The Official Aircraft talk thread!

[*gta star*]

I've stepped inside the cockpit of an Airbus A320, Boeing 747 and an Aer Lingus 737 too.

 

Amazing technology...

 

[Crokey]

Anyone actually been in the cockpit of a plane before ?

I've been in a 747 and flown a Cessna for about 15 minutes, but its a sad state that you probably couldn't that sort of thing anymore, security an' all

[*gta star*]

Yeah, over here in Manchester, you can book flights at 'Barton Aerodrome' and fly planes for an hour for £95 per lesson. It's expensive, but great instructors and good planes too.

 

[Crokey]

Well this was over the Grand Canyon, it's actually a lot smoother than you'd think on a hot day with the thermals rising from below

 

I have seriously considered taking up flying, but it's hella pricey

[*gta star*]

Well, over here, to get your PPL (Private Pilots License), it would cost to £5,000-£6000, in Barton Aerodrome. To take it further, to getting your (CPL) Commercial Pilots License, that would cost you £60,000.

 

There is no guarantee that you will pass the exams, so if you fail, you loose all that money.

 

 

[Mark]

Anyone actually been in the cockpit of a plane before ?

I've flown in a few things in my time:

 

•Cessna 152

•Piper Archer

•Piper Seneca II

•Grob Viking

•Grob Vigilant

•Grob Tutor

•Schweizer ASK21

 

Nothing special, just a little f*cking about. Almost solo standard on Gliders, would have been if it wasn't for bad admin with my ATC Wing and me pulling outta uni. Thankfully we've got a new CO who's an instructor at the local VGS and knows my situation so he's gonna try get me a small scholarship to get my Silver Wings asap. Just ear to the ground for the mo.

 

CPL isn't that pricey. Well, to get one with just an IMC anyway. About £15k from scratch I reckon, not including type conversions. A Frozen ATPL on the other hand is more like £60-70k lol. JOT on top is £15k plus a few others are a few grand more before you can even consider applying to an airline lol.

 

£95 per hr for lessons? Dayum that's good. Local club here offered £99 if you block booked 45 hours (aka a PPL) and £122 if you did it one at a time (like me as I didn't have that kinda money and just wanted to get in the air). Oh and that's for a C152.

 

[*gta star*]

Well, if I wanted a pilots license (if it came to the situation where that's the only thing i wanted to do), I'd go for a Commercial License, which will cost you £60,000, at least.

 

£122 for a Cessna 152, bit expensive that.

 

I think I will do some pilot training, sometime in the future. When I get into the Police Force (hopefully), I might get my PPL.

 

[SeaNorris.]

Yeah, British Airways is a very good airline, they have there problems and stuff, but so do all Airlines. I've flew with them before, a very good service I thought.

 

EasyJet is disgraceful.

They are a budjet airline, so they really don't offer a service you'd expect with the bigger airliners.

[Mark]

BA's reputation depends on the type of flight you're going for. They're renowned for having a large range of type of flights. Recently yes they have dropped service in favour of cheaper flights to fight Easyjet, Ryanair etc but really, I'd rather fly BA over anyone...except maybe Virgin. Home grown carriers ftw .

 

BA are a flexible airline, not a budget one. You can't call Concorde class budget eh? .

 

Aye tis expensive GTA* but the pilots are top notch, I wasn't far off circuit bashing after 6 hours.

 

And by commercial licence I take it you mean the licence to fly commercial airliners yes? Aka ATPL lol

[Picolini]

I've never even been in a plane...

In fact, the closest I've even gotten to one was... oh say about 200ft when I was at the end of the runway and a plane was coming in... and I was like 7 years old

Oh, how I want to fly, at least IN, a plane...

 

Funny thing, I'm afraid of heights Only when I'm not secured, like by a railing looking down a few stories...

[Brutuz]

I've never even been in a plane...

In fact, the closest I've even gotten to one was... oh say about 200ft when I was at the end of the runway and a plane was coming in... and I was like 7 years old

Oh, how I want to fly, at least IN, a plane...

 

Funny thing, I'm afraid of heights Only when I'm not secured, like by a railing looking down a few stories...

I once flew in a WW11 Airliner, a DC 24 or something.....

[silvermanblue]

On the question of being in a cockpit.

 

I have been in a cockpit of three aircraft. A little cessna, A really old piper military trainer, And a heuy. I flew the first two myself, The piper was more fun but also the most hair raising. The piper felt like it was going to fall apart, but really fun to fly you can really throw it around a little bit(within reason ).

[*gta star*]

@GTAuron - Yeah, ATPL, but Barton Aerodrome call it the 'CPL'.

 

 

@SeaNorris - I'd expect more, even the Irish Airline, 'Aer Lingus' are better, they have got really big lately too.

 

BA are a really good airline, I've flown with them before and I was happy with the service, definately.

 

[Mark]

I once flew in a WW11 Airliner, a DC 24 or something.....

Probs a DC3 Dakota, aka a C-47. Nice planes, I like em anyway.

 

@GTA*: Aha I sees.

 

LOL I won't fly with Aer Lingus ever since they landed at the wrong airport lol.

[*gta star*]

The DC-3 Dakota is an awesome plane, the military one, the C-47 is nice too. In there day, they were very reliable and they could operate from many different positions. They were used on D-day to drop paratroopers behind German lines.

 

Anyone here ever flown a Helicopter before, are they similar to a plane, or are they more difficult to fly ?

[Stinger_001!!!]

@Gta*....yea i has been in a chopper.....i flew a total of 300 meters.....not far but it was good.....and we did doughnuts.....flying is sorta like a plane but is a bit different.......the chopper was a UH-60......

[*gta star*]

Wow, you flew one of them ? The UH-60 is an awesome Helicopter.

 

I still personally rather planes because you can go higher and carry more people, Helicopters are good though.

[Mark]

Blackhawk? You lucky f*ck lol.

 

Heli's....are just different. If operating from an airfield and it has wheels, you can forget the feeling of going vertical, well..with armed forces anyway. In the entire flight we didn't hover once. Admittedly the ability to fly 100ft off the ground is absolutely awesome, such as the Pumas operating out of RAF Aldergrove have clearance to do...tbh it just felt like a plane except the landings were a little slow lol. Oh and they were from the apron, not the runway lol.

 

I soo wanted to have a go in a Lynx when I was there, purely to try persuade the pilot to do a loop in it (only Heli in RAF service that's capable of doing one).

 

I still prefer planes though...still, helis is still flying...so I love em too. Just they're f*cking butt ugly.

[SeaNorris.]

I got to go around in the BBMF Lancaster, actually stood on the wing of a Spitfire and Hurricane, also from the BBMF, when they were here last year or so, don't remember. Also been in the cockpit of an Apache Longbow.

[*gta star*]

Apache's are awesome helicopters.

 

I rather planes me personally, as I've said, but as GTAuron said, it's still flying at the end of the day.

 

Just for those of you who have flew, has anyone actually landed a plane on a runway, touched down ?

[92F]

Ive been in the cockpit of a Typhoon, Tornado, Jag, Sea King, Lancaster, Spitfire and Hurricane.

 

Ive been up in a Chinook (simulated evac of area) and looking to get up in the C-47 from the BBMF sqn soon.

 

On the question of landing a plane. For my 16th I got an hours lesson in a Vikking(I think, was a 4 seater prop plane) and I "kinda" landed it with a wee bit of help from the instructor.

[*gta star*]

Just out of curiosity, when you're in a plane and you land, do you have to press a brake pedal of some sort underneath your feet ?

 

I know that pilots reverse the engines to slow them down, but how do they actually stop to a stationary position, or to the stage to where they can taxi safely?

[92F]

It all depends the plane for the reverse pitch, to slow the plane.

 

Yes theres brake pedals under your feet, that have a dual function. If you press them with the heel of your foot then that controls the rudder. If you use your toes to press the pedal then that operates the main wheel brakes.

 

From what I remember, once you have all wheels on the tarmac, you kill the revs and bring the plane to a stop with the foot brake.

[*gta star*]

Right, so that's why when you're on a plane , when you are decending, you hear the engines reversing. Dual function pedal, that's a good idea ...

 

What about the flaps on the wings then, they just help the plane slow down ? How do you control them ?

[92F]

Primary function of flaps is for "lift augmentation". Because they increase the wing mass of the plane when taking off, they allow the plane to get airborne at slower speeds. And because flaps increase the mass of the wing, then it creates more friction/drag also aiding in slowing the plane down.

 

Flaps are usually controlled by a lever that can be set in a few positions. i.e. up, half down and fully down.

Edited March 4, 2007 by 92F

[*gta star*]

That's also a very good idea, I have to say though, they look very flimsy on the wings of a plane.

 

 

 

[92F]

You should try looking for books/information on the physics of flight.

Some of the stuff thats been thought up through the years is quite amazing.

 

i.e. stuff like vortex generators to stop seperation of the air from the wing allowing for a greater angle of attack.

 

Then try looking at the different build designs/functions between say a passenger jet and a fighter jet.

[*gta star*]

Sounds interesting, I'll consider doing that.

 

Landing is the hardest part of a flight, according to Pilots anyway. What would you think is hard about landing ?

 

Turbulance etc, plus all the controls ?

[Mark]

Landing hard? Well it's the point you MUST be most precise otherwise hello damaged aircraft. Also, as you're closer to the ground, you can pick up turbulent air that's come off nearby buildings, hedges etc, which can catch you out so you need to have full concentration when landing.

 

Actually, Take-offs the most dangerous part of a flight. If anythings gonna go wrong, you don't want it to go wrong in a situation where you don't have altitude and airspeed and a high power setting. Altitude is great for problems as it gives you more time. Airspeed is handy as it can be traded for altitude and you can get to further away places in event of crash landing. High power settings mean you can easily get out of trouble as you're already using all your available power to get off the ground and/or get airspeed up.

 

Worst place for a failure is between V1 and V2, V1 being the speed you can safely come to a halt on the runway before, and V2 being take-off speed. During this time period, if anything bad happens, you can kiss your arse goodbye lol.

 

As Drew said, flaps are designed to keep that aircraft effectively "flying" at lower speeds by changing the camber of the lifting surface. Lower take-off and touchdown speeds are better as it is safer and requires less runway, wear and tear on undercarriage, brakes, tyres etc etc. Only issue with high camber wings is the greater drag they induce, hence faster flying aircraft have faster take-off and landing speeds.

 

As for what a plane uses to slow down with when on the runway? Take a look out the window next time you're on an airliner. Camber increasing devices such as slats and flaps etc generally do not move any further than they already have done, as it is dangerous as you tend to increase lift by doing so and can possibly take-off again. They may move if spoilers are deployed...these do exactly what they say on the tin, they spoil the lift going over the wing...that is, they deliberately make the airflow over the wings turbulent after themselves, reducing lift, dumping the aircraft on the runway, allowing devices such as the aircrafts braking system to be more effective (more mass of the aircraft on the runway under braking, the harder an aircraft can brake).

 

Spoilers are also used in flight as a way of banking the aircraft along with ailerons.

 

Anyway that's enough blabbering for the mo. I really should stop doing such a thing..habit with aviation related topics i guess.

Edited March 5, 2007 by GTAuron

[Picolini]

I like that info, very good to know. Planes are such amazing things... so complex but so interesting.

 

I'm glad I live in a time where we are able to fly. It must have sucked to be some one like DaVinci who had no way of being able to fly, and you could see with his drawings he tried to hard. They just didn't have the power.... imagine how far along we'd be if he had an engine (even a gasoline piston engine), and better yet to add to that, a computer

We'd all be cruising around in friggin UFO style planes, lol.

 

That reminds me of this thing I heard about, the Searl Effect. Basically it's rings of magnets with roller magnets in between made of special magnetic metals. These are then sent spinning with a small charge (i believe) and they build up power, theoretically indefinitely unless controlled by some type of radio wave. These magnets create a force field around their vicinity which is capable of defying gravity, such that anything in it's force field moves as if it's under it's own local gravitational pull.

Here's the wiki that explains it a bit, and it's inventor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Searl

 

Now from what I've read he actually made a disc using this propulsion system and could actually control it for flight, and If I remember right he's actually flown in it. This was back in the 60's or something, and BBC filmed him for a year yet all of their filming has disappeared. I don't think they even deny shooting it, they just say they don't have the film on record. Quite strange.

 

But the thing is this aircraft had the flight characteristics of modern UFO sightings. The device is able to change direction and speed at the drop of a dime, and able to reach speeds currently seen as impossible.

 

What do you guys think of all this? Something like that would surely make all of current aircraft technology obsolete, since it'd all be powered by a device able to be controlled in all axises (up/down, left/right, back/forward) by a simple radio frequency. This would even open up interplanetary travel, at the least since it's possible to reach speeds near the speed of light if enough power is allowed to be generated (and as far as I know enough can be made to completely obliterate the device as it should approach the speed of light). There are also energy making advantages to this technology although I'll leave that out since this is aircraft.