Something the Crews stationed in Afghanistan could try out -

vololiberista · Post by **vololiberista** » Sat Apr 07, 2012 9:41 am

-when they get a bit bored!!
On their way home or into Afghanistan they could "drop in" here literally! The VC10 could really show off her capabilities.
vololiberista
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsZqN-uEgQU

Tonkenna · Post by **Tonkenna** » Sat Apr 07, 2012 10:43 am

Wow... what an awesome approach!!!

vololiberista · Post by **vololiberista** » Sat Apr 07, 2012 12:59 pm

Tonkenna wrote:Wow... what an awesome approach!!!

Put that in your VC10 simulator! That will separate the men from the boys for sure!!!
vololiberista

Post by **Jelle Hieminga** » Sun Apr 08, 2012 3:06 pm

That one is very interesting! I wouldn't mind flying that approach... but then I'm a Cessna driver these days

I've got a bit more room to play with there (although I haven't looked up the performance figures for those altitudes..

).

This makes interesting reading about that airport: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeroma ... Bhutan.pdf

vololiberista · Post by **vololiberista** » Mon Apr 09, 2012 7:47 am

Jelle Hieminga wrote:That one is very interesting! I wouldn't mind flying that approach... but then I'm a Cessna driver these days I've got a bit more room to play with there (although I haven't looked up the performance figures for those altitudes.. ).

This makes interesting reading about that airport: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeroma ... Bhutan.pdf

That's interesting Jelle. DrukAir went for two A319's instead!!!!
vololiberista

Tonkenna · Post by **Tonkenna** » Mon Apr 09, 2012 9:53 am

That is a really interesting read Jelle... Would have been a very interesting Risk Assessment meeting when the flight test profile was discussed! I wonder why they went for the Airbus in the end?

Tonks

vololiberista · Post by **vololiberista** » Mon Apr 09, 2012 12:29 pm

Tonkenna wrote:That is a really interesting read Jelle... Would have been a very interesting Risk Assessment meeting when the flight test profile was discussed! I wonder why they went for the Airbus in the end?

Tonks

I don't think it is as forgiving at high turn rates coupled with very low airspeed. The charts call for a minimum 25deg bank angle in the turns and in that video they are manoeuvering at 135kts whilst banking. For the 737 that's too close to the edge!
As for the VC10 (doesn't it have built in wingtip pivots for high rate turns!!)

In my desktop sim using the Super I did have an engine fire on rotation and was still able to fly the "normal" approach into rwy 15.
vololiberista

Tonkenna · Post by **Tonkenna** » Mon Apr 09, 2012 5:15 pm

in that video they are manoeuvering at 135kts whilst banking. For the 737 that's too close to the edge!

The min speed for manoeuvrability will be mass and config dependent, and having read that report that Jelle posted the 737 was quite capable of doing the job, so I would guess the choice was down to many other factors such as cost per pax per sector, ac unit cost etc. Both ac will be quite capable of performing what Boeing tested... we just haven't seen the Airbus equivalent report.

As for the VC10 (doesn't it have built in wingtip pivots for high rate turns!!)

I have no idea what you mean by that?????

Tonks

vololiberista · Post by **vololiberista** » Mon Apr 09, 2012 9:10 pm

Tonkenna wrote:
in that video they are manoeuvering at 135kts whilst banking. For the 737 that's too close to the edge!
The min speed for manoeuvrability will be mass and config dependent, and having read that report that Jelle posted the 737 was quite capable of doing the job, so I would guess the choice was down to many other factors such as cost per pax per sector, ac unit cost etc. Both ac will be quite capable of performing what Boeing tested... we just haven't seen the Airbus equivalent report.

As for the VC10 (doesn't it have built in wingtip pivots for high rate turns!!)
I have no idea what you mean by that?????

Tonks

I was just being facetious!!

Which of those a/c would you have chosen?
vololiberista

vololiberista · Post by **vololiberista** » Tue Apr 10, 2012 10:58 am

I came across a semi-official pdf that said basically that they chose the Airbus as it was more adept with coping with the demands of landing at Paro etc.
However, it is my belief that they chose Airbus as it has side sticks thus allowing both pilots to nonchalantly rest their free arms on the glare shield therefore looking "cool" whilst accumulating passenger vomit down the back of their necks!!!
vololiberista

DangerMouse · Post by **DangerMouse** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 7:32 am

vololiberista wrote:I came across a semi-official pdf that said basically that they chose the Airbus as it was more adept with coping with the demands of landing at Paro etc.
However, it is my belief that they chose Airbus as it has side sticks thus allowing both pilots to nonchalantly rest their free arms on the glare shield therefore looking "cool" whilst accumulating passenger vomit down the back of their necks!!!
vololiberista

Sounds about right!!

I'd love to have a crack at the approach in a '10...

A Little VC10derness

Something the Crews stationed in Afghanistan could try out -

Something the Crews stationed in Afghanistan could try out -

Re: Something the Crews stationed in Afghanistan could try o

Re: Something the Crews stationed in Afghanistan could try o

Re: Something the Crews stationed in Afghanistan could try o

Re: Something the Crews stationed in Afghanistan could try o

Re: Something the Crews stationed in Afghanistan could try o

Re: Something the Crews stationed in Afghanistan could try o

Re: Something the Crews stationed in Afghanistan could try o

Re: Something the Crews stationed in Afghanistan could try o

Re: Something the Crews stationed in Afghanistan could try o

Re: Something the Crews stationed in Afghanistan could try o