Page 1 of 1
Something the Crews stationed in Afghanistan could try out -
Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2012 9:41 am
by vololiberista
-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
Re: Something the Crews stationed in Afghanistan could try o
Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2012 10:43 am
by Tonkenna
Wow... what an awesome approach!!!
Re: Something the Crews stationed in Afghanistan could try o
Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2012 12:59 pm
by vololiberista
Tonkenna wrote:Wow... what an awesome approach!!!
Put that in your VC10 simulator! That will separate the men from the boys for sure!!!
vololiberista
Re: Something the Crews stationed in Afghanistan could try o
Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2012 3:06 pm
by Jelle Hieminga
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
Re: Something the Crews stationed in Afghanistan could try o
Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 7:47 am
by vololiberista
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
Re: Something the Crews stationed in Afghanistan could try o
Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 9:53 am
by Tonkenna
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
Re: Something the Crews stationed in Afghanistan could try o
Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 12:29 pm
by vololiberista
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
Re: Something the Crews stationed in Afghanistan could try o
Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 5:15 pm
by Tonkenna
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
Re: Something the Crews stationed in Afghanistan could try o
Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 9:10 pm
by vololiberista
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
Re: Something the Crews stationed in Afghanistan could try o
Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 10:58 am
by vololiberista
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
Re: Something the Crews stationed in Afghanistan could try o
Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 7:32 am
by DangerMouse
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...