|
Holy poo poo, what time was it when it happened? Was it closed? (hopefully)  In better news, that old 737 made it, apparently without a hitch. First time she's been in the air for 9 years and first time in a long time a 737 was on that airports runway. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/737-plane-leaves-city-centre-airport-for-new-home-1.2445868 quote:A Boeing 737 formerly at the Alberta Aviation Museum has successfully completed its flight to its new home at Villeneuve Airport northwest of Edmonton.
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 01:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 23:15 |
|
|
The 737 sure looks more natural with those original engines
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 01:45
|
|
|
Good-looking jet right there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 01:46
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Holy poo poo, what time was it when it happened? Was it closed? (hopefully) 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 02:05
|
|
|
I know it's just a 737, but here is a better article with much better photos and vid of the entire flight. The news chopper was left in the dust but the camera operator did a great job. When I first read "10 min flight" I was a little surprised since that seemed really long (I am very familiar with the area) but watching the video looks like they decided to do a low pass . That fuel isn't going to be used so might as well burn it up  http://globalnews.ca/news/999859/737-takes-off-from-city-centre-airport-lands-safely-at-new-home/ 
slidebite fucked around with this message at 02:13 on Nov 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 02:11
|
|
|
slidebite posted:I know it's just a 737, but here is a better article with much better photos and vid of the entire flight. The news chopper was left in the dust but the camera operator did a great job. When I first read "10 min flight" I was a little surprised since that seemed really long (I am very familiar with the area) but watching the video looks like they decided to do a low pass . That fuel isn't going to be used so might as well burn it up It's a sad day in Canadian history with CYXD closing down. It was one of the first licensed airports in Canada, and it was the jumping off point for virtually all of the flights into the North for the better part of thirty years - the flights that opened up Canada's north. Also, it was the start of the final leg of the Northwest Staging Route, an air route (in the days before long-range radio navigation was really widespread) between the US and Siberia, largely following the Alaska Highway. Thousands of aircraft flew from CYXD during World War II to help with the war effort, and the infrastructure left behind (a sizeable part of it still in use today) helped further open up our northern territories. For a very long time as well (from 1927 when it opened until 1960), it was the only airport in Edmonton, and up until 1994 it had regularly scheduled airline traffic - I was, purely by coincidence, on one of the last airline flights out of the old Muni before all that traffic shifted to the international airport out in Nisku. On a personal level, I learned to fly there back in 2000 and as a professional pilot later on, I've flown in and out of there innumerable times as well. A lot of memories there for me, and I'm sad to see it close. MrChips fucked around with this message at 02:43 on Nov 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 02:38
|
|
|
MrChips posted:it was the only airport in Edmonton, and up until 1994 it had regularly scheduled airline traffic - I was, purely by coincidence, on one of the last airline flights out of the old Muni before all that traffic shifted to the international airport out in Nisku. First time I flew to LAX it was via YXD. I remember vividly because when I got back it was January and colder than gently caress. I also missed the Northridge Earthquake by 1 day that same trip  I still miss the commercial service too. As someone that has family only about 15 minutes away (St. Albert) it's a royal pain in the rear end going to/from YEG. Last flight I ever had to it was with Peace Air from YQU in the middle of winter, probably around 2000-2001. To this day I am amazed we even landed. It was in a king air and we were about 3 hours and a flight late and well after midnight at this point. I was sitting right behind the pilot. We were completely IFR and there was zero visibility in ice fog, probably -30C or so. I was torn between looking out the windshield for airport lights (just as he was) and waiting to intersect the glideslope/localizer. Seemed like an eternity. Missed the first approach, and he mentioned about maybe diverting to the intl. I said as long as we made it in 1 piece at this point, I'd be OK with whatever he wanted. I was sure he was going to go to the Intl, but he decided to try again and we made it down the second time. I got out of the plane and almost fell straight on my rear end because the apron was completely iced over and it was virtually unwalkable. Probably almost took 5 minutes to walk the 50' to the avitat. slidebite fucked around with this message at 03:07 on Nov 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 02:59
|
|
|
That reminds me of what happened back in 2011 when my crew and I elected to divert to Anchorage Intl because Elmendorf went to poo poo very quickly. We landed fine and had the follow me truck park us on the Fed Ex/UPS ramp. Well those dudes operate way less restricted in terms of RCR which was a hilarious shock to us when we discovered that the ramp was about an inch and a half of solid ice. I mean completely frozen over. Hockey games could've been held out on there. It was incredibly slick. Our squadron commander had to come out the next day, Christmas Eve by the way, to take the jet back to Elmo. The regs tied our hands, we couldn't legally move the jet, but the goddamn E-3 couldn't hang out at the airport without incurring huge fees so we got the go ahead. It was a very, very slow taxi. Along with that anecdote, I have a photo of the most amazing de-icing that I've ever done. 4 trucks showed up and got the poo poo done in a few minutes. Compared to what I was used to (45 min on a good day with our ground personnel), this was magic. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 03:17
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Is this the "guys I'm concerned" crash? holocaust bloopers posted:If by that you mean the one where the shut down engine's throttle was left up and out of detent then yes. Illuminati by Nature posted:This never stops being a classic VikingSkull posted:I always imagine he says that while looking out of the window and a squirrel waves at him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 04:23
|
|
|
Groda posted:Link, or go die in a fire. http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-7918.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 05:00
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:That reminds me of what happened back in 2011 when my crew and I elected to divert to Anchorage Intl because Elmendorf went to poo poo very quickly. The only time I ever diverted was a counter-drug mission where we got walled off by a line of thunderstorms so we spent a couple of days in San Juan, PR. Landed in the middle of the night, the pilot had an argument on the ground freq with the tower because the route they wanted us to taxi to the FedEx ramp wasn't rated for the E-3's weight and whatnot. Dude in the tower couldn't understand why "Well 747s taxi there all the time!" wasn't good enough.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 06:13
|
|
|
Godholio posted:The only time I ever diverted was a counter-drug mission where we got walled off by a line of thunderstorms so we spent a couple of days in San Juan, PR. Landed in the middle of the night, the pilot had an argument on the ground freq with the tower because the route they wanted us to taxi to the FedEx ramp wasn't rated for the E-3's weight and whatnot. Dude in the tower couldn't understand why "Well 747s taxi there all the time!" wasn't good enough. The E-3 has a larger 'footprint' than a C-5 so yea it's not intuitive at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 06:15
|
|
|
Groda posted:Link, or go die in a fire. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI5xTmmPbsY
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 22:29
|
|
|
Godholio posted:The only time I ever diverted was a counter-drug mission where we got walled off by a line of thunderstorms so we spent a couple of days in San Juan, PR. Landed in the middle of the night, the pilot had an argument on the ground freq with the tower because the route they wanted us to taxi to the FedEx ramp wasn't rated for the E-3's weight and whatnot. Dude in the tower couldn't understand why "Well 747s taxi there all the time!" wasn't good enough. holocaust bloopers posted:The E-3 has a larger 'footprint' than a C-5 so yea it's not intuitive at all. Can you explain why that is that? Wiki has every 747 version a lot heavier than an E-3.. or is it because the number of wheels on the landing gear?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 22:36
|
|
|
It's how the weight is divided between the landing gears/wheels. The technical name is 'aircraft classification number' or ACN. Acceptable ACN's for runways, ramps, and taxi ways are listed in airfield info in the appropriate books.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 22:43
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Can you explain why that is that? Wiki has every 747 version a lot heavier than an E-3.. or is it because the number of wheels on the landing gear? That's exactly it. What causes problems is the ground pressure not necessarily the amount of weight. A 707 was designed for a specific pressure, but then the Air Force threw a giant radar on it and the equipment to use it and didn't care about the ground pressure because it wasn't as bad as some of the other aircraft they were operating. I think its the B-36 prototype that had two giant tires for its main landing gear. They dropped that idea after they relaxed that there were only 2 or 3 air fields it could operate out of.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 22:53
|
|
|
727-200s actually have some of the highest ground pressures of any commercial aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 23:07
|
|
|
^^^IIRC the 727 has been surpassed by the A330, B777-300ER and the MD-11, which has the highest loading of any civilian aircraft. The highest loading I know of period is the B-52.hobbesmaster posted:That's exactly it. What causes problems is the ground pressure not necessarily the amount of weight. A 707 was designed for a specific pressure, but then the Air Force threw a giant radar on it and the equipment to use it and didn't care about the ground pressure because it wasn't as bad as some of the other aircraft they were operating. The biggest reason why the B-36 prototype used those huge single wheels was due to the primitive brakes and hydraulics of the time. The high-pressure hydraulics needed to power modern-style, multi-disc brakes were devised after the B-36 prototype was started (but before series production began). To generate the braking force the needed, they had to use gigantic low-pressure brakes, hence the huge main wheels. MrChips fucked around with this message at 23:35 on Nov 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 23:29
|
|
|
There's probably some interesting developments that were made because of thrust reversers. Brake tech could only have gone so far before something had to give. I know with the 707, the jet got away without thrust reversers on account of how sick the brakes were. Stopping distance still is pretty lovely compared to recent jets.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 23:52
|
|
|
MrChips posted:^^^IIRC the 727 has been surpassed by the A330, B777-300ER and the MD-11, which has the highest loading of any civilian aircraft. The highest loading I know of period is the B-52. Before they sorted out trucked landing gear, they tried some other things... 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 00:09
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:Before they sorted out trucked landing gear, they tried some other things... That's incredible. I can't picture a plane landing without sending pieces of track everywhere, followed by the wheels, followed by everything else just flying apart in neat bite size chunks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 00:30
|
|
|
Everything about the B-36 is absolutely bonkers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 00:31
|
|
|
nnnnghhhhgnnngh posted:That's incredible. Video of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDCgMlomhvM Though it was for reduced ground-pressure, not for unimproved strips.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 00:34
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:There's probably some interesting developments that were made because of thrust reversers. Brake tech could only have gone so far before something had to give. I know with the 707, the jet got away without thrust reversers on account of how sick the brakes were. Stopping distance still is pretty lovely compared to recent jets. At least in the civilian world, reverse thrust of any kind is just bonus stopping power. Pretty much all takeoff and landing performance calculations are made without factoring the use of reverse thrust. Braking systems have improved significantly over the years too, with the advent of antiskid on the BAC Trident and the 1960s to the adoption of carbon ceramic brakes on the Airbus A310 in the 1980s, airliner wheel brakes are orders of magnitude more effective than those on the 707.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 00:37
|
|
|
Huh. That's cool. Didnt know that TR wasn't factored into the data. The E-3 does have a totally awesome anti-skid system. It's pretty sweet landing on an RCR 10 runway and watching the lights flicker like crazy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 01:04
|
|
|
It'd be kind of ironic to not make your landing after en engine loss.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 01:23
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Everything about the B-36 is absolutely bonkers. Hey, don't forget the C-99
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 01:29
|
|
|
I still  when I see photos of that thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 01:47
|
|
|
The start of that video is like watching the opening to Space Balls, more and more airplane goes past and it never seems to end.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 02:30
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsTayoiTWTw Old documentaries are the best documentaries. (Well, okay, this one isn't that old, I think it's 1990-ish.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 02:36
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Huh. That's cool. Didnt know that TR wasn't factored into the data. The E-3 does have a totally awesome anti-skid system. It's pretty sweet landing on an RCR 10 runway and watching the lights flicker like crazy. evil_bunnY posted:It'd be kind of ironic to not make your landing after en engine loss. Uh...
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 02:36
|
|
|
-135 crews just love to be like, "Hey AWACS..... so we lost our activity and need to mosey on home. How about you take 60k of gas so we can just get out of here?! TTTTHHHAAANNNKKKSSSS!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 02:41
|
|
|
How is tanker fuel metered/handled budget-wise? Can't imagine the pilot has to cut a funding document from the cockpit every time he/she wants fuel...
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 02:46
|
|
|
My uncle has been making a kit airplane in his garage for the past few years: I'll get more details.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 02:56
|
|
|
grover posted:How is tanker fuel metered/handled budget-wise? Can't imagine the pilot has to cut a funding document from the cockpit every time he/she wants fuel... holocaust bloopers posted:-135 crews just love to be like, "Hey AWACS..... so we lost our activity and need to mosey on home. How about you take 60k of gas so we can just get out of here?! TTTTHHHAAANNNKKKSSSS!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 03:00
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Domestically or for combat ops? Domestically there's an arrangement where receiver units are charged a certain rate for training sorties and offloaded fuel. Combat ops are a whole different ball of wax. Haha you can be honest here. It's no secret that tankers try really hard to get the gently caress out of AR track and back home in record time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 03:04
|
|
|
Gullous posted:My uncle has been making a kit airplane in his garage for the past few years: Is that a Hummelbird?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 03:10
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Haha you can be honest here. It's no secret that tankers try really hard to get the gently caress out of AR track and back home in record time.  I had to carry an extra 60k" is less than nothing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 03:20
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:In a few decades, when the NDAs from our combat operations expire, I'm going to write a book about all the stupid poo poo receivers do when the tanker doesn't cost them anything and can't tell them to get hosed. Your " Believe you me, taking extra gas so you guys can fly home after having receivers stiff you is nothing compared to what the dipshit AWO community does to AWACS. That's for another day and another thread though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 03:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 23:15 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Domestically or for combat ops? Domestically there's an arrangement where receiver units are charged a certain rate for training sorties and offloaded fuel. Combat ops are a whole different ball of wax.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 03:30
|
|