|
vulturesrow posted:They aren't going to call anyone but the field's crash crew in most cases. To my knowledge your average FD isn't really equipped or trained to deal with aircraft emergencies. And believe me, my story was certainly the exception to the norm. By and large the first people on scene will be the ARFF crews; there are guidelines as to how quickly they have to respond at large airports with dedicated fire crews. For testing purposes, 50% of the total firefighting capacity must be able to arrive at a pre-determined point on the airport (usually the midpoint of the furthest runway from the fire hall), and within four minutes all of it must be at said point. It would be a surprise if there was any point on an airport that would be more than five minutes away from the fire hall. Depending on the nature of the emergency (if there is sufficient notice, for example), outside fire departments might be called. Often, they'll be there for stuff like triage/corpse duty, or if buildings become involved in the fire, but rarely for fighting an actual aircraft fire. Also, smaller airports that handle primarily light aircraft would likely use their local fire department for crash response.
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2013 08:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2024 20:09 |
|
|
Aero L-39 Albatros. A Czech-built advanced trainer that has become very popular in the warbird community in the last 10-15 years.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2013 05:29
|
|
|
darknrgy posted:There is a whole philosophy around it being safer inside an airplane than outside after a crash landing because of the risk of an external fuel fire, especially when it is at an airport with an army of emergency vehicles ready to assist. I'm sure most people's first reaction is to just pull those levers and get the gently caress out, and I suspect part of the FA's training is to stop that from happening without some kind of criteria being met or a direct command from the captain. It is specifically to prevent premature evacuation. I can't imagine the pandemonium in this specific example, but it did not seem the FA was acting outside of reason. Everyone jumping up and trying to claw their way out in panic at the same time sounds like dangerous chaos. The FA has to take control of that situation and has only seconds to act whilest almost definitely experiencing some kind of panic of their own. There isn't enough information in that video to make a judgement. Never mind fire, you could be trying to evacuate the aircraft while the engines are still running...that'll spoil your day in a hurry.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2013 21:26
|
|
|
Trents/RB-211s are heinously complicated and literally rear end-backwards compared to other engines. They're not particularly efficient (certainly in the smaller variants - the bigger ones are better) and they're quite a bit heavier than the competition. Still better than any Pratt and Wimpy though.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2013 23:39
|
|
|
I thought the leading cause of JT8D death was bearing failure after all the oil burned/leaked out...
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2013 01:47
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Your kid did a good job with fleet defense but is missing out on any sort of long-range strike. You can fix this by purchasing him some Revell model airplane kits. That's why the F-14 is there. Make that turkey earn it's pay for once.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2013 00:47
|
|
|
jaegerx posted:http://www.independent.co.uk/travel...ts-8749046.html It's happening in the US as well; AA has been the subject of many rants on this very subject, amongst others. According to the letter of the law, it is perfectly legal for Ryanair to restrict fuel loads to the legal minimum. However, if an aircraft fueled as such was to divert for minimum fuel, the pilots could be rung up under the catch-all for allowing the aircraft to get into such a state. It wouldn't get far from the pilot's perspective, as the blame would quickly shift from them to the airline. Also, as much as it would save fuel cost, it overlooks the cost of diverting an airliner - it only takes a handful of extra diversions to completely negate the rather small fuel savings they acheived. Penny-wise but pound-stupid, if you ask me. Jealous Cow posted:Is it normal for a 27 year old to be in charge of 177 passengers? Even if he spent 18-26 flying for the military that seems like insufficient experience to have so much responsibility. They do things very different in Europe to North America. Many airlines operate cadet programs that will take you pretty much right out of high school (or the equivalent) and into an airliner after 18-24 months of training and roughly 250 hours of experience. Also, they are really pushing the multi-crew pilot license over there, which allows pilots to move up to PIC a lot faster. The standard ATPL license has a fairly large requirement for PIC cross-country flying, which if you're flying right seat in a 737 as your first job, you're probably not going to get any time soon. Instead of that, there are a number of other requirements to get an MCPL that must be met that are more applicable to scheduled airline flying.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2013 23:24
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:Are European Pilots not unionized? Or is everyone going to view with alarm until catastrophe happens and then figure out who to blame afterwards. (If there's never a problem, there's no need to get the courts involved, etc.) Ryanair's pilots are employed on a contract basis only; while they are amongst the highest paid pilots in Europe for their aircraft type/size, the contract structure compels their pilots to work when they are otherwise unfit to fly. There was a case in 2006 when a Ryanair flight was forced to make an emergency landing...it came out that the captain's son had died only 10 days before and he had a breakdown. I don't know about you, but I probably wouldn't be good to fly in that situation. Edit: It was 2006. MrChips fucked around with this message at 03:53 on Aug 8, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2013 03:49
|
|
|
Linedance posted:Really? That surprises me. I thought Ryanair was a pay-to-fly operation, where the pilots pay the airline to get a seat and get their hours up. I think Ryanair requires you have 737 type training/rating (not sure how those work with MCPLs or JAA frozen ATPLs) which unless you somehow have that on your license it comes out of your pocket, naturally, to the tune of $40-ish thousand dollars. Southwest Airlines did that for a long time too, IIRC. The closest we have in North America to Ryanair is probably Spirit or Allegiant Air; mercifully, neither of them have cabins that look like they ploughed through an IKEA sign on the way to the airport. As for Canada, we've never really had an equivalent; JetsGo and Greyhound Air (remember them?) were probably the closest we ever got to Ryanair-level antics.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2013 05:45
|
|
|
Have they been spiking their MREs with LSD or something? This is the stupidest idea I've heard for a long time. It really is the proverbial "using a Formula 1 car to do the groceries" scenario. Using a helicopter (OK, not really a helicopter) to refuel fast jets...wow. What's the over/under they'll lose one or more aircraft because of the hellacious wake turbulence coming off the Osprey?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2013 22:28
|
|
|
That's at sea level, though; I'd bet that the F-35 would be burning fuel as fast as the tanker is offloading it at that altitude. My issue is that the V-22 is going to have such a minuscule offload capability that it just doesn't make any sense. What's wrong with just using their existing KC-130s anyway?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2013 23:48
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:What is the max payload for that bastard anyways? This reeks of someone trying to get an OPR bullet for stupid poo poo. 20,000 pounds, if Wikipedia is correct. So that's 20,000 pounds out of which the weight of tanks and refuelling equipment must also come. If this "KV-22B" could offload 8,000 pounds of fuel when all is said and done, they'd be lucky.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2013 05:43
|
|
|
Tide posted:Maybe 100'. No, they're way higher than that; probably in the area of 400-500' above ground. The DC-10 is a damned large aircraft - 170 feet long - and the aircraft is something like 2.5 aircraft lengths above the horizon line (which is about the level of the cul-de-sac), which gives you a bit more than 400' AGL. What makes this deceptive is that the perspective in this shot makes you think the aircraft is a lot closer than it actually is. Having spent a lot of time watching low-flying aircraft, a rough and ready rule I've found is to take the height you think the aircraft is at, then triple it. A little Cessna buzzing around the circuit at an airport looks really low - without knowing, most people would estimate its height at 300-400 feet off the ground - but in reality, it'll more than likely be 1000 feet off the ground.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2013 22:53
|
|
|
Back to water bomber chat for a moment, have a look at this: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cdc_1376026008 (doesn't Liveleak embed? Not that it matters since that stuff hardly works in my phone browser) Before anyone asks why a water bomber is dropping on a road accident, this took place on the Trans-Labrador Highway, which is one of the most remote roads in North America; parts of it are several hours drive from the nearest settlement.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2013 16:45
|
|
|
pkells posted:The reviews I saw for Planes were pretty bad. For someone who loves aircraft and would totally guilt my parents into buying me all the toys and merch from the movie if I were 10, is it still worth a watch? Yeah, it probably is. It isn't very good to be honest, but if you love airplanes, it will be somewhat entertaining.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2013 01:36
|
|
|
Watch an F-104 do the infamous "touch-roll-touch" maneuver: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyBDEG9dg-Q I think the pilots at the end are applauding more for the fact that the demo pilot isn't a smear on the runway than anything else.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2013 18:14
|
|
|
SeaborneClink posted:21 pilots died as a direct result of a downward firing ejector seat. They had to wear special stirrups that were attached to cables which upon firing of the ejection seat, would retract in effect binding the legs to the seat. The C-2 seat, fitted to the majority of F-104s, actually fired upward (the downward firing seats were only fitted to the first hundred or so Starfighters). The C-2 had stirrups because it was thought they would prevent flail injuries, as well as to ensure the pilot didn't leave his shins behind in the aircraft.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2013 01:01
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Also the -G wasn't so much a prank as it was a prime example of what Lockheed's bribe money could get them. Seriously outside of what Kelly Johnson and Ben Rich designed everything that company has ever done can just gently caress right off. But Kelly Johnson designed the F-104! Also, I've said it before, but I'll say it again; there wasn't anything about the F-104 itself that made it an inherently dangerous or otherwise bad aircraft. If you take a brand new air force that had only flown simple, slow F-84s and F-86s, then give them a complex, Mach 2-capable fighter, then tell them to fly at 480 knots and a hundred feet of the ground over a country notorious for cloudy and hazy weather...yeah, you're going to have a LOT of accidents. Having said that, Lockheed and their bribery can gently caress right off though. OptimusMatrix posted:HD video of the most awesome airplane ever. The F14. The F-14 is like the C3 Corvette of fighter aircraft; cool as hell to look at but irredeemably bad underneath.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2013 22:19
|
|
|
Mike-o posted:You shut your whore mouth  Now tell me again, with a straight face, that Top Gun is awesome.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2013 01:26
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Yeah, and intended it for a single sole solitary purpose: a point defense interceptor intended to be as light as possible with as powerful an engine as possible in order to fly high and fast. The fact that Lockheed bastardized the design into the -G and got people to buy it for multi-role ground attack (which led to the problems you lay out) just proves the point further. gently caress LockMart. Again, I would disagree with that. The characteristics that gave the F-104 its performance at high altitude also gave it incredible performance at low altitude as well. The tiny wing made it capable of truly eye-watering speed at very low altitude, all while making it a very stable gun platform. RCAF Starfighter crews would wipe the floor with just about everybody else in bombing competitions all over Europe for a very long time; at least, until the Starfighter wasn't horribly outmoded by other more modern aircraft. Also, you have to consider that when the F-104 was bought by NATO there was a real (though somewhat unjustified) fear that the Warsaw Pact was fielding large numbers of supersonic fighter aircraft, as well as huge amounts of armour too. It was felt that the existing fleet of F-86s (which by then was pretty much the standard Western fighter aircraft) was no longer suitable for the missions it was tasked with. NATO held a competition to replace the Sabre with another aircraft to be used as a day fighter and ground attack aircraft (with us Canadians adding another role for ourselves; that of low-level nuclear strike). These are the aircraft that were considered: -Fiat G.91: Not a bad aircraft inherently, but it can be thought of as little more than a slightly uprated Sabre. Although it was cheap, it just wasn't enough aircraft for the mission. -Dassault Mirage III: A very good aircraft, but frosty relations between France and NATO at the time (remember, France withdrew from NATO in the 1960s) meant it was a non-starter. -Blackburn Buccaneer: Good for low-level attack, but seriously hampered as a day fighter. No aircraft before or since has had so much thrust installed yet been so incapable of supersonic flight. -Northrop N-156: Another good, cheap aircraft, but it was so cheap that it was looked on as not being enough aircraft for anyone but developing nations. -Grumman F11F-1F: Probably the best, most capable aircraft of the group, but the lack of a US Navy order essentially sealed its fate. Other aircraft were considered in the competition (Breguet Taon, Republic F-105, EE Lightning), but were dismissed due to lack of performance, cost and lack of range respectively. As such, the F-104G was pretty much the best aircraft of a not very good lot, even with its rather serious compromises. The ironic thing is that the F-104G would likely have won a majority of the orders at stake standing on merit alone.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2013 21:44
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:It's 744 engines on a 742. They also have a hybrid -400 and -200 flight deck.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2013 03:44
|
|
|
Water bombers, as usual, are pretty loving cool. With bonus birddog action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StbmiJTgbzo
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2013 06:09
|
|
|
drgitlin posted:Saying the A-10 isn't beautiful is not mutually exclusive with thinking it's a really cool plane, FWIW. The A-10 isn't exactly an ugly aircraft, especially when aerodynamically clean; it is actually fairly well-proportioned and has a very functional look to it. On the subject of the Constellation and it's good looks - it is one of the all-time best-looking aircraft in history - you have to remember that the Connie's contemporaries weren't exactly lookers. The DC-6 would be best described as functional in appearance,  While the Boeing 377 Stratocruiser was, well, butt-ugly. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2013 22:19
|
|
|
fknlo posted:Where/how do they shoot those kinds of videos? Having arranged a few vanity trips at my old job, all of that is pre-arranged, not only with all the PICs involved, but also with ATC. Typically we would figure out when and where we want to photograph, then arrange for an altitude block when we file our flight plan. We'll talk with the ATC unit in charge of the airspace we want to use (if there is any; uncontrolled airspace makes these things a hell of a lot easier) to figure out a plan that works for both parties. Then with all that information in tow, we would file a flight plan (if the shoot is in controlled airspace) with the contact info for the person we dealt with in the ATC unit, just to confirm details. With all that done, only then it's kick the tires and light the fires.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2013 01:18
|
|
|
PhotoKirk posted:Don't forget that it would have spewed radiation out of the exhaust, irradiating everything it flew over. There was one proposal to have it criss-cross over enemy territory after it had dropped all of its warheads. The radiation SLAM emitted would have been nothing compared to the damage it would have done simply by flying over. You have to remember that it was designed to fly at Mach 3.5 and a couple hundred feet above ground. The shockwave generated by the aircraft flying over would have flattened just about any building.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2013 04:25
|
|
|
RandomPauI posted:Are there airplane equivalents to the Volkswagon Beetle or the Honda Civic? The Piper Cub is the VW Beetle of the skies; just like its automotive namesake, ask any pilot of a certain age and they'll have a story about "this one time, in a Cub..." except there will (likely) be a whole lot less marijuana use in the comparable Cub story. The Cessna 172 is more like the Toyota Corolla of the skies; solid and cheap to run but small and largely devoid of speed or character. As for other aircraft, the Beech King Air is pretty much the Ford F150 of the skies in that it can go anywhere (and is everywhere) and can do just about anything you ask of it...plus it handles like a truck too. The Beech Bonanza would be the Mercedes S-Class of piston singles (though its doctor-killing reputation would be more in line with the Porsche 930 Turbo), while your averae Piper single would be the Ford Focus of the skies (though the Tomahawk is more the Ford Festiva). Aerobatic aircraft are like your track day cars; Lotus Elises, Caterhams and the like. Business jets are the luxury cars of the aviation world; the Cessna Citation is like the BMW 3-Series in that it is cheap(ish), very capable and available in many different performance levels. The Citation Mustang is like the 316d (lol), while at the other end of the spectrum the Citation X is more like the M3 of business jets. Falcons and Gulfstreams are the Bentleys and Rolls-Royce of that class as well. As for airliners, I tend to group them more by manufacturers than by models. Boeings are the Fords of the skies (the big, lumbering American giant known the world over for good but otherwise bland products) while Airbus is the Toyota of the sky (the upstart foreigner who nearly unseated the American giant with innovative products). McDonnell-Douglas would be the Chrysler of the aircraft builders; a company that was once a giant of the industry, only to have rotted from the inside out for decades, then met an ignomious end. Lockheed, in terms of airliners only, would be Rolls-Royce; they don't build many, but the airliners they build are/were unquestionably the best available and are all icons in their own right.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2013 05:28
|
|
|
PatrickBateman posted:So..... which model is a Fiero? Wait, don't answer that. I would say the Fiero of the skies would be the Grumman American singles, like the AA-5 Tiger. A neat looking airplane designed ostensibly to be a sporty aircraft, but by the time it made production it was repurposed to be an everyday runabout, only it kept a lot of the weird features from its initial purpose.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2013 06:12
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:It sure is, thats why we have planes other than the A-10 in our inventory. I suppose we should get rid of the AC-130 too and only fly B-2, F-35s and F-22s? Of course we can when you mount LASERS in the F-35, then you won't need anything else in the inventory ever!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2013 20:16
|
|
|
The hero and the beautiful exotic woman he's rescued are frantically preflighting their aircraft before the baddie and his henchman show up to capture them... ...when all of a sudden, a weedy little man in a reflective vest walks up and says, "good afternoon, I'm <so and so> from the FAA; please have all your aircraft documents and crew licenses ready for inspection."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2013 20:10
|
|
|
With the refueling complete, the hero and his crew reboard the aircraft, zombies clawing at the fuselage as the rear cargo door locks into place. With a small sense of relief, our hero performs a headcount...one person is missing! "Where's Jenkins?!" he shouts. "Has anyone seen Jenkins?! The crew looks around, horrified. The hero looks at the load master station; Jenkins didn't wear his reflective vest. "Goddammit, he left without his vest. We have to go after him!" "Sir, you have to understand," one of the crew members said, "without that vest, he's as good as gone."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2013 21:27
|
|
|
It's been posted before, but I love this anecdote about the XF8U-3:quote:
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2013 00:40
|
|
|
The XF8U-3 was very fast, but there seems to be a lot of hyperbole as to just how fast it was. Many sources I've seen quote a maximum speed of Mach 2.6, but I've seen another (and even Wikipedia is saying it now) that claim a maximum attained speed of Mach 2.39 (which is still really loving fast). This would make sense to me, as aircraft made out of aluminum are limited to around Mach 2.3 or so due to aerodynamic heating issues. Despite that, M2.39 is still way faster than the F-4 could go, to say nothing of how difficult max speed in the Phantom was to achieve; there was a very specific flight profile you had to follow with target speeds, altitudes, attitudes and G-loadings that you had to meet all the way up.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2013 02:17
|
|
|
Blistex posted:I was too young to remember most of it, but I do remember the Liberals feeding the media photos from a brochure showing how the EH101 could have a "luxury loadout" with leather chairs and wood cabinetry and the debate being how the conservatives just wanted to waste taxpayer money on expensive flying limos for themselves while our Sea King fleet slowly fell apart. It was sort of forgotten how they were needed to save lives and despite the really good deal, they wanted to start the multi-million dollar procurement procedure over again. It`s been nearly 30 years, and we`re still waiting I believe. The government cancelled the EH101 purchase - at great cost, I might add - but ended up buying them anyways as SAR aircraft not long after. After that, they kicked the can down the road on the anti-submarine chopper until 2004 when they signed a contract to buy the Cyclone, with first deliveries in 2008 (and entry to service in 2009). Seeing as it's now 2013 and we've yet to have a single Cyclone delivered (and now we likely never will), that shows just how hosed our procurement is here in Canada.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2013 02:01
|
|
|
Powercube posted:The VM-T Atlant I'm writing up a big post about Vladimir Myashischev and the aircraft he designed...keep an eye out in the near future for what is turning out to be a pretty interesting story.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2013 02:17
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:So Westjet's regional Livery is pretty terrible compared to it's competition: Not only is their paint bad, their pay is bad too! A first-year first officer at Encore makes just under $32k per year, with a level of experience equivalent to five to seven years in the industry.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2013 23:59
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:I'm guessing it's pretty much the last stretch the wings can handle. I'm only going by the "if it looks right it'll fly right" principle here though Not quite; Bombardier is thinking of building a 90-seat variant of the Q400...emphasis on thinking about it. It is possible from a technical standpoint, but will anyone buy it? They're not so sure. As an aside, from a pilot's perspective, flying a Q400 after an earlier model Dash is like dying and going to heaven, they're that much better, and it's not like the early models (-100 to Q300) are bad aircraft in any way. Just to give some perspective; each engine on the Q400 puts out more power than both engines on the 50-seat Q300, to say nothing of the smaller -100. Bugsmasher posted:Canadian Airlines "Proud Wings" livery was the best we've ever seen from a Canadian carrier. Yes, that Canadian logo was incredible; shame it didn't last long. As for your other point, watch this space, circa 2020 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2013 04:03
|
|
|
Powercube posted:Westjet will never order widebodies, they don't want to compete with the big dog in Montreal who gets all the sweet, sweet, government favouritism. Never is a pretty strong word. If you asked anyone in Westjet's senior management in 2002 the question "Are you guys going to expand your fleet beyond 737s?" The answer was pretty much gently caress no (especially if you asked one of the co-founders in particular), and yet here we are today, with a turboprop regional airline and wet-leased 757s. If they are going to order wide bodies, it will be after Encore is well-established, the 737 fleet renewal is mostly complete and a couple other things go down to plan. Ten years from now is kind of the absolute earliest they would be in a position to do so and even then, it would be a small order. Speaking of that co-founder, I asked him once about the Westjet livery at about the same time. The all-white fuselage was chosen because it was simple and clean-looking - I learned later that he sort of had an obsession with keeping aircraft spotless - not because it saves money at the paint shop, which it does, but not in an amount that anyone would call significant.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2013 19:50
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:That TU-128 is silly. With the combat doctrine of the early 60s I'm half surprised they didn't propose putting rotary launchers of AIM-7s and an AWACS radar on a B-52. Well, the Tu-128 was designed with very important and specific role in mind; the Russians knew they couldn't afford to build a network of radars and interceptor bases like we/the Americans did, so they had to basically bring the radar with the interceptor. Slo-Tek posted:Seems kinda crazy, for a number of reasons. Think they are serious about this? Would having an installed base of Gripens in the US make it easier for Saab to sell some to Canada? How is reselling Gripens better than T-38-ifying an F-18? (or tooling up for a T-38NG) Nope. The Canadian government, true to form regardless of who's in power, is in full-on "kick the can down the road so it's the next guy's problem" mode right now. In all honesty, while I've said that the Rafale would be the best aircraft for Canada, I'm now of the opinion that the Advanced Super Hornet is the best suited aircraft for our needs, though I imagine with those conformal tanks that it's a slow aircraft made even slower. Bugsmasher posted:Are you talking about Beddoe or Morgan? Well you probably had an idea who it is already if that's the case, but it's Morgan. He might be a hard-rear end and a perfectionist, but I've got nothing but respect for the guy.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2013 03:36
|
|
|
Chinatown posted:Want to sear that logo into a steak. I can confirm that a jet-fighter steak does indeed taste way better than a normal steak.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2013 00:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2024 20:09 |
|
|
Koesj posted:Did P&W engines get better the last couple of years? Both this and the 2nd generation of E-jets are supposed to use them and all I've head about Pratt's civilian products (might be here in this very thread!) is that they're poo poo. Everything that Pratt has done since the JT8D has been crap one way or another; most often, this refers to them not meeting performance or reliability targets. These repeated failures, along with a lack of products in key markets (an engine in the 20-30,000 lb thrust class; 737 and A320 sized basically) essentially drove them out of the airliner engine market from the late 1990s. Funny thing is, they weren't all that concerned at the time as their defense business was going like gangbusters. With those expenditures drying up and with the civilian market still growing, Pratt has decided once again to re-enter the airliner engine market. From what I gather about the PW1000G, they've been very careful to not repeat their failures from twenty years ago. At the moment, everything is pointing to that engine meeting or exceeding expectations so far, which is almost unheard of; most all-new engines seem to come in a few percent worse than targets for the first couple of years of service. I'll bet it'll still leak oil like nobody's business though.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2013 21:59
|
|