|
Not to change the subject, but............
Anyone based in DTW use Dr Dana Bush (Waterford, MI) as their FAA medical examiner? |
Originally Posted by Waves
(Post 1079128)
Did you know that losing two engines on one side of a four engine aircraft is not the same as losing one engine on a two engine aircraft? Both the assymetry and drag is greater creating higher fuel consumption, controllability is more difficult, and obviously this creates a loss or degradation of redundant systems. Did you know that the odds of losing another engine are the exact same as losing the first engine? Why would you continue to your destination with either? Would you continue to your destination with an aircraft producing only 3/4 of it's rated thrust and a inoperable engine producing nothing but drag? I'm not paid enough and I'm not brave enough to continue with an engine out. :eek: Not even with four engines. Now maybe one engine out on a B-52, just maybe. ;)
I have about 2300 hours PIC of a four engine heavy jet. I am very familiar with the handling characteristics with one or two engines out. And I didn't say I would fly accross the ocean. I did say I would have no problem flying from LAX to NYC and landing there rather than dump 250K of gas. |
Originally Posted by Boomer
(Post 1079230)
After watching that video, I'm certain I didn't see any passenger windows. Also, the aircraft is entirely gray, more like a military plane than an airliner. And there were funny shadows under the wings, the kind of shadows that could only be made by gas tanks or rockets.
It's rather obvious that this is a military tanker, maybe a KC-135 based on the size, and the real mission was to close the Warsaw airport because that's where they keep the records that prove George Bush hates New Orleans and he ordered the levees to be blown up. Or maybe it was a cruise missile, which would explain why there was no landing gear. Which of course means that the photos showing a 767 landing in a shower of sparks are forgeries, planted by Fox News. And you didn't mention it but a 767 fuselage is wider than a runway and that video that airplane is not wider. And it is obvious that it was traveling at a speed that exceeded it's maximum operating limits that should have caused in-flight structural failure. If you look at EgyptAir EA990, it was a 767 that entered a dive and accelerated to a peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet. Boeing sets maximum operating speeds for the 767 as 360 Knots and .86 Mach. I have calculated the Equivalent Airspeed for EA990 peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet as the equivalent dynamic effects of 425 knots at or near sea level. It's obvious this LOT 767 was exceeding that speed coming into land. Although other factors come into play within the transonic ranges, Dynamic pressure is dynamic pressure. Math doesn't lie. Boeing needs to release wind tunnel data for the Boeing 767. Despite the fact that the data can be fabricated, such a release of data may alert more pilots and engineers to the extremely excessive speeds reported near sea level for the Boeing 767 in which they can decide for themselves. Where can I join Pilots for LOT 767 Truth!!!! ? |
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 1079186)
What's even funnier is that you copied content from DeltaNet to put that on here. :D
But it was on the outside of Deltanet, that's a free for all. |
Originally Posted by Boomer
(Post 1079230)
After watching that video, I'm certain I didn't see any passenger windows. Also, the aircraft is entirely gray, more like a military plane than an airliner. And there were funny shadows under the wings, the kind of shadows that could only be made by gas tanks or rockets.
It's rather obvious that this is a military tanker, maybe a KC-135 based on the size, and the real mission was to close the Warsaw airport because that's where they keep the records that prove George Bush hates New Orleans and he ordered the levees to be blown up. Or maybe it was a cruise missile, which would explain why there was no landing gear. Which of course means that the photos showing a 767 landing in a shower of sparks are forgeries, planted by Fox News. There was no gear indicating that it was the naval version intended to land in the water. There is a halo around the lights, this was due to the fact that in production this plane was built from alien technology and has been frequently filmed and mistaken for a ufo due to these halos. The only real question remaining is why does LOT fly the naval version of the aurora? :D |
Originally Posted by scambo1
(Post 1079289)
While we are debunking theories, I have to jump on the boomer bandwagon: In the video, there were no propellers which is clear evidence that this was a top secret propeller plane that was able to shed its props in flight for higher speed. It probably did this at high altitude and high speed indicating a further advance in scramjet technology.
There was no gear indicating that it was the naval version intended to land in the water. There is a halo around the lights, this was due to the fact that in production this plane was built from alien technology and has been frequently filmed and mistaken for a ufo due to these halos. The only real question remaining is why does LOT fly the naval version of the aurora? :D |
Originally Posted by buzzpat
(Post 1079144)
Definitely a turn...and they were all definitely old. ATL. I love flying with the NYC girls.;)
|
Originally Posted by cni187
(Post 1079324)
Just flew with a NYC crew where a young FA was running up and down the jetway with a disabled PAX's helper golden retriever. Fun to see.
What, the Golden Retriever...or a YOUNG F/A?? :eek: |
Not to change the subject, but............
Anyone based in DTW use Dr Dana Bush (Waterford, MI) as their FAA medical examiner? I have used him for about 3 years. Great guy, helped me a lot with my sleep apnea and the FAA. But has very limited days, and fills up fast. |
Originally Posted by Xray678
(Post 1079283)
I have about 2300 hours PIC of a four engine heavy jet. I am very familiar with the handling characteristics with one or two engines out. And I didn't say I would fly accross the ocean. I did say I would have no problem flying from LAX to NYC and landing there rather than dump 250K of gas.
Yeah, I'm sure my post sounded condescending. I should have known better. :( Sorry, it wasn't meant that way. I understand your point about flying across the States where there are plenty of diversion airports verses flying across the pond, but to increase risk for an extra four to five hours to save gas doesn’t seem like a good plan to me. Especially considering I don’t have to pay for that gas. Ha The truth of the matter is that 747’s have been documented flying all over the world with only three running, so maybe I’m just overly cautious. Of course we both know what the FAA has to say about it. Our tickets would vaporize if we did that. So much for Captain’s authority. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:12 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands