# The Aviation buff thread



## MacGenius (Nov 13, 2001)

Ok, this thread is for aviation lovers!!

Share your thoughts, picture, links and experiences here.
Some of you you've seen my picture gallery (http://www.ehmac.ca/gallery/showgallery.php?ppuser=905&cat=500) have figured out that I'm a plane nut (no pun intended). I'm currently finishing the build of my second aircraft. She's due to fly in the spring. It's been a true labour of love to get to this point but here's something even bigger...

I saw a news story that the new Airbus A380 is being rolled out today in France. It is due to go into service in 2006. First flight is expected in March of this year.
Here's a picture gallery I've been watching and you can see just how BIG this plane is. It is the replacement for the aging Boeing 747 which is 35 years old now.
http://www.navjotsandhu.com/gallery/a380?page=1

I know most people are fascinated by planes but some more than others so let's hear from you!

Also, I invite anyone in the Kitchener/Cambridge or surrounding area to regular Saturday-morning breakfasts at the Lubitz Farm/airstrip just outside of Platsville. We're all flyers who like to get together and share in our love of flying. They have a 2000' runway that is beautiful and well-maintained. Anyone interested should PM me and I'll give you the directions and GPS coordinates. In the summer we have a HUGE convention at this airstrip with over 300 people attending and over 70 aircraft!

MacGenius (aviation nut)


----------



## MacDaddy (Jul 16, 2001)

Although I am not into aviation, I thought I would give a plug to my buddy's site for the Aviation enthusiasts here. Check it out!

http://www.jetthrust.com/


----------



## autopilot (Dec 2, 2004)

just what the mac-doc-tor ordered! 

i am a HUGE aviation nut. my degree is a bachelor of aviation (airline management, but i switched out of the pilot major after getting my ppl), and i have been obsessed my whole life with planes.

at university we studied this airbus when it was still untitled (A3XX). Just the time to load and unload the passengers from the double decker is major. DVT becomes a factor, especially when you're looking at this plane as doing extreme long-haul flights (really the only way it might be profitable). the gross weight becomes a factor: can runways support take offs and landings? the size: thay have to assemble the wings in stages and transport them by boat. can modern airports and their gates support their size? will we have to see new airports and runways built to support these monstrosities?

and more importantly, can any airline afford them, or even fill them?  

when we discussed the factors involved in making this plane a success back in 1999, my class and i were of the opinion that boeing's response would be smarter: smaller and faster is the way to go. don't know if this is what they are still planning (haven't kept on top of this for a long time)...

however, what an amazing sight it would be to see this taking off. i know people that are of the opinion: "if we were meant to fly God would have given us wings!" but i just marvel at the science that has allowed us to fly for over a hundred years now. imagine what can be accomplished in the future.


----------



## Pamela (Feb 20, 2003)

My husband was on track to become a pilot. The plan was that we would leave Seattle so I could come back to architecture school, and he would start flight training. We talked about him doing one of the intensive programs in Oklahoma to get it done and out of the way, but we decided it would be best for him to move up to Vancouver for a bit with me to get settled first. A week later September 11th happened, and that was the end of that career. What a bitch. He almost finished his private pilots license but he decided to stop pouring money down the drain. The amount of hours needed to get a decent job skyrocketed and the charm of the dream died.

Shame.


----------



## autopilot (Dec 2, 2004)

Pamela said:


> The amount of hours needed to get a decent job skyrocketed and the charm of the dream died.


TELL me about it. september 11 killed it for most, although i had transferred to the management major long before then.

the stress killed it for me. along with the long hours, flights being dictated by weather, safety concerns (i had the radio fail on a solo cross country flight once :yikes: ), the money you have to invest, and the years before you get anywhere. plus, i want to have kids one day. is bring away from home so much a smart move? i know it's possible, but do i want to attempt it? suddenly the 9-5 job became more attractive.

and still, how many years before you're senior enough to get to pick your hours? holidays don't matter to airlines; people are always going somewhere. working christmas, thanksgiving, new year's year after year would really get to me. the money's not worth it to me in the end, and it takes awhile to even get to where the money's good.

plus, the stress of airlines. i can't even get an office job at an airline currently. the market is pretty bad. name me a western country with a private airline that's not in some kind of financial trouble. could i deal with working for a company that could take my job or benefits away any day? too much stress.

that said, i do dearly love aviation and i hope the airlines can become profitable again. but fuel costs alone are killing the industry, let alone weather and "acts of God" that can ruin a good run in one fell swoop.


----------



## Loafer (Jan 7, 2004)

I've always quite fancied getting a private pilots license. Although the cost has been quite prohibitive for me. I did an introductory lesson that my brother got me as a gift back in the UK and well......absolutely loved it!
I have made a few enquiries in and around Toronto since I've been here but really can't (just yet) justify the cost of it all. What a dream to go to Toronto City Airport, rent a plane and fly off up north for the weekend.....one day, one day!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sailplanes are the best way to itch that flying scratch. Low cost compared to power. Training part of the club joining.
A it's "real flying"....not just hanging off a motor. ;-)
Average yearly cost for 40-50 hours in Ontario in the $1500 range.

Great fun, extremely safe and it's very easy to step to power from there and get power hours at the club towing. Many have.
Getting your pilot's licence is a real treat - a life goal - there are lower cost ways and sailplane clubs are one enormously satisfying method.

Take two weeks off this summer and you'll be a solo pilot by the end of them. :clap: 

$5-600 club membership. $7-800 for the 40 flights includes all training.


----------



## oryxbiker (Nov 29, 2001)

this is where model airplanes is at. 

i am so going for the skycutter.

i have so pics a flying fortress that was here in calgary. maybe i'll upload em for everyone to seee.


----------



## MacGenius (Nov 13, 2001)

I started on sailplanes @ SOSA before getting into ultralights. Sailplanes are a BLAST!!
However I found it very difficult dealing with the SOSA crowd, nobody wanted to give me the time of day. 

Finding people into ultralights was hard since they tend not to populate regular airports, preferring to stay low and frequent private airstrips.
In any event I liked ultralights more and got my permit back in 99. I'm now completing the build of my second plane but this one is my third. My Zodiac is also the plane of my dreams. They really are a pretty plane. Some of the new composite ultralights being imported from Europe cost upwards of $125,000!!!!
Ouch


----------



## SkyHook (Jan 23, 2001)

.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

You must have missed this thread.  

I have the privilege of working for one of the largest airlines in the world. We have 700 aircraft. I don't fly myself, but I'm considering going for it.  I did have the opportunity to "jump seat" on several of out A310s and 727s. Nothing like having a cabin view of landings and take-offs. :scream: 

The company I work for has purchased several of the A380s ( 12 cargo versions, I think) and has a company rep in France overseeing the manufacture. Cool plane, unfortunately since 9/11 we are no longer allowed to "jump seat" on the co. aircraft. Hopefully that'll change one of these days. It was a great perk.

In Sep of 2003 and Jan 2004 I shot a video at our former YHM facility. A small sample of about 1hr of finished video is available at my .Mac site. It's a time lapse of a 727 cargo plane being offloaded and reloaded. The web video is a little dark compared to tape or the DVD, but viewable.

There are two versions, a small one and a larger one, both at the bottom of the main menu.
Video Menu 

Enjoy.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Actually, Karl...I have it on good advice that your particular airline eliminated those jump seats not long after the movie "Castaway" hit the big screen. Wouldn't want life to imitate art, now would we? :heybaby: :lmao:


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Heh! That... and the fact we ran out of "Wilsons". :lmao: 

BTW, I haven't forgotten about the video I promised. It may have to be a VHS, Gerry. One of my edited videos has a sync problem, it starts out ok, but by 5 minutes into it, the sound goes out of sync. This is only a problem when I burn it onto a DVD.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

*Right hand seat!*

The company I worked for had three planes in a span of twenty years or so, all based in Edmonton, and I was responsible for booking their use. I flew thousands of hours in them, many times in the right hand seat. While I never had any ambition to fly, I did come to admire the skills of our pilots and the courtesy they extended me in putting my butt in that seat for so many enjoyable times.

Our first plane was a Piper Cheyenne I twin turbo prop, followed by a Citation I jet and then a Westwind II jet. The Citation was sold to Suncor energy in Fort McMurray and became their corporate jet for many years.

The Westwind II we bought directly from the Philadelphia Flyers organization. It had been their management jet. We took a commercial flight to Philly, picked up the plane, all decked out in team colors, and flew it to a small field in central Michigan where the paint was removed via a blasting process, and repainted in our corporate colors.

This was done to avoid media attention on our arrival back in Edmonton since Peter Pocklington had the identical Westwind hangered in the same building at the municipal airport done in Oiler colors.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

There's more on the A380 on this page at CNN.

Although it looks bulky, I think Airbus has eaten Boeings lunch. I much prefer the A330s and A340s to most of Boeings offerings (the 777 comes close). The 747 was a remarkable plane - way ahead of its time - but Boeing seems to have lost its way. The boldness that launched the 747 has been replaced by focus groups and group think. 

There are supposedly 50 airports that can handle the A380 (for passengers, more for cargo) and Pearson will be one of them (yippee). I hate travelling on CRJs and these regional jets are now being used on much mlonger flights (couple of weeks ago I went to Houston from Toronto and back on a CRJ). Gimme a wide cabin any day. I like the 747 too although Air Canada has retired them now.


----------



## autopilot (Dec 2, 2004)

used to be jwoodget said:


> There are supposedly 50 airports that can handle the A380 (for passengers, more for cargo) and Pearson will be one of them (yippee).


really? that's great! i guess terminal one as it's had the latest renovations?



> I like the 747 too although Air Canada has retired them now.


i will be on an air new zealand 747 for the 12-hour haul between LA and auckland in feb. yippee for me!


----------



## RC51Pilot (Mar 26, 2004)

I'm a total aviation junky.

I obtained my ppl in Virgina back in '97, however since moving back north, I haven't gone for my Canadian ticket. I am considering Ultralight's - my father-in-law flies a Kolb II out of St. Thomas from a private strip. Very affordable and lots of fun.

WWII Warbirds have always been my favourite though. In fact, I have every Ghosts calendar produced and a number of them framed in my recroom. Not to mention numerous r/c planes and models.

That A380 is some airplane. I saw some of it on Daily Planet last night. That is one seriously large piece of hardware :yikes: 

Anyways, good to see some other avnuts out there


----------



## autopilot (Dec 2, 2004)

used to be jwoodget said:


> There's more on the A380 on this page at CNN.
> 
> Although it looks bulky, I think Airbus has eaten Boeings lunch. I much prefer the A330s and A340s to most of Boeings offerings (the 777 comes close). The 747 was a remarkable plane - way ahead of its time - but Boeing seems to have lost its way. The boldness that launched the 747 has been replaced by focus groups and group think.


the article does make reference to boeing's response. i am very interested in seeing a mockup of what they have planned.

i stick by what i thought in 1999: in this economic climate, i don't think bigger is necessarily better. i think the a380 may struggle at first to find a market, and not all airlines flying them will be able to fill them and therefore maximise their profitability.

if boeing's offering is smaller and faster, while being more fuel efficient, they may have a winner.

time will tell on the a380. take all the positive press with a grain of salt; all there any negative reviews out there?


----------



## autopilot (Dec 2, 2004)

rc51pilot: i like how you've got your location in morse code 

i'm rusty on it: where are you?  it's not yyz...


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Here's more information on the impact of the A380 on Canadian airports. Looks like AC won't be a buyer but Pearson will be able to accomodate the plane in 2007 and Dorval and Vancouver sometime later. I'd imagine YVR to be a perfect hub for the Pacific flights although the A380 will allow more pan-Pacific flights from YYZ and YUL.


----------



## RC51Pilot (Mar 26, 2004)

autopilot said:


> rc51pilot: i like how you've got your location in morse code
> 
> i'm rusty on it: where are you?  it's not yyz...


I was wondering if any fellow fliers would pick that up - that would be the identifier for London, ON. YXU :clap:

I should change it to YQS since that's really where I live. (St. Thomas)


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Personally I think Boeing and Bombardier are on the right track with smaller faster.
The logistics of a ginormous plane for luggage, customs, security on and on are prohibitive.

The US average "over ground" speed point to point to point is only 81 mph - not much faster than driving. Too many hub issues.

More planes to smaller airports faster is the future.
Rutan has shown composites and fuel efficient engines can go a long way.

Sure the big Airbus may find a limited market - like old clipper ships and seagoing palaces like the Titanic did.
The long haul routes might make it just pay off - but just.... and if fuel or another air crisis hits - filling up a 550 passenger plane will be a BIG problem.

Can you imagine 550 people in a customs line - it's take a 24 hour cycle to get them on - flown and off. Building airport facilities specifically for this plane is ludicrous.

The plane will also be target number one for terrorists so security will ahve to be that much more rigorous.
It's a BIG TARGET for a shoulder fired missile and with a landing speed of just 121 knots it's a big SLOW target rich in "terror value".

So compounding security issues all around.

Lot of eggs in this basket all around.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

You may be correct about such a large aircraft for passanger transport...but it's a whole new "ball game" when it comes to freighters and the global economy. Many an iMac and iPod will travel on the A380.  

Here's an excerpt from a speech by FedEx founder and CEO Fred Smith yesterday Jan 17. Apparently FedEx took delivery of the first A380 yesterday and Fred was in France speaking to EU policy makers, business leaders and journalists. Altho' the speech mentions the year 2008, the company LAN website confirms the delivery of the very first A380. I'll see if I can get more info.



> The Role of the Air Cargo Industry
> 
> Smith elaborated on the role that FedEx and the
> air cargo industry play in
> ...


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Doubt FedEx took delivery since the prototype A380 has yet to lift off. The first flight is scheduled for March 2005 in Toulouse. But there is clearly a major role for the plane to play in cargo (and mixed cargo/passenger) traffic.


----------



## Macman27 (Dec 26, 2004)

*if it's machinery it's cool...*

I would love to fly ultralights, can't afford to right now. I would like to have a gyrobee, http://taggart.glg.msu.edu//gyro/gbee.htm that is the closest thing to a flying chair that i have seen :>

And it's really cool flying in a Herc with the rear loading door open, BTW. Way cool!


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Interesting. Macdoc is of the opinion that "Bombardier and Boeing are on the right track" these days. Maybe he's right....

But why then, are BOTH of those companies widely seen as being "in decline" by almost all of the industry analysts these days?

Bombardier, in particular, is hanging by a slender thread right now. And has been for some time. They are being kept alive by massive transfusions of Canadian tax dollars while they go through new management teams on a bi-yearly basis. And while they wrestle with their balky unions. No brilliance in that quarter for some time now.

Boeing has seen better days. Better decades, actually. Their newest stuff has been greeted with yawns and silence...and their best stuff from several decades ago is all due to be retired rather soon. They are also dealing with balky unions, and even moved their head office away from their traditional base to avoid some of the red tape that was so prevalent in their former home state of Washington (the most "Canadian" of all States, BTW).

Neither company has a rosy future. According to all observers. But Macdoc disagrees with the top aviation industry analysts on this point.

Maybe he knows something that they don't! Or....

Perhaps Macdoc is confusing his own personal perception with actual reality.

Yet again.

Just a thought.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Airbus Industrie is heavily unionized (and multi-lingual to boot). Your point being? 

Bombardiers problem is their management and family influence on the share structure. Boeing is not in a position to take risks - without the Pentagon 767 tanker refit program they'd possibly be insolvent.

It's not a healthy industry. Government subsidies abound.


----------



## Trevor... (Feb 21, 2003)

The A380 will never fly into Toronto, any airline flying an A380 into YYZ would have to file for bankruptcy protection after paying the GTAA landing fees. 

Toronto is in danger of losing alot of international service as they become more and more expensive. Alot of international airlines are threatening to move to Montreal. 

Paris - Montreal will be the first A380 route into North America.

The A380 is the future, because airports will have to accomodate the pax traffic of the 21st century without the expansion of their facilities. Communists and environMENTALists have shut down airport expansion world-wide.

If the 7e7 were to be used as Boeing proposes, airports like London Heathrow would break under the strain. Heathrow is in DIRE need of a third runway, which has been on the books since 1955, unfortunately a bunch of British Comrad Millers have built there careers on fighting the expansion of London Heathrow. 

The last thing Heathrow needs is more small widebody airplanes. 

The same thing applies to damn near every airport in Europe and a large number of them in the United States.

Boeing and Bombardier are both in trouble because while their competitors were spending billions and billions on their next generation of planes, Boeing and Bombardier were "maximizing shareholder value".


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Note: the normally militant unions in the European workforce have been having a hard time lately. Things are changing over there...and they know they have to curb their base urges and co-operate if they want to get this plum assignment. Socialism "just ain't what it used to be" in most of Europe these days. Especially after the collapse of the old Soviet Union and the rapid conversion of countries like Britain and the Netherlands. Just to name a few.

Here in North America, Boeing and Bombardier USED to be industry leaders in the aviation field...and their unions thought they had the whole world by the bag. Their Union bosses told all of them that they could shut the whole works down and get whatever they wanted. And they behaved accordingly. It was a bigger roll of the dice than the shop stewards ever let on. Many of the unfortunate workers are now looking at pink slips, as a result.

You might also want to note how AIRBUS has arranged to have all of it's different parts made in different areas. If one factory goes on strike or can't deliver....then they lose out. The stuff just gets made eleswhere. Boeing has also diversified of late...but they are still quite a bit behind on this. Bombardier, on the other hand, is living in a different (earlier) world, mostly due to their lifeline to the Federal Liberal government of Canada. Bombardier would have been dead and sold off long ago if it weren't for the Quebec Elite who happen to be running this country right now.

Here's another thought...

I recall that rabid environmentalists were laying themselves down on the highways leading into New York to protest the coming of the Concorde, back in the early seventies. Their handlers were telling them that supersonic aircraft in the stratosphere would spell DOOM for all of mankind..and they had all sorts of pseudo-science to back their claims. Too bad they never noticed the hundreds of military jets that were travelling at supersonic speeds in the stratosphere every single day, eh?

They pretty much killed any further development of the Concorde. It could have become both economical and rather clean if developed a bit further...but it never went beyond the very first version...more's the pity. Only fourteen breathtakingly beautiful technological wonders plying the skies at unbelievable speeds for several decades (with the best safety record of any airliner in the skies). And now the're all gone. And we have taken a big leap backwards in technology. Too sad.  

I wonder if the same group of easily-led well meaning simpletons will manage to shut down this latest advance in aviation technology?

It could happen! These same people have been working very hard to shut down or cancel every new powerplant in north america for the past two decades. Which is why we are now critically short of electrical power generation capabilities these days.  

Question:

Will the Luddites amongst us begin to dictate the direction of ALL new technology? Will they force us to actually move backwards, for the first time in human history? Will we let them?

Your choice. Think about it.


----------



## Trevor... (Feb 21, 2003)

Not for a lack of trying, there are a bunch of communists (literally) trying to keep the A380 out of Frankfurt... which will be very difficult as airbus is building the A380 maintainence facility there. 

The A380 was born out of absolute necessity, airports need to support more and more people without additional landing slots. The only way to increase capacity is using larger airplanes. There is no way around this, short of sending environmentalists and other malcontents to the firing squad.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I'm not in favor of sending anyone to any sort of firing squad.

I just think that the more easily-led amongst us should start looking a little closer at the sort of people who are feeding them all of this guff. Most can be easily exposed for what they really are.

The rest of us simply need to WAKE UP. On several different levels.

No kidding.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

No backup as usual Macnutt just meaningless sniping and uninformed speculation.
You get more pathetic as time goes on.

•••

An oversupply of the regional jets means the airlines are in one of their cycles where they need to reconfigure to emerging needs and the manufacturers need to meet those needs. The need is NOT for 550 seat mega jets tho there is a limited market.

Here's the industry take instead of Macnutt's usual offbase, ill informed nonsense.

2003 projections for the industry BY THE INDUSTRY



> Fleet Trends - *The 70-110 Seat Market Is The Big One.*
> 
> This is something that our conference attendees exclusively first heard three years ago.
> 
> ...


followed by the 2004 



> E-Jets: *The 70 - 110 seat narrowbody "E-Jets" will be the growth segment in the next ten years.* These fill in a size and category gap in existing 737/A-320 product lines. While some in the media call them "regional jets," they are instead essentially narrow-body airliners. Watch for Bombardier go ahead with plans for its "C-Series" 110 - 135 seat platform. Unlike the Embraer 170/190 platform, the C-Series is a frontal attack on Airbus and Boeing. Nevertheless, unless the project goes ahead, Canada's airliner industry will be nearly non-existent in ten years.
> 
> Super Widebody Market: While there is a market for the A-380 "WhaleJet," the open question is simply how many 550-seat units global airlines can support. At the Conference, we outlined the challenges facing the A-380, including real-world operational and airport issues.
> 
> ...


*Whether companies can meet demands of a changing market and international jockeying for aircraft building jobs is entirely different from the where the market is going.*........duh.

Airbus is a Euro champion that benefits from national/Euro policies. There is a limited market for the big jet - that's been predicted 2 years in a row..
Whether other "nations" step up as Brazil has done to make sure their industries get similar "support" to cross into the next market demand in the 100 seaters is more national and international politics than manufacturer management.

They are ALL subsidized industries.

Let's see...Macnutt's baseless tequila fumed blather or......... 

the *Aviation Forecast Conference *conclusions for 2003 AND 2004?????

http://www.aviationplanning.com/conf2004fDenverhighlts.htm ???

http://www.aviationplanning.com/DenverConference/conf2004fin.htm

NO CONTEST 

Both Boeing and Bombardier have to "bet the farm" to get to the next stage and neither has the kind of explicit support either Airbus or Embraer have.

Boeing had been used to a lot of covert military subsidies which are the topic of current Euro/US WTO tussling.

Canada is small to support an industry in the face of this. Time and national commitment will tell the tale. I'd love to see Bombardier/Embraer combine against the Airbus and Boeing.

The jet taxi might be the key for Bombardier. Maybe they need to kidnap Rutan. ;-)


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Macdoc blathers on and produces long meaningless documents that "support" his position on the subject. As usual. Yawn. :yawn:

Bottom line?

Do any of you think that Bombardier could make it on their own? Without massive injections of Canadian tax dollars to prop them up? Do any of you think that they will still be around ten years from now?

Do any of you out there think that Boeing is doing particularly well right now? Are they even holding their own? Or are they losing badly? Other than their military contracts, will Boeing still be a major player in the commercial aircraft market ten years from now? Or will they be much smaller?

Will Boeing's former position of prominence be taken by some newer player? Like, for instance, Embraer of Brasil? Or somebody we haven't even heard of yet?

Be honest now. And don't be afraid to speak up on this. Macdoc comes off as a bit of an arrogant twit sometimes...but he's really just a big pussycat.

He won't bite. Promise. He'll just rub up against you and drool on your newspaper a bit. :scream: :lmao:


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Amazing....... the Airline industry supports the same position as I take two years in a row and that's meaningless :lmao: :lmao: 

What an ass.

Stay on topic - if you want to start a Boeing/Bombardier thread do so. The issue was about whether there would be a huge demand for the big Airbus - there won't be, my view, Air industry view.

You want to discuss subsidized industries..... back up your opinions with facts or be prepared to be dismissed as a Airhead......shall we say.

Fueled by tequila the SSI rocketplane, rocks the world......NOT :yawn:


----------



## Moscool (Jun 8, 2003)

*A380 predictions - Oranges and Apples*

MacDoc, I will just say one word: Asia. That's where virtually all the real growth will come from. And the replacement for the 747. Basically if you are still running a fleet of all but the latest (747-400), then a half-full A380 will still be profitable it terms of cost per paying passenger mile compared to 747-100-300.

Boeing is presenting the 7E7 as an alternative to the A380 but really it is a replacement for the 767. It will be interesting to see if Airbus can develop the A350 in time to compete with the 7E7 or if is a spoiling tactic (like the 'stretched' 747 project was in the other direction).

I agree with you that the small jet market will be as growth one, but the issue is 'will Ambaer dominate it or is there still space for Bombardier?'

My 2€


----------



## Trevor... (Feb 21, 2003)

Smaller planes are the ideal, but all the proponents of them fail to explain just where the hell they plan on landing these things.

Look at Chicago O'Hare, the problems there are CAUSED by the small regional jets.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The problems are caused by the hub system and the lack of FAA approved facilities at the smaller airports of which there are some 3,000 that are currently under utilized in North America.

It's too long to post here but the clog is due to the hub system in that planes cannot go point to point efficiently - the hubs have to have built in "delays" to allow people to connect - hence the 80 mph average air travel speed in the US.

The thinking is not to put towers in the smaller airports which would be cost prohibitive but to provide cookie cutter automated traffic control systems with the associated radar all in a single "package" to facilitate use by small jets.

It;s one reason the "taxi jst" concept will work - THEY can fly into strips without the sophisticated systems needed for "passenger" jets.

These are the hubs







and ALL the flights have to funnel through them. So hub to hub is okay but if you want to get to a smaller centre........fugggedaboudit.

And there are thousands of flights a day. Fun eh.

Somehow the hubs need to be circumvented yet the air traffic still fly safely. If you hunt around the web you'll find out lots about the HUB problem.
A 550 passenger jet ain't gonna help.

Long hop and big payload - it's got a niche but not a "big numbers of planes" one.

Pilot humour - apparently real



> Tower: "Delta 351, you have traffic at 10 o'clock, 6 miles!" Delta 351: "Give us another hint! We have digital watches!"
> 
> "TWA 2341, for noise abatement turn right 45 Degrees." "Centre, we are at 35,000 feet. How much noise can we make up here?" "Sir, have you ever heard the noise a 747 makes when it hits a 727?"
> 
> ...


http://www.businessballs.com/airtrafficcontrollersfunnyquotes.htm


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

MacNutt, the Airbus Industrie dispersion of plants actually places them at the whim of the unions. One plant goes on strike, no planes can be built. Its a direct consequence of the politics of the consortium and the respective government investments. Airbus has no choice in staying out of the regional jet market for the same reason (e.g. BAe)

Trevor.... no worries about Pearson and the A380. They could always land at an extended Toronto Island airport and take the ferry


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

:clap: :lmao: Or at Mirabel and bus to Toronto - by the time the last passenger cleared customs and immigration the first of 10 busloads would be hitting Oshawa.


----------



## Trevor... (Feb 21, 2003)

No, the problem is not the hub system.

The problem is people in armpit Arkansas want a direct flight to Chicago and every other major city. The number of practical routes between small cities is very small, what the market wants is direct flights from small markets to large markets. 

The "regional" jet makes these routes economical, but it also increases the physical traffic into the respective airports. The runway doesn't really care if the plane landing at a given time is a Beech 1900 or an A380, but when there is a finite number of landing slots available during the day, the regional jets become a biblical plague on the major airports of the world. 

If they could build more runways and expand secondary airports it wouldn't be a serious problem, but when for the sake of preserving a post-apocalypic wasteland you can't improve access to an existing airport or build another runway that has been on the books for 50 years because of misc. malcontents the only solution left is to use larger jets to transport more people using the same facilities. 

The real solution is regional mini-hubs that would boil down the traffic going into the large centres to larger airplanes. If three CRJ's could be replaced with a single larger plane, alot of congestion problems could be eliminated.

The same thing applies internationally, There used to be non-stop flights from Calgary to Tokyo and Amsterdam, Edmonton used to have non-stop flights to Europe too. 

The flights were not financial failures, but the airlines could maximize their capacity into those cities flying 747's out of major hubs instead of direct flights on smaller equipment. 

The Boeing vision for the 7e7 is not a radical new idea, virtually all the flights they propose were opperated at some point in the past and were discontinued, not because of limited demand or inappropriate equipment, but because of limited capacity into certain airports and the desire to maximize their utilization of their slots by using large planes out of major hubs.


----------



## RC51Pilot (Mar 26, 2004)

Gee, I hate to be on topic here, but MacGenius, I just noticed that you mentioned Lubitz farm - my father-in-law goes to that shin-dig every year. I want to tag along and see some of the planes that come in there. He was telling me of an ultralight that was metal skinned and replica of a Spitfire. Complete with retracts and sliding canopy. Too cool I must say.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

All aviation manufacturers receive public financial support, directly or indirectly.

To say that Bombardier is suffering just because of management or unions is ludicrous. Prior to 911 they were steaming along very nicely, with a huge backlog of orders. The aircraft are highly regarded by the airlines and passengers who use them. The market is down, but it won't be down forever.

MacNutt's assertion that Boeing is having a hard time smacks of gloom and doom. The company has had better times certainly, but it has had worse too. To assert that their best products lie in the past is simply silly, unless he has invented a time machine. It is also not wise to ignore Boeing's military stable. Some very advanced stuff there.

In all probability Airbus will reach their target of 700-odd A380s once you combine the passenger and cargo needs over the next 15 years or so.

It's almost certainly not an either / or situation when it comes to the A380 and smaller aircraft. Airbus have recognized this in approaching the final planning for their answer to the 7E7. Many routes will require large aircraft, but not as large as the A380 - while others will benefit enormously from very large aircraft.


----------



## autopilot (Dec 2, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> Do any of you out there think that Boeing is doing particularly well right now? Are they even holding their own? Or are they losing badly? Other than their military contracts, will Boeing still be a major player in the commercial aircraft market ten years from now? Or will they be much smaller?


hmm, the same "rationale" could have easily applied to apple ten years ago... they're nowhere near leadin the market now, but no one can deny that their bank account is particularly healthy...


----------



## Gizmo (Nov 18, 2003)

*My 'plane*

Great to find an aviation thread...here's my RV6A, been flying it since I finished building it in 1996.



http://www.ehmac.ca/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=161&size=big&sort=1&cat=500

http://www.ehmac.ca/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=160&size=big&sort=1&cat=500


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Good summary Pelao.



> The problem is people in armpit Arkansas want a direct flight to Chicago and every other major city. The number of practical routes between small cities is very small, what the market wants is direct flights from small markets to large markets


There are many smaller airports around major cities

Here's LA and that's typical for big centres. - what's that 20 airport facilities.
There is lots of airport facilities - not enough landing and traffic control for them.









••••

The thread title is a bit "all inclusive" - hence the interleaving topics. Might be okay to keep it rolling or  

Hey anything aviation related is fun.......

I gotta admit that A380 is drop dead gorgeous.

Anyone see the Concorde special on Discovery????? :clap:


----------



## gowyn (Apr 13, 2002)

*Flying*

This is something near and dear to my heart.

Started flying 20 years ago. Did a stint in the military and now I fly for fun. Actually taking a couple of years off until my daughter is old enough to come with me.

If you really want to try something fun, for me anyway it's always been helicopters. Damn things aren't meant to fly but boy are they fun. Strings and mirrors!


----------



## Trevor... (Feb 21, 2003)

Of the airports in the LA Metro Area, only five of them have reasonable commercial facilities. 

Those are LAX, Longbeach, Santa Ana, Ontario, and Burbank. And Longbeach is really pushing it. 

Longbeach, Santa Ana, Burbank and Ontario are all under heavy restrictions because of NIMBY issues. Especially Santa Ana and Longbeach.

Expansion at small airports to accomodate commercial service are doomed to failure worldwide as demonstrated by the Toronto Island Airport fiasco. 

Lying politicians and local malcontents bat 10,000 every time. 

Atlanta has an ideal secondary airport, but it is off limits because of local malcontents. The same holds true all over America. 

The point is more or less that expansion of existing facilities has become totally impossible, hence large planes.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Trevor, the problem is that larger aircraft are only economically viable at the hubs (passenger load and NIMBY issues). The proliferation of CRJ class transports in general flies in the face of the slot limitations and will, in effect, constrain passenger numbers. Moreover, the hub airports will still be swarmed by CRJs from the small airports. 

You seem to know a lot more about this so I've a question. I recently flew on a CRJ into Dulles on United Express. It seemed that 90% of the passengers transferred to other small planes in their satellite terminal (a shed on the freakin apron). Does Dulles have a separate runway for the smaller planes? In other words, is Dulles a model for a bi-node airport with segregation of high frequency shuttles and longer range aircraft? Would make some sense.


----------



## Trevor... (Feb 21, 2003)

It is a problem without an obvious, pardon me, workable solution.
There is a lack of capacity, and building capacity is damn near impossible. 

Large planes are only economical on certain routes, small planes waste the already limited capacity.

Airports only typically have seperate runways in the sense that some are too short for larger planes, so by default serve smaller regional aircraft. Runway utilization is too dynamic to break things down like that.


----------



## Gizmo (Nov 18, 2003)

NASA's SATS (Small Aircraft Transportation System) should start to help within about 10 years. Designed to off-load the main hubs and enable better utilisation of smaller airfields by small GA/light aircraft. A proof of concept is going to be demonstrated in Virginia this year.

http://sats.nasa.gov/overview_sats.html

"The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), in partnership with the Department of Transportation/Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and state & local aviation and airport authorities, leads a research & development program focused on maturing technologies needed for a small aircraft transportation system (SATS). The project's initial focus is to prove that four operating capabilities will enable safe and affordable access to virtually any runway in the nation in most weather conditions. These operating capabilities rely on on-board computing, advanced flight controls, Highway in the Sky displays, and automated air traffic separation and sequencing technologies."


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Jet taxis and small composite quiet 8-12 seaters won;t have the Nimby issues that a regional jet port does and Gizmo outlines the upcoming solutions.

Many of the smaller airports will never and should never have the big facilitiies THAT'S the issue.
The airports for small craft are there and quite frankly need to be developed a bit in terms of maintenance or they WILL disappear.

Large airports just cause increasing bottlenecks all over the world and concentrating the passengers on larger planes makes it worse not better.

If a 550 passenger jet is late 10 or more other regional jets are held up - it already happens - bigger just makes it worse.
A weather system over one hub can screw up the entire US system.
Small point to point except for overseas long haul will be the growing pattern.
•••••

Catch the National Geo special on the X-Plane race










Amazing plane from Boeing. 

http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/types/usa/boeing/x-32/X-32.htm

Excellent coverage by National Geo channel.


----------



## autopilot (Dec 2, 2004)

new question:

what airlines has everyone flown on? i'm very interested in this kind of thing.

for me:
- air canada
- candian
- royal (charter)
- canada 3000
- air new zealand
- united
- air alaska
- air tahiti


----------



## MacGenius (Nov 13, 2001)

RC51Pilot said:


> Gee, I hate to be on topic here, but MacGenius, I just noticed that you mentioned Lubitz farm - my father-in-law goes to that shin-dig every year. I want to tag along and see some of the planes that come in there. He was telling me of an ultralight that was metal skinned and replica of a Spitfire. Complete with retracts and sliding canopy. Too cool I must say.


It's a very popular venue and its getting bigger every year. I'm on the UPAC board of directors and we strive very hard to make it better.

The Spitfire you mention is owned by Ed Johancsik of Mount Forest. Ed is well known in the area. His Spitfire was designed from scratch using real blueprints. Ed is an engineer and he scaled his down to 60%. He built it himself and it is a real beauty, get a lot of interest everywhere he goes. It barely fits him. But it is not an ultralight. I think his wing area does not qualify (too low). His gear is not retractable.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~mockflying/spitfire.htm

Last year we were supposed to get a new TItan T-51 mustang come in from Calgary but engine trouble grounded him. I've been told on Friday that he's coming this year along with another he's building for a customer in Windsor!

MacGenius


----------



## MacGenius (Nov 13, 2001)

There is another gentleman named Ross Ferguson who built a 3/4 scale spitfire over the course of 15 years. She flew for the firs ttime last summer. A REAL beauty. Ross used a Chev V8 engine in his. He's a retired school shop teacher so you can imagine the quality of his work. Machined the gear and wheels himself...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

_what airlines has everyone flown on? i'm very interested in this kind of thing._

hmmmmm many.....standouts are

Air France Concorde....twice th speed of sound ....yippee

Air France Atlantic route - yuck

The "Other" French National Airline that flies south to Africa - can't recall - very good flight uner adversse circumstances with the entire African cost closed due to a massive sandstorm - we had to land at Mali - with 13 other international flights in that rather ...ahem ...primitive airport. Turkish toilets for all.

BWIA - always exciting :nuts:

Air Hawaii - total commuter - hop on hop off like a bus, tho that's likely changed 

United to Japan - very nice that long jump across the Pacific

Lufthansa last summer to Europe very nice for the family.

Haven't yet flown any of the cheapies.


----------



## Gizmo (Nov 18, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> _what airlines has everyone flown on? i'm very interested in this kind of thing._
> 
> 
> BWIA - always exciting :nuts:
> ...


BWIA...
Thought it meant "But Will it Arrive"

My most memorable trip was with Nigerian Airways. We waited in the plane for about an hour, eventually the doors shut and we started to taxi. After about 5 minutes we screeched to a halt, a van with a ladder rolled up to the plane, the doors opened and the Captain got onboard! :scream:


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Gizmo - you remind me of a flight in West Africa that same day we were stuck in Mali- Nigerian NEVER makes it on time - the one time he did - in the middle of the sandstorm into Sierra Leone ( where we were originally headed - why we found out ).

He came roaring in according to people we talked to - no clearance - not expected as the entire West coast was shut down........but THIS cowboy likely made the first on time flight of his life.


----------



## Gizmo (Nov 18, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> Gizmo - you remind me of a flight in West Africa that same day we were stuck in Mali- Nigerian NEVER makes it on time - the one time he did - in the middle of the sandstorm into Sierra Leone ( where we were originally headed - why we found out ).
> 
> He came roaring in according to people we talked to - no clearance - not expected as the entire West coast was shut down........but THIS cowboy likely made the first on time flight of his life.


Never have those experiences on Air Canada!

One thing I like to do when I'm bored is to ask one of the flight attendents 
"How long before we get to XXX" where "XXX" is not our destination.
It usually results in a look of complete sympathy.

So MacDoc, a flight on Concorde, never had the pleasure although I'm not sure it's that much of a pleasure is it? (was it) I hear it was a bit like sitting in a cigar tube. I presume someone else was paying... :greedy:


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Concorde was an anniversary gift in the yuppie era. Big thrill is the take off - my goodness what a rush and the fog over the wings on rotation.
Other rush is off course seeing 2200 kph on the speedo and it's very black up that high. Bit of a curve to the horizon too.
Seats are small and tight and windows small but hey it WAS fun - still got the promotional pack they hand out. :clap:


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I think that we should all look back on the late sixties here...it was a pivotal time in the commercial aviation era.

The once-powerful British Aviation Idustry was on the ropes...and the US aviation industry was shaking up the world.

The Brits decided to go for the Big Leap in technology with the superfast Concorde...and the Americans decided to build several different Jumbo Jets instead. Neither species of commercial aircraft had ever been seen before.

Guess who won THAT particular contest?

Interestingly...these days, the Brits and their partners are now building the biggest Jumbo and the last remnaining American firm is openly talking about building a faster smaller commercial jet. How times have changed! :yikes:


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Quick reality check for the foggy headed amongst us here (that'd be YOU, macdoc, BTW)...

The Boeing 747 is a truly beautiful airplane. A time tested design that is both graceful and magnificent in the air or on the ground. The Concorde is absolutely breathtaking. So pretty it is actually scary! The most beautiful aircraft that has ever flown, by most accounts.

But...the new Airbus A380 is a bit of a pig in the looks department as far as many of us are concerned. A pregnant hippo with a waddling stance. Severely ugly from almost any angle.

But YOU seem to think it's quite lovely. :yikes: :lmao: 

That figures. :scream:


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I might want to point out here that macdoc wasn't truly in the aviation community until quite recently. That's probably why he has such green tastes for this stuff. You really have to forgive him, after all.

I obtained my glider licence in 1970. When I was in the Royal Canadian Air Cadets. I was teaching aircraft recognition in 1968-69. That would be about the time that a bearded and stoned macdoc was busily marching and protesting whatever was terribly unpopular with his peer group, I'd expect. :yikes: :scream: :lmao:

Welcome to the twenty first century, David...now, please reset your brain for the current reality. Just so's you are on the same page as the rest of us. There's a good lad. :heybaby: :lmao:


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Okay...back to my previous, and yet unanswered, questions:

Does anyone here really think that Boeing or Bombardier will be major players in the future of commercial aviation?

If so...why?

Please explain in detail.


----------



## Gizmo (Nov 18, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Quick reality check for the foggy headed amongst us here (that'd be YOU, macdoc, BTW)...
> 
> But...the new Airbus A380 is a bit of a pig in the looks department as far as many of us are concerned. A pregnant hippo with a waddling stance. Severely ugly from almost any angle.
> 
> ...


I think I have to agree with MacDoc,
If you've ever seen a Hercules do a JATO, you would think that was beatiful too and the Herc isn't what you call a beautiful airplane.

The site of this flying would be amazing.
http://www.ehmac.ca/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=189&sort=1&size=medium&cat=504

http://www.ehmac.ca/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=188&sort=1&size=medium&cat=504

(BTW, I'm not new to the aviation world...got my RAF wings from Douglas Bader in '77)


----------



## Gizmo (Nov 18, 2003)

<SNIP>
Does anyone here really think that Boeing or Bombardier will be major players in the future of commercial aviation?
<SNIP>

Well, here's a start....(although unfortunately a Lear, not an RJ)

Does anyone else have a problem with the word "aircrafts" or is it just me.


New Bombardier Business Aircraft Approved into China
BEIJING, Jan 25, 2005 (SinoCast via COMTEX) -- 
A new business aircraft, Learjet 45 from Bombardier Aerospace, a global leader in designand manufacture of aviation products, has gotten the approval of the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) of entering Chinese aviation market. 
Then other aircrafts of Learjet family including Learjet 40 andLearjet 45XR will come into China. 
There was one Bombardier CRJ-200 aircraft equipped with China Eastern Airlines Co., Ltd. that crashed in 2004, and then CAAC stopped flying other planes of the same family, which caused Bombardier's businesses in China out of order. 
So Learjet 45 entering China will help Bombardier get out of the adverse effects on it due to 2004 air crash, and is regarded as a key step for the company to expand its business in China even in Asia-Pacific regions. 
A Japanese airline plans to operate two Learjet 45XRs in Beijing Capital International Airport and will launch business charter flights at the beginning of next year. 
From Morningpost.com.cn, Page 1, Monday, January 24, 2005
[email protected]

Copyright (C) 2005 SinoCast, All rights reserved


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

So a solo in a old trainer as a teenager in the Air Cadets puts you "in the current aviation community" ??? :lmao: :lmao::lmao: Still stuck in the past...it shows.
Your currency is about as "current" as your cred AND your logbook. 

Only one "foggy" brain in this thread, that would be the tequila soaked one whose maunderings you inflict on posts. Tell me Gerry, why should anyone bother to answer your ill-defined questions when the "put or shut up" sigs directed at you go unanswered? You're just angling for politics anyway.

The thread is for aviation buffs.....not buffoons. 

••••

Gismo - China hopefully will avoid the hub chaos and go with more flexible aircraft for internal flights - sounds like it from your article.


----------



## Gizmo (Nov 18, 2003)

*Dogfight alert!*

Hee hee hee. Dogfight alert! :naughty: 

Time to get you two into this program:So pick your call signs!

Customer wears a flight suit complete with customized "fighter pilot call sign" 
1 hour ground school 
Up to 1 hour flight with 8 engagements 
Profile: 
Formation T/O and demonstration 
Aircraft handling and G exercises 
8 air combat engagements 
Offensive perch demo with gun track exercise 
Fly offensive perch 
Defensive perch demo 
Fly defensive perch 
Neutral engagement demo 
Client flies three scored neutral engagements for awards 
Advanced aerobatic demonstration and flying 
Return to base for a high speed formation Battle Break

http://www.fightercombat.com/adv_aircombat.htm#advanced_acm


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Saw a TV show on that - tres cool. Arizona is fabulous flying. Damn the cloudbases go to 25K - day before I got my 10k climb girl set a state record to 22k.
Aviators paradise. The advanced sailplane acrobatics course is offered at Tempe - you just gotta dodge the rattlers on the runway.

The US is NOT a cheap place to fly tho. You can burn enoough money in a week to cover a whole summer up here. 

Seems the batting around in old single prop and camping under the wing are long gone. It's either $$$$ or ultralite. Tho watching Oshkosh you'd never know.


----------



## Gizmo (Nov 18, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> Saw a TV show on that - tres cool. Arizona is fabulous flying. Damn the cloudbases go to 25K - day before I got my 10k climb girl set a state record to 22k.
> Aviators paradise. The advanced sailplane acrobatics course is offered at Tempe - you just gotta dodge the rattlers on the runway.
> 
> The US is NOT a cheap place to fly tho. You can burn enoough money in a week to cover a whole summer up here.


Keep threatening to do that trip some day. Only time I've flown (myself) in the US is to the Bahamas or Sun 'n Fun...I bet Arizona has some great days. Probably end up there on a motrcycle though, just too much hassle these days in a light plane.

Hopefully flying will becaome a little cheaper there with the introduction of the LSA category and the Sport Pilot licensing...methinks a bit better than our AUL cat.


----------



## Gizmo (Nov 18, 2003)

http://www.sats2005.com/home.html

Looks like NASA is moving ahead on the Small Aircraft Transportation System


----------



## Sweffling girl (Feb 14, 2005)

*Ross Ferguson*



MacGenius said:


> There is another gentleman named Ross Ferguson who built a 3/4 scale spitfire over the course of 15 years. She flew for the firs ttime last summer. A REAL beauty. Ross used a Chev V8 engine in his. He's a retired school shop teacher so you can imagine the quality of his work. Machined the gear and wheels himself...


I am trying to locate a Ross Ferguson who lived in the Markham area about 10 years ago and is related to Red Ferguson from Alliston, Ontario. I have been told that he builds airplanes and I beleive this might be the same fellow.

If you have his email address could you please pass mine onto him.
[email protected] or if you know of a way to contact him please let me know

Thanks so much,

Brenda Fairhall


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

The A380 is an elegant beast. But the prize for the most elegant giant has to be the 6 engined Antonov 225 which leaves the rest in the dust.

Svelte, no but it exudes practical elegance.


----------



## autopilot (Dec 2, 2004)

can't really see the anhedral in that photo, but that thing taking off is an impressive sight.

i really wanted to go to kitty hawk in dec 2003 for the memorial but i had zero funds. it's absolutely amazing how far we've come in the last 100 years. technology is so cool.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Check out this picture then


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Damn and I thought you erred and meant dihedral. It IS anhedral....damn.


----------



## sdm688 (Dec 12, 2004)

Interesting thread guys and girls. BTW Anyone doing much "x-planing". I was quite into MS Flight Sim a while ago and am just getting into x-plane a bit. Anyone remember "Solo Flight" on Apple II Plus platform?


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Airlines i've flown as a passenger:
Air Canada
Northwest
Delta
Canadian Airlines
Pacific Western Airlines
Alaskan Airlines
CP Air
AirBC
Canaidan Regional Airlines
Kelowna Flightcraft Air Charter Ltd
AirSask
Air Ontario
Athabaska Aviation
Harbour Air
Calm Air
LaRonge Aviation
TransWest Air
PointsNorth Freight Forwarding
Saskatchewan Environment & Resource Management SERM Fire Prevention Fleet
EagleAir
Jackson Aviation

Aircraft I've flown in:
Fixed Wing:
Airbus A320 (Wheels)
Beech Queen Air (Wheels)
Beech Bonanza (Wheels)
Beech 1900 (Wheels)
Boeing 707
Boeing 727
Boeing 737
Cessna 140 (Floats)
Cessna 152 (Wheels)
Cessna 172 (Wheels)
Cessna 185 (Wheels, Floats)
Cessna 402 (Wheels)
Cessna Citation (Floats)
Convair CV-580 (Wheels)
DeHaviland Canada DHC-2 Beaver (P&W Radial, Floats)
DeHaviland Canada DHC-2 III TurboBeaver (PWC Turbine, Floats)
DeHaviland Canada DHC-3 Otter (P&W Radial, Floats)
DeHaviland Canada DHC-3 Otter (PZL Radial [conversion], Floats)
DeHaviland Canada DHC-3 Otter (PWC Turbine [conversion], Floats)
DeHaviland Canada DHC-3 Otter (Walter Turbine [conversion], Floats)
DeHaviland Canada [now Bombardier] Dash-8 (Wheels)
Douglas C-47 [DC-3] (Wheels, Skis)
Douglas DC-4 (Wheels)
Fokker F-28 (Wheels)
Grumman G-89 Tracker (Wheels)
Hawker-Siddley 748 (Wheels)
McDonnell-Douglas DC-8 (Wheels)
McDonnell-Douglas DC-9 (Wheels)
Noorduyn Norseman MK4 (Floats)
Piper Super Cub (Floats)
Shorts Skyvan Series3 (Wheels)
Taylorcraft BC-12 (Floats)

Helicopters:
Bell 206
Bell 212
Bell 407
Bell 412
Hughes 500

I flew the Cessna 152 when taking my privates' (never finished, though; ran out of $$) and I've done touch-and-go's in a Radial Otter on Floats when no-one was looking. I do quite a bit of level flying when the pilot-in-command is doing logs while I'm at work.


----------



## autopilot (Dec 2, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Damn and I thought you erred and meant dihedral. It IS anhedral....damn.


yeah, almost wrote dihedral, then went back and edited as my memory kicked in 

I OFFICIALLY RULE.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Gordguide - you either have an incredible memory or are completely anal about how you spend your time  My memory aint incredible....

Here's my attempt (all as passenger - never been in a chopper):

Air Canada (inc. Jazz and Tango), Canadian, Air Georgian, Northwest, British Airways, British European Airways, Delta (and Delta Connection), United (and United Express), Dragon Air, Air France, British Midland, Court, TWA, Hawaiian, US Airways (the worst), Continental, SwissAir (and Swiss), American, Lufthansa, Finnair, Malaysian Airlines, SAS, Quantas, Austrian, Independence, Comair

As for planes (that I can remember):
A300, A319, A320, A330, A340, B727, B737, B747 (100, 200, 400), B757, B767, B777, BAC 111, Canadair CRJ, BAe 146, Jetstream 31 and 61, McDonnell Douglas DC8, DC9, DC10, MD80/B717, L-1011, DeHavilland Dash 8 and Trident, ATR72, Embraer ERJ-145, Beech 1900, SAAB 340, Fokker F100, Vickers Viscount.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Indeed Gords list would do a logbook proud.

Gord why not take the sailplane licence and finish it off? Fun and cheap. :clap: - $1500-$2000 a year covers 40-50 hours of ......ahem .....REAL flying.  All your fees, insurance, tows, etc.
Give you a real good "lift" to finish it off.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

It was easy to remember; I remember what I was doing when I was on them. Eg AirJamaica/AirBus 320: my trip from Kingston to MoBay; no-one ever forgets being in Kingston ("trust me on this"); or SuperCub: we went to check out a cabin that a bear had broken into; and this was the summer I broke my leg on the Bike; you can never forget getting into a (tandem seat) Super Cub when you have a cast from your hip to your toes. And so on.

Of course, if you didn't care about airplanes in the first place you wouldn't know what you were flying when you were on them. I don't think anyone in this thread would have that problem.

As for the license, it's still a possibility but I have different priorities now. I would do what some people I know did; buy the airplane first, then go flying (they went 50:50 on the Cessna 140 I mentioned). At today's prices, that alone will save you at least $ 5000 and could easily be more. You need books, exams, fuel and perhaps a 50-hour on the plane; find someone instructor-rated to fly dual with and pay them (or not, if you're lucky); that's it.

You can always sell the plane when you're done; it won't be worth any less.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Not with sailplanes. Free instruction, low insurance, and planes cost a reasonable price and are easily splitable amongst a couple of pilots AND you generally always get the $$ back.

Power is boring.

THIS is FUN. ( and cheap ) and REAL flying 


















Two weeks in the summer and you'll be solo

http://www.soaring.ab.ca/cowley.html

Here's the view from Cowley at 25,000 ft in a sailplane. 










BTW Once you have the licence stepping to power is snap and the soaring clubs all look for tow pilots. Cheap way to get hours.


----------



## autopilot (Dec 2, 2004)

airbus a380 tv special on tlc right NOW!!!


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Yeah, sailplanes are cool.

Not sure about the "power is boring" part, though ;-)

I don't have a photo to upload, but my boss has one of a Pro water skiing behind a radial Otter on Floats. Went 7 miles and back; if you take the flaps off it will run nicely on the step at 50 mph.

Since it's not exactly "cool" to run a radial at take-off power for more than a minute or so we had to wait until the 800 hours for Major were up to do it.

The guy said it was fun, but "the prop spray was murder".


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Macdoc...

As someone who has spent a great portion of his life flying from one job to another all over the civilised (and much of the less than civilised) world...it would probably be somewhat easier to name the commercial airlines and aircraft types that I HAVEN'T flown in.

For years, I used to go to work in a helicopter. Pretty much every type you can imagine. In all sorts of terrible weather. Hibernia in the early eighties was especially grim. The almost four hour one-way-with-no-chance-of-a-safe-return helo trip in a stripped out Sikorsky S-61 really stands out in my memory. Often in thick Newfoundland fog. Twice we had to divert from my rig (the SEDCO 706) and land on the now famous Ocean Ranger. We had to do this because we couldn't carry enough fuel for a return to land once we were past the halfway point. We had to wear uncomfortable immersion suits during the whole flight and every one of us had to be trained to exit a rapidly sinking helicopter after it had ditched. We trained for this in a large pool using a real helicopter body (that flipped upside down) and we did it over and over again, in cold pitch black water until we passed the course. Or we didn't fly. We earned our fat paychecks in the early days of Hibernia, lemme tell ya.

I also vividly recall flying at low altitude in Venezuela down the Orinoco river towards our offshore rig (the WODECO 9) in a VietNam era Huey with VietNam era pilots while bone-in-the-nose natives in dugout canoes took potshots at us. Once, just after takeoff, we lost a motor and began to descend rapidly. Just as the two pilots got the balky motor fired back up and spinning...the other one quit. Bad fuel. Not quite a crash, but a MUCH harder landing in deep bush than anyone had ever expected. Luckily we weren't very far away from the airfield. The helo was a writeoff.

Also autorotated down onto the frozen arctic ocean during a severe blizzard near Melville Island in late november and had to wait there for hours to be rescued. (lots of snow, good pilot, soft landing) The crew played poker in the freezing dark to kill time and the derrickman cleaned all of us out. It was his deck and we all figured he had to be cheating...he was about to be lynched when the backup helo landed right next to us. Lucky sod.

Flew into the Guatemalan jungle near Tikal in a (poorly maintained) military Hercules crouching beside a D6 Cat. In a thunderstorm. The wole plane was shaking and creaking in the wicked updrafts and downdrafts while that giant lump of heavy steel right beside me strained at its moorings. Had it come loose, we'd have been toast long before we hit the slipstream. Crushed like bugs. 

Six weeks later, I flew out of the same rough eastern Guatemalan airstrip in a severly overloaded DeHavilland Twin Otter, crouching in the aisle while straddling some lashed down drillpipe. That was (almost) the roughest ride of my life, and I didn't even have a seat...let alone a seatbelt. That very same aircraft broke up in midair on the return trip during yet another of the almost continuous thunderstorms that always seem to be rolling across the central Guatemalan jungle. Luckily, I was safely in the main airport in Guat City getting plastered at the time, waiting for my commercial flight back to Houston. Two of my buddies weren't quite so lucky. They'd both decided to wait back at wellsite for a real seat on the next trip out instead of crouching in the aisle the way I had. No one survived from that flight.

There have been many many more "interesting" flights for me over the years.

And I can't even remember my first flight. My Dad was in the airforce during WW2 and joined Air Canada when the company was only ten years old. He worked there for forty years and I ended up on the flight deck of almost every airplane that you can imagine over those four decades. Going to all sorts of interesting places.

My grandfather was a fighter pilot in WW1. He flew Sopwith Pups and later on Sopwith Triplanes. I still have his goggles and gloves.

My younger brother was an avaition sheetmetal mechanic who built wings and fuselage parts for the Grumman Goose. He worked for a company called Viking Air. At one point, he built a set of new wings (from scratch) for a Goose that had crashed in the back bush in Alaska. He and I and the wings and two new motors traveled up there with two mechanics and we recovered the aircraft and flew it out. It's still flying today.

At the age of thirteen I joined the Royal Canadian Air Cadets, and got my glider licence in 1972. I flew and helped to restore numerous airplanes during my teenage years in the Air Cadets. I taught classes on aircraft recognition to people twice my age all during that time. I also built numerous radio controlled airplanes and competed in several competitions before I could even drive a car.

Aircraft have been a part of my life, macdoc. My whole life. A big part. 

And I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome an aging yuppie who has finally decided to dabble in aviation towards the latter portion of his life. (Even if it's just a summertime diversion).

Tighten your straps and check your six, Macdoc.

Welcome to my world.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Macnutt, why did you feel the need to "put down" macdoc in the above reply? The content was interesting. The tone was patronizing. Stick to content.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

That would *IN* Macnutt. The usual dose of self aggrandizement from the master bull**** artiste.

I've been involved in flying since I was a teen Macnutt - I was accepted to United Airlines flight school but went to university instead - luckily so as all those Vietnam vets got all their flight time and the big jobs later.

I enjoy the aviation community, actively promote sailplanes, an area of flight unknown to many as a safe, exciting and inexpensive method of being a pilot and I've flown them right up to competition level craft and cross country. I've flown in Europe, the US and Canada as a PILOT.

One of my instructors flew with Luftwaffe and was still training pilots into his late 80s. It's a long time passion and I don't need blessing from an oil rig monkey who flies around as a passenger.

When kids are flown and schooled I'll resume active flying - I enjoy the pilot community and the club atmosphere and watching a hawk off my wingtip do the thermal proud or a thousand monarchs at cloud base on their way to Mexico.

THAT's flying, no motor, on your own and for a brief while you get to play with the real "flyers".

••••

So Gord....about that "unfinished licence"...........lotta good clubs out your way


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

All I can say is that I respect both MacNutt and MacDoc for their flying abilities.

That and the fact that I am jealous that my cardiac history prevents me from even trying. That sailplane stuff MacDoc is so enthusiastic about would have been a nice way to spend some time in my retirement years. Alas it is not to be.


----------



## autopilot (Dec 2, 2004)

i have to say that one of the more rewarding things i have done so far in my short life is having had the opportunity to take both my parents and my then 80-year-old nana up flying with me.

they got a real kick out of it


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sinc don't confuse a passenger with a pilot. If you read Macnutt's post you'd think he was Pilot in Command instead of along for the ride.
Exciting but not a reflection of "ability".

Sort like my saying " I flew the Concorde".........well yes I flew the Concorde as a passenger and it was exciting to hit twice the speed of sound but it had nothing to do with "flying skills".
Don't fall for the bull**** about "ability".

Second seat in a small craft can carry some real need for responsible action - even it's shutting up and holding on tight - in an emergency situation or helping the pilot with tasks on routine flights. It's fun and informative and makes the flight interesting. But the flight IS the responsibility of the pilot in command ( that's a hand off term if there are two or more pilots in the craft ) and like a ship's captain - authority is absolute as are the results his or her's alone to deal with.
••••

BTW Sinc don't be too sure on at least getting some glider time as a passenger and there are even situations where you can fly but with restrictions of having another trained pilot with you - something many clubs with older or partial restricted pilots can handle.

It's a sad day when a solo pilot loses that distinction due to health but many times it's not the end of flying for them - just the flying alone aspect and quite frankly it's fun with another pilot.

I recall going up for a spin check with another pilot and we had fun doing spins and recoveries and then got chased home by a rain squall - something NOT good to get into in a sailplane. We were half laughing half scared about landing out which would have been VERY embarrassing for experienced pilots close to home base. :blush:

You've got time Sinc - see if there is a local club -even if you volunteer your time. You'll never regret it - even if you only go for a 1/2 hour demo ride. Wonderful experience you'll never ever regret.

•••

AutoPilot I agree it's very rewarding to give others the "thrill" on demo flights etc. You relive the excitement all over especially when you let them fly the aircraft themselves a bit.
It was very cool getting passenger rated and then competing for the "pretty girls" out for a thrill demo ride.

One goofball was showing off and ended up parking the sailplane on top of the tree on final - it was funny and real bad at the same time. The girl ended with a borken ankle, the pilot with a severe reprimand and the tough old Blanik with a crumpled nose, not bad from 40' up nose in - sailplanes are REAL strong. :yikes:

Sharing the thrill with friends and family is wonderful. :clap:
Getting free hours on demo flights while doing so even better


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

My longish and detailed recent post on this thread was in answer to this reply to myself, by macdoc:

"So a solo in a old trainer as a teenager in the Air Cadets puts you "in the current aviation community" ??? Still stuck in the past...it shows.
Your currency is about as "current" as your cred AND your logbook."

(Nice reply, eh? A bit pompous? A touch jealous, perhaps? A bit bitchy, even? You decide.)

And the long list of aircraft that I have flown in and aviation situations I have found myself involved with, was in answer to Gorguide's longish list of everything HE has ever flown in, or been a part of.

I was born into an aviation family. I spent the first twenty years of my life living just down the road from whatever airport that my father was working at. My dad spent WW2 in the airforrce and worked for Air Canada for forty years after that. My younger brother was an aviation sheetmetal mechanic. My grand dad was a WW1 fighter pilot. I was in the Royal Canadian Air Cadets as soon as I was old enough to be accepted. I soloed a glider in 1972...probably two decades before ehmac ever even thought of doing the same...and have spent almost all of my life going to work in some form of airborne transport or other.

Some guys ride the bus or take the subway to work. I took a Twin Otter or a Beaver on floats or a helicopter to work. For years.

Unlike the big commercial airlines, my weekly or monthly trips to work often required some sort of hands-on participation in either the preparation or the actual flying of the aircraft.

Airplanes have been my world, since my first concious thought.

Once again, macdoc...welcome to my world. Better late than never.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Five whole days and no active reply or outraged rebuttal from macdoc?

Speaks volumes. Doesn't it.


----------



## Gizmo (Nov 18, 2003)

*Windows glass panel*

Would you fly with this airline???


----------



## MacGenius (Nov 13, 2001)

*Major milestone reached today*

Since I cannot seem to post any picutres in my gallery I'll try it here.

I reached a major milestone on Satruday March 19. I finished building my plane! Pulled the last rivet and it feels GREAT!!

Now I'm tweaking the engine a bit and I'll be starting to paint in the next 2 weeks or so.

I've been building this thing for 2 years now in my skunkworks labs (garage).
Hope to fly her for the first time in May!


----------



## Gizmo (Nov 18, 2003)

Good luck MacGenius and well done. I recall finishing my RV6 back in '98 after 5 long years. 
Most people I know who wait to paint until after the first flight find they don't get to painting it too quickly because they're having too much fun flying.
Are you doing the first flight yourself?


----------



## lotus (Jun 29, 2002)

MacGenius, looks like you did a fine job, congratulations and good luck on your test flight in May.

I just have one question, how are you going to get it out of your garage?

Happy birthday!


----------



## MacGenius (Nov 13, 2001)

Hey an RV guy on the list!! Those RVs are sweet but not a first-time builder project for sure! You gotta have lots of $$ to go RV.

Some have told me to wait for paint but I want to paint it now. As for getting it out of my garage, the wings come off just as easily as they go on.


----------



## Gizmo (Nov 18, 2003)

When I started my RV back in '94, it was basically a materials package. Today, everything is preformed and prepunched and I hear you can even build the wings without jigs...so ok for a first time builder for sure.
$$$ is another matter though. Really depends on the powerplant and all the other stuff you put in. Some RVs flying for less than $50k, others on sale for $150 US!!!

I agree about the painting...glad I painted mine before I flew!

I moved it from Buttonville to Ottawa a couple of years ago...from a hangar to outside ;-( Now winter flying is a thing of the past...just too much work digging out on those few ocassions I would fly in -20C. Wx getting better now though...time to unpickle it and go beat up some clouds.

here's a piccy
http://www.ehmac.ca/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=160&size=big&sort=1&cat=all


----------



## MacGenius (Nov 13, 2001)

Sweet RV 6. Whatcha got under the hood?

Do you know Terry Jantzi? He built a beautiful RV 6 in his basement and had to cut out the foundation to pull out the fuse!! He sold it about 3 years ago and is building a Harmon Rocket now.


----------



## Gizmo (Nov 18, 2003)

Thanks...it flies as good as it looks.
Under the hood is an IO360. Gives out just under 200HP. Its only swinging a wood prop, but still gives quite good climb and acceleration.

Yup, I know Terry quite well although I haven't seen him since I moved to Ottawa.
His '6 was a beaut...mind you, I think it took him about 10 years to buid it.
He did some great trips...like climbing to over 25,000 ft in it and going up to Baffin Island. I was quite surprised when he actually quit flying to build again.

I'm actually tempted to build an RV8..I like the centre line position and mostly fly on my own anyway (althoughthe '6 has been down to Florida and the Bahamas a few times)
Problem is that I've no space in the house...perhaps it's a good thing as it really is time consuming isn't it!


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

MacNutt said:


> Five whole days and no active reply or outraged rebuttal from macdoc?
> 
> Speaks volumes. Doesn't it.


Yes... it does; he's on vacation.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Okayyy...I didn't actually know that.

Nor have I been around here much lately. The water biz goes crazy when the summery weather hits...and we've been having some pretty warm sunny days on this island, of late.   

Hope macdoc is having a good time, wherever he is.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

I was going to say he posted a quick update on MacMagic... but... well, you know.


----------

