Jump to content
Chewey

Just cause we have a bunch of airplane lovers

Recommended Posts

Speaking of Russian stuff - reminds me of this MiG-17 that's parked on static display at an airport just 8 minutes from my house in the next town over LOL! This is a MiG-17 UTI that belonged to some mafiosi construction kingpin who the government finally nailed and put in jail for a long time and confiscated a lot of his toys and properties. Ended up giving it to this local airport to put on display. Very interesting history behind this jet in that it was heavily involved in the Vietnam and Arab/Israeli wars. This is the 2-seat training version at Beverly Airport.

113_zpslwegf0d6.jpg

114_zpsjleibvqj.jpg

115_zpspnpp8zef.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's amazing how big modern fighters have become. You really see it when you look at the raptor beside the P-51.

the downward cant of the Tomcat cockpit/nose is what I think makes it looks like it's getting ready to pounce. Without that and the swept wings, it is extremely similar to an F-15.

I know what you mean about getting rid of them, I would love to adopt a couple of wayward old planes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey I got something else for you I think you might like, just gotta dig it up. Whenever we by Dover AFB in Delaware, we're always looking out for the huge lineup of the C-5 Galaxies that are based out of there and sometimes there's a few and sometimes there aren't any but one year we drove to western MA to Westover AFB for an air show and there's also a squadron of C-5 Galaxies based out of there and when we pulled into the parking lot, wow, I was amazed at the scene that was in front of me. I mean, I knew they were huge and I've even toured one and seen it up close but when you have a few lined up in vast open land space, it's impressive! Ever get into one of these, Mike?

001%202_zpsksicvnik.jpg

002%201_zpstp8lzttt.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do collectors ever have a chance to get the old fighter jets like F-14's or F-4's? Most WWII planes are in the hands of private restorers and collectors, but what about those great jets? Are they just too dangerous as weapons still to let the public have their hands on? Probably anyone that would own one would be active or retired Navy or Air Force, though. I mean, where else are you going to ever learn to fly one?

This ain't your old pop's Piper Cub!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This classic MiG-21 that flew out of Vermont for many years and was well known to aviation enthusiasts around here and belonged to a pretty famous fellow was sold to the Sand Diego museum and is now being sold by them for a measly $69,500 lol. I know many boats that are more that that! :D

http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/aircraft-for-sale/MIKOYAN-MIG-21-UM/1967-MIKOYAN-MIG-21-UM/1163877.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I rode in a C-5 on my way back from Operation Iraqi Freedom the first time. Up in the very top (the spine) there's a passenger compartment full of broken old first class seats that face aft. It was a much more comfortable ride than down in the cargo compartment on the web seats (I've ridden in those also).

We stopped over night in Dover once and parked beside a C-5. It made my little C-130 look like a micro machine!

When they sell the planes they are sold for scrap unless you are a foreign government, then you can buy functional airplanes. I'm sure there's a way to do it, but it involves knowing the right people and spending a BUNCH of money to get any military specific equipment removed (It's called being de-mil'd). And you won't get an F-14. We sold Iran a bunch of them back when we like Iran more than Iraq and now we don't want them getting their hands on spare parts, so most Tomcats are on display at a museum somewhere or sold for scrap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much harder for US built aircraft to end up in private hands than Russian built ones. Even French and British stuff is tough to get and you rarely see any of their stuff out there in private hands either. Heck there's 2 Su-27's that were bought through the Ukraine and back in 2009 they were on sale to private owners here in the US for a mere $6 mill each. That's the 4th generation of the current flagship fighter of the Russian Federation LOL! I think these either ended up with the Agressor's units for training or in private collectors possession but either way, the fact that anyone in the US was able to buy them speaks volumes at the difference between the two countries.

http://whatthewhonow.com/2009/08/28/su-27-aircraft-for-sale/

It doesn't happen with US built aircraft because the US has very strict rules for the buyers of its fighters. They have to sign all sorts of agreements, not even to show their aircraft to any other country or representatives. They even send inspection teams every so often to monitor and make sure these countries are abiding by the rules of the contracts signed. All the planes are inventoried and an eye kept on them not to mention what happens to them and how that's controlled. For example, some countries aren't allowed to use certain weapons systems and so the computers are programmed not to operate these systems and the source codes are rarely (almost never) given out so that these countries can't mess with the aircraft and add their own weapons and things like that. When they regulate them like this it becomes impossible for these aircraft to end up in private collector's hands even after they've accomplished their lifetime and are ready to be retired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I rode in a C-5 on my way back from Operation Iraqi Freedom the first time. Up in the very top (the spine) there's a passenger compartment full of broken old first class seats that face aft. It was a much more comfortable ride than down in the cargo compartment on the web seats (I've ridden in those also).

We stopped over night in Dover once and parked beside a C-5. It made my little C-130 look like a micro machine!

I can imagine that. Even the C-17 which I think is an absolutely AMAZING cargo plane with it's winglets and HUGE engines is small compared to the C-5 Galaxy, which btw, so appropriately named lol.

How about those crazy C-17 short take-off's, Mike? :) Even the landings of these awesome aircraft is remarkable with its engine's reverse thrust capabilities. Amazing how this thing takes off in such a short span and when it lands comes to a full stop at what, 1500ft of runway with that much speed, weight and power? You can see the reverse thrust opening and changing directions the second it lands and then it goes in reverse to get back to the first exit on the runway LOL! Truly incredible machines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/air-force-c-17-globemaster-iii-makes-surprise-landing-at-peter-o-knight/1241349

A C17 landed at a tiny civil airport on Davis Island here once. The poor guy was going for MacDill, but was unfamiliar with the configuration, and accidentally lined up on Peter O Knight's little runway and set his huge plane down there. The pilot had just come in from a very long trip from SE Asia, and he happened to be carrying the General in charge of CENTCOM.

No harm done, and actually, according to the general, some good landing skill by the pilot to shove that giant plane onto that little runway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, speaking of the C17 and what an amazing chunk of engineering that plane is...

I don't know if it's my American "arrogance" or whatever, but when I'm booking a flight, I will always choose an airline that flies Boeing planes over anyone else. I'll take a 737 over and A320 every chance I get, and a 777 over about anything else in the sky. I studied the 777 in-depth in a systems engineering class one time, and I have tremendous respect for the great people in Washington that designed and build that beast. I've never been on a 787, but I look forward to flying in one of those. Boeing knows what they're doing. From what I've read, as well, most pilots prefer the Boeing cockpit design philosophy- and if pilots prefer it, that's more reason for me to fly with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could buy some from the scrap yard a while back. A local retired SkyHawk driver in town got a striped A4. They trucked it in on a flat bed put it together at the edge of the airport here. It sat there for about 10 years, the story I was told, it came with out an engine and he ran out funds to get one. Finally he scraped it. I stiill dont know if you can get them now though.

DSC_0355.jpg

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/air-force-c-17-globemaster-iii-makes-surprise-landing-at-peter-o-knight/1241349

A C17 landed at a tiny civil airport on Davis Island here once. The poor guy was going for MacDill, but was unfamiliar with the configuration, and accidentally lined up on Peter O Knight's little runway and set his huge plane down there. The pilot had just come in from a very long trip from SE Asia, and he happened to be carrying the General in charge of CENTCOM.

No harm done, and actually, according to the general, some good landing skill by the pilot to shove that giant plane onto that little runway.

Sounds like a career killer to me......

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, speaking of the C17 and what an amazing chunk of engineering that plane is...

I don't know if it's my American "arrogance" or whatever, but when I'm booking a flight, I will always choose an airline that flies Boeing planes over anyone else. I'll take a 737 over and A320 every chance I get, and a 777 over about anything else in the sky. I studied the 777 in-depth in a systems engineering class one time, and I have tremendous respect for the great people in Washington that designed and build that beast. I've never been on a 787, but I look forward to flying in one of those. Boeing knows what they're doing. From what I've read, as well, most pilots prefer the Boeing cockpit design philosophy- and if pilots prefer it, that's more reason for me to fly with them.

Now now......Fifi is a good airplane, I love her. But then again I've never flown a Boeing so so don't know what all the hype is about! :-).

Great pics and great discussion. I volunteered on a P51 named The Gunfighter when I was a young USAF mechanic. Was some of the best wrenching I ever did. Davis-Monthan is pretty cool, I wish I could weasel my way into a personal tour to find my old EC-135 Looking Glass that is out there taped up with my name on it.

B0D7B786-62B3-4C08-8BA8-62853238C485_1.j

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the tail number CJ? A bunch of them are visible from one of the perimeter roads, I'll see if I can spot it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About 2002 we were at Priest Lake in North Idaho on a beautiful July day when all of a sudden a C-17 did a fly by of Hills Resort. It couldn't have been over 500 feet off the deck and that big boy filled up the sky! Then right behind that was another C-17 also on the deck! Both planes made 2 passes before they flew off. We all believed that some of the top command from Fairchild AFB, about 90 miles away, was staying at the resort so they got the special fly by. Whatever the reason it sure was cool to see those big birds up close and personal!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll try to drive over there this week and look around.

Lew, they were probably doing low level flying training. There are certain routes around the US (and other countries) that are designated for low level training. It's a lot of fun to fly them even if they do get repetitive when you fly the same one over and over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now now......Fifi is a good airplane, I love her. But then again I've never flown a Boeing so so don't know what all the hype is about! :-).

Sorry, Man! I didn't intend to insult your girl!!

Seriously, I am interested in your opinion about flight deck design. My primary professional background is product design, specifically, human factors and user interface design. I spent many years in the HF/UI group at Xerox, and was mentored by a (now retired) gentleman who had come over from Boeing. He had been the primary human factors designer on the flight deck of the original 747 program, and had become a true pioneer in the field of human factors design. Because of what I learned from him, and my own personal interest in aircraft design in general (though I'm not a pilot of any sort), I've always read what I could about the design philosophy behind the different flight decks.

Basically, in a crude summary, my understanding is that with modern FBW aircraft, the Boeing approach is to create a flying experience for the crew that is as close as they can get it to a traditional cockpit. Essentially, even though the 777 was a full FBW plane, they wanted it to feel as much as possible like a 747. I would call this a "control centric" or even "pilot centric" design approach. Further, it's my understanding that the flight systems will allow the pilot to input any control maneuver he wants, even if it's outside the safe parameters of the plane. It will give warnings, but, if the pilot wants it, he gets it.

By my crude understanding, it seems that the Airbus approach is more computer centric, in that there is no attempt made to make the pilot feel like he's flying a traditional, mechanically controlled plane. If the pilot sets the computers to the right mode, he can make the plane do whatever he wants and the computers won't prevent him, but in normal operation, the computers won't let the pilot fly outside the design parameters of the plane. I've heard it said that the Airbus feels like it was designed by a computer software engineer (which can make it difficult on the pilot, in that software engineers don't think like pilots in the air).

What is you opinion on that? How do you compare flying the French girl with a more traditional approach? Again, I'm just curious, because I'm just strangely interested in things HF related, that's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll try to drive over there this week and look around.

Lew, they were probably doing low level flying training. There are certain routes around the US (and other countries) that are designated for low level training. It's a lot of fun to fly them even if they do get repetitive when you fly the same one over and over.

Thanks Chewey. I am plane crazy and love to see our aviators in action!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry it took so long to respond....was flying and in the simulator all weekend. Ironic huh? Anyway, there is definitely a hotly debated difference between Boeing and Airbus. I understand the points of each company. I know that a lot of Boeing guys are scared of the Airbus based purely on rumors and horror stories that the Airbus won't let you fly the airplane. I think once most guys make the switch to the Bus, and understand the differences and what the Bus computers are trying to do, most of the fear goes away.

A big flight control difference from Boeing is that the sidestick commands a "rate of roll" or a "g-load" for pitch. The stick does not command a flight control surface position linearly. The means the sidestick displacement is the same throughout all speeds flown, unlike Boeings, where a larger control input is required at slow speeds than high speeds. Also, the thrust levers (like Boeing) control a computer, but unlike Boeing.....do not "physically" move back and forth during flight.....which is strange to see and get used to.

It is true, in some circumstances, the Airbus will not let the pilot exceed some "hard limits" that are built into the system. This was designed to prevent breaking the airplane, or impacting cumulo-granite. BUT, if a pilot were to find himself in a situation outside of these hard limits.....he is still able to recover the airplane. The airplane computers have 4-5 different "modes" or "flight control laws" that it operates by. IE....normal flight is "Normal Law", then if you lose a computer or a hydraulic system, you will enter "Alternate Law" which, due to systems degradation....removes some of the "hard" limits in place.

In the above scenario, where a plane is out of control, or outside the "hard" limits.....you will then be in "Abnormal Law" and you will be able to recover the airplane to within limits. So the Bus limits pitch and roll.....and if you were upside down, say, from a nasty wake turbulence encounter, you would be able to roll back over even though the plane exceeded the roll limits.

Yes, its true, the Bus will prevent you from stalling the airplane. Get too slow and it will not allow you to pitch back any further. Get slower at idle thrust and Fifi says...."OK, youre done....you need power" and the thrust will go to firewall on its own. The key for the pilot is knowing how to recognize this, and more importantly, recover from the firewall thrust (TOGA) condition properly. This is in Normal Law though. Lose a few systems, and you can stall the bus no problem. In fact in the simulator thats how we practice....we turn off the flight augmentation computers so they dont "prevent" us from stalling the plane.

So, the limits in place are there to protect us. All that says, yes the Bus does some goofy stuff, but I love it. Its very intuitive to fly, and takes about 2minutes to get used to the sidestick (which there is no connection to the other stick....another hotly debated design). The cockpit is super comfy, I love the tray--table, and all the storage. Im not going anywhere until Im senior enough to hold the big Airbus the A330, and then down the road the A350 we have on order.

Hope this is a good answer.....it can become a loooong discusssion, but ask away!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cj, thanks very much for that write up! To me, that's an extremely enlightening take on the whole "new" cockpit (which isn't even that new anymore). It does reinforce my idea that Fifi is a computer-centric flying experience, but from what you have found, it's actually a very good one. I've always been particularly interested in how it feels to an experienced pilot to move over to the Airbus approach, because, really, ever since the first planes, the controls have worked more or less the same, with mechanical (or simulated mechanical) linkage to the control surfaces. Airbus made no pretense that your sidestick was hooked to the control surfaces, as evidenced by the stick displacement approach, for example. In that regard, they've designed a more truly "transparent" interface, in that they've provided the pilot with a full set of controls optimized to control the plane through an intermediary computer, and not tried to hide the fact that a computer is an integral part of the plane's control system. It's actually quite innovative.

I have spent years designing interface systems for all sorts of digital printing systems. I always liked working on the very high-end production systems the most, where I'm working with trained, skilled operators. It's easy to watch professional users (be it pilots, pressmen, whatever) at work, talk to them, see what they like and don't like, and give them exactly what they expect. It's quite another to give them everything they need and want, but then also give them things they DON'T expect, but which will make them better at their jobs. That's where real innovation comes in.

Good stuff. Thanks. Let's keep this thread going. This is one that could stay interesting for a very long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks! Another thing I read that highlighted the argument was the old AA accident in Cali, Columbia. Long story short, when they tried to out climb the mountain, they left the speedbrakes out since they were descending.......obviously is a huge no no if you want a max climb performance out of a very powerful airplane like the 757. Now Boeing says that the speedbrake position would not have mattered to the outcome, as there was nothing at that point they could do to avoid the hilltop. But, as far as Airbus design.....when you go to TOGA power on the bus (Take-Off Go Around)......the speedbrakes automatically retract. To me, that's a huge benefit of the computer knowing that you cannot climb with speedbrakes deployed.

I'll highlight another recent incident in which a crew tried to go around and accidentally pushed the autothrust disconnect buttons rather than the go around buttons on their Boeing. Now on the Bus......we only have autthrust disconnect buttons. Airbus, very intuitively, designed the go around system to activate when the thrust levers are advanced to the firewall. Since you need full thrust in a go around situation......it takes a lot of guesswork out of the go around procedure for us. If I need to go around.....I firewall the thrust levers....and that's it! the go around mode now activated commands the flight directors properly, allowing me to easily get out of dodge without a second thought.

Another anti-Airbus argument of late relates to the Air France accident a few years back. That stemmed from a pitot tube iced up that gave unreliable airspeed indications to the pilots. It was a total cluster up there as they tragically stalled and fell to the ocean. Some say that Boeing is superior in that both yokes are mechanically linked to one another, so both pilots know what control inputs are being made. I get it.....good design. Now on the AF accident, the pilots were putting in opposite control inputs since the sidesticks are not connected. When that happens, the computer sums the inputs netting zero. Reports will have you believe that's the end of the story, but, when that happens, the autopilot "voice" yells "DUAL INPUT, DUAL INPUT" until one guy releases the stick. And on top of that.....if he doesn't release the stick....either pilot can press and hold the autopilot diconnenct button on the stick and give him full control, cutting the opposing stick out of the loop, and a big arrow lights up in front of both pilots, one red, one green, indicating who has full control. Pretty intuitive I think.

Yes, Airbus give the computer a lot of control, but it's a pretty darn smart computer!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:rolleyes: way to much info, all I need to know is.......

, but ask away!!!!

When does the cocktail service start? :drink-buddy:

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised there was no warning horn for the speedbrakes when the throttles were advanced a certain amount (like above 90%) just like the gear warning horn if you bring the throttles to idle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There probably is, I don't know for sure though. And even if there were....between all the ground proximity warnings screaming to PULL UP.....who knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×