing aircraft or Airbus models?

Speaking from personal experience, I tend to like the 737 just a bit better than the A320 (???), if nothing else, the luggage spacing is better so that my carrying on can fit wheels in first.  But beyond that, have any of you flown the current long range airbus, which I think is the A330 and/or 340?

What do you think?

I would think the A380 might be a nice aircraft to fly on when it finally gets deployed, just for the experience.  Same for the 787.

What is your flight experience like?

421457[/snapback]

Right now I have a soft spot for A320s, but I think that's more because I'm flying JetBlue quite often (they're the only airline to offer direct service from SF to my parent's house in DC at anything close to a reasonable price). I'd say that the most comfortable cabin I've been in was the 717, I used to fly on one of those at least twice a year when I was in college, nice comfortable seats good view out the window and surprisingly quiet for an aircraft with fuselage mounted engines.

[KingNor]

Yeah, but not while operating in a C-130's massive 4-engine wake and the buffet from the open cargo door.  Let's see how well hummingbirds do with a 300mph turbulent slipstream in their face.   

KingNor--if anything, I'd guess you're talking about this pic: http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=6869

421349[/snapback]

thats it David, thank you.

[David Hingtgen]

717's are quiet because the engines are NEW. That's the most important thing. Example: The 777-300ER has the most powerful jet engine PERIOD, and it's among the very quietest of airliners. Its 115,000lb GE90 engines are like 1/4 as loud as a 15,000lb JT8D.

Anyways---comfort is determined by the airline. Good example I use:

Most comfortable plane I've ever been on: Delta 767-300

Most godawful plane I've ever been on, will never fly again: United 767-300

There you go. Same configuration (2-3-2 in coach), same plane. Different seats.

But in general (basically, what the airlines have to work with):

747's are generally known to be comfy, even being configured "out of design specs". The 747 is supposed to be NINE seats across (3-3-3 I think, maybe 2-4-3) but for many years it's always TEN seats across (3-4-3). But it's so big even the "cramped" 3-4-3 is better than most. The DC-10 and L-1011 are the same. Designed to be 2-4-2 eight seats across, but usually configured 2-5-2 or 2-4-3 nine seats across. If you find pics of the early 70's, you'll see the aforementioned planes actually were operated like that, and they were really comfy back then.

The 767 was actually designed to be 2-3-2, and is operated as such. It is the plane most often considered the most comfortable. So I have no idea what UAL does to them to make them so godawful. On a side note, I find UAL's 735's to be very comfy, especially width-wise.

A320's good, better than the 737 overall in my experience, but only flew it once, on UAL. Don't really remember my A300 flight, slept through much of it.

Technically, the 707/727/737/757 should all be identical, having identical fuselages. (Well, the 707 and 757 are deeper below the floor, for more cargo--but that doesn't affect the passenger cabin in the slightest).

The A300, 310, 330, and 340 also share fuselages.

In a bit of irony, 757 and 767 have the same cockpit, but different noses, while the 767 and 777 have the same nose, but different cockpits. Rather ingenious how Boeing fits the cockpits into those planes...

As for Boeing vs Airbus sales-wise:

Well the 787 is as revolutionary a design as has ever been seen in the industry, and is promising BIG fuel gains. The A350 has been changed again and again to try to match it, but no amount of redesigning the A330 will make it come close to a 787. You'd be paying the price of a brand-new plane, for minimal improvement. The A330 wing is already about as low-drag and high-aspect-ratio as a "normal" wing can be---anything more requires a very different design, like the 787. Maybe tremendous blended, raked winglets could help the A350 but I still think sales will be poor, or heck, maybe even cancel the project. Even all-new wings (current A350 design I think) would still be attached to an A330 fuselage with A330 systems---a lot of the 787 advancements are the SYSTEMS, not aerodynamic.

Edited August 1, 2006 by David Hingtgen

[eugimon]

Boeing for me. Been in a few airbus planes and they always felt a little... uhm.. rickety... 'course, could be because I was flying china air at the time...

[Nied]

I have ridden in very few widebody aircraft in my lifetime. Considering the number of cross country flights I make that's weird. IIRC the only widebody I've flown in my entire adult life was an AAL 767-300 to JFK where my fiance and I were crammed into the middle two seats in a 2-4-2 cabin with a screaming kid in front of us. That's pure hell right there. That's part of what I loved about the 717 it had a 2-3 seating config and I always sat in the left window seat so I didn't have to try and climb over two people to get to the bathroom. The best part was that if they had any open business class seats 45 minutes before the flight was scheduled to leave AirTran would let you upgrade for wicked cheap (I think I once did it for $15). It actually made for a smoother ride since the wings on the 717 are so far behind you.

[Lynx7725]

Are you talking about the Dark Grey rectangles?

They're Non-Skid for personnel.  Either glued on patches or an applied compound.

As for the rest of the panels of the jet... touch up jobs done by the squadron Corrosion Control (C/C or 12C) personnel.  On a deployment, especially on ship, there's no time for "Nice and Pretty Paintjobs."  C/C does touch up jobs to prevent corrosion.  Corrosion is a no joke issue on a carrier... proximity to the salty ocean water and all that!

All Navy / Marine aircraft coming back from a carrier deployment don't look pretty.

421505[/snapback]

No, not the non-skid; I know roughly what they were for, I just didn't realise they are not symmetrical; one side is closer to the front than the other. Wonder why..

Hmm so it's mainly C/C touch ups? I do prefer them this way rather than the pretty paintjobs. More.. real, really. Also, seems to be the door to the refueling probe is missing. Is that normal?

[David Hingtgen]

Refueling probe door is removed whenever they expect to deal with KC-135's. KC-135's have a nasty habit of breaking the refueling probe doors off of F-14's, in such a way that it's thrown right down the F-14's intake. I presume KC-10's aren't much better. (Basically anything originally designed for USAF planes).

Want to see how to model paint touchups? http://s96920072.onlinehome.us/tnt1/101-20..._Gok/tnt119.htm

Edited August 2, 2006 by David Hingtgen

[Lynx7725]

Refueling probe door is removed whenever they expect to deal with KC-135's.  KC-135's have a nasty habit of breaking the refueling probe doors off of F-14's, in such a way that it's thrown right down the F-14's intake.  I presume KC-10's aren't much better.  (Basically anything originally designed for USAF planes).

http://s96920072.onlinehome.us/tnt1/101-20..._Gok/tnt119.htm

421797[/snapback]

Ick. I guess at least a couple of F-14s ate their doors before they figured what was wrong and pass the new procedure down the line. Any known crashes/ write-offs?

Why would that happen anyway? The booms off the KC-135's aren't that close to the door, right? Unless it's a big "rip off the whole probe" deal.

Want to see how to model paint touchups?  http://s96920072.onlinehome.us/tnt1/101-20..._Gok/tnt119.htm

421797[/snapback]

Uhm, sure seems like a lot of work to dirty up an otherwise fine piece of work. Still, geniune model builders are probably in their own class when it comes to details.

[kalvasflam]

Right now I have a soft spot for A320s, but I think that's more because I'm flying JetBlue quite often (they're the only airline to offer direct service from SF to my parent's house in DC at anything close to a reasonable price).  I'd say that the most comfortable cabin I've been in was the 717, I used to fly on one of those at least twice a year when I was in college, nice comfortable seats good view out the window and surprisingly quiet for an aircraft with fuselage mounted engines.

421574[/snapback]

My only problem with the A320 is the luggage bin, both on Jetblue and United, the damn thing is just about half an inch too small for my rollerboard.

The seats on the Jetblue version is far more comfortable. United... well, it's United, what can you say.

As for the 3-2 seat configuration, it offends my sense of symmetry a little, but it has its uses. The seat configuration I really don't like is the United 2-5-2 configuration on 777, great if you're window or isle, sucks if you're middle. I suppose the idea is that way, only one person has to go over two people to get out, version two people on the 3-4-3 configurations.

I do love the 777 though for the way the engines are, very quiet, and overall, I just like riding on that plane better. If you ever looked out of the wing of a 777 versus that of a 767, it's just so different. I know I sound dumb this way, but I always enjoyed the 777.

In regards to sale, remember that the A380 was doing fantastically well until the production snag in April. It could happen to be Boeing 787 too, one could only hope that Boeing pays attention and gets all its manufacturing up to speed before the actual build. And the CEO had better hope that the designers didn't overpromise on the 787. That could be a disaster waiting to happen... especially considering there is quite a bit of new technology that's going into the 787.