Train Graphic
Great Western Passengers' Forum
GWR advice during Coronavirus
Coffee Shop during Coronavirus
Please - Do NOT travel unless you have to!
Great Western Coffee Shop - [home] and [about]
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 today - Benefits to gain - ONLINE
28/05/2020 - CILT seminar - ONLINE
29/05/2020 - TWSW - Bristol Mayor - ONLINE
05/06/2020 - World Environment Day
Random Image
Train Running @GWR Twitter Acronyms/Abbreviations Station Comparator Rail news GWR co. site Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
May 26, 2020, 08:32:42 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most liked recent subjects
[78] Great Western Railway: on-board catering, buffets, Travelling ...
[56] Which UK network station has the best view? [DotD 25.5.20]
[51] Rail programmes MONDAY 25th May
[49] Hebridean Light Railway, and highland proposals and short-live...
[46] Rail programmes TUESDAY 26th May
[37] What happened near Dauntsey on Wednesday 20th May?
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3
  Print  
Author Topic: All easyjet flights grounded  (Read 1618 times)
Surrey 455
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 869


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: March 31, 2020, 08:54:47 pm »

It will be fun when this ends - moving a 747 a distance of 40 miles isn't quite so easy as shifting a train.


Reminds me of my return flight from a holiday in Limassol, Cyprus in July 2009. Loadings must have been a bit light because the two flights from Larnaca to Bournemouth and Gatwick that day were amalgamated into one calling at Bournemouth first then Gatwick. I remember there being quite a wait between landing and taking off again.

Checking distances, as the crow flies it's about 76 miles but the flight miles would have been longer.
Logged
TonyK
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4988


The artist formerly known as Four Track, Now!


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: March 31, 2020, 11:07:22 pm »

By the way, looking at the track of the plane it's clear the circuitous route was needed because of the runway alignments and wind direction, but that wouldn't have been as interesting.

Looks about right - it took off on runway 12 from Cardiff and landed on 08 at St Athan, so I guess there was an easterly-ish wind that day. I'm sure the pilot could have done a tailwind take-off from Cardiff with no passengers and presumably only the legal minimum fuel, but would have to have reached a reasonable height, turned left 40, begun a descent and landed safely, all within 3 nautical miles. It would have been dangerous to try, and probably much more interesting from a spectator point of view, so why not have a nice last ride out, climb to 3000 feet, see the sights, then set up a nice stable approach for a normal easy landing. Had there been a westerly wind that day, I would imagine that the pilot would have turned left after departure, probably over St Athan, come back over the Bristol Channel to line up from west of Barry.

As an aside, many old aircraft go to Kemble to be recycled, a rather profitable addition to the Cotswold economy. The first time I flew to Kemble was only the second time I had landed away from Filton, with its 2467m x 91m runway. Kemble's runway is 45m wide, and looked pretty thin from a couple of miles out. My nerves eased as we got closer to the ground, and I felt a smug sense of achievement at having squeezed into such a narrow gap. Until I noticed the three 747s parked up.
Logged

Now, please!
MVR S&T
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 200


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: March 31, 2020, 11:28:01 pm »

I went to Brooklands museum some years ago, was told the BAC 1-11 was flowen in! now that isnt even a real runway.
Logged
Thatcham Crossing
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 721


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: April 01, 2020, 08:48:54 am »

Quote
I went to Brooklands museum some years ago, was told the BAC 1-11 was flown in! now that isnt even a real runway.

So was the VC10!

Coincidentally, this was being discussed within this thread on PPRuNe only yesterday https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/631107-vc10-quickie.html by the guy who flew it in!
Logged
TonyK
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4988


The artist formerly known as Four Track, Now!


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: April 01, 2020, 03:44:51 pm »


So was the VC10!


The VC10 there was a civilian one, I think owned by the Sultan of Oman before its retirement. My son-in-law was working on the RAF VC10s at the time they left service, and my daughter (his wife) was then working in the MoD PR office at Brize. She went on the last operational flight in September 2013 before they retired aged 47. There is one at Dunsfold, which my SiL told me  wasn't the intended final rusting place, which I think was going to be Cosford. The pilots scheduled to fly it there took a trip in something smaller first, though, and decided the runway was too short to make it safely, so Dunsford and Bruntingthorpe it had to be. Another was stripped of its wings (and dignity) for a road trip to Cosford. The rest have been broken up, with bits in various museums.

The VC10's transatlantic speed record, set in 1979, was finally broken in February this year. The RAF tankers, and large passenger transport aircraft, were replaced by the Airtanker Voyagers, based on the A330. They were described by some sections of the press as an expensive white elephant on the basis that we could have managed with 50 year old aircraft, patched up before and after every flight, and perpetually hungry and thirsty, although a joy to fly. The MoD and military see the Voyager as a brilliant aircraft, vastly superior to the ones that preceded them in every role. My son-in-law, currently mending them in the Falklands, says that they are a great leap forward, and so much easier to service than the VC10. I've had a ride on one, including in the cockpit, and tend to agree.
Logged

Now, please!
rogerpatenall
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 241



View Profile
« Reply #20 on: April 01, 2020, 04:04:28 pm »

I've had a few flights as sole passenger. One return trip Stansted to Manchester, returning next afternoon, on Suckling Airways. Up in the morning with Sue (I think) as sole cabin crew. Greeted at the top of the stairs next afternoon with a big smile by whoever was on duty, I said " You never know - I may be the passenger from hell". She retorted " No you're not. I saw Sue this morning who said you were OK".

Another time, a Sunday flight from Alderney to Bournemouth as a last minute sub-load passenger - the only one. Got to Bournemouth and, not expecting me, the sole customs officer had gone off duty. I had to wait for an officer to drive down from Southampton to wave me through. But he did give me a lift back to Southampton where my car was parked.
Logged
Thatcham Crossing
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 721


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: April 01, 2020, 08:40:04 pm »

Quote
The MoD and military see the Voyager as a brilliant aircraft, vastly superior to the ones that preceded them in every role.

The Voyager is indeed a impressive aircraft, way more capable than the elderly types it replaced.

However, it would be even more capable if it had also been equipped with a refuelling boom (as well as hose and drogue refuelling) as the Australian version of the A330MRTT has. The Aussie's call it the KC-30 but it's the same aircraft.

As is stands, the RAF have several aircraft, including the Boeing E-3 AWACS (and it's expected replacement), the C-17 and the new P-8 Poseidon Maritime Patrol Aircraft (based on the Boeing 737-800 airliner) that can't be air-to-air refuelled by the Voyager due to this limitation.

Interoperability (the military love that word!), especially with the Americans, would have been greatly enhanced. In fact, it is often said that the A330MRTT won a competition to the be USAF's next tanker/transport, but politics got in the way resulting in the procurement of the Boeing 767-based Pegasus, which is having a very problemmatic, late and expensive entry into service.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2020, 08:53:17 pm by Thatcham Crossing » Logged
TonyK
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4988


The artist formerly known as Four Track, Now!


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: April 01, 2020, 09:42:40 pm »

[
The Voyager is indeed a impressive aircraft, way more capable than the elderly types it replaced.

However, it would be even more capable if it had also been equipped with a refuelling boom (as well as hose and drogue refuelling) as the Australian version of the A330MRTT has. The Aussie's call it the KC-30 but it's the same aircraft.

The boom would have been a seldom-used add-on, as the RAF has no top-loaders. As you will be aware, the A330 and A340 share a wing, with the latter having 4 engines, leaving two pylons to mount the refuelling pods. Three of the aircraft have been leased to civilian airlines, which wouldn't be easy with the boom fittings. It seemed to do alright, though, and there were plenty of customers:



I haven't been as close to a Typhoon before or since, not even on the ground:



Logged

Now, please!
Thatcham Crossing
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 721


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: April 02, 2020, 09:21:16 am »

Quote
The boom would have been a seldom-used add-on, as the RAF has no top-loaders.

Some of the types I mentioned are top-loaders for sure, for example the C17 and the new P-8.

Take your point though that having the boom would add complexity to the lease-outs (presumably it would have to be removed).

As far as I know the leased-out aircraft have all been returned, which in the current environment is not surprising.
3 were due to be with Jet2 this Summer and I doubt that will happen now.

Logged
TonyK
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4988


The artist formerly known as Four Track, Now!


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: April 09, 2020, 10:39:04 am »

It's quiet in the sky today again. It looks as if Google Earth are taking advantage to get some new pictures. Otherwise, a few military - a Merlin passed nearby a few minutes ago - around my way.

Logged

Now, please!
Thatcham Crossing
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 721


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: April 09, 2020, 01:16:56 pm »

I used the same site (ADS-B Exchange) to "watch" a Voyager tanking a couple of Typhoons off the north Cornwall coast this morning.
Logged
TonyK
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4988


The artist formerly known as Four Track, Now!


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: April 09, 2020, 03:14:02 pm »

The Google Earth plane (if that's what it was) passed over my house after lunch at Exeter airport by the look of it. I shall have to look to see if we were on it, eating cake in the garden.

Edit - I am told elsewhere that it is Ordnance Survey. Back home at East Midlands Airport. Nice work if you can get it.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2020, 04:57:19 pm by TonyK » Logged

Now, please!
Clan Line
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 371



View Profile
« Reply #27 on: April 09, 2020, 09:18:23 pm »

Interoperability (the military love that word!), especially with the Americans, would have been greatly enhanced. In fact, it is often said that the A330MRTT won a competition to the be USAF's next tanker/transport, but politics got in the way resulting in the procurement of the Boeing 767-based Pegasus, which is having a very problemmatic, late and expensive entry into service.

The only slight problem is that the US Navy and the US Air Force don't seem to have heard of "Interoperability" either .....................  The US Navy uses mainly the drogue system while the US Air Force uses the boom. That is why during the Gulf War much of the RAF's tanker fleet was kept busy refuelling US Navy aircraft operating from their carriers in the Gulf.

The A330 DID win the competition for the next US tanker aircraft, but Boeing complained and the spec for the new aircraft was re-written (around the 767) - the only thing that the new spec didn't say was that the word "Boeing" had to appear on the new aircraft !!
Logged
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 29432



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #28 on: April 18, 2020, 05:42:55 am »

Drop in flights - from the BBC - note these are March graphs - so nearly 3 weeks behind. Also note that lots of freight flights running.



Looking in the South West the other day - single passenger flight in and out of Bristol for a whole 24 hours - RyanAir from and to Dublin.   Same for Gatwick.  Southampton showing two flights in a day - in and out from each of Jersey and Guernsey.  Nothing at Newquay or Exeter.
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Vice Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, and on the board of TravelWatch SouthWest.
Bmblbzzz
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 2765


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: April 18, 2020, 12:38:13 pm »

There was a flight in the small hours of this morning that woke me up. It must have been either landing at or taking off from Bristol but I've no idea where it was going/from.
Logged

Tuesday had come down through Dundrum and Foster Avenue, brine-fresh from sea-travel, a corn-yellow sun-drench that called forth the bees at an incustomary hour to their bumbling.
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: 1 [2] 3
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page