Eat A Peach For Hours Group: Members
Joined: Dec 6, 2007
QUOTE (Lurch @ Saturday, Jan 21 2012, 20:38)
What's one of those suckers run? Just absolutely beautifully done.
You mean powerplants? Depending on the Aircraft, standard choice of RR, GE, P&W etc. My favourite combination is the 777 with the Monstrous GE90 option. Like a flying Hotrod.
I miss BA's Elegant old livery
If you mean price, a used 747 SP is around 12-20000000 dollars, plus up-to & well beyond that figure for fitting-out, dependant upon your tastes. The sky's the limit! If you want a brand new A380 with all the toys; garage, marble jacuzzi, 22.2 UHD cinema, virtual floors with terrain recognition, high pressure draft-free AC with scent replication, gimballed beds and of course, a Platinum Pole for off-duty stewardesses, then expect to spend around 20 times that figure. Hangering, permits, crew, fuel, pilots, security, maintenance etc, should run you around 20% of that per annum- wether you use the plane or not.
cinnamon ropes Group: Zaibatsu
Joined: Feb 18, 2009
I've always liked the Mig-15 and Sabre F-86. It's basically a jet engine with wings and a canopy strapped on. I love the inlets at the front of them... very neat.
cinnamon ropes Group: Zaibatsu
Joined: Feb 18, 2009
Definitely, Lurch. Simple and effective. Must have been quite a thrill for those pilots jumping from their P51s and FW 190s to the first fighter jets.
Then we come to this, one of the closest things to a flying human, the FusionMan jet pack. Basically a wing and some jets... of course, you need to jump from a plane to get going but then you've got powered flight for a while. Pretty wild. Not necessarily a plane, but I think it's awesome.
Smaller jets always intrigue me more than the large fighters. I think their maneuverability and possibility of higher power to weight ratio, in general, is appealing.
You want me to get my dick out again? Group: Members
Joined: Aug 18, 2011
I was going to make this topic a few days ago, because I hadn't seen an aircraft topic, it IS a vehicle topic anyway...
I am more into regular, s mall, civilian craft. I guess I have a connection with Cessnas because I have actually had the opportunity to fly one. I was in Civil Air Patrol (Air Force auxillary) for a little over a year, and at one point they had Orientation flight, which didn't require a license, and I was only 14, so I couldn't ever GET my license then.
OT: Cessna 182, the EXACT plane I flew, photobucket happened to have a pic of it
Cessna 337 Skymaster
Icon A5, featured in Microsoft Flight (which I was excited about)
Vans RV-6, kit plane. (this may be my first craft if I ever get my license
I also love the Little Bird Needs more gold...
This post has been edited by fatal1ty619 on Friday, Mar 9 2012, 15:43
Scorps4Lyfe Group: The Connection
Joined: Apr 20, 2003
its pretty awesome you got to fly the cessna, i've been meaning to take flying lessons myself but its just too much of a hassle to get to the airfield from central london
i've satisfied my appetite by going to fly on those B737 simulators, not exactly crazy realistic but its better than playing flight simulator at home. besides, getting to sit in the captain's seat feels pretty darn cool
Damn Cessna's are awesome. Real simple and efficient. Definately my favorite single-prop manufacturer. My goal is to accquire some form of license when I'm older and get a good 'ol C172S. I used to be obsessed with aviation and wanted to be a pilot, I still do to some extent. I think being an aviation enthusiest is something your born with, the excitement of flying just never goes away for me.
I favour Boeing over Airbus because personally I just love the look of a Boeing aircraft. The whole design is clean and modern, the technology great but still traditional with alot of pilot input. The new 747-8i/f just looks incredible, one of the best looking aircraft I've seen. Obviously taking alot of visuals from the 787, which I do like but I still prefer the B777ER for twin engine long-haul.
I find airbus planes to be really bulky and more on saving money and being economical than making a good looking aircraft. The A380 for example is absolutely amazing, but looks horrible to me (it's not about looks I know, I do like the old noisy, bulky, polluting aircraft too. MD-11's for example). Airbus has a perfectly fine strategy, just something about them I don't like. On the other hand they have some amazing flight technology, and the computer sytems are alot more advanced, but my problem is that they are too focused on computers to handle the aircraft. From a pilot's perspective, I think I would be a lot more comfortable in the cockpit of a Boeing aircraft, because I find the balance between computerized functions and pilot input to be perfect, it's like it encourages the pilot to do the flying. In an airbus everything is just set up to run on it's own.
Of course that's just my opinion, and my experience with either aircraft only goes as far as FSX.
This post has been edited by SmC12 on Friday, Mar 9 2012, 17:36
Scorps4Lyfe Group: The Connection
Joined: Apr 20, 2003
Most modern aircraft are fly-by-wire nowadays, including Boeing. The major difference between Boeing and Airbus fly-by-wire systems is that Airbus doesnt allow the pilot to push the aircraft past its safe operating limits whereas Boeing pilots can. Nonetheless fly-by-wire is, on paper, significantly safer than previous mechanical/hydraulic systems. As a frequent flyer I've flown on my fair share of 737s, 747s, 757s, 767s, 777s (not lucky enough to try the new 787 yet) and A318/19/20s, A330s, A340s (my favourite commercial aircraft, how many single deck 4 engine aircraft are there?!?! very few!) and A380s. I dont have a preference over Boeing or Airbus but if I were a pilot I would agree that I would rather fly a Boeing than an Airbus as I find that the sidestick too weird to get past but it does make sense as a lot of the pilots job is to just monitor the instrument readings in front of them while at cruising altitude.
The 777 is a nice plane but next to the A340 it just looks a bit overweight as the fuselage is a bit fatter than the A340, the A340 looks like a long sleek 4 engined cheetah to Boeing's twin engined fat roll i am sad that A340 production has ended and the replacement for it being the A350 which looks much more similar to the 777 due to it being twin engined. I sort of resent the fact that engines have become so powerful and reliable that aircraft no longer have to have a minimum of 3 engines for over-water flights ...
This post has been edited by Outcast on Friday, Mar 9 2012, 17:46
Yeah I'm aware of Boeing having fly-by-wire on their aircraft too. I don't think there's anything wrong with Airbus technology, and there's no doubt computerised systems are very safe, and allow things that just wouldn't be possible otherwise. I mean just look at the Eurofighter. However my idea of flying has always been about the pilot having a major role throughout the entire flight. You could program the flightplan details into the airbus computers and it would do everything with no problem. Possible on the lastest Boeing's too though. If I remember correctly autothrottle and altitude settings engage automatically before even leaving the runway. Not a bad thing, but just think how much further it could go in the future. I don't think Boeing is superior or anything. It's just my preference.
A340 was a great plane, actually one of the airbuses which I liked the look of. Definately sad to see it go. I guess the 757 would be my equivilent long/medium-haul from boeing. Although I still think a "fat roll" 777 equipped with Trent 800's is better than double the engine number.
Scorps4Lyfe Group: The Connection
Joined: Apr 20, 2003
of course i wasn't insulting or belittling your preference for Boeings, I just happen to have a preference for Airbus theres no doubt that modern engines have a lot more power and are much more reliable than their predecessors but theres just something about 4 engines which makes you think POWERRRR!!!!!! of all Boeing aircraft, the 757 is my favourite in terms of looks. I prefer a long slim fuselage over something like 737 or A380 fuselage which looks pretty damn thick in comparison. In regards to the pilots role, i completely agree with you. I had always thought of the pilot as having major inputs from start to finish as well.
Airbus cockpit layout is just awkward because the control column is replaced by a sidestick. Also there doesnt seem to be any sort of stickshaker stall warning system on a sidestick and the only stall warnings seem to be only audio/visual another thing is if i were a pilot i dont think i'd be too confident flying such a large aircraft with a sidestick, its sort of gives me the feeling of riding a bull with a shoelace
This post has been edited by Outcast on Friday, Mar 9 2012, 22:14
You want me to get my dick out again? Group: Members
Joined: Aug 18, 2011
I'm not sure what category this would best fit, but if you haven't seen it yet, Microsoft has released MS Flight, which is pretty fun. I have yet to encounter anyone who has surpassed my height record of 39,061ft. It's free, but the P51 isn't, sadly. But it is a full, FULL scale iteration of Hawaii. I need a challenger for my record.
i am sad that A340 production has ended and the replacement for it being the A350 which looks much more similar to the 777 due to it being twin engined. I sort of resent the fact that engines have become so powerful and reliable that aircraft no longer have to have a minimum of 3 engines for over-water flights ... 
another thing is if i were a pilot i dont think i'd be too confident flying such a large aircraft with a sidestick, its sort of gives me the feeling of riding a bull with a shoelace 
