Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 17,316
- Location
- Bristol
Just look for any airlines flight tests. They're all capable of near vertical take off, barrel rolls, no engine landings, one engine barrel rolls etc etc...
Boeing 787 Take off! Waw
- Thread starter koolpc
- Start date
And certainly don't do it in Flybe's dash-8s, in stormy weather. Those are bumpy planes at the best of times but London City in bad weather is rather interesting. I do it almost every week (New Exeter to London route is super handy) and I've seen people scream or cry on more than a few occasions
In 1955 Boeing demonstrated the new 707 series at an airshow:
That photo was taken during it's second barrell roll
I flew 707 several times to Africa in the 60's with BOAC.
I once saw a VC10 take off on an adjacent runway whilst we were taxiing at Heathrow. That plane was awesome with the high dorsal tail and 4 engines right at the back. It was a very steep take off angle but incredibly noisy and burning fuel like crazy.
Always liked the VC10, and the Il-62 which had the same engine layout.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 13,846
- Location
- La France
The Luftwaffe, sorry Lutfhansa turboprop service to Düsseldorf out of City used to be somewhat lumpy. I think their pilots loved the dive into City on the return flight as it allowed them to re-live their grandfather's tales of bombing the docks back I the day...
I'll see what the BA version of that flight is like next week.
Think BA mainly operate small jets out of City. The approach to City isnt too bad if you come in facing west, but facing east they have to clear Canary Wharf and the like so it's a bit of a dive - normally it's nose down for most of the descent
Coming back to Exeter they normally take off towards the west but bank sharply around in a U turn, over Essex and down the south coast. In those planes, in a sharp climb AND a sharp bank in windy weather is a bit hairy too.. they dont ride over bumps like most planes do, they plummet - when you're doing that sideways its pretty unnatural!
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 7,321
- Location
- Western Seaboard
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 7,321
- Location
- Western Seaboard
I also loved the Hawker Siddeley Trident, classic British engineering:
"Okay we'll have one engine on the left of the tail, one on the right of the tail and a third in the tail for good measure. Hmm it's not that good at short takeoffs, okay add a fourth engine in the back! What? Put engines on the wings like everyone else? Don't be absurd man!"
"Okay we'll have one engine on the left of the tail, one on the right of the tail and a third in the tail for good measure. Hmm it's not that good at short takeoffs, okay add a fourth engine in the back! What? Put engines on the wings like everyone else? Don't be absurd man!"
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
That was a very common layout back in the 70's and 80's - the reason for the third was because before the advent of ETOPS a twinjet couldnt cross the Atlantic (Or Pacific, etc). That plane is a trijet, the 'fourth engine' isn't an engine. Trijets were more efficient than 4 engined planes but more versatile than 2 engined planes.
It therefore made absolute sense at the time not to put an engine under each wing 'like everyone else'
It therefore made absolute sense at the time not to put an engine under each wing 'like everyone else'
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jan 2003
- Posts
- 7,116
- Location
- Northamptonshire
Been on a few of our 787s now, the worrying moment for on the first trip was how quiet it was even during take off!!
I was sat there thinking whats the pilot doing, that cannot be take off thrust lol. The sensation was there but the noise wasn't.
Lovely aircraft and great to get off the other end feeling fresh rather than groggy
I was sat there thinking whats the pilot doing, that cannot be take off thrust lol. The sensation was there but the noise wasn't.
Lovely aircraft and great to get off the other end feeling fresh rather than groggy
Yep the 787 is a lovely plane to fly on - the reduced pressure and lack of noise makes it feel like you're not on a plane at all. Torn between that and the a380 as the nicest plane to fly on, but when I was in the a380 it was Emirates business class and in the 787 it was BA premium economy so not a fair comparison 
[TW]Fox;28464709 said:
That's why I upgraded to premium - it was a work paid for trip gatwick to NY. When I realised how cramped economy was in BA (think its 3-4-3) I paid out my own pocket to upgrade to premium.
I think the a380 has the same issue though, I don't know of any carrier who are bringing in new planes and actually improving economy - may as well get more people onboard!
The A380 at least has the upper deck which in economy is 2-4-2 on all carriers.
3-3-3 with narrow seats (As in the 787) or 3-4-3 (On most carriers new 777-300's) is just a nuisance as there is no way of not being squeezed against somebody else for the entire flight. At least with a narrow seat in a 2-4-2 you have a fairly good chance of being sat beside your partner only so far less of an issue.
3-3-3 with narrow seats (As in the 787) or 3-4-3 (On most carriers new 777-300's) is just a nuisance as there is no way of not being squeezed against somebody else for the entire flight. At least with a narrow seat in a 2-4-2 you have a fairly good chance of being sat beside your partner only so far less of an issue.