Am i the only person here interested in Heavy Aviation Metal?

[Hailstone]

I did think about recreating this little scene on my Fairford branch part of my layout but then realised I wouldn't be able to run any trains.  Alongside Brize Norton and Bampton Station (Bampney on my layout) was an airfield and this one didn't quite make it, see about two thirds of the way down this page http://www.fairfordbranch.co.uk/History.htm .

Caz

This looks like an Avro York, which was a transport aircraft used by the RAF during and after the second world war

Regards,

Alex

[B757-236GT]

They are basic models but they are cheap so its swings and roundabouts with them really. With a little bit of work they can be made into something quite workable however.

Richard

[Bob Tidbury]

  To javelinfaw7 My daughter bid on the plane you told me about and we won .I have an idea how to disguise the tail fin which is in Scottish livery but if that doesn't work I will ring the shop that B757-236GT told me about and get the transfers. for your help Guys you have made me very happy
Bob

[Bob Tidbury]

  I missed out CF-FZG in my last post  for your help too I must be getting senile in my old age .
Bob

[5944]

Does this count as heavy metal? 

Pair by 5944

Last night at RAF Coningsby shortly before sunset.

[davieb]

That's just Porn   

dave 

[Buzzard]

Add me into this sort of thing as I have a hard time trying to like small propellor jobbies.

Whilst waiting to see the first Virgin Dreamliner, it'll be overhead in about 20 mins, I've been thinking about why aircraft manufacturers have changed their protocol on model numbers.

What they used to do was have the first version of a new plane as dash 1.  Then the dash 2 came out, dash 3 etc.

Nowadays, and taking the B787 as an example, Boeing have the first version as dash 8.  The first stretched version will be dash 9 and they are already thinking about a superstretch version called the dash 10.

So in terms of ICAO type codes the history of the B787 will be 788, 789 and 781.  Now when I was at school 1 came before 8 but I suppose the national curriculum has probably changed it so 8 comes first.

Oh and don't get me started on the A350.  The first version will be dash 9.

Perhaps there's some logic to this or my brain is just too tired to work it out.  Anyway time to find the binoculars as Virgin 12 is getting closer.

If there's a short explanation about the current protocol I'd be pleased if someone could bring me up to date.

Nigel

[DesertHound]

Buzzard

As far as I'm aware there's no solid reason for the name suffixes other than marketing. I've read elsewhere that 8 or 800 is used these days because 8 is a lucky number in Asian cultures (which it is). Whether that's part of the reason, I don't know, but overall, I don't believe there is a reason other than marketing.

The A380 is actually the A380-800 don't forget. There are no 777's flying as 777-100, but -200's and -300's of various sorts (LR's for long range, ER's for extended range).

The A330's flying are -200 and -300 and the A340's are -200, -300, -500 and -600 (note there's no -400). And the list goes on ...

So, this isn't the newest phenomenon but you are correct that it never used to be this way and the manufacturer's have certainly jumped up to the higher digits. I expect if a newer variant if the A380 comes out one day, say the -900, the -800 won't necessarily sound too old. However, a -100 does sound rather old in my opinion.

Best

Daniel

[steve836]

I remember going with my dad to see an aircraft which overshot the runway at Southend airport & finished up on the railway line. He as District Operating Supt. went with B.R's breakdown crane from Stratford. The blokes from the airport were trying to pull it back up the embankment onto the runway without success. Dad suggested that the crane lifted the plane and they then could guide it back onto the airfield. The bloke from the airfield asked what sort of crane it was & when dad said it was a 100ton steam crane he said what about sparks. Dad assured him "no sparks" & he reluctantly agreed seeing as dad pointed out that B.R. needed its track back. Dadf had a word with the crane driver to keep it slow & easy until full power was needed to lift. This he did & the bloke from the airfield was beginning to relax a bit until every thing was ready for the lift, then the crane driver dropped the chimney & opened the throttle & a 2ft flame shot skywards. The airport bloke fainted!

[Bob Tidbury]

Did anyone see my model of a 767 coming out of the clouds in my shed,
Bob

[B757-236GT]

Technically there was a 777-100 but it became the 200A. These were the first 30 or so off the line which had a very poor range, low MTOW and were quite hefty on the fuel as the BA ones had GE90-76B engines whereas later varients had the upgraded GE90-85B engines. BA had 5 at one point registered G-ZZZA-ZZZE. Two of these were sold off and ones been scrapped (ZZZA,B and C are still operating although i understand these dont have long left, D is currently a buisness jet in africa and E was scrapped after Varig trashed it). Cathay Pacific has RR Trent 877 engines again later upgraded wheras United and ANA had early PW4077 engines but later changed to PW4088 or PW 4090 engines no one knows why they have three different engines in their 777 fleet. Having said that BA arent much better also with three with two different GE90s and RR Trent 895 varients.
Theres no value in these so unless anyone wants some more Biz jets or Transaero wants some more its tin cans for these!

In terms of the A350 im sure Skyline2k can tell us why but i was told that it was a higher number seemed to fit a newer a/c. When A350 was first launched it was infact dubbed unofficially as A330-400 or A330 NEO as thats effectivly what it was. The 787 changed that though and we now have both A330 NEO/Regional and A350! 

BTW Airbus could build 3 million A320 family a/c and no two would be the same!

Richard

[DesertHound]

Hi Rich

That's interesting. Must admit that I wasn't aware of that. I knew that there was a plan for a 777-100 and possibly it was an initial plan, but I didn't know they actually went in to production at the very beginning. I thought if they did then they would likely have been prototypes, but I'm not doubting you on this. Have you got any references? (Not testing your knowledge - I'm genuinely interested, as someone who works in the industry and has friends flying the Boeing. I'm on the Airbus side, although depending upon which angle you're coming from, the Boeing aircraft are solid machines, both technically and financially speaking).

As for the A350, well, we've had everything up to the A340 so I guess that one was logical. Why skip to the A380 though I don't know. Perhaps "A360" doesn't have much of a ring to it. I can imagine the jokes already ... "A360 - it flies in circles!"

I'm glad they didn't release the A350 as the A330-400 since it's a completely different aircraft (not an extension of the A330) and I think it would have been stretching the naming nomenclature a bit too far.

Agree with you on the engine front. Makes sense to stick to one type from many perspectives. When a different manufacturer is chosen it's usually when a new variant of the aircraft is ordered (e.g. going from 777-300 vs 777-300ER) - it can be that the original engine isn't available on the next variant. That's just one example.

A320's ... well (and you'll know this one Richard), we have the A318/319/320/321 ... and now the NEO's! I can't keep up. Lovely aircraft. Indeed all of the modern Airbuses are. That would be a pilot's answer. Ask the cabin crew and they'll nearly always tell you the 777 ... I get it all day long!

Good to know we have some plane enthusiasts on the NGF! 

[B757-236GT]

Im told there are plans for A360 and A370 in the pipeline just A380 got produced first  The 340NG was proposed as A370 and A320NG was going to be A360 but in the end the A340 line dried up although you can still order one as the A330 shares the same wings and fuselage just with a few sections removed, and the A320 went with NEO but i understand plans are there to use both A360 and A370 eventually but not for what may be above.

If you look at Airfleets you will see the first 30 or so off the line you can tell by the engines they had which can be gained from clicking on individual airframes. C/N 1 is actually B-HNL with Cathay Pacific and was delivered to them in 2000 after having been a boeing test bed for 6 years. Currently all of the B777 test beds have gone on to airline use. The first 300 is with JAL, the First 2F is with Fedex (went via Air France Cargo) and the First 200LR is with Pakistan Airlines. Airbus on the other hand tend not to sell prototypes on to airlines as A320 number 1 is still being used to this day as a test bed. One of the A330 test beds was lost in an accident during the flight test program. They currently only have one A330 F-WWCB which was the MRTT prototype but has now reverted to factory prototype operation. The first A340 is still in operation but the prototype 600 is shown as stored. I suspect this one may go on to become a biz jet.

Of the A380s both 1 and 4 are still in operation. 2 has been stored since 2007 and 3 has been sent for biz jet conversion. The prototype A318/A319 and A321 have all been sold on to airline operation. Apart from the Belugas both the A300 prototypes have also been scrapped. A300 1 lasted until 2005 before it was scrapped although im told airbus later regretted the decision as it had apprantly been reserved for the Tolouse aviation museum project.

The 3million A320s figure was before NEO was announced so that should in theory now double to 6 million different airframes on offer!

The orriginal A350 was going to be an A330 wing and fuselage with new engines. however with the 787 with its new wing design and aerodynamic tweaks it was impossible to sell so they filed that design and went for a new one. they have since reintroduced A330NEO though in response to the Asian airlines requirement for the aviation equivilant of a double decker bus. This regional varient will have reduced range but extra fuselage strength and a higher MTOW.

How the 787 will fare doing 8 rotation days will be interesting as most larger a/c arent designed for that type of work which is why Boeing made the 747SR which had only a 2000nm range but could carry over 500 people all day long, many of these served for nearly 25 years an amassed an impressive number of cycles that if it were a 737 it would be considered scrap!

Theres quite alot of suprise at the moment that Monarch ordered 737 MAX8s wheras their entire current fleet is airbuses and mainly the larger a321 at that ( the last 757 should have left their fleet by the end of today although to be fair one of them is 29 years old). Considering they still have some of these on order it was an eyebrow raising moment. having said that Monarch have ordered quite a few a/c then back out or changed their mind later on.

Richard

[Buzzard]

The orriginal A350 was going to be an A330 wing and fuselage with new engines. however with the 787 with its new wing design and aerodynamic tweaks it was impossible to sell

It does appear that Qatar are taking 5 A350s.  Hopefully they'll stay in the middle east as they look similar to the 787, winglets and large flap actuators excepted.  Here's a link to a picture of their first one

http://www.planespotters.net/Aviation_Photos/photo.show?id=524081

Don't fancy trying to spot the differences from 30,000 feet.

Nigel

[Chetcombe]

Of the A380s both 1 and 4 are still in operation. 2 has been stored since 2007 and 3 has been sent for biz jet conversion.

Wow! That will be one hell of a biz jet