Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
SkyWest RJ Captain down to 1 year!!
- Thread starter amcnd
- Start date
- Watchers 33
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
Ah, even the youngest private makes life and death decisions daily in Iraq and Afghanistan. Often those decisions have life and death consequences. You think the "commanders" are standing around with them all day telling them when to pull the trigger?
On another note, I am pretty sure the Air Force and Navy have more than a few pilots flying tactical aircraft and making decisions about dropping live ordanance on a daily basis who are in their early to mid 20's.
rtmcfi
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2004
- Posts
- 825
Just so we are all on the same page...
Are you saying that he pilot climbed out at 250 kias, untill he met up with .74. He then continued to climb at 250 kias, but the mach number fell off to something less than .74?
Who is this Moron?
Yes I do fly the -700 and I guess we take energy management a little more serious at my company. We do 290 to .74. I don't feel one should get this airplane into a situation where you need to level for speed...especially when you're in the high 30's. That's just my conservative opinion. I guess I didn't explain myself enough, but it was the fact that I saw his airspeed at like .67 to .70 in the 30s. I mean seriously, that is way slow with this wing. You guys ever look at any of the turbulence charts showing minimum mach for a given altitude? Oh well. Next time I'll just keep my mouth shut like I did this time and wait for the shaker to do the talking.
DGdaPilot :
Who is this idiot? The -700 does just fine at 250 to .74. Do it all the time. As Weasil correctly posted earlier, 250 and .67 has nothing to do with anything, you moron! It has nothing to do with "energy on the wing" or "way too slow for the wing" - dude - do you use that line on the skanky flight attendants??? Oh, and at 290 to .74 you are burning more fuel, so unless you are at ORD, ATL, LGA, etc where you need to get the f out of dodge, 250 is just fine. Keep burning that fuel "dude" - costing your customer - mainline- money!
The transition to mach is a function of altitude and temperature - it will vary. Mach Number M = airflow velocity V/speed of sound a -
"...Because the property of air depends on altitude, flight speed ALONE IS NOT a reliable indicator of compressibilty effects. When referenced to the speed of sound however, a unique measure of altitude effects on aircraft aerodynamics is provided. This ratio of airflow velocity and speed of sound is termed Mach number..." - Jet Engines, K. Huneke ...
Translation for you DGda - the speed of sound varies with altitude because air density and temp. varies, therefore the IAS at which the transitions to certain Mach numbers will vary. Why do think profiles state 250/290 to .74 - if it was a set altitude the profiles would be 250/290 to FLXXX.
When you mention "too slow for this wing" - "...sweepback will delay the onset of all compressibility effects...sweepback will reduce the magnitude of change in the aerodynamic force coefficients due to compressiblity. Any change in drag, lift, or moment coefficients will be reduced by the use of sweepback...Thus the use of sweepback on a transonic (Transonic = Mach numbers from .75 to 1.20) aircraft will reduce and delay the drag rise and PRESERVE the maneuverability of the aircraft in transonic flight." - Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators, 1965...maybe you were talking about something else...
Any way you cut it DGda you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
Oh, and while we are here, upgrading in 13 months at SKW is not nearly as scary as putting someone at 300 TT and 50 ME in a jet in a 121 environment. When a majority of those upgrading "fast" at SKW are coming from other 121 carriers and have plenty of experience. Just because we don't have smoking holes from the guys/girls flying around everyday with 300 hours doesn't mean it is a "safe" operation. And just because someone upgrades in 13 months doesn't mean it is "unsafe".
I would hands down fly with a captain who has had a fast upgrade at my current airline, but has had a lot of other experience, 121/135, than sit next to a 300 hr wonder. Not that I think that the 300 hr guy isn't smart enough or a good enough person, but he/she doesn't have the EXPERIENCE level. And of course having thousands of hours doesn't mean you will be a excellent pilot - however when the sh!! hits the fan, my confidence level that you and I as a crew can handle it is increased if I know that you have had more time in an airplane than the minimum hours to get your license. Just my 2 cents -
So, DGdaPilot in your words do all of us a favor ..."I mean seriously...Next time I'll just keep my mouth shut.."
"Never enter into a contest with a Sicilian when death is on the line."
Yes I do fly the -700 and I guess we take energy management a little more serious at my company. We do 290 to .74. I don't feel one should get this airplane into a situation where you need to level for speed...especially when you're in the high 30's. That's just my conservative opinion. I guess I didn't explain myself enough, but it was the fact that I saw his airspeed at like .67 to .70 in the 30s. I mean seriously, that is way slow with this wing. You guys ever look at any of the turbulence charts showing minimum mach for a given altitude? Oh well. Next time I'll just keep my mouth shut like I did this time and wait for the shaker to do the talking.
DGdaPilot :
Who is this idiot? The -700 does just fine at 250 to .74. Do it all the time. As Weasil correctly posted earlier, 250 and .67 has nothing to do with anything, you moron! It has nothing to do with "energy on the wing" or "way too slow for the wing" - dude - do you use that line on the skanky flight attendants??? Oh, and at 290 to .74 you are burning more fuel, so unless you are at ORD, ATL, LGA, etc where you need to get the f out of dodge, 250 is just fine. Keep burning that fuel "dude" - costing your customer - mainline- money!
The transition to mach is a function of altitude and temperature - it will vary. Mach Number M = airflow velocity V/speed of sound a -
"...Because the property of air depends on altitude, flight speed ALONE IS NOT a reliable indicator of compressibilty effects. When referenced to the speed of sound however, a unique measure of altitude effects on aircraft aerodynamics is provided. This ratio of airflow velocity and speed of sound is termed Mach number..." - Jet Engines, K. Huneke ...
Translation for you DGda - the speed of sound varies with altitude because air density and temp. varies, therefore the IAS at which the transitions to certain Mach numbers will vary. Why do think profiles state 250/290 to .74 - if it was a set altitude the profiles would be 250/290 to FLXXX.
When you mention "too slow for this wing" - "...sweepback will delay the onset of all compressibility effects...sweepback will reduce the magnitude of change in the aerodynamic force coefficients due to compressiblity. Any change in drag, lift, or moment coefficients will be reduced by the use of sweepback...Thus the use of sweepback on a transonic (Transonic = Mach numbers from .75 to 1.20) aircraft will reduce and delay the drag rise and PRESERVE the maneuverability of the aircraft in transonic flight." - Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators, 1965...maybe you were talking about something else...
Any way you cut it DGda you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
Oh, and while we are here, upgrading in 13 months at SKW is not nearly as scary as putting someone at 300 TT and 50 ME in a jet in a 121 environment. When a majority of those upgrading "fast" at SKW are coming from other 121 carriers and have plenty of experience. Just because we don't have smoking holes from the guys/girls flying around everyday with 300 hours doesn't mean it is a "safe" operation. And just because someone upgrades in 13 months doesn't mean it is "unsafe".
I would hands down fly with a captain who has had a fast upgrade at my current airline, but has had a lot of other experience, 121/135, than sit next to a 300 hr wonder. Not that I think that the 300 hr guy isn't smart enough or a good enough person, but he/she doesn't have the EXPERIENCE level. And of course having thousands of hours doesn't mean you will be a excellent pilot - however when the sh!! hits the fan, my confidence level that you and I as a crew can handle it is increased if I know that you have had more time in an airplane than the minimum hours to get your license. Just my 2 cents -
So, DGdaPilot in your words do all of us a favor ..."I mean seriously...Next time I'll just keep my mouth shut.."
"Never enter into a contest with a Sicilian when death is on the line."
BoilerUP
Citation style...
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2003
- Posts
- 5,311
Gandalf said:
Not to get in the middle of somebody else's pissing match, and I don't have a copy of Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators close at hand...but the compressibility effects about which you speak in this paragraph in relation to a swept wing in transonic flight are from high-speed operations, not from "flying too slow" on a swept airfoil...
Nightrain_080
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2006
- Posts
- 172
Uncle Rico
I think it is really Uncle Rico (BH) that is the scourge, not Jerry. Uncle Rico will float us all down the river in order to prop up his bonus and ego.
I think it is really Uncle Rico (BH) that is the scourge, not Jerry. Uncle Rico will float us all down the river in order to prop up his bonus and ego.
txpilot1974
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Posts
- 260
Uncle Rico!! LMAO!! Classic!
poor2thecore
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2005
- Posts
- 141
Strong and important life decisions as well as a high maturity may be quickly fading in young civilians, but it is only getting greater in the lives of the young people serving in the military today.
I'm in the Navy and work as a main propulsion engineer on a 40 year old steam powered ship. The "immature" 18, and 19 year old "punks" who are working tirelessly down in the engine room are directly related to the operation of the ship and its safety. One wrong turn of a valve, start a pump too soon, lose fuel oil pressure going into the boiler... these are all events that may happen because of the actions of these 18 and 19 year, but it doesn't because these guys have the maturity to get the job done in some very unforgiving circumstances.
As a mature of fact I'm one of those 19 year old "punks" who keeps the fire burning and the screws turning onboard USS Shreveport. The amount of responsibility placed in my hands and my fellow shipmates is amazing. And for those like me who aspire to join you all in the skies as airline pilots will greatly benefit from the time we did serve in the military.
And most of all... my division officer may only appear once or twice a week. He is an Econ major as is, get this, 23 years old.
Please don't slam the younger people in the service because of the general thought they aren't mature enough to handle a situation if/when the $hit hits the fan, because your entirely wrong.
I'm in the Navy and work as a main propulsion engineer on a 40 year old steam powered ship. The "immature" 18, and 19 year old "punks" who are working tirelessly down in the engine room are directly related to the operation of the ship and its safety. One wrong turn of a valve, start a pump too soon, lose fuel oil pressure going into the boiler... these are all events that may happen because of the actions of these 18 and 19 year, but it doesn't because these guys have the maturity to get the job done in some very unforgiving circumstances.
As a mature of fact I'm one of those 19 year old "punks" who keeps the fire burning and the screws turning onboard USS Shreveport. The amount of responsibility placed in my hands and my fellow shipmates is amazing. And for those like me who aspire to join you all in the skies as airline pilots will greatly benefit from the time we did serve in the military.
And most of all... my division officer may only appear once or twice a week. He is an Econ major as is, get this, 23 years old.
Please don't slam the younger people in the service because of the general thought they aren't mature enough to handle a situation if/when the $hit hits the fan, because your entirely wrong.
People always mix apples and oranges. I'm not saying that younger people are stupid and incapable, only that they lack experience. In the example above, the engineer praises the 18 and 19 year olds for keeping the engines running. That's great, within their expertise.
But these are the important questions: Would you say they're qualified to captain the ship? To design the battle plan? Probably not...THEY LACK THE EXPERIENCE!
But these are the important questions: Would you say they're qualified to captain the ship? To design the battle plan? Probably not...THEY LACK THE EXPERIENCE!
How's the pay?
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
