ADVrider

Go Back   ADVrider > Fluff > Shiny things
User Name
Password
Register Inmates Photos Site Rules Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 192 votes, 4.95 average. Display Modes
Old 02-14-2012, 10:16 AM   #2626
vspeed
Gnarly Adventurer
 
vspeed's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Location: Appalachia
Oddometer: 400
I think the flying public is skittish about turboprops in large part because they are operated by "regional" airlines whose pilots generally have less experience than the pilots flying for established major airlines.

The noise level and cramped cabins probably don't help either, although I've had passengers comment to me about the noise level in the rear-most seats of the DC-9 also.

For the record, the Douglas gets around 0.5 mpg. At take-off thrust the fuel flow is about 20,000 lbs/hr, at cruise its about 7000-8000 lbs/hr (about 1000 gallons/hr).

These days we do mostly short flights with the old gal, never really getting to the altitudes where she operates most efficiently (at least not for long).

If the major airlines brought some of these newer, quieter, more comfortable, and more efficient turboprops (like the Q400 or whatever) "in house" I think they would be more widely accepted by the public and the airlines could generate a nice profit with them on their short-haul routes.
vspeed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2012, 10:49 AM   #2627
Tim McKittrick
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Dec 2003
Location: Wasilla Alaska
Oddometer: 1,651
I actually prefer the cramped, loud, smaller 'props to the jets for short hauls.... probably because I find the turning propellers a reassurance. That and they provide a more survivable environment in the event of a forced landing, and their reliability is as good as the turbofans.

Also- you don't have to go through the same security theater bullshit to get onboard, at least not at the rural Alaskan airports.
Tim McKittrick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2012, 11:25 AM   #2628
Heyload
Remastered Classic
 
Heyload's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Location: San Antonio
Oddometer: 7,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by vspeed View Post
At take-off thrust the fuel flow is about 20,000 lbs/hr, at cruise its about 7000-8000 lbs/hr (about 1000 gallons/hr)
Damn. 20,000 an hour at T/O power? I would never have thought that.

I don't guess at T/O thrust that is unreasonable for a jet, but it seemed like alot to me for a -9, so I asked one of the panel monkeys (flight engineers), they say for a C-5 at T/O thrust the fuel flow is about 56,000 lbs per hour, so I guess 20,000 ain't so bad.
__________________
"Would you care for some left-over bacon?"...said no man, ever.

When life gives you melons, you might be dyslexic.

Heyload screwed with this post 02-14-2012 at 11:32 AM
Heyload is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2012, 11:43 AM   #2629
chazbird
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Oddometer: 3,073
The lower experience pilots the public is supposedly are wary of are staffing the regional jets as well, virtually all of them. 50% of all commercial flights in the US are with regional aircraft - of course this is not total passengers carried. (That says a lot about the efficiency of that cost model). Eventually the regional pilots do become highly experienced, although they don't get the level of experienced compensation they deserve. It is difficult to "prove" but if you get a lot of experience watching other pilots who have been trained at the bare minimum and tutored by those same pilots, that might not be the best model. One dismaying factor I've heard from friends who were furloughed from a major airline that went to a regional is that the younger captains in the regionals aren't really captains. They simply will not exercise command decisions, like, for instance, saying no to dispatch. Sometimes you have to say no, its that simple. But, if you aren't paid decently and are used to be run into the ground (figuratively speaking), I guess you aren't as likely to stand up with some integrity.

Is this a thread drift? Oops, sorry. What about all those pretty airplanes? I flew the -9 for a short while. Classic 'hardball steam gauge aircraft. I'm an old fart I guess, I like glass as much as anyone but give me an ADI (with a FD) and HSI, RMI and DME, a color radar, and I'm set.
chazbird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2012, 12:00 PM   #2630
vspeed
Gnarly Adventurer
 
vspeed's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Location: Appalachia
Oddometer: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heyload View Post
Damn. 20,000 an hour at T/O power? I would never have thought that.

I don't guess at T/O thrust that is unreasonable for a jet, but it seemed like alot to me for a -9, so I asked one of the panel monkeys (flight engineers), they say for a C-5 at T/O thrust the fuel flow is about 56,000 lbs per hour, so I guess 20,000 ain't so bad.

Yeah the fuel flow doohickey's are pretty much pegged during takeoff.
vspeed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2012, 02:44 PM   #2631
jackd
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: North Cowichan
Oddometer: 2,898
I'm kind of enjoying the thread drift. It's nice to see industry people discussing issues without griping!

In my organization, there has been very little migration of pilots to the majors - so we have some very high timers in the L/H seat. Most have 20 plus years under their belt. The young guys gravitate toward the small jets to get that experience, which is needed to move onto larger jet equipment. Those that stay on the turbo-props tend to just stick around - usually for preferential bid purposes, and lifestyle needs (young families, etc.) I think that the video game generation mentality of the younger guys lends them toward the jets as well - they are quick to learn and have no fear of newer flight management systems. I think the same view applies to the mechanics as well - old guys like me tend to stay with the older equipment.
jackd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2012, 06:29 AM   #2632
Heyload
Remastered Classic
 
Heyload's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Location: San Antonio
Oddometer: 7,039
I would agree, the younger troops seem to embrace the new systems much faster and readily than the old dogs.

I remember vividly the resistance of the older crewmembers when we first started receiving and using the electronic Form-F weight and balance programs and the distrust they had.

Hell, I can remember the resistance to using pocket calculators for filling out the Form-F and the grumbling that went on.

The young guns just eat that stuff up, though.
__________________
"Would you care for some left-over bacon?"...said no man, ever.

When life gives you melons, you might be dyslexic.
Heyload is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2012, 06:44 AM   #2633
Flying-D
Just Passing Through
 
Flying-D's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2010
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO
Oddometer: 2,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heyload View Post
I would agree, the younger troops seem to embrace the new systems much faster and readily than the old dogs.

I remember vividly the resistance of the older crewmembers when we first started receiving and using the electronic Form-F weight and balance programs and the distrust they had.

Hell, I can remember the resistance to using pocket calculators for filling out the Form-F and the grumbling that went on.

The young guns just eat that stuff up, though.
Those same changes are reflected in ATC also. The technology in the radar environment has totally changed. I've always preferred the tower, because it still comes down to a guy with a microphone and a pair of binoculars.

As far as controllers themselves...another huge change. Training is kinder and gentler, and lasts almost indefinitely now. All making for lower standards, but more success in the training environment. Many procedures have changed through the years due to controller error. Instead of blaming the individual for being unable to do his job, they find fault with procedures that worked efficiently for decades, and strip them from the books, decreasing efficiency, but adding a safety margin in to account for the less capable controllers that they now allow through training. Also, the majority of controllers used to have an interest in aviation. Now, the interest is in $$ and benefit packages. Again, leading to a totally different controller work force attitude. I'll be thrilled to retire when the time comes.

...guess I'm one of the old grumblers.
__________________
It's really all just stuff...and in the end, none of it means shit.
Flying-D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2012, 09:13 AM   #2634
XR650L_Dave
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Location: Near Cortland NY
Oddometer: 3,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heyload View Post
I would agree, the younger troops seem to embrace the new systems much faster and readily than the old dogs.

I remember vividly the resistance of the older crewmembers when we first started receiving and using the electronic Form-F weight and balance programs and the distrust they had.

Hell, I can remember the resistance to using pocket calculators for filling out the Form-F and the grumbling that went on.

The young guns just eat that stuff up, though.

Excellent blog from an older pilot embracing the new gizmos, but still loving the hand-flying bits:

http://flightlevel390.blogspot.com/


__________________
---->>Thanks for the rotor, guys!<<----
XR650L_Dave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2012, 09:32 AM   #2635
wannaklr
Beastly Adventurer
 
wannaklr's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2006
Location: Back In Iowa. Quad Cities to be exactish..
Oddometer: 7,154
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/dreamliner-jet-draws-boeing-logo-across-north-america-163127660.html

Kinda funny!

__________________
Back in Iowa!
I like my music like I like my women. Loud, angry and with bagpipes!

From Scottie Boy "If you calculated the money spent versus time actually used, vaginas cost more per hour than the space shuttle."
wannaklr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2012, 10:17 AM   #2636
EvilGenius OP
1.5 Finger Discount
 
EvilGenius's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Location: DFW, Texas
Oddometer: 20,305
So they did it on one flight?
__________________
"Try turning that burn into torque. Then we're getting somewhere. Riding the potato to work seems quite impractical." - anotherguy

"Never bring a Nerf gun to a shovel fight." - My Brother
EvilGenius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2012, 01:19 PM   #2637
Smithy
Avoiding the Skid-Demon
 
Smithy's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: 22310
Oddometer: 7,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim McKittrick View Post
I actually prefer the cramped, loud, smaller 'props to the jets for short hauls.... probably because I find the turning propellers a reassurance. That and they provide a more survivable environment in the event of a forced landing, and their reliability is as good as the turbofans.

Also- you don't have to go through the same security theater bullshit to get onboard, at least not at the rural Alaskan airports.

You do in SoCal. Took off from San Diego to LAX in a tiny prop plane, full body scanner in use.
__________________
Consultant, Geospatial Science at Viking Geographic LLC Always Exploring
Proprietor of The Tidewater Forge Hot iron is my passion. Fire is my mistress. Let's dance.
35 Years of Scouting Blog for Bushcrafting and Boy Scouting experiences.
Smithy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2012, 02:48 PM   #2638
jackd
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: North Cowichan
Oddometer: 2,898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smithy View Post
You do in SoCal. Took off from San Diego to LAX in a tiny prop plane, full body scanner in use.
Up here in Canada they full body scan us when we go from the hangar to the terminal apron - and that is when we go to have coffee! They even do the swab test on the maintenance van to check for suspicious chemicals. I keep thinking that I hope the swab test finds something and the whole elaborate background system can swing into action - that will take about 3 hours of duty off my shift as they sort everything out.
jackd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2012, 04:58 PM   #2639
Beach40
Banned
 
Beach40's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2006
Location: Newport, Sydney, Australia
Oddometer: 2,975
Tilt Rotor.

Anyone have any details/inside info about this?

http://www.gizmag.com/agustawestland...m_medium=email
Beach40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 07:17 AM   #2640
jackd
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: North Cowichan
Oddometer: 2,898
Here's another anecdote from the security/full body scanner checkpoint. Early in their inception at our nice little place of work, the folks who ran the checkpoints were not quite aware of their work environment. We would pull up in our maintenance vehicles and they would ask us to remove all of our personal items from the vehicle - including tool boxes - and bring them in for inspection. We always do as we are told. So this one security person opens a tool box and makes the remarkable discovery (it contains box cutters, sharp pointy things, hammers, etc.) of all these dangerous items. The person exclaims that these items could be used to dismantle the aircraft! The wisened old mechanic replies: "Good observation - that's what I'm paid to do...." They now leave our tool boxes alone.
jackd is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Share

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


Times are GMT -7.   It's 07:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ADVrider 2011-2014