The General Airplane Thread

  • Thread starter Crash
  • 2,744 comments
  • 193,400 views
Rage Racer
These passengers are polar workers - tough Siberian men. They are used to extreme situations and not used to complain about an "uncomfortable trip". These people can start an engine with their alcohol breath. :D Push a plane to start? Ha, piece of cake!
Click to expand...

I read this a few minutes before my own flight had a delay because the first tug wouldn't start up. Fifteen minutes later, the second one was fired up and we were away. Ah, the joys of the regional airports...but we made it on time, so it's all good. It was the day before Thanksgiving, so I would have pushed it if need be!

Some airlines apparently don't look too kindly to a gentle thrust-reversing away from the gate, since it puts unnecessary wear on a multi-million dollar engine. I've only seen it once (an MD Super 80 series at tiny HTS Airport) and it does look pretty cool; kind of like how a race car bolts away from a 180 spin by momenting it back into line and zipping away.

Looking back, it seems like MD-11s had a really short life in the world of passenger jet usage? By comparison, trijet DC-10s and other DC-9 or Super 80/90 variants seemed to last decades longer; all made essentially by the same manufacturers. What was the deal? Just an inefficient design or were not enough produced (due to MD's acquisition by Boeing) to leave the same historical record?
 
Last edited:
Not to mention the fact that the pilot has ZERO visibility directly behind.... or even any view of what might be coming from either side. Yes, ground crew could direct, but now you've got a guy waving wands standing potentially in the jet blast.
 
The reason most aircraft with thrust reversers don't power back is due mainly to FOD'ing out the engines. The blast from the reversers could pick up and send anything on the ground forward, which could potentially be sucked into the engines. The only aircraft that power backs on a regular basis is the C-17 Globemaster III these days, as that has thrust reversers designed to not blast the reverse airflow down.
 
Dennisch
The farewell ceremony of the last passenger hauling MD 11 in the world.

xxl.jpg
Click to expand...
I wish I was old enough to remember Delta flying them...
 
Pupik
Looking back, it seems like MD-11s had a really short life in the world of passenger jet usage? By comparison, trijet DC-10s and other DC-9 or Super 80/90 variants seemed to last decades longer; all made essentially by the same manufacturers. What was the deal? Just an inefficient design or were not enough produced (due to MD's acquisition by Boeing) to leave the same historical record?
Click to expand...

Both, though primarily (now) inefficient design. Trijets unsurprisingly consume significantly more fuel, and in today's world with high fuel prices, it's more and more unsustainable, especially with some of the new highly efficient twins that are ETOPS rated and can easily cover the same mission as the trijet did.

It's also difficult and expensive for an airline to maintain just a few trijets rather than trying to consolidate into a few different types of planes for their entire fleet.
 
Pupik
Some airlines apparently don't look too kindly to a gentle thrust-reversing away from the gate, since it puts unnecessary wear on a multi-million dollar engine. I've only seen it once (an MD Super 80 series at tiny HTS Airport) and it does look pretty cool; kind of like how a race car bolts away from a 180 spin by momenting it back into line and zipping away.

Looking back, it seems like MD-11s had a really short life in the world of passenger jet usage? By comparison, trijet DC-10s and other DC-9 or Super 80/90 variants seemed to last decades longer; all made essentially by the same manufacturers. What was the deal? Just an inefficient design or were not enough produced (due to MD's acquisition by Boeing) to leave the same historical record?
Click to expand...

It was a strange program, they made around 200 MD-11s over 10 years so it was a money-maker but, as you say, they've all been retired now. The shortest-serving can only have had a life of 16 years. They will go again as McD do freighter/utility retrofits on them but their passenger "cycle" was very short.

I think McD were lulled into a false sense of security by a (then) strong market and a lack of awareness of where lightweight twin-jet development was going.

As for the gate... it's down to foreign objects as a primary concern. Runways are okay for "reverse" (not that a jet engine reverses but you know what I mean) as they're sanitised zones, the loading area by the gate most definitely isn't.

The fuel cost would be pretty negligible on an aircraft carrying around $10,000 of fuel - the engine is running "forward" at about 15%-N2 during manual reversing anyway, you'd probably only increase that 40% to move the aircraft backwards. A long taxi is more expensive.
 
Last edited:
F-104's are amazing.. Germans....
I don't really have many pics to share though, as I don't particularly like to post other's work, but rather my own.
 
Awwww, if I had known about the KC-46's first flight, I would have driven up there to see it.
 
Dennisch
Since this is the airplane thread:

Airbus consider cutting A380 production

They haven't sold a single one this year.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I understand it. There appears to be 318 net orders, with 147 deliveries so far. Meaning, that with only half manufactured, and 25 manufactured a year, they've got 6 years production remaining?

Also, this would be the ideal time to revive the A380F, which was "frozen" earlier in the programme.

Swagger897
C-17's for PJ's?? Seems a bit overkill..
Click to expand...
Not if you're dropping support equipment too.
Swagger897
Why would the choose the smaller of the 767's? Not using the 400 seems a bit weird, and the fact that there are no winglets...
Click to expand...
Probably because when they started KC-767 design work, the civvy -400 was still in development. It's much easier to develop what you already know, rather than work with the changes of a developing design. Especially as the KC team probably had no influence over the -400 team. And it was the KC-767 that forms the basis of the KC-46.
 
Crash
Awwww, if I had known about the KC-46's first flight, I would have driven up there to see it.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I saw photos of it the day before when they did some runway runs but was not sure it was that interesting.

Swagger897
Why would the choose the smaller of the 767's? Not using the 400 seems a bit weird, and the fact that there are no winglets...
Click to expand...

ExigeEvan
Probably because when they started KC-767 design work, the civvy -400 was still in development. It's much easier to develop what you already know, rather than work with the changes of a developing design. Especially as the KC team probably had no influence over the -400 team. And it was the KC-767 that forms the basis of the KC-46.
Click to expand...

Sit tight... they chose the 767 in 2002 and after a DoD model in 2004 they decided to lease 100 767 tankers. Then there were some things that led the Pentagon announce they were investigating the case for corruption that led 1 man to jail. They canceled the contract in 2006. Also in 2006 they released a request for proposal for a new tanker program, KC-X, to be selected by 2007. Boeing announced it wanted to go with a Boeing 777, KC-777 Strategic Tanker. Airbus partnered with Northrop Grumman to offer the Airbus A330 MRTT, the KC-30. Then again there were some things that made Northrop unhappy and they threathened to withdraw. Boeing offered the 767 Advanced Tanker, saying that it would fit KC-X's requirements better. The KC-767 Advanced Tanker offered was based on the in-development 767-200LRF (Long Range Freighter), rather than the -200ER on which Italian and Japanese KC-767 aircraft are based differing by combining the -200ER fuselage, -300F wing, gear, cargo and floor, -400ER digital flightdeck and flaps, uprated engines, and six generation fly-by-wire fuel delivery boom. However in 2008 the DoD chose the KC-30 over the KC-767. This led Boeing to protest and started a campaign. The Air Force was forced to reopen the tanker contract. In late 2008 the Defence Department canceled the whole thing. The new round was in late 2009, the Air Force announced the selection of KC-767 in February 2011. It was now called the KC-767 NewGen Tanker, based on the 767-200 with an improved version of the KC-10 refueling boom and cockpit displays from the 787.

There is a lot more about this, on Wiki.

kennylmao
Is this from LIMA?

Did I just miss (probably) my only chance to see an F-22 in person? :eek:
Click to expand...

Really no idea where that is!

Or go on a vacation to the US and take a day to go a F-22 base :D
 
Oh wow, never knew it went that far back. The 200 is basically an obsolete plane and why not go big with the 400 rather than limit your payload for the 300...

Quite a mess though if you ask me. And the DoD is already a mess imo. Boeing needs it more than AB if you ask me, basically for work in the states..

Interesting, confusing, but still looks good.
 
Swagger897
Oh wow, never knew it went that far back. The 200 is basically an obsolete plane and why not go big with the 400 rather than limit your payload for the 300...

Quite a mess though if you ask me. And the DoD is already a mess imo. Boeing needs it more than AB if you ask me, basically for work in the states..

Interesting, confusing, but still looks good.
Click to expand...

I don't know why they don't go big. The 747 was a contender once for the tanker program. There is one and it's flown by Iranian AF.

omxrrd0nexodoiykc8f5.jpg
 
Carlos
I don't know why they don't go big. The 747 was a contender once for the tanker program. There is one and it's flown by Iranian AF.

omxrrd0nexodoiykc8f5.jpg
Click to expand...
too big... quad engine planes are doomed... A shame, but they do suck too much fuel. The only realistic use for a quad engine refueler is the C-130 for slower planes... helicopters too.
 
Swagger897
too big... quad engine planes are doomed... A shame, but they do suck too much fuel. The only realistic use for a quad engine refueler is the C-130 for slower planes... helicopters too.
Click to expand...

Hmm that's probably it. It must be a very stable platform to fly with though!
 
Yeah, probably. They shake turbulence.

Anyways, I just got back home on a flight from PIT-ATL and noticed the guy who came and sat beside me was looking at the KC-46 on the airliners forums, I stuck up a conversation with him and found out he flies KC-10's. I mentioned to him as you said it has the 400's glass cockpit and he thought it was the 787's cockpit they were putting in it.

Such a strange aircraft this one...

We also cloud surfed while coming into Atlanta and I have a picture or so of it. A bit of a wing effect (whatever it's called when condensation builds up because of high pressure...) on one of them.
 

Similar threads

TenEightyOne
Air Crash Thread: Boeing MAX and Other Problems
19 20 21
Replies
618
Views
38K
Liquid
Liquid
SlipZtrEm
What you'd like to see for the GT6 Photomode section: A community thread!
2
Replies
55
Views
3K
ux2
ux2
arvin charles
The Le Mans General Discussion Thread
342 343 344
Replies
10K
Views
589K
LMSCorvetteGT2
LMSCorvetteGT2
xXKingJoshXx
GTPlanet's "The Blacklist" Appreciation Thread
2 3
Replies
79
Views
13K
JR98
JR98
Famine
The Famine Family Holiday 4: The Wedding
2 3 4
Replies
113
Views
12K
daan
daan

Latest Posts

Back