Ask The Pilot

[Gold60]

How long has it been since all military aircraft have had to take off and land on a hard surface?

i was just reading that, for example, during WWII Spitfires (and i presume similar aircraft) could operate of grass surfaces.

i presume that as aircraft got heavier, and more delicate (?), they had to stop taking off/landing on anything other than concrete, or similar ?

TIA if anyone knows.

 

[jb747]

How long has it been since all military aircraft have had to take off and land on a hard surface?

i was just reading that, for example, during WWII Spitfires (and i presume similar aircraft) could operate of grass surfaces.

i presume that as aircraft got heavier, and more delicate (?), they had to stop taking off/landing on anything other than concrete, or similar ?

TIA if anyone knows.

During WWII, I'd be surprised if there was much that absolutely had to operate off concrete....perhaps the B29.

It's really all about the loading of the tires. I don't know what the number is, but there comes a point at which the amount of weight vs the area of the tyre goes high enough that unprepared surfaces can no longer provide the strength needed. But, big tyres, that spread the load, also take up a lot of space and weight. Like everything, a trade off.

The A4G tyre loading was so high that it needed a dispensation to be allowed to operate into Mascot! They were tiny...and ran at 440 psi.

These days, anything from the fighter or naval world will be unable to, but I'd expect most tactical transports would be quite happy.
Google Image Result for https://i.ytimg.com/vi/hJjbaofaISo/maxresdefault.jpg

 

[Gold60]

Thank you jb.

During WWII, I'd be surprised if there was much that absolutely had to operate off concrete....perhaps the B29.

It's really all about the loading of the tires. I don't know what the number is, but there comes a point at which the amount of weight vs the area of the tyre goes high enough that unprepared surfaces can no longer provide the strength needed. But, big tyres, that spread the load, also take up a lot of space and weight. Like everything, a trade off.

The A4G tyre loading was so high that it needed a dispensation to be allowed to operate into Mascot! They were tiny...and ran at 440 psi.

Now, anything from the fighter or naval world will be unable to, but I'd expect most tactical transports would be quite happy.
Google Image Result for https://i.ytimg.com/vi/hJjbaofaISo/maxresdefault.jpg

 

[Franky]

During WWII, I'd be surprised if there was much that absolutely had to operate off concrete....perhaps the B29.

It's really all about the loading of the tires. I don't know what the number is, but there comes a point at which the amount of weight vs the area of the tyre goes high enough that unprepared surfaces can no longer provide the strength needed. But, big tyres, that spread the load, also take up a lot of space and weight. Like everything, a trade off.

The A4G tyre loading was so high that it needed a dispensation to be allowed to operate into Mascot! They were tiny...and ran at 440 psi.

Now, anything from the fighter or naval world will be unable to, but I'd expect most tactical transports would be quite happy.
Google Image Result for https://i.ytimg.com/vi/hJjbaofaISo/maxresdefault.jpg

Brilliant images...

 

[mjt57]

Google Image Result for https://i.ytimg.com/vi/hJjbaofaISo/maxresdefault.jpg

That C17 looks like its landing on the Princes Freeway near here...

 

[D747]

It was recently announced that Qantas will begin using 747-400s to fly Sydney to Perth. Can anyone comment on the cost, purely from a pilot's point of view? I ask because I wonder if the economics between the factors of full pax load with a light fuel load plus max freight load would be massively different between a B747 and an A330 or even a B737? I guess what I'm asking is a payload v fuel type question.

 

[jb747]

It was recently announced that Qantas will begin using 747-400s to fly Sydney to Perth. Can anyone comment on the cost, purely from a pilot's point of view? I ask because I wonder if the economics between the factors of full pax load with a light fuel load plus max freight load would be massively different between a B747 and an A330 or even a B737? I guess what I'm asking is a payload v fuel type question.

From a pilot's point of view, there is no difference in the cost. The dollar cost of fuel was removed from flight plans many years ago, as it is irrelevant to what is a safe order.

But...I don't have access to a 747 flight plan for the route, but using some rough figures from the planning data.....

My take is that the 737 is the cheapest on a per passenger fuel basis. The 330 is about 20% more expensive, and then the 747 is about another 20%. So, all told the 747 would use 40-45% more fuel compared to the 737. All of the direct operating costs would also be more expensive. Some element of offset may exist if you have more business class seats to sell.

I have no idea what the real issue is, but releasing 330s for use elsewhere would be a positive. Crewing issues are sadly an own goal, that most airlines are guilty of, to varying extents.

 

[eric2011]

all told the 747 would use 40-45% more fuel compared to the 737. .

Do you have a rough $ figure on what that 45% would equate to

 

[mikenz]

Where will Qantas find the crew for the B747 domestic flights? Would they come from exisiting international or would they find previous 747 crew who might have moved on to something else?

Would a domestic flight figure in the scheduling for a 747 pilot now? And would those flights be appealing for 747 crew who previously would only have international options?

 

[jb747]

Do you have a rough $ figure on what that 45% would equate to

Fuel costs are not something that the pilots are privy to, or even need to know about.

 

[jb747]

Where will Qantas find the crew for the B747 domestic flights? Would they come from exisiting international or would they find previous 747 crew who might have moved on to something else?

Existing crew. They stop doing something else, presumably.

Would a domestic flight figure in the scheduling for a 747 pilot now? And would those flights be appealing for 747 crew who previously would only have international options?

What's worse than totally unappealing?

 

[Flashback]

Reminds me of when they ran the 747-300s on the route before retirement. They were good times.

 

[Berlin]

I'm sure you've experienced those flights where the seat belt sign comes on, and you don't get bumped around. After a while you think we've forgotten about the signs.

Very insightful- thanks JB.

The problem from a passenger perspective are airlines where the pilots don’t play the game properly.

Qantas is one of the best in this respect (I actually think not only in this respect...) but especially in the US the pilots often just keep the seatbelt signs on all flight and as a result, everyone just ignores them, the cabin crew included.

I can only assume that this has to do with the litigation issues in the US but I have experienced it elsewhere too (can’t quite remember). A bit like crying for the wolf- on Qantas, I know that I should head back to my seat asap once the signs come on. On AA after ten people have been up at the toilet happily chit chatting with the flight attendants with no sign of any turbulence? Not so.

 

[mjt57]

JB, when you flying the 94 next?

 

[jb747]

JB, when you flying the 94 next?

I've got two coming up that I know of...July 15 and 23.

 

[mjt57]

I've got two coming up that I know of...July 15 and 23.

OK. The kids are flying in on the 11th...

 

[lastrow]

I recently watched a YouTube of starting up an A320 from cold and it looked very involved. There were switches and lights all over the coughpit most requiring a test procedure before selection of flight position, all very time consuming. Is it necessary to cover the same ground where the turn around time might be an hour or less? Is there a method of recording that the checks have been performed and the results obtained?

 

[jb747]

New roster out now....

Including the current roster:
09/07 QF35
10/07 QF36

14/07 QF93
15/07 QF94

22/07 QF93
23/07 QF94

06/08 QF93
07/08 QF94

16/08 QF93
17/08 QF94

23/08 QF93
24/08 QF94

05/09 QF35
06/09 QF36

10/09 QF35
11/09 QF36

15/09 QF35
16/09 QF36

The last couple of 35/36s might be in doubt, but TBA closer to the event.

 

[flyer89]

JB,

Is HK a junior route on the 380? I assume you don’t do it primarily because of the MEL base?

 

[AviatorInsight]

I recently watched a YouTube of starting up an A320 from cold and it looked very involved. There were switches and lights all over the coughpit most requiring a test procedure before selection of flight position, all very time consuming. Is it necessary to cover the same ground where the turn around time might be an hour or less? Is there a method of recording that the checks have been performed and the results obtained?

Not quite. There are different checks depending on whether it's a cold ship/crew change or turn around. A cold ship will involve more tests of systems on the first flight, such as fire warning tests for engines, APU, and cargo holds, stall warning etc. On a turn around, a lot of those initial tests are not redone and it basically just goes into the pre flight scan, and then continues on from there.

The method of recording is in the use of checklists. A scan will be performed, then a checklist will usually follow to cover that the necessary items for that phase of flight have been completed.