The Airplane Thread

[M-technik-3]

Originally Posted by flybigjet

re: the KC-10. It's being replaced by a terrible, terrible replacement. It's a long story, but the CINC of AMC was so appalled, she tried to get it killed. Basically, Boeing shoved an antiquated 767 down the AF's throat because they didn't want to lose slots on the Triple production line.

And the REAL insult? The KC-46 carries about half the payload of a KC-10 (gas or cargo) at well over double/triple the cost.

Here's a quote from a recent article: “The KC-10 can carry 170,000 pounds of cargo and 356,000 pounds of fuel with a maximum takeoff weight of 590,000 pounds, compared with 212,299 pounds of fuel and 65,000 pounds of cargo for the KC-46."

Got to love the Government in action.

https://www.stripes.com/branches/air...g-9008591.html

R

Same logic as when USAF went to bid on the C-5B Lockheed said we will build you one C-5B with new avionics and new engines and APU but Bean counters said we don't want crew members to have two different shreds but we did anyway till they mergered us. I was a A model guy due to being an Reserve Member then we they merged us and boom no sooner than that happened we had 9/11.

When they pitched the Poor perfoming C17 with two tankers in tow Lockheed said we will do it for 1 C-5B and 2 C-130J's but that was before they gpt rid of all the Jig work to build a C-5.

Our Procurment system is so Bleeped up that no wonder we are 31T dollars in debt due to numerous things I can't say her because the thread will get locked down because Politics. That being said I loved galavanting around the Globe visiting 6 0f the 7 continents on your dollar vs mine because for nearly 25 years I was tax free visiting some combat zone.

[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by 3.0L

This sounds reminiscent of the B-737 Max. I think Boeing went too far with this airframe to the point they had to use software tricks to make it
fly like the original 737. Event the undercarriage is looking inadequate for such a stretch.

Boeing should've designed a new replacement airframe instead.

Not remotely the same. Max had a single issue (MCAS) that Boeing got stupid on-- but it didn't have the rampant graft and corruption that the KC-46 did, nor does it have the utter incapability of mission that the tanker does. It does however, have a ton of parts commonality, a common type rating, and ease of training-- all of which the airlines LOVE.

I agree with you on going too far on the airframe though-- personally, I think the -800 is the sweet spot and they should have quit there. The -900's are pigs (GW limits of an -800 but overall weight of an ER), and the -900ER's are just a pain to take off and land due to tail clearance issues (you drag the tail on rotation at 9.2 degrees w/ F1-- that's fun).

The Max however *does* really sip gas-- which increases payload and/or range. But it's a dog in the climb-- it's freakin' *painful* to get to altitude in it. It's super-efficient though-- I have to give it that.

Gear-wise, you might be thinking of the Max10-- that variant will have a bizarroland articulated gear. I've watched the demo video on it probably 20 times and I **still** can't figure it out. The Max8/9 gear is more or less the same as the -700/-800/-900 (although the brakes are ~15% more effective). That's why they had to move the Leap 1B motors outboard-- they couldn't stretch the gear anymore to make additional ground clearance.

Boeing didn't want to invest in a SNB (Small Narrow Body), as it design through certification would have cost upwards of a billion dollars. That seems pretty cheap in comparison to the costs incurred with the Max debacle.

Full disclosure: I have a couple thousand hours in the 737-300/500 (the Classic) and am a current/qualified Check Pilot on the 737-700/800/900/900ER (NG) and Max8/9.

[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by M-technik-3

I was a A model guy due to being an Reserve Member then we they merged us and boom no sooner than that happened we had 9/11.

CEF, SWF or DOV?

I flew the A and A-Mod on AD for five years at DOV, and then the A-Mod, B and C (SCM) at SUU (two years AD and the rest in the Reserves)-- I retired just before the M came online.

I don't remember the Reserves at DOV being A-Model restricted, at least not while I was there (90-95). Honestly, there wasn't a lot of difference between the A-Mod and the B (well, the B didn't leak quite as much at altitude and didn't have "Boeing Bottles" to the right of the copilot. )

I admit that I miss Freddie.

R.

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by flybigjet

re: the KC-10. It's being replaced by a terrible, terrible replacement. It's a long story, but the CINC of AMC was so appalled, she tried to get it killed. Basically, Boeing shoved an antiquated 767 down the AF's throat because they didn't want to lose slots on the Triple production line.

And the REAL insult? The KC-46 carries about half the payload of a KC-10 (gas or cargo) at well over double/triple the cost.

Here's a quote from a recent article: “The KC-10 can carry 170,000 pounds of cargo and 356,000 pounds of fuel with a maximum takeoff weight of 590,000 pounds, compared with 212,299 pounds of fuel and 65,000 pounds of cargo for the KC-46."

Got to love the Government in action.

https://www.stripes.com/branches/air...g-9008591.html

R

Wasn't there some bitching by some Boeing exec who was also in bed w the government and the Airbus contract for the A330 tanker was pulled even after it was awarded? Then they somehow went off the deep end and said US Govt must buy Boeing bcuz American bla bla... and we somehow all ended up w a worse more expensive airplane.

On a seperate note - flew a Dreamliner yesterday... god I love that aircraft.

[ezaircon4jc]

Originally Posted by flybigjet

...
Full disclosure: I have a couple thousand hours in the 737-300/500 ...

When WA first got their 737-300's about 1987/88 (I don't remember), the tower launched one 3 miles behind a WA 727 and I had just shy of 20 miles to build 5 more miles for the Center's required 8 miles, constant or increasing. "S" turns were not an option with cumulous granite (aka mountains) on either side of the departure corridor (SLC). Speed was my only option so I restricted the 73 to 230kts and told the 72 that I need fast as "a 73 was catching him. He responded exactly as I wanted and thought he would. His response was.. "Oh yeah?" At first he 72 didn't climb so well, but he, to quote another WA pilot, let the big dog eat! After about 10 miles he asked, rather sarcastically (which I totally appreciated) "how's it look now, departure?" I told him it was no contest and I had well over 8 miles between them! The 73 way outclimbed him, but I didn't care, I need longitudinal separation, not vertical.

[M-technik-3]

Originally Posted by flybigjet

CEF, SWF or DOV?

I flew the A and A-Mod on AD for five years at DOV, and then the A-Mod, B and C (SCM) at SUU (two years AD and the rest in the Reserves)-- I retired just before the M came online.

I don't remember the Reserves at DOV being A-Model restricted, at least not while I was there (90-95). Honestly, there wasn't a lot of difference between the A-Mod and the B (well, the B didn't leak quite as much at altitude and didn't have "Boeing Bottles" to the right of the copilot. )

I admit that I miss Freddie.

R.

CEF but was farmed out to Ohio and WV for a short period of time. No FE-1301 system to keep the jet aloft as we told airshow guests and no hydraulic winches but both could use electrics. honestly not much of a change since the A were modified to b model wings.

[3.0L]

Originally Posted by flybigjet

Full disclosure: I have a couple thousand hours in the 737-300/500 (the Classic) and am a current/qualified Check Pilot on the 737-700/800/900/900ER (NG) and Max8/9.

Full disclosure: I'm only a PP. I've made exactly 2 landings in a 737-800 sim at the United training campus in Denver. Total 737 sim time = 30 minutes.

Somehow, I managed to grease both landings, but the weather was excellent and it was day time.

[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by ASAP

Wasn't there some bitching by some Boeing exec who was also in bed w the government and the Airbus contract for the A330 tanker was pulled even after it was awarded? Then they somehow went off the deep end and said US Govt must buy Boeing bcuz American bla bla... and we somehow all ended up w a worse more expensive airplane.

On a seperate note - flew a Dreamliner yesterday... god I love that aircraft.

I thought she was a previous one-star for the AF. My bad (that's what I get for trying to rely on memory)-- she was a high-ranking civilian who was corrupt as hell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darleen_Druyun

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/PD...Watch_1104.pdf

[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by M-technik-3

CEF but was farmed out to Ohio and WV for a short period of time. No FE-1301 system to keep the jet aloft as we told airshow guests and no hydraulic winches but both could use electrics. honestly not much of a change since the A were modified to b model wings.

Heh-- I taught the Dayton crowd how to fly C-5's. I spent 3-4 months taking a jet with a friend of mine out there from SUU for two weeks at a time. One of us would fly a Day Local, the other would fly the Night Local, giving instructional rides and Qual Checks to get the squadron up to speed.

I forgot about the FE1301-- I always sort of vaguely wondered what would happen if you pickled the system off.....

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by flybigjet

I thought she was a previous one-star for the AF. My bad (that's what I get for trying to rely on memory)— she was a high-ranking civilian who was corrupt as hell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darleen_Druyun

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/PD...Watch_1104.pdf

yea thats her... she is something for sure

[Lady Jane]

Beechcraft Starship

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beechcraft_Starship

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Lady Jane

Beechcraft Starship

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beechcraft_Starship

Not quite as futuristic-looking as the Starship, but more successful, is the Piaggio P.180 Avanti II.

[Lady Jane]

Originally Posted by Llarry

Not quite as futuristic-looking as the Starship, but more successful, is the Piaggio P.180 Avanti II.

The EVO has a new wing and low noise propellers. Faster than some jets in the same class.

http://www.avantievo.piaggioaerospace.it/

[3.0L]

Originally Posted by Lady Jane

The EVO has a new wing and low noise propellers. Faster than some jets in the same class.

http://www.avantievo.piaggioaerospace.it/


Attachment 3102798

One of these is based at our local airport. I can tell when its leaving without even looking at it. Unique sound and fast.

[ezaircon4jc]

Originally Posted by Llarry

Not quite as futuristic-looking as the Starship, but more successful, is the Piaggio P.180 Avanti II.

Originally Posted by Lady Jane

The EVO has a new wing and low noise propellers. Faster than some jets in the same class.

http://www.avantievo.piaggioaerospace.it/


Attachment 3102798

I loved working those! They were rocket ships! Could always get them on top of everybody else.

[2008M36MT]

SU57

[sygazelle]

Originally Posted by garyfried

Is it only me or do others think the Corsair is one of the better car names on the market.

I don't care for it personally because I'm a huge fan of the fighter plane F4U Corsair. It had 18 cylinders and 2,000 horsepower. I know I'm being silly here. There are many cars that who's names bear no resemblance to the original.

The Lincoln Corsair is a compact SUV with a 2.5L engine. If they wanted to put the Corsair name on something, it would be a better match to put it on a huge, take-no-prisoners badass vehicle with 4 digit horsepower.

[sygazelle]

Originally Posted by Lady Jane

Beechcraft Starship

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beechcraft_Starship


Attachment 3102662

Nice looking, but not competitive. Too bad Beechcraft couldn't make the performance numbers match the price.

[sygazelle]

Originally Posted by 3.0L

One of these is based at our local airport. I can tell when its leaving without even looking at it. Unique sound and fast.

When I was flying, I worked at the gas pit at my local airport. I got really good at guessing the make of airplanes by their sounds.

Airplanes do sound different from one another for sure.

[ezaircon4jc]

Originally Posted by sygazelle

...
Airplanes do sound different from one another for sure.

That, besides the smell of Jet-A exhaust, is one of the things I missed most about moving from the tower to the TRACON.

[garyfried]

Originally Posted by sygazelle

I don't care for it personally because I'm a huge fan of the fighter plane F4U Corsair. It had 18 cylinders and 2,000 horsepower. I know I'm being silly here. There are many cars that who's names bear no resemblance to the original.

The Lincoln Corsair is a compact SUV with a 2.5L engine. If they wanted to put the Corsair name on something, it would be a better match to put it on a huge, take-no-prisoners badass vehicle with 4 digit horsepower.

I agree that the Lincoln is a POS but as a name I really like it. I'm just happy that the name made a return before every vehicle is electric as this name would be ridiculous on an electric car.

[M-technik-3]

Originally Posted by garyfried

I agree that the Lincoln is a POS but as a name I really like it. I'm just happy that the name made a return before every vehicle is electric as this name would be ridiculous on an electric car.

It's too bad they could not have made it sound like a PW R-2800