Ex-UAL pilot sues United for defamation

What about the Peter Pan Disney livery that Alaska had on one of their -400s. I heard they had to go back and immediately repaint it after it rolled out. Because of the curve of the fuselage around the nose, Tink wasn't exactly "G-Rated".
 
ERfly said:
I heard the -500 was a little hotrod.

Rode on a bunch of Continental ones. They said it was sporty, but it flew like trying to balance a football on a pencil tip.
Click to expand...
luke3 said:
The 737-500 was the best looking version of the guppy out there, especially the ones operated in Slovakia
Click to expand...

-200 is the best to fly from a snappy maneuvering machine, especially at severely light weights such as landing at 73K.

-500 is a essentially a -200 fuselage with CFM engines and better avionics. A little heavier. But still pretty maneuverable at 77K landing weights.
 
MikeD said:
-200 is the best to fly from a snappy maneuvering machine, especially at severely light weights such as landing at 73K.

-500 is a essentially a -200 fuselage with CFM engines and better avionics. A little heavier. But still pretty maneuverable at 77K landing weights.
Click to expand...
hilarious- that has to feel like a totally different airplane that was actually engineered for that

driving the same type around at almost twice the landing weight and 145kt ref is stupidity
 
bimmerphile said:
hilarious- that has to feel like a totally different airplane that was actually engineered for that

driving the same type around at almost twice the landing weight and 145kt ref is stupidity
Click to expand...

We fly a bunch of empty legs when heading to a contract flight pickup, or back to home from one. And on the home legs, they’re planned to land just a little above reserve fuel so the plane isn’t sitting around with heavy fuel on the ramp as it may not go out again for a number of days or a week. So there are always opportunities to fly at these light weights on nearly every flight.

Kind of interesting. Had a ref the other day of 110. Many landings this way, the TRs will be unlocked as a matter of course, but there’s no need to use them because you’ve slowed down so much already, there’s ample runway, no one behind us, no particular taxiway exit we have to make, so they just get re-stowed.
 
MikeD said:
We fly a bunch of empty legs when heading to a contract flight pickup, or back to home from one. And on the home legs, they’re planned to land just a little above reserve fuel so the plane isn’t sitting around with heavy fuel on the ramp as it may not go out again for a number of days or a week. So there are always opportunities to fly at these light weights on nearly every flight.

Kind of interesting. Had a ref the other day of 110. Many landings this way, the TRs will be unlocked as a matter of course, but there’s no need to use them because you’ve slowed down so much already, there’s ample runway, no one behind us, no particular taxiway exit we have to make, so they just get re-stowed.
Click to expand...
We do the same at light weights. I brief that I'll open the TRs, but use idle only. They're ready if need them, but I probably won't.

We took an empty 767 in ATL the morning after Christmas (well, pretty much, we had 4 empty cans on it, but essentially no weight). Our REF speed was 119. ATL was NOT happy with us!
 
ERfly said:
We do the same at light weights. I brief that I'll open the TRs, but use idle only. They're ready if need them, but I probably won't.

We took an empty 767 in ATL the morning after Christmas (well, pretty much, we had 4 empty cans on it, but essentially no weight). Our REF speed was 119. ATL was NOT happy with us!
Click to expand...
Have any stalkers on board? (Sorry, door was open for that one)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top