Page 25 – Key Publishing

Ship 741

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 361 through 375 (of 737 total)

← 1 2 3 … 24 25 26 … 48 49 50 →

Author

Posts
August 28, 2009 at 9:00 pm in reply to: B787 first flight delayed (again) #522293

Ship 741
Participant

Bottom line: when it is finally flying in revenue service, it will be lighter than any aluminum airplane that is the same size.

It’s true they haven’t met their goals, and that they have mismanaged the airplane, but it’s still a revolutionary airplane. 3% or 6% really doesn’t matter that much to the big picture when it is lighter than any aluminum competitor.

July 30, 2009 at 11:43 am in reply to: Former Indian President still waiting for apology from Continental Airlines #526973

Ship 741
Participant

I’m wondering why Continental is even involved…..I thought security was the responsibility of the TSA.

July 30, 2009 at 11:12 am in reply to: Video Airbus A380 Hard Landing, Oshkosh 2009 #526992

Ship 741
Participant

If anything, this is a positive video for Airbus. Their airplane was handled pretty severely and came away with no damage.

Several earlier posters have commented on the hard landing……the part that bothers me is that the Pilot never kicked the rudder and straightened the airplane prior to touchdown…all the rudder activity was after touchdown. He/she put tremendous side/twisting loads on the landing gear. This guy/gal really muffed this landing, IMHO.

July 27, 2009 at 12:28 pm in reply to: Am I being absolutely ridiculous? #527973

Ship 741
Participant

Irrational or not, many passengers do not want to fly on a flight that uses the same number as one that previously crashed. Thus, it is very common for airlines to discontinue the use of flight numbers after crashes.

From Wiki:
Retirement of flight numbers
“It is common for an airline to cease using the flight number after a fatal crash.[13] This is not always the case; see, for example, Japan Airlines 123, American Airlines Flight 587, Aeroflot Flight 593, Aero Flight 311, Iran Air Flight 655, United Airlines Flights numbered 608, 624, and 823, and Aer Lingus Flight 712.”

July 23, 2009 at 1:37 am in reply to: US Senate halts F-22 funding #2416069

Ship 741
Participant

If America is definitely not going to get any further F22’s than the 187 planned, then there is now nothing stopping them from selling F22’s to Japan, Israel, and Australia, that is if they still want and can afford them.

Nothing except the secrets that the U.S. hasn’t figured out how to best yet itself.

Israel and Japan in particular have shown a propensity in the past to let highly classified things leak out.

July 22, 2009 at 1:37 pm in reply to: Delta bans overweight F/A's from wearing new uniform #528605

Ship 741
Participant

I heard from a little birdy that the DESIGNER (Richard Tyler) of the dress is the one who chose to supply it only up to size 18. Unable to verify.

At any rate, it seems just another example of why unions are not only less and less relevant but in many cases also a joke.

July 22, 2009 at 1:27 pm in reply to: US Senate halts F-22 funding #2416489

Ship 741
Participant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._Michael_Moseley

and Michael Wynne

I thought they were removed because they lost nuclear weapons (among other operational foul ups), and had alleged monitary/ethical problems (thundervision scandal among others).

Now you are alleging they were fired because they had the temerity to support the F-22?

July 22, 2009 at 10:41 am in reply to: US Senate halts F-22 funding #2416735

Ship 741
Participant

People who opposed the SecDefs decision making were fired. People with a much more intimate understanding of air ops than Gates…

Would you care to name these people who were fired? Thanks.

July 20, 2009 at 1:26 pm in reply to: Southwest 737 lands with hole in fuselage #529087

Ship 741
Participant

I’m guessing the crack originated at the rivet hole above the 11 1/4 inch mark on the ruler on the inside view. Then the crack propogated and the pressure inside the fuselage opened up the hole.

It’s not a doubler per se, the skin is chemically milled in this area…..it is apparently a known trouble spot.

July 18, 2009 at 12:47 pm in reply to: Q: is KC-767 with GEnx a gamechanger? #2433209

Ship 741
Participant

Damn, why are you so pedantic about specific numbers? You follow the typical tactic of the looser: attack one specific argument out of a whole line and imply thereby that all my arguments are flawed.

Wider fan diameter increases engine weight (at similar technological level) [it also increases wetted area and therefore zero-lift drag). That is common knowledge in aviation engineering. Maybe you should work on the latter, then you wouldn’t use misplaced buzz-words like “game changer” for such a config, especially when you have nothing to back up that claim.

In case you haven’t noticed, the thread title was a question, not a statement.

Thank you for contributing engineering generalities to the thread, and thank you for your opinion. In your opinion, making the GEnx available on the KC767 would not be a big improvement. You have not supported with factual information your claim that the GEnx is heavier than the alternative.

Opinions and generalities are great for general discussion.

Here are some facts:
“New GEnx Engine Advancing Unprecedented Use of Composites in Jet Engines
December 14, 2004 — EVENDALE, Ohio — General Electric Company (GE) has initiated tests for its new GEnx engine that advance the use of composites in jet engines in ways never before experienced.

The GEnx is the only jet engine being developed with both the front fan case and fan blades made of composite materials – a breakthrough that will provide greater engine durability and dramatic weight reduction. “

Source: http://www.geae.com/aboutgeae/presscenter/genx/genx_20041214.html

July 18, 2009 at 11:20 am in reply to: Q: is KC-767 with GEnx a gamechanger? #2433230

Ship 741
Participant

Even if we ignore the weight increase we still have issues with vertical clearance. Those can potentially be solved with a different pylon (akin b737 Classic). The GEnx is optimized for slightly higher Mach numbers, taking additional advantage out.
I wouldn’t claim the GEnx B767 doesn’t consume less fuel, but it truly isn’t a game changer.
Best example is the B747-8. The B747-400 had similar engines as the B767. The B747-8 not only got new engines, but a redesigned wing and additional payload. Still, it hardly achieves a 10% advantage over the B747-400.

The B767 wouldn’t achieve 10%, but rather 6-8% at best. And the fun fact is: that is the advantage a regular A330-200 enjoys over a B767-300ER. So, why not just take the A330?

I wasn’t ignoring the weight. You said there was a significant difference, and then later said it was easy to find via google. It looks to me like you haven’t supported your claim.

July 17, 2009 at 12:21 am in reply to: Q: is KC-767 with GEnx a gamechanger? #2433576

Ship 741
Participant

It has hoses on some of its tankers, & has……

Thank you for your history lesson, there may be some here who needed it.

The USAF prefers booms.

July 16, 2009 at 10:30 pm in reply to: Q: is KC-767 with GEnx a gamechanger? #2433603

Ship 741
Participant

USAF studies have long shown that retrofitting newer fighters, & building all new ones with probes, would be cost-effective. It’s bizarre that the F-35A has a receptacle.

No matter what the studies show, the USAF clearly prefers receptables instead of hose and probe. Why do external International powers keep trying to enforce upon the USAF their idea of what the USAF needs? The USAF not only has to buy the too-big tanker, but now it needs to adopt hose and probe also?

July 16, 2009 at 7:40 pm in reply to: Pan Am question #529616

Ship 741
Participant

Only tangentially related, but kind of an interesting factoid….

I have a friend who was a Flight Engineer for many years at the old Blue Ball, and he told me that the original movie system was a continuous loop with a projector in each cabin section. So, you could stand at the back of the airplane and look between the class dividers and see the movie play with a 3-4 second delay on each of the screens. He said the movie film broke ALL THE TIME and the F/E’s and pursers became experts at splicing film.

July 16, 2009 at 12:32 am in reply to: Pan Am question #529824

Ship 741
Participant

I’ve flown countless miles with Pan Am from back in the sixties right through to their demise…from what i remember i don’t recall hearing any music as such on any Clipper flights!!!

Thats what happens when you enjoy the in flight adult beverage service too much…..you can’t remember anything!
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 361 through 375 (of 737 total)

← 1 2 3 … 24 25 26 … 48 49 50 →