C Series a dead duck?

I mean there is nothing inherently wrong with a regional jet (sans the windows on a -200 make for someone 4 foot tall) Its just the conditions that they are flown under in the US (and other countries)
 
God, I'm still kicking myself that I didn't save as a PDF the crew memo from ACP W.C. (now DO) at Mesa saying if possible to fly through rain to wash the planes off a little. I would make it my signature line.
 
SpiraMirabilis said:
God, I'm still kicking myself that I didn't save as a PDF the crew memo from ACP W.C. (now DO) at Mesa saying if possible to fly through rain to wash the planes off a little. I would make it my signature line.
Click to expand...

I remember reading that one. I had to do a double take..."Is this guy serious?"
 
jynxyjoe said:
This from the kid who had spikey hair and wore his shades inside long before flying his shiny jet.
Click to expand...
What do you expect? He flies the Embraer 175. That thing is built with the quality and durability not even a Sherman Tank can match. It's easy to see why those guys would expect only the best!
 
Airdale said:
Anything made by Bombardier is garbage. I hope the C-series never takes flight.
Click to expand...

kellwolf said:
Not true. They make cool snowmobiles.
Click to expand...

I love my SeaDoo... nothing on the water has been able to touch it. Not even those Japanese Honda's and Yamaha's. :)

The only thing I've experienced on the Bombardier aircraft is the galley service door... and on half the aircraft it's a PITA to open and on the other half it's a cinch :dunno:
 
Doug Taylor said:
If you can't load 100 passengers, bags and cargo onto it and fly at least coast to coast, what's the point?
Click to expand...

This.

To replace a DC-9, you NEED another DC-9.

No wussy 5 tube EFIS. No "SnitchMeister (tm)" EICAS/ECAM system that watches every light bulb. No quadruple redundant autopilot system that can fly the ILS back course inverted.

But just a simple airframe that:

1) Doesn't burn a whole lot of gas.
2) Does the job, leg after leg, day after day.
3) Can be fixed by anyone who has ever turned a wrench
4) Can carry 100 people, their bags, and cargo
5) Sits low so it's easy to load.
6) Have the fuel capacity to go somewhere and hold for a bit.
7) Has a start check list that goes: 1) Roll downhill 2) let clutch out 3) repeat for other side
8) NOT built for 250 hour wonder, but for a professional pilot that can keep track of where they are without a MFD or ND.

Reliability is the key. VERY simple FMS (you're not crossing oceans). Go with a VERY simple system monitor. No powered flight controls. You should be able to fly the thing if you lose both electrics AND hydraulics.

But such an airplane will never be built, since they have to make it pilot proof for the Euro export crowd.

Richman
 
Richman said:
This.

To replace a DC-9, you NEED another DC-9.

No wussy 5 tube EFIS. No "SnitchMeister (tm)" EICAS/ECAM system that watches every light bulb. No quadruple redundant autopilot system that can fly the ILS back course inverted.

But just a simple airframe that:

1) Doesn't burn a whole lot of gas.
2) Does the job, leg after leg, day after day.
3) Can be fixed by anyone who has ever turned a wrench
4) Can carry 100 people, their bags, and cargo
5) Sits low so it's easy to load.
6) Have the fuel capacity to go somewhere and hold for a bit.
7) Has a start check list that goes: 1) Roll downhill 2) let clutch out 3) repeat for other side
8) NOT built for 250 hour wonder, but for a professional pilot that can keep track of where they are without a MFD or ND.

Reliability is the key. VERY simple FMS (you're not crossing oceans). Go with a VERY simple system monitor. No powered flight controls. You should be able to fly the thing if you lose both electrics AND hydraulics.

But such an airplane will never be built, since they have to make it pilot proof for the Euro export crowd.

Richman
Click to expand...

... Where have you been all my life!? :love:
 
Minuteman said:
"So come on down to Crazy Richman's house of Russian aircraft. We set you up right, yes!" :rotfl:
Click to expand...

In Soviet Russia, Airplane sells YOU!

In all seriousness, I think the airplane that came closest to what I posted was the Fokker F-100. From the USAir guys I talked to, that was a great airplane. You could go from cold to go in about 15 minutes. Never talked with any AMR guys who flew it, though.

Richman
 
Richman said:
This.

To replace a DC-9, you NEED another DC-9.

No wussy 5 tube EFIS. No "SnitchMeister (tm)" EICAS/ECAM system that watches every light bulb. No quadruple redundant autopilot system that can fly the ILS back course inverted.

But just a simple airframe that:

1) Doesn't burn a whole lot of gas.
2) Does the job, leg after leg, day after day.
3) Can be fixed by anyone who has ever turned a wrench
4) Can carry 100 people, their bags, and cargo
5) Sits low so it's easy to load.
6) Have the fuel capacity to go somewhere and hold for a bit.
7) Has a start check list that goes: 1) Roll downhill 2) let clutch out 3) repeat for other side
8) NOT built for 250 hour wonder, but for a professional pilot that can keep track of where they are without a MFD or ND.

Reliability is the key. VERY simple FMS (you're not crossing oceans). Go with a VERY simple system monitor. No powered flight controls. You should be able to fly the thing if you lose both electrics AND hydraulics.

But such an airplane will never be built, since they have to make it pilot proof for the Euro export crowd.

Richman
Click to expand...

(From the choir) AMEN!!!
 
Richman said:
In Soviet Russia, Airplane sells YOU!

In all seriousness, I think the airplane that came closest to what I posted was the Fokker F-100. From the USAir guys I talked to, that was a great airplane. You could go from cold to go in about 15 minutes. Never talked with any AMR guys who flew it, though.

Richman
Click to expand...

All the AA guys I talk to about it hated it. Said it was a dog, slow and a lot of times it had weight restrictions.
 
Richman said:
No wussy 5 tube EFIS. No "SnitchMeister (tm)" EICAS/ECAM system that watches every light bulb. No quadruple redundant autopilot system that can fly the ILS back course inverted.

But just a simple airframe that:

1) Doesn't burn a whole lot of gas.
2) Does the job, leg after leg, day after day.
3) Can be fixed by anyone who has ever turned a wrench
4) Can carry 100 people, their bags, and cargo
5) Sits low so it's easy to load.
6) Have the fuel capacity to go somewhere and hold for a bit.
7) Has a start check list that goes: 1) Roll downhill 2) let clutch out 3) repeat for other side
8) NOT built for 250 hour wonder, but for a professional pilot that can keep track of where they are without a MFD or ND.

Reliability is the key. VERY simple FMS (you're not crossing oceans). Go with a VERY simple system monitor. No powered flight controls. You should be able to fly the thing if you lose both electrics AND hydraulics.
Click to expand...

Almost everything the E-170/190 is not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top