Whoosh - The Airplane and Airline Thread

[handymanshandle]

13 hours ago, Kaloob said:

JetBlue has ERJs and A320s. 

yeah I think that's probably more so the model I'm thinking of.
Kinda like JetBlue+A330s and A220s instead of Embraer lol

[handymanshandle]

55 minutes ago, pinksnowbirdie said:

yeah I think that's probably more so the model I'm thinking of.
Kinda like JetBlue+A330s and A220s instead of Embraer lol

which I forgot, JetBlue has A220s on order lol

[handymanshandle]

2 minutes ago, Kaloob said:

Azul, which was founded by the same guy who started JetBlue actually has that fleet except with E-Jets instead of A220s, along with some ATR-72s.

That seems kinda odd for them.

they're replacing the E190s lol

 

The guy that founded Azul and JB is starting another airline called breeze with A220s and E195s

[handymanshandle]

4 minutes ago, Kaloob said:

Why both? I'd just pick the A220 and simplify things. 

sounds like the E195 is a sublease from Azul probably until they get more A220s.

[Mr.Meerkat]

17 hours ago, pinksnowbirdie said:

A321XLR isn't getting to Japan or Taiwan from Mainland US lol

Wrong ocean lol...it effectively has the same capacity as a 757-200 whilst having a higher "claimed range". Perfect for the North Atlantic but not quite enough for the pacific ocean. Also, don't forget routes like NA to SA and routes like Hawaii to east coast. Great for direct flights between two medium/smaller airports, where the demand is there but not enough to fill a 787/A330  

[handymanshandle]

Just now, Mr.Meerkat said:

Wrong ocean lol...it effectively has the same capacity as a 757-200 whilst having a higher "claimed range". Perfect for the North Atlantic but not quite enough for the pacific ocean. Also, don't forget routes like NA to SA and routes like Hawaii to east coast. Great for direct flights between two medium/smaller airports, where the demand is there but not enough to fill a 787/A330  

ye kinda why I commented an A330neo would be ideal for flights to Taiwan/Japan from like the west coast. Not sure of further inland

[handymanshandle]

3 hours ago, Mr.Meerkat said:

Wrong ocean lol...it effectively has the same capacity as a 757-200 whilst having a higher "claimed range". Perfect for the North Atlantic but not quite enough for the pacific ocean. Also, don't forget routes like NA to SA and routes like Hawaii to east coast. Great for direct flights between two medium/smaller airports, where the demand is there but not enough to fill a 787/A330  

Although imagine one day they make a single aisle long range jet that could fly from mainland US to the Asias, that probably would not be fun lol

[GDRRiley]

5 hours ago, pinksnowbirdie said:

Although imagine one day they make a single aisle long range jet that could fly from mainland US to the Asias, that probably would not be fun lol

question is who will. it already can be made but given boeing is on the struggle bus and airbus seems to be having fun with the a380 which they've never made a cargo version of.

[Mr.Meerkat]

13 hours ago, pinksnowbirdie said:

Although imagine one day they make a single aisle long range jet that could fly from mainland US to the Asias, that probably would not be fun lol

Well in theory, the A321 XLR can probably already do that. It just won't be able to carry the full payload of 200-ish pax  

[seon123]

14 minutes ago, Mr.Meerkat said:

Well in theory, the A321 XLR can probably already do that. It just won't be able to carry the full payload of 200-ish pax  

From the payload-range diagram for the A321, we find that it can fly up to a bit over 9000 km with close to no payload and 3 ACTs. That is barely enough to reach Japan from LAX.

Spoiler

https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/support-services/airport-operations-and-technical-data/aircraft-characteristics.html

 

Spoiler

https://www.greatcirclemapper.net/en/great-circle-mapper.html?route=KLAX&aircraft=&range=9200

 

[Mr.Meerkat]

1 hour ago, seon123 said:

From the payload-range diagram for the A321, we find that it can fly up to a bit over 9000 km with close to no payload and 3 ACTs. That is barely enough to reach Japan from LAX.

Looks like the payload-range diagram for the A321NEO/LR and not the A321XLR, which has a MTOW of 100/101 tonnes. Current A321LR with 3 aux tanks may not be able to make it but the XLR will carry enough extra fuel to have sufficient range to do so  

[handymanshandle]

So between the 787 and A350 which do you guys think is the more advanced plane and just the overall cooler plane?

For me that's really tough, because I like both and I'd love to fly on both. But there's this weird dichotomy that does and doesn't work between them.

Airbus built the A350 as a replacement for the A340 and as a competitor to the 777, and it's kinda priced like that.

The 787, I believe was intended as a 767 replacement and a A330 competitor.

I still really wished the A350 and A330neo had American engine options lol

[GDRRiley]

@pinksnowbirdie

787

[handymanshandle]

36 minutes ago, Kaloob said:

I agree, just because I'm a Boeing fanboi.

It's hard to be one now, though, and I am more exited for whatever Airbus does nowadays. 

I like the way the 737NG looks, I'd like to fly on one. I'm lukewarm on the MAX just for how poorly they handled that. I prefer the way the A320 family looks and I think the offering of the PW1000G on the A320neo is fantastic because that's the same engine that powers the A220 and it seems like it's super quiet.

 

The 757 is also pretty cool, and I think the 767 was a bit of an underdog. 747 is iconic for good reason, would love to fly on a 747-8

 

I'm sure the CFM Leap is a good engine but I think it's just a successor to the CFM-56 which is a fine engine, seems to power the majority of the Airbus A320 family and the exclusive engine on the 737NG.

 

but yeah as I said the 787 and A350 have really got me holding them equally.

 

I wished Boeing still made the 717 and ultimately I guess the biggest reason Boeing didn't want to commit to the 717 even as things were looking bad for sales since priorities at the and the aviation industry post 9/11 was that it wasn't their plane, they didn't design it. Which okay fine but like you guys are the one that bought MD, you guys could've let them fail and then buy up their defense contracts rather than saving the company and just giving 10% of effort to make the 717 work out better.

I also fault them for how they handled the CSeries being sold to Delta for a good deal.

 

but yeah all for supporting American businesses and workers but bit of a problem when Boeing does some of those gripes I have with them and why I wished the A330neo and A350 had American engine options to at least make them more American even if they're built in Germany/France.

 

Not sure if there's room for another American commercial airframer but it'd be truly interesting to see someone try and take on the long standing titan that is Boeing.

 

 

Also I wished the 727 wouldn't have been an S-Ducted Tri-Engine and had gone for the straight through mounting like the DC-10. Kind of doubt that it has much impact on aerodynamic but what do I know, maybe because S-Duct looks sleeker it is more slippery

[V.K.Videsh]

Does anyone here sim FSX, X-plane?????

[handymanshandle]

3 hours ago, Kaloob said:

I personally prefer the 737 design over the A320, the latter is just a bit boring. I'd personally put the NG at the bottom of the list for 737 designs, they're just more boring than the others.

CFM LEAPs are already a bit quiet for my tastes (I like engine noise if it's not so loud you have to yell over it or something like that), but the P1000Gs are really cool. Sadly, I think AA went with an all LEAP order for their A320neos because they also have their MAX fleet.

I think Boeing killed the 717 because the 737-600 was still something they wanted to succeed, and even without it, they probably felt the same way about it as they did the CSeries. I also wish they just let MD fail instead of buying them for their defense contracts.

TBH, Boeing being American is only part of the reason I like them the most, I just think they've made some really cool stuff in the past. 

Also, S-Duct>straight through, IMO it looks so much cleaner but it does complicate things.

 

That too with the 717, the issue with the -600 and even the A318 was weight and it’s interesting because of that Boeing just basically said screw the 100-150 seat segment. 

[handymanshandle]

13 minutes ago, Kaloob said:

Yeah, I know about the A318 and 737-600s problems, I think the 736 also had a tail that was too tall for comfortable flights (at least to some windy airports), according to people online.  IIRC the -600 has outsold the MAX 7 so far. 

Damn lol

[PlayStation 2]

moo plane!!!

Damn, it's actually been a bit since I've responded to this thread. 

 

N936AT

[handymanshandle]

2 minutes ago, handymanshandle said:

moo plane!!!

Damn, it's actually been a bit since I've responded to this thread. 

 

N936AT

yhz :^

The only pics I have really pertaining to Ship Number 9563 (N936AT)

 

Which the funny thing about this first pic is it's a picture of N948AT from 936 in Atlanta

 

[GDRRiley]

On 5/24/2020 at 7:02 PM, pinksnowbirdie said:

I like the way the 737NG looks, I'd like to fly on one. I'm lukewarm on the MAX just for how poorly they handled that. I prefer the way the A320 family looks and I think the offering of the PW1000G on the A320neo is fantastic because that's the same engine that powers the A220 and it seems like it's super quiet.

 

The 757 is also pretty cool, and I think the 767 was a bit of an underdog. 747 is iconic for good reason, would love to fly on a 747-8

When this is all over the max will be darn near perfect. and I expect super cheap seats given the airline industry isn't having a good time.

 

I've flown on a 747 from SFO-LHR and then CDG-SFO it was a united flight let me see if I got a picture of the tail was a -400

 

I should grab my rare airplane specific books and take some pictures. I've got a lot of C5 galaxy stuff and I've got a 757 or more likely a 767 sales options? it broke down by section what every option was.

[handymanshandle]

7 hours ago, GDRRiley said:

When this is all over the max will be darn near perfect. and I expect super cheap seats given the airline industry isn't having a good time.

 

I've flown on a 747 from SFO-LHR and then CDG-SFO it was a united flight let me see if I got a picture of the tail was a -400

 

I should grab my rare airplane specific books and take some pictures. I've got a lot of C5 galaxy stuff and I've got a 757 or more likely a 767 sales options? it broke down by section what every option was.

oh yeah I bet the max will be a fine plane whenever Boeing gets it back in service but yeah I'd still prefer the A320neo just because of the option of the Pratt and Whitney PW1000Gs is there for airlines lol

 

ah nice nice lol

I could either fly to Frankfurt from JFK or ORD on a 747-8 on Lufthansa or I forget where Korean flies their 747-8 to in the US to Incheon but I think Lufthansa might have a better 747.

 

Also that'd be cool to see

[handymanshandle]

man the 717 looks super weird in Boeing's newer house colors

[handymanshandle]

2 minutes ago, Kaloob said:

That's a cursed image.

I guess it helps it has Boeing's logo watermarked

[handymanshandle]

3 minutes ago, Kaloob said:

Kinda reminds me of how AA had the MD-80s in the shit new livery on their "our fleet" page of their magazine.

oh like this?
I kinda like the new livery lol
but the old one was iconic

blame it on the purchase of US Airways also the 787 might've posed some issues for paint since it has far less metal

[handymanshandle]

2 minutes ago, Kaloob said:

Yeah, that one. I love the bare metal look of the old one, also US Airways bought AA IIRC.

787 probably did pose issues (A350 as well, AA was going to buy some), but they could've added like a metallic paint or pull what they did with their MD-87s and MD-90s with white paint instead of bare metal.

ah true they could've done that lol

I thought they got those A350 orders from US? lol