For those who like Aircraft pictures

[montyburns56]

Manchester Airport 1971 by MMU VR

 

 

[woodenhead]

@montyburns56 Used to be great being that close to the aircraft.

 

Regular Saturday morning haunt if I wasn't at Victoria trainspotting.

[montyburns56]

13 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

@montyburns56 Used to be great being that close to the aircraft.

 

Regular Saturday morning haunt if I wasn't at Victoria trainspotting.

 

Right, well paupers like my family used to just hang out at the perimeter fence before they built that fancy viewing park.

[woodenhead]

5 minutes ago, montyburns56 said:

 

Right, well paupers like my family used to just hang out at the perimeter fence before they built that fancy viewing park.

When I was very young it was an evening trip to the old Airport Hotel which is the end of the orginal runway.

 

Was great in the dark watching the aircraft through the mesh fence, could see everything back then.

 

Edit: looks like you can see everything from their again.

Edited February 5 by woodenhead

[SHMD]

At Manchester today, whilst on the (delayed) KL1076 MAN-AMS, I took this (phone) photo of this colourfully-creative-colossus (A380) with the much smaller easyJet trying to photobomb it.

 

(Note the position of the rudder!)

 

The A380s always use that gate, I don't think the rest of the apron can take the weight.

 

Incidentally, our flight to AMS, although an hour late, was due to do the trip in 45 minutes due to tail winds, (Normally this is a steady 1 hour and 5minute leg), but at AMS we circled for 20 minutes (seemed like it) and then had an aborted landing (Captains words) for my fifth "go-around" in 2.5 years, and landed for a total leg time of about 1 hour 20 minutes.

 

In my previous 25 years flying - averaging 50 legs/annum - I never had any aborted landings. 2 aborted take-offs, but their another story.

 

Are "go-arounds" becoming more common now?

And, if so, why?

 

 

Kev.

 

[Jeff Smith]

Many years ago I was on a Delta B757 from Atlanta to Savannah (1/2 hour).  We landed on the third attempt due to low cloud cover.

[sb67]

8 hours ago, AY Mod said:

This seems as good a place as any. Has anyone else watched any Masters of the Air on Apple TV?

 

Band of Brothers was a classic of course and Pacific was good too but I really am struggling with Masters of the Air from the same stable. Although the CGI is clever it very obviously is just that; maybe it's that? Or the characters?  I don't even know if they're based on real people whereas Band of Brothers very definitely was.

 

It doesn't seem that they used a single flying B17 for shots; just mock ups for in-flight and some ground shots. Compare that to the glorious summer of 1989 when, if you were lucky enough, you'd get to see five Fortresses, a Mitchell and Mustangs over Cambridgeshire and E. Anglia filming 'Memphis Belle' - it was far more cheesy as a film but at least they did the flight sequences well.

 

 

Having looked forward to it for years I'm really struggling to enjoy it.

 

It's always disappointing when you look forward to something and it doesn't deliver. Not having Apple TV I wish I could watch it. I believe the majority of characters are based on real people and certainly real events, and think the series is based on a book by Harry H Crosby, On A Wing And A Prayer, which is well worth a read. It tells of Crosby almost stumbling into the role of lead navigator then his progression to group navigator, and the story of the 100BG. 

If you haven't seen it I'd recommend finding the documentary of the Memphis Belle, real footage of a mission, and conveys the bravery and professionalism of the bomber crews. 

Can't imagine what it must have been like up there! 

Edited February 5 by sb67

[durham light infantry]

7 hours ago, AY Mod said:

This seems as good a place as any. Has anyone else watched any Masters of the Air on Apple TV?

 

Band of Brothers was a classic of course and Pacific was good too but I really am struggling with Masters of the Air from the same stable. Although the CGI is clever it very obviously is just that; maybe it's that? Or the characters?  I don't even know if they're based on real people whereas Band of Brothers very definitely was.

 

It doesn't seem that they used a single flying B17 for shots; just mock ups for in-flight and some ground shots. Compare that to the glorious summer of 1989 when, if you were lucky enough, you'd get to see five Fortresses, a Mitchell and Mustangs over Cambridgeshire and E. Anglia filming 'Memphis Belle' - it was far more cheesy as a film but at least they did the flight sequences well.

 

 

Having looked forward to it for years I'm really struggling to enjoy it.

 

 

Afaiui the big issues are costs of maintenance, insurance, certification (paperwork), fuel and pilot currency. Everything in the vintage warbird world this side of the pond went silly after Shoreham. In the States I don't think the FAA has  come to decision after the mid-air collision at Dallas (B17 and P63).

 

Regarding the story, I think the main characters are based on real people and real events. 1 statistic I came across recently, was that the loss rate of the 8th Air Force from deployment in England until 6th June 1944 was 78%. If it hadn't have been for Big Week in February 1944 it would have been nearer 90%...

 

 

I can thorougly reccomend the rest of the content on this guys channel.

[rob D2]

2 hours ago, SHMD said:

At Manchester today, whilst on the (delayed) KL1076 MAN-AMS, I took this (phone) photo of this colourfully-creative-colossus (A380) with the much smaller easyJet trying to photobomb it.

 

(Note the position of the rudder!)

 

The A380s always use that gate, I don't think the rest of the apron can take the weight.

 

Incidentally, our flight to AMS, although an hour late, was due to do the trip in 45 minutes due to tail winds, (Normally this is a steady 1 hour and 5minute leg), but at AMS we circled for 20 minutes (seemed like it) and then had an aborted landing (Captains words) for my fifth "go-around" in 2.5 years, and landed for a total leg time of about 1 hour 20 minutes.

 

In my previous 25 years flying - averaging 50 legs/annum - I never had any aborted landings. 2 aborted take-offs, but their another story.

 

Are "go-arounds" becoming more common now?

And, if so, why?

 

 

Kev.

 

I think the A380 stand is more to do with its size. I cannot remember what category it’s in but if it’s above E it’ll need a special stand I think to fit .

Go arounds…..there’s a multitude of reasons . Windshear, aircraft still on runway , birds, etc…. The number one cause is prob still unstable approaches . By that I mean passing 1000’ I must be on the glideslope and on the localiser ( up down , left right ) , fully configured ( landing flap and gear ) , no more than approach speed +10/-5 , power commensurate with that position ( not idle )…. If this isn’t the case it’s mandatory  to GA as continuing will lead to an unsafe landing ( too long, short, too fast etc) . 
 

unstable approaches are caused by pilot cock ups, ATC cock ups, environmental factors . You never get sacked for a GA you’d get a right kicking for continuing with an unstable approach , and most aircraft have a plug in quick access recorder that is automatically downloaded and monitored .

 

The 787 system used to auto generate emails to us if it was a minor infraction ( not unstable approach ), I used to call them t@@t ograms ;)

 

 

 

[St Enodoc]

19 minutes ago, rob D2 said:

I think the A380 stand is more to do with its size. I cannot remember what category it’s in but if it’s above E it’ll need a special stand I think to fit .

Don't know anything about size categories but won't it have something to do with the extra airbridge(s)?

[newbryford]

On 28/01/2024 at 11:22, SHMD said:

The A380 is probably the best (passenger) experience I have had.

 

 

Kev.

(A bit fugly though!)

 

 

Booked on my first one soon....

 

[Jeff Smith]

4 hours ago, woodenhead said:

Used to be great being that close to the aircraft.

Most passengers do not appreciate the size of airliners from just seeing them at door level from the terminal or jet bridge.  Walking around them at ground level gives a whole new perspective, especially the twin aisles.

[PMP]

3 hours ago, SHMD said:

At Manchester today, whilst on the (delayed) KL1076 MAN-AMS, I took this (phone) photo of this colourfully-creative-colossus (A380) with the much smaller easyJet trying to photobomb it.

 

(Note the position of the rudder!)

 

The A380s always use that gate, I don't think the rest of the apron can take the weight.

 

 

 

Are "go-arounds" becoming more common now?

And, if so, why?

 

 

Kev.

 

There’s no weight restriction for the A380 on Manchesters parking stands, or taxiways except for Lima. Looking at their charts there’s two ‘large’ stands one each off  the end of Terminal1 and 3. Those stands have three positions on each stand and are likely used for a380, and 747-8’s. The operational access to the aircraft is key so airbridges, ground handling and lateral clearance around the airframe are all factors in stand allocation.

 

I’m not aware of any trends for increased numbers of go-arounds. Perhaps there’s more public awareness of them, as any storm story these days seems to have an obligation  to show one on telly. 

[PMP]

4 minutes ago, Jeff Smith said:

Most passengers do not appreciate the size of airliners from just seeing them at door level from the terminal or jet bridge.  Walking around them at ground level gives a whole new perspective, especially the twin aisles.

It’s odd how you get used to the size of them with familiarity, I used to think 146/737/a320’s were big. After a few weeks working in their vicinity they become the norm and you get used to them.

And then once you’d got used to them something a bit larger would turn up to redefine ‘big’.

[newbryford]

1 hour ago, Jeff Smith said:

Most passengers do not appreciate the size of airliners from just seeing them at door level from the terminal or jet bridge.  Walking around them at ground level gives a whole new perspective, especially the twin aisles.

 

And at the opposite end - I know the F117 is meant to be small in terms of radar signature, but it surprised me how physically small it was as well. The US flag was larger than the plane.

 

(taken at NAS Miramar 1993/1994 or so - when it was still the home of Top Gun - these pics have appeared earlier in this thread, but were lost in the great picture outage  a couple years back).

 

Edited February 5 by newbryford

[St Enodoc]

2 hours ago, newbryford said:

 

 

I like that notice. Might be useful at model railway shows too.

[jjb1970]

I'II be enjoying the delights of the A380 this week, I am flying back from Tokyo to Singapore with Asiana and the flight from Tokyo to Seoul should be an A380. Seoul to Singapore should be an A330. One of the applications the A380 still seems to be valued for is short-medium high density routes. Singapore AL still operate the A380 to Hong Kong for example.

[Erichill16]

One ( or two) for @jjb1970 and anyone else that likes the A380.  Mine’s at the gate opposite. 

[J. S. Bach]

19 hours ago, Jeff Smith said:

Many years ago I was on a Delta B757 from Atlanta to Savannah (1/2 hour).  We landed on the third attempt due to low cloud cover.

My shortest flight was Friendship to Washington National, the pilot just barely got the wheels up when he had to put them down again. Note that i was on a through flight to Atlanta.

 

EDIT: The ground transit time was less than an hour, I drove an inter-airport shuttle for awhile and did that rip many times in about 45 minutes.

 

 

Edited February 6 by J. S. Bach
To add some information.

[jjb1970]

In Ho Chi Minh, the next flight to Tokyo

 

[rob D2]

17 hours ago, PMP said:

There’s no weight restriction for the A380 on Manchesters parking stands, or taxiways except for Lima. Looking at their charts there’s two ‘large’ stands one each off  the end of Terminal1 and 3. Those stands have three positions on each stand and are likely used for a380, and 747-8’s. The operational access to the aircraft is key so airbridges, ground handling and lateral clearance around the airframe are all factors in stand allocation.

 

I’m not aware of any trends for increased numbers of go-arounds. Perhaps there’s more public awareness of them, as any storm story these days seems to have an obligation  to show one on telly. 

Normally accompanied by a shouting cockney 

[rob D2]

17 hours ago, PMP said:

It’s odd how you get used to the size of them with familiarity, I used to think 146/737/a320’s were big. After a few weeks working in their vicinity they become the norm and you get used to them.

And then once you’d got used to them something a bit larger would turn up to redefine ‘big’.

When I was smaller , smaller stuff like 146 looked big….as I got bigger even the 787 looked average ….the 747 still looks mahoosive 

[4630]

A bit more today from the US NTSB following release of its initial findings about Boeing, its 737 Max 9, missing bolts and Alaska Airlines.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68220627

 

and here too. 
 

https://news.sky.com/story/key-bolts-missing-were-from-boeing-alaska-airlines-plane-door-initial-investigation-finds-13065587

Edited February 6 by 4630

[St Enodoc]

14 hours ago, J. S. Bach said:

My shortest flight was Friendship to Washington National, the pilot just barely got the wheels up when he had to put them down again. Note that i was on a through flight to Atlanta.

 

EDIT: The ground transit time was less than an hour, I drove an inter-airport shuttle for awhile and did that rip many times in about 45 minutes.

 

 

My shortest flight was as pilot in command of our school Cadet Force's Slingsby Grasshopper. I didn't time it but it was unlikely to have been more than about five seconds.

Edited February 7 by St Enodoc

[Ron Ron Ron]

On 05/02/2024 at 22:48, PMP said:

There’s no weight restriction for the A380 on Manchesters parking stands, or taxiways except for Lima. Looking at their charts there’s two ‘large’ stands one each off  the end of Terminal1 and 3. Those stands have three positions on each stand and are likely used for a380, and 747-8’s. The operational access to the aircraft is key so airbridges, ground handling and lateral clearance around the airframe are all factors in stand allocation……

 

There’s only one A380 stand on the piers.

Stand 12 on the end of pier B ( T1), is specially equipped with the required airbridges, larger gate waiting area and has the lateral clearances.

Vertical clearances come into play as well.

 

The stands on the T3 pier are far too small, with the multiple parking positions being provided for smaller regional types.

For example, in FlyBe days, you’d see a couple Q400’s on one such gate and in an earlier era, BA Connect regional types.

These days it might be a single Ryanair 737 or suchlike.

The other stands at Manchester, capable of accommodating an A380, are remote stands on the Western Apron, near the cargo village - Stand 62  and Stand 80.

There’s possibly one other remote stand.

 

The T2 development plan includes several new A380 size stands (e.g. on Pier 2 currently under construction).

Originally, T1 was due to be decommissioned and demolished, but COVID delayed and resulted in some changes to the development timeline.

Under those original  plans, Stand 12 would have gone, but I don’t think anyone’s sure what’s going to happen to pier B in the near term.

With passenger numbers at Manchester, almost back to pre-Covid 2019 levels, I’m surprised that the plans haven’t been put firmly on track.

 

 

.

 

 

Edited February 6 by Ron Ron Ron