# Favourite plane?



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

Do you have a fav plane? My first trip on a plane was on a 747-200 when I was 11. 
10 seats across in a 3-4-3 configuration. Wish I could get on one again.

I’m indifferent on everything else I’ve been on.

would like to try a 787 or A380 though.

what about you?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

We have a pilot or two on the forum, I hope they can chime in.

I really like some of the giant planes. I've flown to Australia/New Zealand a few times, and really enjoyed the 777 and 787 planes (Air Canada and Air New Zealand)

There are so many things I like about these big aircraft. When I'm up in one, it feels like I'm in a small city in the sky. There's comfort, entertainment, huge numbers of people, lots of staff. You can be in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, 4000 km from any mainland, in total comfort in this self-contained city. And it's zipping along at 900 km/hr.

I can't wait until it's possible to fly to Australia again with Air Canada.


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

A380s are nice. I've only been in one once. 

I really value planes where it's a 2-set of seats on the outer edges rather than a 3-set. I always travel as part of a couple, so not having another person in our row makes the whole experience much more peaceful.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

SGS 233
C130

Neither is "comfortable", but they're an experience.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

Don’t know what types of planes they were, but the smallest ones I’ve been on had 1-2 config. From Montreal to toronto. And another toronto to cleveland...first leg to Vegas.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Not easy with twenty of the 747-200 model reported to be still flying in 2020.

I might have a better shot at the DC-3 (estimated at 300 flying in 2017).


'Course I like what I like so it's not really a "one and only one" plane for me.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Money172375 said:


> Don’t know what types of planes they were ...


I suspect the C130 is a Hercules.








Lockheed C-130 Hercules - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





If so, I haven't ridden one of those in over three decades.
It took some getting used to the ice falling off the control cables onto us passengers as we descended into Edmonton. 


Cheers

*PS*
This might be the other uncomfortable but an experience ones.








Schweizer SGS 2-33 - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Lots of leg room


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Eclectic12 said:


> Not easy with twenty of the 747-200 model reported to be still flying in 2020.
> 
> I might have a better shot at the DC-3 (estimated at 300 flying in 2017).
> 
> ...


I'd love to go for a spin in a DC-3


----------



## Flugzeug (Aug 15, 2018)

As a passenger, I like the B787 Dreamliner. The lower cabin altitude makes a noticeable difference on longer flights (less fatigue and dehydration).

From a pilot’s perspective, I really enjoy the Airbus 320. The sidestick is pretty slick, and lack of a control column in-front of you creates extra free space and is very comfortable.

B787 flies nicely, can climb to a higher altitude much sooner after departure than other aircraft, so this can mean less weather deviations, less fuel burn etc. And it has a nice crew bunk for rest during long haul flights (as do most widebody aircraft):


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Flew on an airplane once, from Calgary to Toronto. If God is kind I will never get on one again. Like riding a bus but less comfortable and no scenery to look at. You can have it. Went from Vancouver to Calgary by train and it was a lot better, more comfortable and magnificent scenery. Wouldn't mind doing that trip again but I doubt they still have the same trains.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

I've flown on pretty much every western airliner except a 747.
Favourite plane was the Challenger CL-601. The military VIP one. Being a military brat came with some benefits. My mom, sister and I got to take it from Ottawa to Brussels and back. There was some big wig on it on the way there, but I think we had it all to ourselves on the way back. For a plane obsessed 11yr old, it made an impression.


----------



## Suzuki12 (Apr 22, 2012)

I spent my last 3 years before retirement flying the 787 Dreamliner. It’s an outstanding airplane to fly. Less fatigue given the lower cabin altitude and more humidity. It’s also one of the fastest airplanes in the sky so wherever you go it’s less time enroute.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Wow so we have two pilots on the forum!

@Flugzeug and @Suzuki12 , when I'm on these things, I like to stick my phone/GPS at the window and look at ground speed. I've measured 800 km/hr to 900 km/hr most of the time but have seen over 1,000 km/hr as well.

I wonder if the > 1,000 kph reading was due to wind or not. When in the middle of a long flight (cruising altitude) would you ever push up the engine throttle towards maximum? For example if you see a patch of bad weather, do you sometimes accelerate and burn a whole lot of fuel just to get past it?

Or maybe throttling up when at cruising speed isn't that bad on fuel. I have no idea... just am curious.

As an engineer, it just blows my mind that I'm sitting in a 250,000 kg object going at 1,000 km/hr across the Pacific. Truly mind-blowing... I will never get tired of flying.


----------



## Flugzeug (Aug 15, 2018)

james4beach said:


> Wow so we have two pilots on the forum!
> 
> @Flugzeug and @Suzuki12 , when I'm on these things, I like to stick my phone/GPS at the window and look at ground speed. I've measured 800 km/hr to 900 km/hr most of the time but have seen over 1,000 km/hr as well.
> 
> ...


That’s right, wind would affect the Groundspeed.

When we see bad weather ahead, we would plan a route around it, and if expecting turbulence we would possibly slow down slightly. Increasing the speed/thrust would increase the fuel burn.


----------



## Suzuki12 (Apr 22, 2012)

We typically cruised at M.85 or .86. I took it up to .90 once just because. If you look in the top left of the photo you can see G/S of 719 which is knots/hour which is 1331 km/ hr. Also notice the wind at 284/207knots which is a huge tailwind. I had just leveled off coming home from Seoul.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Wow @Suzuki12 that's some real speed, good tail wind!


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Flugzeug said:


> When we see bad weather ahead, we would plan a route around it, and if expecting turbulence we would possibly slow down slightly. Increasing the speed/thrust would increase the fuel burn.


These modern aircraft have pretty good radar that shows you the weather around you, as I understand it. Do you get "meteorologist" kind of training to interpret the radar?


----------



## Flugzeug (Aug 15, 2018)

james4beach said:


> These modern aircraft have pretty good radar that shows you the weather around you, as I understand it. Do you get "meteorologist" kind of training to interpret the radar?


Meteorology is a part of the initial training when getting a pilot licence. You are taught how to use the weather radar and provided with manuals from the manufacturer. You also gain experience just like driving a car in certain conditions etc.


----------



## Fisherman30 (Dec 5, 2018)

From a passenger's point of view, the 787 is really nice. From a pilot's point of view, if I could have any aircraft for Christmas, (haven't flown too many types - currently flying a Q400, which is a very capable aircraft in certain ways), I would choose a de Havilland Beaver. I love fishing, I love the outdoors, I love boats, I love airplanes, and a Beaver ticks all of those boxes.


----------



## Numbersman61 (Jan 26, 2015)

I fondly remember flying to Hawaii a few times on the 747 operated by Wardair.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Fisherman30 said:


> currently flying a Q400, which is a very capable aircraft in certain ways


Those Q400 are very slick! That's the Bombardier Dash 8, right?

I heard they are very reliable. Did you catch that story from a couple years ago when a baggage handler stole one of the Alaska Airlines Q400 and took it for a joy ride around WA state?


----------



## Fisherman30 (Dec 5, 2018)

james4beach said:


> Those Q400 are very slick! That's the Bombardier Dash 8, right?
> 
> I heard they are very reliable. Did you catch that story from a couple years ago when a baggage handler stole one of the Alaska Airlines Q400 and took it for a joy ride around WA state?


Yep, I definitely remember that one. Pretty wild! Yes, it's the Bombardier (now actually back to de Havilland as of recently)DCH-8-400. The "Q400". It's a stretched out, more modern version of the dash 8 produced in the 80's and 90's(the -100, -200 and -300). The Q400 carries 78 passengers, and has boatloads more power. It's also much quieter inside, due to the 6-bladed props. It's also got a nice modern flight deck.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Fisherman30 said:


> Yep, I definitely remember that one. Pretty wild! Yes, it's the Bombardier (now actually back to de Havilland as of recently)DCH-8-400. The "Q400". It's a stretched out, more modern version of the dash 8 produced in the 80's and 90's(the -100, -200 and -300). The Q400 carries 78 passengers, and has boatloads more power. It's also much quieter inside, due to the 6-bladed props. It's also got a nice modern flight deck.


I think an Alaska Airlines pilot once told me those planes are incredibly safe... I forget what he meant. Maybe they were just very robust?

Are they famous for reliability or something?


----------



## Fisherman30 (Dec 5, 2018)

james4beach said:


> I think an Alaska Airlines pilot once told me those planes are incredibly safe... I forget what he meant. Maybe they were just very robust?
> 
> Are they famous for reliability or something?


I would agree with that. They're built very strong (as are all airliners, really). Not sure about the Q400 specifically, but there are videos on YouTube of how manufacturers stress test wings etc. nowadays. It's pretty impressive the level of engineering involved.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The plane that impressed me the most, although I never flew on one.......was the Concorde.

Flight time from New York to London, England..........under 3 hours. Top speed of 2,179 kms per hour.

Emirates are reported to be reviving the Concorde. 









Emirates Airlines To Relaunch Concorde Service in 2022


A multi-channel aviation digital hub, pioneering the way forward for combining world-class breaking news, aviation intelligence and business development.




www.aerotime.aero


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

The Dash 8, or whatever they call it now is really nice


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

I got to ride in a brand new A220/CS100 a few days ago. I liked the big windows and the entertainment system is pretty good.

My favourite ride is on the top deck (J class) on a 747-400 run by Cathy Pacific or Singapore Airlines. I never got to ride first class though.

A fun ride used to be DH7s when they flew them. I was always amazed when they'd taxi out on the runway, then work up a good fast walking pace before leaping into the air. It never really made sense for commercial planes to be full STOL, but it was a wonder to experience.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> The Dash 8, or whatever they call it now is really nice


I do enjoy these. They're noisy (so I try to wear hearing protection) but I love that they're a small enough plane that I can feel the aircraft moving, rolling.

You can really feel the experience. And I enjoy the low altitudes when flying around the Pacific Northwest. The routes around Vancouver - Seattle - Portland take you by many beautiful mountains, with fantastic views of things like Mount St Helens (which erupted in 1980).


----------



## dotnet_nerd (Jul 1, 2009)

Here's a beautiful plane, and a fascinating story to go with it. The "Christmas Miracle".

It's about a TransCanadian (now Air Canada) Lockheed Constelation









The plane was landing in Toronto, but ended up in a fiery crash. Incredibly everyone aboard survived.

MentourPilot relates the fascinating story


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> I do enjoy these. They're noisy (so I try to wear hearing protection) but I love that they're a small enough plane that I can feel the aircraft moving, rolling.
> 
> You can really feel the experience. And I enjoy the low altitudes when flying around the Pacific Northwest. The routes around Vancouver - Seattle - Portland take you by many beautiful mountains, with fantastic views of things like Mount St Helens (which erupted in 1980).


I flew in one over the Rockies, kids loved it.

I also had a flight with the Embraer equivalent over the Alps, and that was a blast, they were REALLY low.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

Just read that Air Canada and Westjet will be offering transatlantic flights on the 737 Max from Halifax to London. Not sure how much fun that would be.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

A man of simple tastes, I like the Beaver DHC-2 and the Grumman G-73 Mallard. Both pretty handy here on the BC coast. For buzzing around where no need to land on water, honourable mention goes to the Piper Comanche and the Beechcraft Bonanza.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

Flew to Germany on a 777ER. Nice plane and flight. Seemed quieter than other planes, but haven’t flown in so long, so who knows.

Sat in premium economy…was nice. I felt bad for the folks in economy. The space in PE seems to be a lot more. On the way there, we sat in the last row of PE, so couldn’t recline all the way. On the way back, we got the middle section of the first row in PE. Lots of leg room, but no window. Good flight entertainment and food was above average.

the only bad thing is the COVID restrictions. Masks and “discouraging” of walking throughout the plane.

not sure I could justify the extra cost of PE though….my ticket was paid for me.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

The question really is do you want to.
1. Transition from one place to the next, go with a modern Jumbo.
2. Fly, go with the other stuff.
The modern turboprops through the mountains running commuter routes are great IMO, my kids loved it.
Since they fly low you can actually see stuff.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

There used to be milk run routes in BC -- something like Calgary, Cranbrook, Castlegar, Kelowna, Vancouver and the same route back. One time my wife and I were trying to get into Kelowna and it was fogged in. We rode the flight back and forth three times, never able to land in Kelowna, but we got a good look at the mountains up close on the other stops. Eventually AC sent us to Kamloops where we could land close enough to Vernon. Spending the day flying in and out of those little airports in the mountains on a DH8 was pretty cool. It would have been better if we'd planned it though.


----------



## diharv (Apr 19, 2011)

I want to intentionally schedule a flight for my wife and I on what will probably be the last 747s carrying passengers as they will probably be retired at the end of this decade. I'm thinking the YVR-Frankfurt route on Lufthansa. We want to go to Spain/Tenerife this fall but I think with all the restrictions we'll stick with AC this year and only have to deal with entering one country by going from Vancouver to Madrid via Toronto. Maybe next year we'll take that ride on the way to Italy. Last flights on them were on 747-100s in the 70s.


----------

