Civil Aviation Ministry of Information thread


#245

I once did a very CONSERVATIVE version of that down the runway. Later I walked over to the glider club beer drinkers at their picnic table in woods with a nice view of the runway and they were miffed. They said that I had scared the ■■■■ out of them. (I didn’t know they cared!)

Skip is a little bit nuts. I am not sure what to make of him. Or even if I have a right to an opinion.


#246

Thats what I call a crab angle!


#247

He’s lined up perfectly fine. They built the runway in the wrong direction.


#248

That looks insane! There’s no reserves of anything, just imagine that engine getting a bite of bad air and stutter for a second… ouch.


#249

Great news for Bombardier today:


#250

Why must Boeing be such a slimmy den of cold blooded reptiles? Is it because so much of their civilian market isn’t a market at all but secretive royal oil money that combines military and civilian procurement in ways we may never understand? Or is it because they’ve subsist off the generous support of the US taxpayer? Ever since the corrupt 767 tanker lease fiasco I’ve stopped being a fan. They are simply evil. …but they sure build nice airplanes! I am glad they’ve lost this one. May their losses continue.


#251

I am not feeling any sympathy for Boeing on this one either. I hope that there are some real consequences for them this time.

The cancellation of the Super Hornet order from Canada is a great start, although I am sure Boeing is still going to profit from supporting the used F/A 18’s purchased from Australia. Canada should have purchased something not affiliated with Boeing in the slightest (Typhoon or Rafale maybe?) .


#252

Yeah they could have bought EU or French aircraft but that would have costs them so much more.

So, for all our pilot brethren here, any thoughts on how insane the MAX is becoming with landing speed? MX wise it’s not really good…


#253

That half a Typhoon (CEF-200088? CF-28888?) or four Rafales sans missiles they can budget will sure discourage them Russians, eh? :smile:

Go with the Grippen. Similar cost bracket, same weapons, same engines. You get a neat fighter, get to stick it to the man, and it doesn’t completely upend your logistics for thirty years.


#254

Gripen would be a good choice although it is missing an engine, which is probably good insurance when operating over the Great White North. Of course, it’s cold in Sweden too ;).


#255

Looks like a place our friend @Troll might frequent…


#256

Oh yes! :slight_smile:


#257

Little example for our avian brethren in here on why lightning strikes cause so many inspections: https://imgur.com/a/0nZBr

Not mine, found in the aviation maintenance reddit.


#258

Mmm…that’s no fun. And lightning strikes have a way of manifesting themselves on later flights with funky avionics and systems symptoms. One of the CJs I flew was hit by lightning once (I wasn’t flying it) and it blew chunks out of both composite ailerons. Another Ultra that was based in the hangar next to us was hit and the lightning entry point was on the nose and the entire ventral centerline skin was perforated with dozens of tiny holes. I’ve heard lightning thunder in the cockpit before…but to my knowledge, I’ve not been hit. But who knows…


#259

I was flying over Bogota last Summer at night when we flew through what must have been the top of a developing cell. There were other, fully developed cells all around us, so we were trying to pick our way through. It certainly gets your attention when the stall warning and stick shaker momentarily activates at FL450 with lightning flashes in all directions (including right beneath you). Maintenance looked for evidence of a lightning strike after we landed but surprisingly nothing was found.


#260

Coming home…


#261

That looks like my original Air Hauler base…LOL…


#262

We will start flying our first Max9 in a couple of months. The company has starting distributing training material in preparation and I thought that I would finally be able to address this question.

Here is the entry in the QRH performance section:

PERFORMANCE TABLES
This section is “TBD”. This is due to the aircraft not being certified yet; therefore, most performance data has not been provided by Boeing. The data is not required to meet pilot qualifications. But of course will be in place before you fly the jet.


#263

Funny, the forum software erases everything I write after that quote. Have I offended @discobot?

With zero knowledge to back this up, I suspect that the Max9 will have a lower ref than our “straight” (non-ER) 737-900s, even at the higher weights. I don’t know of any airliner in existence that lands faster than they do. It’s my least favorite seven-three, but I have never heard a mechanic complain.


#264

Hi! To find out what I can do, say @discobot display help.