Yes I did. Replacement Training Unit (RTU) at Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ in late summer 1989. Shaw AFB from 1990-1991 (2 years in the Bronco including the school house). The Bronco went away and half the squadron transitioned to the OA-10, the rest went out into the USAF fighter world). I have about 395 hours in it, 2 ship flight lead, and got to fly my jet down to Columbia for their AF. We departed Shaw AFB, stopped at Homestead AFB for the night, Kit and Tinas in the Caicos Islands night 2, Cayman Islands night 3, Howard AFB night 4, then down to Columbia (had lunch) and returned to Howard for night 5. RTB'd the next day. We were paid 1100 in per diem, and I only spent 1200 (yeehaw!). And we followed a C-130 with it's flaps down (so we could keep up). We also had "man portable" GPS in the back seat of the lead Bronco. It weighted about 25lbs, and the keypad was at the end of a 4 foot phone cord (curly) and displayed left / right and lat longs (for use incase we became separated). In the big scheme of things the way to the USAF operated it was pretty thin performance wise. It did have good legs, burned about 600lbs / hr (easy math) and could land about anywhere (I took one in and out of a 3300' strip).
P40 Vs all other fighters in Europe
- Thread starter denny
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Or they they are sold a new model with some dodgy software and the vendor neglects to warn anybody...
So I'm also wondering, conversely, an aircraft with a lot of lift, like lets say a Hurricane with a 40' wingspan and a think wing, is that going to maybe have a bit more drag, and possibly not as good of a roll rate in very cold conditions, say 10F? I ask because I often wondered why the Soviets were so dismissive of the Hurricane and it's "stately maneuvering" - on paper it looks better than an I-16 in many ways and probably an LaGG-3 too.
Second question is, does the hot and humid weather (by contrast) mean that a plane with a lower wing loading (like a P-39) is going to have more problems than one with the lower wing loading (like an A6M) or are they just affected equally? In other words, would one type of aircraft be better suited to tropical conditions?
I don't think so. It's been in production since the 80s. When a plane has a serious incident, there is a quick look (don't forget the black boxes were pulled) and the manufacturer along with several operators determine if something is wrong with the plane. If it's plane problem ALL the users are notified ASAP and the pilots get bulletins if the plane isn't grounded (Boeing Max). There were no groundings of planes nor bulletins. Remember that in the future, it's a show of cards if you understand what it means.
I have plumbed the DC8, DC10 and 727. I have flown T37, T38, AT38B, OV10A, F15A-D, A319/320 and 757/767. I have somewhere around 9k hours of flying time in other than light a/c. It is hands down the SAFEST plane I have ever flown. It is almost idiot proof. Have an emergency, the checklist comes up in the glass (you can see it in the video). If you have something you need to do, it's in blue letters (also seen in the video). We call them, Blue to Do's. If you have multiple emergencies, it brings up the checklists as appropriate. It almost won't let you hurt it. Overspeed, got you covered, over G, over bank, stall, throttles back when they should be up, yep, that too. The only thing you have to put up with is it will call you a retard at least twice every leg (French for bring those levers back to idle). When the final gets released I think you will be shocked.
Last edited:
I was referring to the two crashes in Ethiopia and Malaysia with the 737 MAX 8, apparently the pilots were not notified of the potential issue with the software and the need to shut it off in some scenarios. Apparently Boeing had references to the new software removed from the flight manual.
Yes, Boeing screwed the pooch on how they handled that. They are running into some serious quality control issues on the 787 (haven't delivered many in the past 8-12 months). The 767 tanker has had quality control, quality assurance, and hardware problems. The T-7 is way, way behind. The PW powered 777s should be airborne again in the next few months (the ones with the exploding engines). However, the 777x has problems of it's own. They have dug themselves a hole but think they will climb out of it.
Also realize there were some pilot errors in both those accidents. In both they hit the ground in full power, which had been set on takeoff roll. The faster you go, the tougher it is to handle trim problems. Also, realize that each countries version of the FAA operate under different direction. One of those countries has had numerous accidents and at one time was not allowed to operate flights to the US. Each countries FAA has direction, sometimes it's to get to the bottom of things, other times it's to make sure someone doesn't look bad who maybe should. Are you aware of the hierarchy in Asian countries. The plane manufacturers was at fault, but in my opine not enough spotlight was shown on the crew, their backgrounds, sim performance, etc. Boeing won't say that airlines pilot sucked, since they want to continue selling them jets. Lots at play and not just what happened.
Think of it this way. If your car is pulling to the left hard at 30, are you going to speed up to make it worse? No. Trim works the same way, it's just the ability to get rid of the "pull" if it's functioning correctly.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Boeing IS made up of several different companies under one corporate umbrella. I worked for them brifely in 1990, Chis works for them in St. Lous
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I read/saw an article/YouTube about Boeing losing its way. The article implied that MACAIR execs somehow took over Boeing after the merger and a major corporate culture change occurred. This was a big factor in the 737 Max issues.
I was wondering how to bring the topic up. Perhaps its own thread with a better title?
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
BTW. I find it hard to believe McDonnell Douglas would take any short cuts.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Actually it was the other way around. Boeing swallowed up MACAIR and systematically eliminated it's commercial division. The only holdover was the 717 and eventually that went away as it competed with the 737. Boeing made a lot of money when they started selling off the old factory in Long Beach. I knew many people who worked for McDonnel Douglas when they "merged" with Boeing, in their eyes it was like surrendering to your mortal enemy.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
For the most part. no. Again, in layman's terms, density altitude will make a given aircraft perform as it would at a higher altitude when it may be several thousand feet lower.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
That's what was strange about the article. I know Boeing acquired McDonnell Douglas. I guess the piece implied some diabolical "5th column" cabal.
Ok Schweik, back to you.
I read an editorial in the back of Automobile magazine by a former big three CEO. He had been asked how VW could have a diesel gate type of event. His reply was very telling. He mentioned meeting the CEO of VW at an auto show. He said he complimented him (the VW CEO) on his panel gaps at all levels of cars. VW at the time was considered the benchmark of panel gaps (smaller gaps are better, and show a quality of manufacturing) on relatively inexpensive cars. He replied that was easy. He brought his guys in, told them they had three weeks to figure it out, or they were fired. People like to have jobs, it provides food, shelter, etc. I'm not sure if you saw, but FCA just settled over their V6 diesel used in numerous vehicles here in the US, which had cheater software as well.
The Boeing test pilot who has been indicted will probably go down. He is but one cog in a big machine. The atmosphere where an underling is put in the position to be a single point of destruction / failure for a company like BA should be scrutinized.
Last edited:
I plumbed the DC8 for about a year. Totally archaic plane, but it was state of the art in the day. Interesting thing, as you could look down the side of the fuselage and it was as smooth as glass. No wrinkles. Not bad for a 50 year old broad. Next time you walk aboard an airliner, look at it like you would a car for wrinkles / denting.
The guys who flew the Eagle liked to brag how tough it was compared to our single engined brethren. I always though if it had come with a hood ornament it would have been a Bulldog (think Mack trucks), or if you scrapped the paint off, it would be yellow and say Tonka all over it. They made tough products, or they rounded up when doing the math...
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
As to your first paragraph, I always check out the plane. No, my car doesn't pass muster.
As to the second, Tonka made the best playground weapons.
I think you are absolutely correct, why keep propping up an airframe which was new in the mid 30s and use scarce Merlins while you could put them in a great early 40s airframe. the whole "what if" thing is pointless. In my not so humble opinion (IMNSHO).
