Aviation MegaThread!!!!

I would caution anyone counting pages to measure complexity. Air bus manuals and test procedures suck. The verbiage is overly redundant and things like "turn the on light off" and "turn the off light on" Replaced "turn it off" or turn it on".
I am not arguing which is more complex. But to use the manual to measure complexity of the airframe is as if I use the emergency equipment cards to compare survivability statistics.

I do not like Airbus products in general, some reasons are prejudice, some are quality experienced in a 40 plus year career. The DC9 is a POS and always was a POS. It logged many millions of miles, successfully. But as the guy who was maintaining it, it was a POS. Maintaining the Airbus A319's, A 320 and A330's is much easier than the 9, however the 9 was hammer simple and when old, the 9 will prove to be loads cheaper per mile than the least expensive airbus.

Okay I confess I know very little about planes even if I like them very much..

But I did work (1984/1985) for a small "Experimental" plane manufacture doing Composite work and from time to time illustrating possible new projects and also current planes.

Here are a few rendering I did, sadly I only have small cheesy photos of them since I left the artwork at the factory




I hope you guys like them, If you want to see them in more detail Here is the LINK

Interesting stuff, Ricardo.

Did any of these designs become a flying production aircraft?

Sadly, the DC-9's days are numbered at my company. I guess the economics of operating an older, higher maintenance, less fuel efficient airplane have finally caught up to the old gal. I'm glad I got the opportunity to fly it. The "9" may not be fun to work on, but it's a cool plane to fly.

The A320 may be my next plane, don't know yet. Never flown anything Airbus, but I've ridden the jumpseat on the 319/320 several times. The cockpit layout is very roomy, the absence of a control yoke in your lap seems to add to this perception. The automation is also pretty amazing, definitely light years ahead of the DC-9, and it makes the pilot's job much easier.

A lot of pilots I've known have expressed some reservations about Airbus products, specifically the autopilot/flight control setup. They are mostly the older guys who grew up on Boeing/Douglas products. That said, I have never met an Airbus pilot who didn't like the airplane.

Never worked on a 9, or a 'bus, so I don't know whether they are a POS in that regard or not...but the 'bus is much more complex. That's what happens when you have more inter-related systems and high levels of automation. Fly-by-wire, auto-throttle, flight management systems (none of which were on the 9, the -80 did, a few of them, eventually get a FMS)...those systems make flying, in practice, (and when you are familiar with them) simpler, but it still a more complex machine. The 9 is a simple mental math airplane and with a HSI, RMI, DME ADI (maybe with a FD) and you're set. I could just as easily make crossing restrictions in just as an elegant fashion as a FMS equipped airplane. I know in a Boeing you can dispatch sans the CDU but don't know what that would be like on the Airbus. That would be an interesting one.

Sure I don't have pictures of them (I did not have a camera most of the time, but you can see in the link some fabrication shoots), but we produce a good number of kits in three different configurations and I got to see a few of them ensemble and even flying.

Really fun times, plus I learn a lot about a lot of stuff including my own self

I work on both Boeing and Airbus ........as a Licensed Aircraft Engineer.
B737 both Classic and NG, B757, B767 and B777, and A318-A321 and A330/A340. All have their plus points and their minus as well...Used to work on the Trijets as well.......L1011 and DC-10s...... Dunno about the DC-9 but just going on the -10 it seem that Douglas certainly liked using a good number of cables............. Slat Rigging anyone ?

Line and Casualty maintenance on all the types up to repairs and major component changes ( Engines and Landing gears etc )...have to say that the job is getting easier, in as far as the aeroplane (OK, airplane for most of you !) will tell you what is wrong with it and even suggests what to replace....together with much more reliable and far reaching Fault Isolation .....you just have to filter what are nuisance messsages and what are real faults.


Get real hacked off with the B737 doors and also Flaps

Yep. :huh

4 or 5 cables on one pulley, iirc.
DC-9 left our company in the mid '80's, never worked on the 10 or 11.

Adjust the first cable, cycle system, adjust the second, cycle, adjust the first and second again, adjust the 3rd, and so on.

Mayor pita.

I'm much more into the 320, line maintance;

Pilot reports a fault message, or fault light and asks for a ground engineer.

Pilot; I've got this light on.
GE; checks cfds and perform a test and reset.
Pilot; still got this light.
GE; pull certain cb's and wait, push and perform test.
Pilot; still got the light.
GE; ok, I'll do a total reset, switch off ext pwr and batt, goes outside to remove ext pwr connector and goes off for a smoke.

After Mr GE has had his smoke, he returns to the a/c, connects ext pwr, goes up into the cockpit, switch on batt and ext pwr and hey, presto, fault lt is off.

Pilot is happy and GE signs off the atl, yob well done.

Paul.

I did hear maintenance bemoan all the cable systems in the 9. I always liked the clever servo-tabs though, that saved some hydraulic complexity and weight, but I guess these are part of what you're all complaining about.

Yes, those mysterious stray electrons. Part of all our worlds since the 80's; aviation, PC's, and what-not.

I have this great movie just sent of p47's in WWII. I've loaded it into smugmug but can't figure how to embed it here. (It may take some time before the folks at smugmug do their magic...) Here is the link:

https://daniii.smugmug.com/Airplanes/movies/16037591_7ifgC#1203572732_VCQoy

<object width=425 height=318><param name="movie" value="https://cdn.smugmug.com/ria/ShizVidz-2010102501.swf" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="flashVars" value="s=aT0xMjAzNTcyNzMyJms9VkNRb3kmYT0xNjAzNzU5MV83aWZnQyZ1PURhbmlpaQ==" /><embed src="https://cdn.smugmug.com/ria/ShizVidz-2010102501.swf" flashVars="s=aT0xMjAzNTcyNzMyJms9VkNRb3kmYT0xNjAzNzU5MV83aWZnQyZ1PURhbmlpaQ==" width=425 height=318 type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always"></embed></object>

Quentin Aanenson. One of my heros.


Thanks for sharing that video!

A-10 is today's P47.

red Bull Hanger, in Austria:

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/01/peek-inside-red-bulls-toybox/?pid=615&viewall=true

Enjoy!

P47s were brutes. They were 16,000 lbs loaded when a P51 was 9600. They could take a bullet to a cylinder and fly home on those that remained. Pilots of watercooled fighters were terrified of that one bullet to the radiator that could take them down.

Sure, but they were flamers, too. Vulnerable fuel tank.

I thought we had to special gas tanks that prevented detonation.

Juxtaposition time:
Maximum takeoff weight/bomb load weight:
Boeing B-17: 65,500 lbs/17,875 lbs.
McDonnel Douglas F4 Phantom II: 61,795 lbs/18,650 lbs.

Spent the day out at Davis-Monthan AFB in Tucson as part of a media group this morning for the Heritage Flight Conference.

http://www.dm.af.mil/pressreleasesarchive/story.asp?id=123242889

Wrong finger, buddy.



On the right......Sarah. She was tasked with being my wrangler for the day. Basically she had to chase me around the flight line, make sure I was not sucked into a jet engine, or chopped up by a prop, and bring me water. She was a real sweetheart, and very smart. :



About half of the wranglers. There were only sixteen of us who had full access to the flight line this morning. It was great.





The P-40. Basically, the retarded little sister to the P-51.



F-22.



F-4. You can figure out some of the others. I've had 4 hours sleep in the last two days.







Not being an Air Force expert, I'm just going to go with this being a C-5. The goddamm thing looked like it was barely moving in the sky due to its size. It made an approach like it was going to land, then at the last second, hammered the throttles and did a low pass.









If you ever wanted to be a gynecologist on an F-22, here's the view.



Yeah, that's a P-38 upside down.





All of us taking pictures on the flight line had to fight the sun all day, so the pics aren't as good as any of us would like. But, you do what you can with what you are given. Regardless, the people on base were nothing less than awesome and everyone there had an excellent morning.

Also, a trip to Tucson means Sonoran hot dogs and Carne Seca at El Charro. Who can bitch about that?

S.C.