JungleJet not macho enough?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: down-route
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On turn-around a few weeks ago, we were discussing the origins of the JungleJet's nickname. An engineer suggested this was due to the fact that it's flown by monkeys, however, an air-hostess quickly pointed-out that it's probably because the flight deck is full of creepy-crawlies and snakes!!
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Mostly FL360-380, M0.78
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How does it feel to fly with the "goat" control wheels rocking left and right when you want to turn, must be weard?
http://photos.airliners.net/middle/0/1/3/667310.jpg
http://photos.airliners.net/middle/0/1/3/667310.jpg
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Amidst the polar bears
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mork,
You certainly are defensive of the Jungle Jet. Remember fella its only a plane. The best thing you've flown today ... but tomorrow is a new day. By the way, your poll link is based on external aesthetics and has little or nothing to do with operational capabilities. The JJ is cheap to buy but expensive to maintain (relatively speaking) while the CRJ costs a bit more up front but is cheaper on the maintenance budget. I guess what you buy depends on which budget will affect your stock prices and visible expenditures. Passenger comfort is usually at the bottom of the list of considerations. Some day when you strap on your first 777 you will probably look down from your lofty perch (with your posterior slightly atilt from the wad of bills in your wallet) and belittle all RJ drivers for their wannabee attitudes. Until then ... enjoy the ride, whatever it may be.
You certainly are defensive of the Jungle Jet. Remember fella its only a plane. The best thing you've flown today ... but tomorrow is a new day. By the way, your poll link is based on external aesthetics and has little or nothing to do with operational capabilities. The JJ is cheap to buy but expensive to maintain (relatively speaking) while the CRJ costs a bit more up front but is cheaper on the maintenance budget. I guess what you buy depends on which budget will affect your stock prices and visible expenditures. Passenger comfort is usually at the bottom of the list of considerations. Some day when you strap on your first 777 you will probably look down from your lofty perch (with your posterior slightly atilt from the wad of bills in your wallet) and belittle all RJ drivers for their wannabee attitudes. Until then ... enjoy the ride, whatever it may be.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Sometimes even home...
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, someone was questioning the operational need for reverse thrust in early posts.
No need if you have long runways with no contamination, but try to do that in limited runway in winter condition.
There is a rumor that an operator in Northern Europe had to shut down the 145's engines on icy runway in order to avoid running out of the runway, at least few times during last winter...
So, the available runway was long enough according to calculation, but the braking action was not exactly sufficient.
I'd say reverser would have been handy...
I guess they come as an option, a bit of money required though...
No need if you have long runways with no contamination, but try to do that in limited runway in winter condition.
There is a rumor that an operator in Northern Europe had to shut down the 145's engines on icy runway in order to avoid running out of the runway, at least few times during last winter...
So, the available runway was long enough according to calculation, but the braking action was not exactly sufficient.
I'd say reverser would have been handy...
I guess they come as an option, a bit of money required though...
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: SP,Brasil
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
quote by red mud
[Mork,
You certainly are defensive of the Jungle Jet. Remember fella its only a plane. The best thing you've flown today ... but tomorrow is a new day. By the way, your poll link is based on external aesthetics and has little or nothing to do with operational capabilities. The JJ is cheap to buy but expensive to maintain (relatively speaking) while the CRJ costs a bit more up front but is cheaper on the maintenance budget. I guess what you buy depends on which budget will affect your stock prices and visible expenditures. Passenger comfort is usually at the bottom of the list of considerations. Some day when you strap on your first 777 you will probably look down from your lofty perch (with your posterior slightly atilt from the wad of bills in your wallet) and belittle all RJ drivers for their wannabee attitudes. Until then ... enjoy the ride, whatever it may be.]
Well my friend I'm way over you. Been there, done that. Sorry to inform you but I have flown in a number of aircraft type including the MD-11, B-737-200,300,700 and 800 series, Fokker 27 and 100, ERJ-145, 170 bla bla bla plus a number of turbo-props. I have been strapped a top of many many of you and have never looked down on anybody because of the aircraft type. It doesn't really matter what type of aircraft or the kind of money I'm making, I'm still entitled the right to defend and express my ideas. Correct me if I'm wrong.
[Mork,
You certainly are defensive of the Jungle Jet. Remember fella its only a plane. The best thing you've flown today ... but tomorrow is a new day. By the way, your poll link is based on external aesthetics and has little or nothing to do with operational capabilities. The JJ is cheap to buy but expensive to maintain (relatively speaking) while the CRJ costs a bit more up front but is cheaper on the maintenance budget. I guess what you buy depends on which budget will affect your stock prices and visible expenditures. Passenger comfort is usually at the bottom of the list of considerations. Some day when you strap on your first 777 you will probably look down from your lofty perch (with your posterior slightly atilt from the wad of bills in your wallet) and belittle all RJ drivers for their wannabee attitudes. Until then ... enjoy the ride, whatever it may be.]
Well my friend I'm way over you. Been there, done that. Sorry to inform you but I have flown in a number of aircraft type including the MD-11, B-737-200,300,700 and 800 series, Fokker 27 and 100, ERJ-145, 170 bla bla bla plus a number of turbo-props. I have been strapped a top of many many of you and have never looked down on anybody because of the aircraft type. It doesn't really matter what type of aircraft or the kind of money I'm making, I'm still entitled the right to defend and express my ideas. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sad
I know i am a little late on this subject but want to return to Ghengis Cant's original comments. Not quite sure what has upset him so much about the JJ, maybe it has just overtaken him a few too many times!
Please don't repeat personal insults in this forum. Any further offence will be dealt with by being requested to take a short leave of absence.
Please don't repeat personal insults in this forum. Any further offence will be dealt with by being requested to take a short leave of absence.
Last edited by Captain Stable; 10th Sep 2005 at 13:47.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: formally Alamo battleground, now the crocodile with palm trees!
Posts: 965
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
avionics (and FMS I'm assuming) Honeywell kit
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Claire
Age: 63
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SQUAWK
The UNS is a pain in the ass!
Even the folk who are good at working it spend far too much time 'heads down' programming the sucker. Also the buttons are too wee. The Honeywell is MUCH better!
Love the Barbie
The UNS is a pain in the ass!
Even the folk who are good at working it spend far too much time 'heads down' programming the sucker. Also the buttons are too wee. The Honeywell is MUCH better!
Love the Barbie
