Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

donate to eham
   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 [2]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Vet need help  (Read 1833 times)
KM1H
Member

Posts: 4722




Ignore
« Reply #15 on: November 15, 2018, 12:32:54 PM »

Quote
One study of 8 flights in Airbus A380 aircraft found a median cabin pressure altitude of 6,128 feet (1,868 m), and 65 flights in Boeing 747-400 aircraft found a median cabin pressure altitude of 5,159 feet (1,572 m).[13]

No one I noticed suffered low pressure issues which included me at 76 and the ex at 69.

The 737 was one of my favorites for a short runway short haul pocket rocket. Boston to Dayton was probably the longest and that was for by sons MSEE graduation at Wright Patterson AFB.
Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 13268




Ignore
« Reply #16 on: November 15, 2018, 12:57:40 PM »

One study of 8 flights in Airbus A380 aircraft found a median cabin pressure altitude of 6,128 feet (1,868 m), and 65 flights in Boeing 747-400 aircraft found a median cabin pressure altitude of 5,159 feet (1,572 m).[13]

Pressure altitude is determined by a maximum pressure differential that aircraft in question can handle. Its operating ceiling is typical the altitude at which it can no longer maintain a 8000 foot cabin. When operating below its max altitude it can have a lower pressure altitude. The A350 is rated a 5000 cabin at max altitude and even lower at lower altitudes.

No one I noticed suffered low pressure issues which included me at 76 and the ex at 69.

And what are you saying?Huh?? You do understand that 8000 ft max cabin is a industry standard dah.... You cannot be worse but you can be better. It requires a stronger pressure fuselage  to to maintain a higher pressure differential. That typically adds cost and weight. Airbus pioneered a composite fuselage.

The 737 was one of my favorites for a short runway short haul pocket rocket. Boston to Dayton was probably the longest and that was for by sons MSEE graduation at Wright Patterson AFB.

Never cared for that plane. It was basically a 707 with part of front and rear cut off and aircraft shortened and lightened. It was not a clean new design and today's 737 is limited by its 60 year old roots. The Airbus 32x series is a much better and quieter plane. Some stay with 737 for compatibility for maintenance with other 737 in fleet.  When I book a flight I go to great effort to avoid 737 legs (not possible with south west though) Boeing should have retired it years ago and keep 757 alive in its place.
Logged

--------------------------------------
Ham since 1969....  Old School 20wpm REAL Extra Class..
G3RZP
Member

Posts: 1090




Ignore
« Reply #17 on: November 15, 2018, 01:11:46 PM »

John,

Some ten or eleven years ago, I had an 'interesting' flight in a shortly to be retired 757 from Nicosia to Heathrow. Preparing for take off, the 'seat belt sign' wasn't illuminated and the no smoking sign' was. Turned out the wiring was crossed - not something I would have expected on BA! The seat belt sign stayed illuminated throughout the flight, but the 'No Smoking' light didn't....

I always figured that when you had well over two million miles on various airlines under your backside, you would have seen most things, but only once did I ever see that....
Logged
KM1H
Member

Posts: 4722




Ignore
« Reply #18 on: November 15, 2018, 03:45:32 PM »

Quote
One of my daughters flew to Thailand last year on Qatar airlines and was on a brand new A350 for long leg over and back and a A380 from Qatar to Thailand and back. She liked 350 better. The 350 is the first aircraft to not only hold a higher internal pressure (5000 feet vs 8000 feet) but also the first to control humidity as well as other planes get very low in humidity on long flights.

Youre the one claiming the 380 at 8000' DUH... rather than that is the Federal mandated maximum.

With the 350 ACTUALLY at 6000' and the 380 at 6180' there is really no difference in actual flights to argue about.
The 320 fuselage is only 53% composite with the rest aluminum and titanium, only time will tell what the next model will use.

Airbus had nothing to do with pioneering a composite fuselage

Quote
Fiberglass was first used in aviation by Boeing in its passenger jet in the 1950s. When Boeing rolled out its new 787 Dreamliner in 2012, it boasted that the aircraft was 50 percent composite material. New aircraft rolling off the line today almost all incorporate some kind of composite material into their designs.

Quote
The chief breakthrough material technology on the 787 is the increased use of composites. The 787 is 50 percent composite by weight. A majority of the primary structure is made of composite materials, most notably the fuselage. Composite materials have many advantages.
Logged
G3RZP
Member

Posts: 1090




Ignore
« Reply #19 on: November 16, 2018, 01:21:38 AM »

Quote
Airbus had nothing to do with pioneering a composite fuselage

Airbus not only didn't exist, but wasn't even dreamt of when work started on composite fuselages......
There are those around who still feel "If it's not Boeing, I'm not going".........
Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 13268




Ignore
« Reply #20 on: November 16, 2018, 04:28:09 AM »


Airbus had nothing to do with pioneering a composite fuselage


Your are pretty clueless without google huh. Unlike you I worked around and on aircraft for many years.  I once went to 43,000 feet in a KC135 40 years ago to get over some weather and viewed it from in cockpit too. We had to go to a 11,000 foot cabin due to limitations of aircraft. Aircraft was actually capable of going higher. Old turbojet engines actually did well at high altitude.  BTW fiberglass is not a considered a composite. Airbus was the leader here and Boeing is playing catch up.

Getting back to 737, it needs to be retired. Boeing tries t0 keep it alive by moving engines higher and in front of wing to install bigger engines due to low wings but it has created CG problems doing it. Airbus 32x and 757 did not have this problem because they have long legs and high wings and MD9x series Boeing bought (renamed 717) and killed unlike 737 could easily support bigger more efficient engines and it is easier to fly during engine failure due to near center-line thrust which requires very little control input to offset.  Boeing installed a stall control system on those 737 max planes because of CG issues but never really explained it to buyers of aircraft or trained them on it till after resent Lion Air crash that stall control system likely caused when it pitched aircraft down based on bad sensor data. Also unlike A32x and even old 757 which can climb directly cruising altitude at takeoff fully loaded due to generous install power, a modern 737 cannot it has to burn fuel and step climb due to engine limitations by design. Also that engine that failed on a SW 737 and killed a passenger is unique to 737 and stress fan blades more due to size limitation as Boeing tries to keep aircraft alive.  Other newer aircraft the aircraft is designed around current and future engines on board rather that trying to design a engine around 737.   
Logged

--------------------------------------
Ham since 1969....  Old School 20wpm REAL Extra Class..
W8JX
Member

Posts: 13268




Ignore
« Reply #21 on: November 16, 2018, 04:34:36 AM »

Quote
Airbus had nothing to do with pioneering a composite fuselage

Airbus not only didn't exist, but wasn't even dreamt of when work started on composite fuselages......
There are those around who still feel "If it's not Boeing, I'm not going".........

Boeing is far from perfect. I see A32x series as superior to 737 aircraft having flown both many times. To Airbus advantage because they were a late comer to industry they had newer designs from day one and were able to include composites in their designs too. Boeing 737 basic design dates to 50's and all the tweaks in world cannot change that. 
Logged

--------------------------------------
Ham since 1969....  Old School 20wpm REAL Extra Class..
G3RZP
Member

Posts: 1090




Ignore
« Reply #22 on: November 16, 2018, 06:29:45 AM »

Airbus as Airbus was a latecomer: but lots of bits of it came from companies of several nationalities going back to the early 1900s, so it was a 'latecomer' with a lot of inbuilt experience, which probably helped it to avoid a lot of mistakes.
Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 13268




Ignore
« Reply #23 on: November 16, 2018, 08:25:44 AM »

Airbus as Airbus was a latecomer: but lots of bits of it came from companies of several nationalities going back to the early 1900s, so it was a 'latecomer' with a lot of inbuilt experience, which probably helped it to avoid a lot of mistakes.

I am sure it benefited for that as several "minds" in several places is better than all in one house. Having worked on and around Boeing aircraft for many years I was never really impressed with them. It was like they built by default choice, not because they were best design. When Boeing initially lost tanker contract to Airbus they cried and fussed until they got it back even though Airbus version, had more range, could carry more cargo and offload more fuel they won because it was Boeing. Then there was the completion for what later because F35 (which is still over rated)  Boeing entry was not only one ugly plane, they had to remove landing gear doors, some body panels and hover over a pit that removed jet blast that could stall engine to pass hoover test. They (Boeing) considered it a successful proof of design (even though you had to remove aircraft parts to do it) Yet Northrop version could hoover in full flight configuration and did not require a blast pit and still Boeing felt that were a shoe in for contract when they were not. The point of all this? I think Boeing rides on its name more than en-ovation. 
Logged

--------------------------------------
Ham since 1969....  Old School 20wpm REAL Extra Class..
KM1H
Member

Posts: 4722




Ignore
« Reply #24 on: November 16, 2018, 12:50:04 PM »

Quote
Your are pretty clueless without google huh. Unlike you I worked around and on aircraft for many years.  I once went to 43,000 feet in a KC135 40 years ago to get over some weather and viewed it from in cockpit too. We had to go to a 11,000 foot cabin due to limitations of aircraft. Aircraft was actually capable of going higher. Old turbojet engines actually did well at high altitude.  BTW fiberglass is not a considered a composite. Airbus was the leader here and Boeing is playing catch up.

What does any of that rant have to do with the discussion?  The US along with Boeing led the composite development no matter the material and the 787 proves it. Incremental improvements are to be expected in any industry.

The only reason the 737 is still so popular is because carriers want it and they dont bother to ask for your "opinion"
I also flew in many DC-9's when they were popular and it was another good plane from this passengers viewpoint.

A goodly part of my long career was spent flying all over the world and not sitting in a hangar working on them. I even flew in DC-10's and lived to tell the story!
Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 13268




Ignore
« Reply #25 on: November 17, 2018, 10:19:37 AM »

What does any of that rant have to do with the discussion?  The US along with Boeing led the composite development no matter the material and the 787 proves it. Incremental improvements are to be expected in any industry.

Airbus was using it before Boeing. Boeing had no choice but to vest heavily in it because Airbus was already using it. If they did not build 787 as they did it would of been DOA.

The only reason the 737 is still so popular is because carriers want it and they dont bother to ask for your "opinion"
I also flew in many DC-9's when they were popular and it was another good plane from this passengers viewpoint.

You are so clueless. The reason some still buy them is that they are heavily vested in other aircraft like it and hate change for logistics dah. Many newer carriers are vesting in Airbus as they have no legacy commitments. Guess you do not read news, several carriers and pilots union is pretty upset that Boeing left info about stall system on 737 max that can nose down airplane even with autopilot off. Not in flight manual or training, Boeing is in damage control mode now and this could impact future sales. Boeing would of been far wiser to of scraped 737 decades ago and replace it with shortened versions of 757 which has long legs/gear and can handle bigger engines. (Airbus did this successfully with 320 with 318 to 321 versions) Also a fully loaded 757 built 20 years ago can get off ground about 25 to 30% sooner than a new 737 max as low wing limits fan size which Boeing tried to work around it by moving engine up and forward of wing and even extending front (not main because they can't) gear 17 inches but it also changed CG which they tried to fix with stall control system that they left out of manuals. They have milked that cow too long. BTW I actually have a pilot license too but not active and together with my background I have a better understand of them than just riding in them. I have also had many conversion with pilots of various commercial aircraft. Because of my background I can talk nuts and bolts with them and can even tell you cruise fuel consumption and quirks of various models from these conversations. 

A goodly part of my long career was spent flying all over the world and not sitting in a hangar working on them. I even flew in DC-10's and lived to tell the story!

Oh yes and just riding on them makes you more knowledgeable than someone that has actually worked on a few dozen plus airplane models from fighters to C5's (including KC10) huh. You are a legend in your own mind.
Logged

--------------------------------------
Ham since 1969....  Old School 20wpm REAL Extra Class..
AC7CW
Member

Posts: 1321




Ignore
« Reply #26 on: November 17, 2018, 11:42:25 AM »

This thread seems a bit off topic... but it does remind me of when I drove my International Travelall towing a 24' trailer over a 9100' mountain... the cabin pressure differential was zero and I was so loopy that I just kept going..
Logged

Novice 1958, 20WPM Extra now... (and get off my lawn)
KM1H
Member

Posts: 4722




Ignore
« Reply #27 on: November 17, 2018, 05:13:41 PM »

Quote
Airbus was using it before Boeing. Boeing had no choice but to vest heavily in it because Airbus was already using it. If they did not build 787 as they did it would of been DOA.

More pure BS from you John, AB was actually late to the show but did move up fast with continuing innovations BUT they did not lead it.

https://ihsmarkit.com/pdf/Composites-Aerospace-Applications-whitepaper_264558110913046532.pdf

Quote
You are so clueless. The reason some still buy them is that they are heavily vested in other aircraft like it and hate change for logistics dah. Many newer carriers are vesting in Airbus as they have no legacy commitments.

Learn how to read what I said AND implied John. Of course those airlines had a vested interest in the 737 and still want more even if it is an obsolete product. Some accountant must have told them it was cheaper in the long run than starting over with something else.

Quote
Oh yes and just riding on them makes you more knowledgeable than someone that has actually worked on a few dozen plus airplane models from fighters to C5's (including KC10) huh. You are a legend in your own mind.

So what does decades of your putzing around pulling cables with USAF military aircraft have to do with anything? Practice how to stay on the subject or go away when your only retorts are silly and childish insults.

My riding in airliners only gives me a feeling of the flight differences between various models and how they have improved since my first ride on a 707 in 59. How many have you been in?

Boeing scores in 4 out of the top 5 in safety with the later 737 included and it also has far more in service than the other 4 combined. No matter what your lack of real details has to do with anything I still like the 737 as my short haul favorite.
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 [2]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!