dark light

Whiskey Delta

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 376 through 390 (of 2,215 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Tu-144 dimensions #560432
    Whiskey Delta
    Participant

    Here’s what I found from a NASA informational .pdf file.

    http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/120315main_FS-062-DFRC.pdf

    They flew a Tu-144LL which was originally a Tu-144D that they modified into a flying laboratory. Here’s the tech. information from the above file.

    The modified Tu-144LL Flying Laboratory used for the NASA flight research program has essentially the same dimensions as the Tu-144D model, although the new engines installed for the program give it improved performance.

    The aircraft has a wingspan of 94 feet, 6 inches, an overall length of 215 feet, 6 inches, and a height of 42 feet 2 inches. Its nose droops up to 12 degrees for better pilot visibility on takeoff and landing, and retractable canards are extended to give the aircraft better pitch control at low airspeeds. Maximum takeoff weight of the Tu-144LL is about 410,000 pounds, including a full load of 224,000 pounds of fuel.

    The newer Kuznetsov NK-321 turbofan engines, rated at more than 55,000 pounds thrust in full afterburner, give the aircraft a maximum cruising speed above Mach 2.3 (about 1,550 mph). These engines also give the Tu-144LL a greatly improved range of about 3,500 nautical miles (4,040 statute miles/6,500 km).

    Before being upgraded to the “LL” configuration, the Tu144D was powered by four Koliesov RD-36-51 turbojets which gave it a maximum cruising speed of Mach 2.15 (2.15 times the speed of sound or approximately 1,450mph) at 59,000 feet altitude. It had a maximum range of less than 2,500 miles and an absolute ceiling of 62,000 feet. The Tu-144D was designed to carry up to 140 passengers, although earlier models used in actual passenger service were configured for only 100 seats.

    The Tu-144LL is constructed mostly of a light aluminum alloy. Titanium and stainless steel were used for the leading edges, elevons, rudder and under-surface of the rear fuselage.

    I hope this helps.

    in reply to: UA to leave Chapter-11 february 1st #561173
    Whiskey Delta
    Participant

    I thought the TED LCC was made up of A320’s pulled from the UA side of the operations?

    in reply to: UA to leave Chapter-11 february 1st #561189
    Whiskey Delta
    Participant

    Is this good news for united? Would/does an airline benefit from being in Chap. 11 or is there an incentive to get out of it?

    An airline is protected from their creditors in Chap. 11. It gives them time to reorganize their financies without the fear of their assets being repossessed. They still have to make payments but at reduced/renegotiated rates. The company also has leverage over their contracts with employees and others where they can basically get them thrown out and have new rules implimented.

    The incentive to get out if it is that it frees them from the restrictions placed upon them when in Chap. 11. I don’t know much about them but for example a company can’t hedge fuel and has to pay current market prices.

    in reply to: 'Bon Jovi' skid off the runway!!! #563247
    Whiskey Delta
    Participant

    They didn’t even heed their own album:

    http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00000I07P.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

    in reply to: Longest flight by burning plane #563975
    Whiskey Delta
    Participant

    Well, has the fire suppression ever actually worked? I mean, no one hears of fires which did not break out at all, but is there any known incident where a plane actually caught fire and the fire suppression worked for more than 90 minutes before the plane landed safely?

    Chances are if it did happen you or I wouldn’t hear about it because it didn’t end with a smoking hole in the ground. We all know the media loves a good tragidy.

    in reply to: Boeing 747SP N747FU #564271
    Whiskey Delta
    Participant

    Alright, I passed! 😉

    in reply to: Why crash upright? #566932
    Whiskey Delta
    Participant

    I would also guess that evacuation will be easier for the passenger if they are sat upright to begin with. In addition, most business class cabins still require passengers to pass by other seats in order to reach their own.

    That’s the reason there. Having your seat upright isn’t to help you in an evacuation but to help the folks sitting behind you. With every seat in the upright position you maximize the escape path for everyone. Putting your seat back restricts those seated behind you.

    in reply to: Boeing 747SP N747FU #566935
    Whiskey Delta
    Participant

    KROW is Roswell, New Mexico.

    in reply to: Future orders for the CRJ 900 ??? #567413
    Whiskey Delta
    Participant

    The CRJ900 is a dead duck. Any growth in the 70+ seat market will be with the Embraer E-series or the Bombardier C-series (if it ever sees the light of day). Bombardier wasted time stretching their CRJ-200 airframe instead of creating a whole new aircraft. The CRJ700/900 can’t hold a candle to the E170.

    in reply to: Boeing 747SP N747FU #567416
    Whiskey Delta
    Participant

    Apparently no one as it’s in storage.

    http://www.747sp.com/History.asp?21992

    in reply to: Continental to make "significant" first quarter loss #567681
    Whiskey Delta
    Participant

    Larry Kellner is the new CEO after Gordon Bethune stepped down about a year ago. I believe Kellner was previously the COO for CO.

    in reply to: Ryanair bans three passengers for stealing life-jackets #568337
    Whiskey Delta
    Participant

    Is there any recorded example of a modern passenger aircraft ditching with sufficient opportunity for anyone to actually don one of the underseat lifejackets, escape, and be supported in the water by it until rescued?

    If there is I certainly can’t recall it.

    Those lifejackets are, in my opinion, a completely pointless exercise in passenger ‘reassurance’

    (But I’m happy to be corrected if anyone can)

    Moggy

    That hijakced Ethiopian Airlines 767. Folks had the time to put on the lifevests but most opted to not listen to or read the SOP and decided to inflate them before exiting the aircraft.

    in reply to: Continental to make "significant" first quarter loss #568594
    Whiskey Delta
    Participant

    Their revenue increased while their operational costs (at least labor) decreased thanks to pay concessions. I’m guessing that fuel prices are still killing them.

    in reply to: Mechanic dies after being sucked into engine #569735
    Whiskey Delta
    Participant

    Very unfortunate. Sometimes I think that mechanics and rampers get a bit complacient around aircraft and forget what exactly they are dealing with. We had a ramper/station manager walk into the prop of an ATR in 1999. I’m sure he was so use to seeing/hearing the ATR engine running but the prop stopped thanks to the prop brake that without even thinking he walked through the prop arc. Unfortunately the prop wasn’t stopped that time.

    in reply to: 757 Video…..holy @#$% #577481
    Whiskey Delta
    Participant

    That must take some piloting…

    Push the “go” levers forward and pull back on the stick. 🙂

    I’m wondering how many negative g’s they had during the recovery.

Viewing 15 posts - 376 through 390 (of 2,215 total)