Your Favorite Aircraft

[DogOnPorch]

Oh and I'd hate to see you get arrested. Truely.

[DogOnPorch]

Some examples...the B61 is getting old...but still being upgraded, i guess.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whtP0uSKyf0

[Smallc]

I'll bite. I've had limited experience with Airbus but that which I have made me think they were a little too in love with their own cleverness and tended to leave the pilot out of the loop in some areas. The experience I did have involved first generation glass cockpit aircraft, A310 vs B767. The A310 was a bit more trick at that time but I recall hearing "WTF is it doing now" more than I ever did with the 767. Perhaps it was just the learning curve but the Boeing just seemed more pilot friendly. Just ask someone who has flown both which was the easier aircraft to transition to. It was also a lot nicer to hand fly than the Bus. Don't get me wrong, Airbus builds a fine aircraft and I am only looking at it from one pilot's limited point of view, which is only one consideration when a company buys an aircraft and usualy not a very important one.

I wasn't at all being sarcastic in my question to him, I was genuinely wondering. Boeing is about the only aircraft I haven't been on since I fly Air Canada because they have more flight times to choose from.

[DogOnPorch]

I wasn't at all being sarcastic in my question to him, I was genuinely wondering. Boeing is about the only aircraft I haven't been on since I fly Air Canada because they have more flight times to choose from.

They're all pretty darn nice, really. it's more what they are intended for whichs governs the choice of aircraft on a route. Some are better on the gas...some carry more people, etc. Business class remains the same.

[Smallc]

They're all pretty darn nice, really. it's more what they are intended for whichs governs the choice of aircraft on a route.

Yeah, they probably are. Air Canada only flies Bombardier, Embraer, and Airbus within Canada for the most part, so I haven't actually been on one of their Boeing 767 or 777 since they only use those on some heavy domestic routes (I don't think they ever use the 777 for that actually). I'm interested for when their 787s start to arrive. They're supposed to replace their A330s and B767s, and since I'll be taking some international flights in the next few years, I'd like to see how they are.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Smallc

[bush_cheney2004]

Some examples...the B61 is getting old...but still being upgraded, i guess.

All we need now is Slim Pickens to ride one.

Too bad they don't pipe in patriotic music when we're actually playing with them....like those Harper drums!

[DogOnPorch]

Yeah, they probably are. Air Canada only flies Bombardier, Embraer, and Airbus within Canada for the most part, so I haven't actually been on one of their Boeing 767 or 777 since they only use those on some heavy domestic routes (I don't think they ever use the 777 for that actually). I'm interested for when their 787s start to arrive. They're supposed to replace their A330s and B767s, and since I'll be taking some international flights in the next few years, I'd like to see how they are.

787s are truely the future. Lots of plastic...less metal. Light compared to previous generation aircraft of equal size. So huge distances can be covered carrying a big load of passengers. The only rub I can see is the idea of long distances over water using only two engines. But reliability is generally very high.

[DogOnPorch]

All we need now is Slim Pickens to ride one.

Too bad they don't pipe in patriotic music when we're actually playing with them....like those Harper drums!

Ach...I love that movie.

Edited February 26, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[Smallc]

The only rub I can see is the idea of long distances over water using only two engines. But reliability is generally very high.

Well, that's being done a lot now anyway (AC with the 767, A330, and 777 and West Jest with the 737 just in Canada). Even the PM and GG use a 2 engine over water in the A310-300.

[Oleg Bach]

For being a little fearful of falling out of the sky- I just love these machines- a marvel...as I mentioned a while ago- my childhood home was on a lake an it was common everyday to have planes come by and scrape the TV antenna as they landed and took off near our dock at the end of the back yard...grand..my fondest memories are of aircraft.

[DogOnPorch]

Well, that's being done a lot now anyway (AC with the 767, A330, and 777 and West Jest with the 737 just in Canada). Even the PM and GG use a 2 engine over water in the A310-300.

Oh I know...but you know...you only have two. Next runway: Midway Island, bearing 246, distance 2400km.

Edited February 26, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[Wilber]

I wasn't at all being sarcastic in my question to him, I was genuinely wondering. Boeing is about the only aircraft I haven't been on since I fly Air Canada because they have more flight times to choose from.

Your flying must be all domestic. There are only 8 A330's left in AC's long range fleet, the rest is made up of B767 and B777 with B787's on order.

[Alta4ever]

Why?

In my opinion boeing builds better aircraft.

[DogOnPorch]

In my opinion boeing builds better aircraft.

Not many airliners can do this...

Of course, the ol' 707 lives on in such airframes as the KC-135.

Edited February 26, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[Alta4ever]

Not many airliners could do this...

Bingo

[DogOnPorch]

Ol' Tex was somewhat wrong when he said the roll was 'perfectly safe' as he knew he'd be putting a negative wing-load on the frame...but the 707 is/was an overbuilt tank of a plane...which is why the USAF still uses them in many roles.

Edited February 26, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[Alta4ever]

Ol' Tex was somewhat wrong when he said the roll was 'perfectly safe' as he knew he'd be putting a negative wing-load on the frame...but the 707 is/was an overbuilt tank of a plane...which is why the USAF still uses them in many roles.

Imagine if they tried to do that with this type of aircraft today half way through the roll the wings would tear off.

[Bonam]

787s are truely the future. Lots of plastic...less metal. Light compared to previous generation aircraft of equal size. So huge distances can be covered carrying a big load of passengers. The only rub I can see is the idea of long distances over water using only two engines. But reliability is generally very high.

From what I remember, I think twin jet aircraft are supposed to be able to fly with just one engine (if one engine fails). That is, each engine is about twice as powerful as it "needs" to be if you assumed that both engines would always be functioning. For 4 jet aircraft, you still design assuming the failure of just one engine. That means that instead of each engine being twice as powerful as it needs to be, they are only like 33% more powerful. So with just 2 engines left a 4 jet plane wouldn't be able to stay in the air for very long either (though I guess it would have more options left, but it wouldn't be able to fly thousands of kilometers across ocean)

At least that was the basic theory we went over back in a class a few years ago. Don't know how much it applies now or in practice.

[Smallc]

Your flying must be all domestic.

Yes, it is for right now.

[Wilber]

From what I remember, I think twin jet aircraft are supposed to be able to fly with just one engine (if one engine fails). That is, each engine is about twice as powerful as it "needs" to be if you assumed that both engines would always be functioning. For 4 jet aircraft, you still design assuming the failure of just one engine. That means that instead of each engine being twice as powerful as it needs to be, they are only like 33% more powerful. So with just 2 engines left a 4 jet plane wouldn't be able to stay in the air for very long either (though I guess it would have more options left, but it wouldn't be able to fly thousands of kilometers across ocean)

At least that was the basic theory we went over back in a class a few years ago. Don't know how much it applies now or in practice.

You are right, a twin must be able to meet the same performance criteria when an engine fails on takeoff, meaning the same performance with a 50% power loss compared to a 25% loss for a four engine aircraft.

[Wilber]

In the days of pioneering flights across water, single engine aircraft were regarded as safer than twins. Few twins in those days could stay airborne on one engine and you had twice as much chance of a failure.

[DogOnPorch]

Oh...I know...I'm just goin' by the old rules re: transatlantic (et al) flights. Besides...just because you have a lot of engines it is no guarantee of success.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1950_British_Columbia_B-36_crash

http://www.air-and-space.com/b-36%20wrecks.htm#44-92075

Edited February 27, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[DogOnPorch]

The DH Beaver...there's Canada right there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCTLNemMVbM

[Oleg Bach]

Oh...I know...I'm just goin' by the old rules re: transatlantic (et al) flights. Besides...just because you have a lot of engines it is no guarantee of success.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1950_British_Columbia_B-36_crash

http://www.air-and-space.com/b-36%20wrecks.htm#44-92075

Early trans Atlantic flights were very daring. To depend on one single engine is like depending on one friend..you need at least two.

[DogOnPorch]

The DH Otter...the larger cousin.