Your career progression!

Seggy said:
I am talking about confirming and activating the approach. It can really bite one in the ass.
Click to expand...

They didn't teach you well...once you pass the Decel point it automatically goes to approach phase. (If you didn't do it earlier)

Cause you are lazy! :)
Click to expand...

Yep! makes for far more accurate systems diagnostics. Speaking of, how are those system synoptic pages you can pull up on the NG...oh wait, southwest'd!



I've seen it a few times on JetBlue Airbus A320s from BOS to LGB. Now this was in 2007 so they may have a new weight and balance system, but the A321s are piggys as well.
Click to expand...

It can happen... that's why the NG got the bigger tanks to try to win back some sales. The 320 was designed with yurop in mind, and particularly the first gen 321. The new gen 321s carry 53,000 lbs of fuel and have 33k engines with 220,000 lb mtow. That's far closer to my beloved 757 than the wimpy 739 gets.



The wing on the 737 does give it a much better ride in my opinion. The Airbus wing doesn't give much when the turbulence gets above light chop. Hell, look at the soft altitude capture mode on the Bus. Part of that mode is to compensate for the wing sucking in turbulence!
Click to expand...

That mode is designed to give a smooth 1G roll in from a high vertical speed approach to altitude. The boeings have nearly identical logic, just it's not displayed prominently. I still say you're making things up on the ride... the 700 was wiggly as crap in chop. I can hit bumps going 345 indicated no prob in the 319/320... well above the Vmo of the NG!
 
Last edited:
PeanuckleCRJ said:
They didn't teach you well...once you pass the Decel point it automatically goes to approach phase.
Click to expand...

No they taught that.

I guess I should be asking....Why even bother having that logic in there?


Yep! makes for far more accurate systems diagnostics. Speaking of, how are those system synoptic pages you can pull up on the NG...oh wait, southwest'd!
Click to expand...

The mechanics do a great job figuring that out when something breaks :)




It can happen... that's why the NG has the bigger thanks. The 320 was designed with yurop in mind, particularly the first gen 321. The new gen 321s carry 53,000 lbs of fuel and have 33k engines with 220,000 lb mtow. That's far closer to my beloved 757 than the wimpy 739 gets.
Click to expand...

53K on the fuel? Wow....

However, how are the Engineers going to fit almost, what, 13K more pounds of fuel on basically the same airframe? Furthermore, those 737Maxes are also coming out the same time the NEW GEN Airbus stuff comes out which are going to have all the performance upgrades as well.


That mode is designed to give a smooth 1G roll in from a high vertical speed approach to altitude. The boeings have nearly identical logic, just it's not displayed prominently. I still say you're making things up on the ride... the 700 was wiggly as crap in chop. I can hit bumps going 345 indicated no prob in the 319/320... well above the Vmo of the NG!
Click to expand...

I don't know man.

I still prefer the ride on the 737s than the 'Bus.
 
Derg said:
I'm a huge MDD and Boeing Fanboi, but I'm tell you, they'd better get their crap together.

The 330 can fly higher and faster than Boeing products and still have a better operating margin.

And that's sad.
Click to expand...

What do y'all usually fly at altitude and mach wise on the 330 compared to the 767?
 
Last edited:
Seggy said:
No they taught that.

I guess I should be asking....Why even bother having that logic in there?
Click to expand...

Dunno... It's different, but not a big deal.







53K on the fuel? Wow....

However, how are the Engineers going to fit almost, what, 13K more pounds of fuel on basically the same airframe? Furthermore, those 737Maxes are also coming out the same time the NEW GEN Airbus stuff comes out which are going to have all the performance upgrades as well.
Click to expand...

These new gen 321s I'm talking about are what have been delivered the past 5 years or so. It was updated to the newer gen (big tanks and 33k motors) a while back... I didn't realize it was that beefy a plane until I saw the numbers. The NEO version (like the 737max) is a few years away and will be even more of a beast compared to it's 737 counter parts.




I don't know man.

I still prefer the ride on the 737s than the 'Bus.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Meanwhile, I love being able to hit the downwind right at 350 kias like I did on the 757/767 when going home while you enjoy your rides. :)
 
Seggy said:
What do y'all usually fly at altitude and Mach wise on the 330 compared to the 767?
Click to expand...

767, on the tracks, at best 350 and .80.

330, on the tracks, to 410 off the bat, and .82 and much lower fuel burn.
 
Derg said:
767, on the tracks, at best 350 and .80.

330, on the tracks, to 410 off the bat, and .82 and much lower fuel burn.
Click to expand...

Don't forget 120,000 lbs higher MTOW on the big poodle. :)

The 330 was made to replace the DC-10, which is a much larger sized aircraft than the 767 which is a smaller gauge. It's a much closer vein to the 777 than anything else.
 
PeanuckleCRJ said:
I love love Boeings... the 757/767 was a wonderful fleet to fly and I can't wait to check out the 777, 747, or 787. It's just that the 737NG is such a piece of crap compared to it's counterpart.
Click to expand...

You'll be disappointed by the 744/748.

They're massive. That being said, cockpit is loud. 310 for the first 6 hours. Flies OK.
 
Polar742 said:
You'll be disappointed by the 744/748.

They're massive. That being said, cockpit is loud. 310 for the first 6 hours. Flies OK.
Click to expand...
I've spent some time up there, and yes it was loud (you're going .86 for crying out loud). But that was about it that was on the mark downs. It's got the fully integrated cockpit with nice glass displays and EICAS... and bunks! Besides, it's THE whale. Always will be the queen of the skies. The biggest downside for me is they do looooong trips (13 days even), whereas I prefer 1-3 days due to a young son at home.

I'd be happy to slap that on my career progression, to get back on topic. ;)
 
Last edited:
CFI>Low Level Aerial Photography>Skydiver Driver> Volcano Tours> CFI> Repo> 135 Cargo> Single Engine AK Bush> Single Turbine AK Bush> Single Pilot Multi Engine Night Freight> Multi Engine AK Bush> Multi Engine AK Bush> ...Jets? Maybe?...
 
PeanuckleCRJ said:
I've spent some time up there, and yes it was loud (you're going .86 for crying out loud). But that was about it that was on the mark downs. It's got the fully integrated cockpit with nice glass displays and EICAS... and bunks! Besides, it's THE whale. Always will be the queen of the skies. The biggest downside for me is they do looooong trips (13 days even), whereas I prefer 1-3 days due to a young son at home.

I'd be happy to slap that on my career progression, to get back on topic. ;)
Click to expand...
It's loud at .80
 
Seggy said:
53K on the fuel? Wow....

However, how are the Engineers going to fit almost, what, 13K more pounds of fuel on basically the same airframe? Furthermore, those 737Maxes are also coming out the same time the NEW GEN Airbus stuff comes out which are going to have all the performance upgrades as well.
Click to expand...

The 321-200 (which is all we have) has 2 ACT (Aux. Center Tanks) which hold up to 53,000 lbs of fuel. Range going Transcon isn't a problem, unless the winds are CRAZY strong and then we're dropping into OMA with you guys from EWR.

Yes, the 321 has issues getting up to altitude. Unfortunately, it needs a bit of a bigger wing. Going to the west coast, we start off at 300 or so and then we can climb up as we get lighter. I understand the Super Dooper Hoover (900ER) has a similar problem, sometimes.

And don't forget, you guys sit so low to the freaking ground that you have crazy-high ref speeds on that thing. An airplane was never meant to be stretched that far.

Also, I like the fact my generators and packs come on automatically, thank you.
 
Oh this should be good.

Airplane washer, line service, ramp service agent, the Marines as crash crew, contractor as a firefighter / airfield operations officer, airport management, flight school (ATP) parachute rigger jump pilot, photo pilot attemempt, life derailed by a woman, Air National Guard aircraft maintenance, 4 year degree, back overseas as a contractor, full time C-130 crew chief, contract ended enlisted to be a C-5 flight engineer, mysterious limbo period, back to being a parachute rigger, and now waiting until January for my class date for C-5s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top