Planes You would Avoid Flying? | Page 2 | FerrariChat

Planes You would Avoid Flying?

Discussion in 'Aviation Chat' started by UroTrash, Nov 15, 2010.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

  1. Spasso

    Spasso F1 World Champ

    Feb 16, 2003
    14,656
    The fabulous PNW
    Full Name:
    Han Solo
    #26 Spasso, Nov 15, 2010
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2010
    Too many variables. It could be a combination of both.
    Usually an A/P that is hard to handle in adverse conditions (like a P-51) perform exceedingly well in other areas like high speed and maneuverability. They also tend to have a high stall speed and require a higher landing speed. The pendulum can swing to any degree in either direction, design for best performance or design for ease of flying? You aren't going to get both

    There are airplanes like the Aeronca Champ that has big wings and doesn't stall until 35 knots or so. A very easy A/P to fly. On a gusty day or a day with 40 mph crosswinds it can be a hand full. Landing one would require skill. Crashing one under those conditions would NOT be a design deficiency of the A/P, it would be a casualty of the conditions and skill of the pilot, or lack of.

    THE SAME CAN BE SAID OF THE P-51 BUT FOR DIFFERENT REASONS.

    As I said before, the data that I have seen points more to human error or human factors, including poor maintenance causing the majority of the accidents.

    Next you'll be asking me if it's possible for an A/P to take off from a moving treadmill.;)
     
  2. Spasso

    Spasso F1 World Champ

    Feb 16, 2003
    14,656
    The fabulous PNW
    Full Name:
    Han Solo
    You'll have to ask an L-1011 Pilot.

    This is what the L-1011 was equipped with,

    The L-1011 featured a highly advanced autopilot system and was the first widebody to receive FAA certification for Cat-IIIc autolanding, which approved the TriStar for completely blind landings in zero-visibility weather performed by the aircraft's autopilot.[21] The L-1011 used an Inertial Navigation System (INS) to operate its navigation needs;[22][23] this included aligning the navigation system by entering current coordinates of longitude and latitude.
    L-1011-150 TriStar of Air Transat (Canada) in 1995

    It also had a unique Direct Lift Control (DLC) system, which allowed for smooth approaches when landing.[24][25] DLC helps maintain the descending glideslope on final approach by automatically deploying spoiler panels on the wings. Thus, rather than maintaining the descent by adjusting pitch, DLC helps control the descent while maintaining a more consistent pitch angle, using four redundant hydraulic systems. Production also utilized a unique "autoclave" system for bonding fuselage panels together; this made the L-1011 extremely resistant to corrosion.
     
  3. JLF

    JLF Formula 3

    Sep 8, 2009
    1,704
    #28 JLF, Nov 15, 2010
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2010
    Well i was just curious, i wasnt sure if thats what he was implying because ive heard otherwise. I do happen to know an L-1011 pilot.....my dad, he flew it for 8 years and he always said it was the easiest airplane in the world to make a nice landing in. The only criticism he had of it was that it was a very complex airplane to learn systems wise.
     
  4. solofast

    solofast Formula 3

    Oct 8, 2007
    1,773
    Indianapolis
    I don't fly Airbus aircraft for obvious reasons that I've described in other threads. I think that their software is not up to snuff and that it can easily result in loss of an aircraft, and that their tails are not inherently strong to withstand abnormal flight conditions.

    I dislike and try not to fly DC-9's and the MD80/90 if I can avoid it. That's because I've always thought that those airplanes were badly underpowered (but maybe that is only compared to the the 727 which was a rocket), and if they lost an engine at a bad time they would be in deep dodo.. Since I worked at P&W I was there when they were having turbine failures in the JT8D on takeoff (turbine low cycle fatigue problem where the engine were failing at takoff power on the first acceleration from cold) that made me wary of them. I haven't heard of may of those failures lately so it may not be an issue anymore, but old habits die hard...

    I do disagree with Spasso in that there are no airplanes that are certified that have major inherent design defficiencies. Aircraft and engines are so complex and have so much analysis conducted on them that they are better right out of the box than ever before. But the recent experience with the Trent 900 in the A380 is evidence that you don't get it right the first time all the time even with the design tools and practices that the engine and airframe companines have at their disposal.

    When we were selling the AE3007 to Cessna for the Citation X, one of our marketing idiots said "this engine is based on the airlne engine and you won't have an problems". One old hand on the other side of the table quickly threw down the Bull S#!t card and said. "Look every new engine has problems! There has never been a new airframe or a new engine that didn't have problems. How you're going handle the problems is what I want to know about, and you didn't help your case by telling us that crap about how your'e not going to have any problems."

    In my experience ALL aircraft and engines have potential design flaws that have to be found and corrected. Most will be found before they cause loss of life, but the recent A380 incident shows that things can break in a bad way and that easily could have caused the loss of the aircraft, or just as easily the disk could have gone through the fuselage and killed people with the flying debris. The FAA issues about one thousand AD's a year, and they wouldn't be a directive if they wouldn't potentially cause the loss of an aircraft. The real question is, what engine and aircraft makers promptly fix the problems and make the aircraft as safe as they can and I think that most of them do, with the possible exception of Airbus, who have in the past banaided some issues.
     
  5. donv

    donv Two Time F1 World Champ
    Owner Rossa Subscribed

    Jan 5, 2002
    26,105
    Portland, Oregon
    Full Name:
    Don
    No, I was implying the MD-11 does. I have no idea how the L1011 behaves in crosswinds.

     
  6. JLF

    JLF Formula 3

    Sep 8, 2009
    1,704
    #31 JLF, Nov 15, 2010
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2010
    Yea apparently that airplane has some bad landing characteristics, i wonder if it has anything to do cg issues related to the fuel that is transferred into the horizontal stabs.
     
  7. donv

    donv Two Time F1 World Champ
    Owner Rossa Subscribed

    Jan 5, 2002
    26,105
    Portland, Oregon
    Full Name:
    Don
    In most cases, I agree with you- but not the MD-11. Obviously the FAA agrees with you, or they would have done a certification review of the MD-11 (or maybe they have).

    Aviation Week weighed in on the topic a while back:

    http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/awst/2010/08/02/AW_08_02_2010_p41-244375.xml

     
  8. BubblesQuah

    BubblesQuah F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Nov 1, 2003
    13,232
    Charlotte
    That is true - my partner was on one a couple of weeks ago - CLT-DTW (ex. Northwest, of course) - DC9-40!

    I flew that route often about 15 years ago - and always checked the "VIN" plate on the door frame to check the build date - it was always 69, 70, 71 somewhere around there.

    I told my partner to take a look and see what his was - but he forgot.

    http://flightaware.com/live/flight/DAL2958/history/20101115/1431Z/KCLT/KDTW
     
  9. Spasso

    Spasso F1 World Champ

    Feb 16, 2003
    14,656
    The fabulous PNW
    Full Name:
    Han Solo
    #34 Spasso, Nov 15, 2010
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2010
    I'm not an expert but have heard the same about the MD-11. I think the FAA would have back peddled if they could but politics prevail.
     
  10. Spasso

    Spasso F1 World Champ

    Feb 16, 2003
    14,656
    The fabulous PNW
    Full Name:
    Han Solo
    #35 Spasso, Nov 15, 2010
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2010
    I agree with your statement that they don't get it right every time, right out of the box. The Rolls engine they were testing for the 787 blew up on the test stand and they lost a GE Gen-x on take off..

    They need to get it as close to perfect as they can. I think Rolls is pushing the envelope with their newer engine designs but then, I'm not an expert, I'm just watching them blow up.

    BTW, I am directly involved with the identification and documentation of thousands of deficiencies that occur, even on well established designs. It NEVER ends but the odds are far far better for the flying public than they were in the 70's.
    Survivability through redundancy has increased greatly.

    The biggest problem with an "inherent major flaw" is that they appear at the worst times during development of an aircraft, which as you pointed out, occur even after they are in service. One serious delay in the 787 production was due to redesign of the wing-to body attach fittings is a prime example. Failures during static testing.

    As far as NO aircraft with KNOWN major design flaws are certified before being allowed into service, I stand corrected. I guess you could say the MD-11 is proof of that.
     
  11. solofast

    solofast Formula 3

    Oct 8, 2007
    1,773
    Indianapolis
    #36 solofast, Nov 15, 2010
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2010
    I agree, that there aren't any known issues that aren't dealt with by the FAA or the manufacturers pretty quickly. That's the nature of this business.

    My biggest concerns are with software and the effects of how the software deals with bad situations. Software works fine when all the hardware works, but the current FAA requirement that goes three levels deep in a failure and then wash your hands is very dangerous. That requirement actually goes back to the days of mechanical systems and bears no relationship to the much more interrelated and complex systems in todays aircraft.

    The A330 that recently landed at amost twice the normal landing speed because they lost the AOA sensor is a real eye opener. That could have very easily ended very badly. I did not know that the FADECS shut down the engines in the Hudson ditching. While the engines may have been damaged, is it a fact that they would have broken before they got the airplane back to the airport at reduced power? We will probably never know, but the guys at the engine company probably do, and they aren't talking.

    Airbus aircraft are undoubtly the most computer intensive airplanes in service today and they seem to be having a lot more computer oriented problems. I hope that Boeing has been watching this and is making sure the 787 won't have these issues.

    The systems are so interrelated and require data from other systems that the potential fault trees are staggering. And the cost of sofware for aircraft systems is astronomical. Ten years ago the cost of verifying and releasing a software revision for an engine FADEC was over a million dollars. That wasn't paying for any changes or software developemnt, that was just the FAA mandated testing. For any change it's going to cost a couple of million dollars for just a tweak. For a full software developent of an engine FADEC you are looking at close to $10-20 million. I think that in the long run the requirements for system redundency for software controlled systems has to be changed significantly. The airframers and engine companines will howl that this is driving up costs and try to keep it from happening, but in the long run it's going to have to happen to insure that these new aircraft provide a level of safety that we currently take for granted.
     
  12. TheMayor

    TheMayor Ten Time F1 World Champ
    Rossa Subscribed

    Feb 11, 2008
    106,074
    Vegas baby
    I hated the DC-10. I never trusted that plane.
     
  13. Spasso

    Spasso F1 World Champ

    Feb 16, 2003
    14,656
    The fabulous PNW
    Full Name:
    Han Solo
    Well, since you put it that way, I guess I am relieved that I haven't flown on a commercial airliner since 911.
    Amazing how complicated things have gotten.
     
  14. BubblesQuah

    BubblesQuah F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Nov 1, 2003
    13,232
    Charlotte
  15. docmirror

    docmirror Formula Junior

    May 6, 2004
    781
    Ft Worth TX


    The Aeronca Champ max crosswind component is no where near 40 MPH. Nor is any of the Cessna nose draggers for that matter. The rest of your statement was generally correct though.

    The one GA plane that I've found that has outstanding performance and good landing characteristics is the Beech Bonanza. Despite it's V tail, the Bo is a *****cat to get on the ground, and it blows away the competition(of it's day) in the air, and will give current planes a decent run for the money.

    As for comm planes to avoid, I can think of several simply from a comfort issue, but none really from a safety standpoint. The nut behind the yoke is far, far more likely to get me killed than the airframe. In fact, I would say that many airframes make up for poor pilotage.

    Oh and I can always tell a Navy pilot landing. I sometimes walk by the cockpit and casually ask; 'did you trap the 2nd wire'? Or, if it was really an arrival: 'Hey, I think we were shot down'.
     
  16. Tim Wells

    Tim Wells Formula Junior

    Dec 31, 2009
    393
    Dallas, GA
    Full Name:
    Tim Wells
    I used to work for a third party maintenance outfit in Dothan Alabama who did major inspections on those DC-9s. It was an absolute sweat shop and there I'd be, doing some work and some foreign guy with broken English would come up and want me to buy his work off because he didn't have an A&P license. I told them all to see their supervisor who are the ones that actually have to do that and most of the mechanics at that time were not licensed and not skilled to boot. I saw a lot of hacks there.

    I got a real bad vibe from the place and took a 4 dollar an hour pay cut to go work for DynCorp inspecting helicopters for the Army. That should tell you something...

    Those planes are by far the nastiest commercial planes I have ever worked on regardless of manufacturer.
     
  17. JLF

    JLF Formula 3

    Sep 8, 2009
    1,704
    Its funny i see Dc-9's with Eastern Airline tail numbers still flying and ill write down the number and go home and look through my dads log books and see that he flew that specific plane back in the 70's. i dont think they deserve to much criticism though, they are still trucking along and are truly a good work horse plus they have probably been completely rebuilt a few times over the years.
     
  18. Gatorrari

    Gatorrari F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Feb 27, 2004
    16,460
    Georgia
    Full Name:
    Jim Pernikoff
    I flew once on one of AirTran's DC-9-30s that they inherited from ValuJet and vowed never again. It was a night flight and the cabin lights flickered noticeably the whole time, and the airplane had plenty of rattles. Fortunately, the 9's were already being phased out and by the next time I flew AirTran, the entire fleet was 717's (which, after all, are just a modernized version of the DC-9-30). I have not hesitated to fly AirTran since, but I am leery about the impending Southwest acquisition of them. I want to have a seat reservation before I leave the ticket counter area!

    And I fly Delta's MD-88's quite often and never have any qualms about power. They seem to get off the runway just fine, even with a full load. I understand that they are phasing out the older DC-9's that they inherited from Northwest quite quickly. I have heard that they do plan, in due time, to get rid of all of the Airbuses that they inherited and return to an all-Boeing fleet.
     
  19. Spasso

    Spasso F1 World Champ

    Feb 16, 2003
    14,656
    The fabulous PNW
    Full Name:
    Han Solo
    #44 Spasso, Nov 16, 2010
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2010
    Just ball parking it to exemplify a point................correction noted.
     
  20. Jeff Kennedy

    Jeff Kennedy F1 Veteran
    Owner Silver Subscribed

    Oct 16, 2007
    6,847
    Edwardsville, IL
    Full Name:
    Jeff Kennedy
    For those that fly in the Middle East be prepared for notices to come out next year on engine procedures following a sand storm. This will be related to a VIP 737-300 that had a double engine failure during take-off in Riyadh. I have more details on the incident in Rossa.

    Jeff
     
  21. JLF

    JLF Formula 3

    Sep 8, 2009
    1,704
    I think Delta is replacing those 9's with Md-90's. As far as the ValueJet 9's half of those things came from Turkey where they were used and abused, we called them turkey birds.
     
  22. Gatorrari

    Gatorrari F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Feb 27, 2004
    16,460
    Georgia
    Full Name:
    Jim Pernikoff
    They already had some MD-90's and I haven't heard them getting any more. I think the plan is to replace all of the DC-9's and MD-88's with 737-800's as part of fleet standardization.
     
  23. nerd

    nerd F1 Rookie

    Oct 12, 2003
    2,535
    Coronado, CA
    Full Name:
    RSK
    FYI, pay an extra $10 and get EarlyBird Check-in which gets you a great seat without any check-in pressure. Or, fly 32 segments in a year and get "A" status which assures you of a good seat. My wife and I fly 110-120 hops a year on Southwest and can't imagine running our consulting business without their reliable service. Now back to the thread.......
     
  24. BMW.SauberF1Team

    BMW.SauberF1Team F1 World Champ

    Dec 4, 2004
    14,428
    FL
    My last two flights with them required me to show my drivers license to their ticket agent and then get my boarding pass. Second time I had to go to the gate and get it. :( Would that still work for the earlybird check-in? I couldn't check-in online for those two flights (TSA told me it wasn't on their end and SWA couldn't give me an answer). Normally I get A regardless when I go in online or have someone else do it for me.
     
  25. JLF

    JLF Formula 3

    Sep 8, 2009
    1,704
    I read an article within the last 3 months that said they had 15 -90's that they were adding to their fleet. Whether or not thats accurate i dont know.
     

Share This Page