Quantcast

Small plane discussion

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

Joined
Dec 22, 2018
Messages
8
I recall that airline strike in '66...I had just graduated basic training at Lackland AFB, San Antonio, and had three days travel time to reach tech school at Chanute AFB, Rantoul, Il. I had looked forward to flying commercially to O'Hare, and then spending a couple of days seeing Chicago before reporting to Chanute. The strike put the kabosh to that plan. They took us on buses to San Antonio, where they then put us aboard a chartered Modern Air Transport, DC-6B. Let me tell you, after the 707 on the way down to San Antonio, it was not very modern. Neither were the stewardesses, who appeared to be the grandmother's of the Braniff 'stews' we had on the way down....

We were not told anything, so assumed we were still going to Chicago. Uh, Uh... We started a slow descent with nothing but corn fields visible, and then came the tell-tale red and white checkerboard water towers. Yes...we landed right on Chanute Field, which at the time was in the process of being deactivated and used by nothing more than the base aero club. We were then sent over to the "PATS" (Personnel Awaiting Tech School) barracks, where we spent our supposed three travel days doing lots of 'dirty jobs' around the base...
:rolleyes:
I also did basic at Lackland, in August/September of '62 and boy was it hot! Then they put us on a train to Denver (Lowry Field) for 10 months of tech school. And yes, I too was in PATS for a few days running a floor buffer. Then another train (BN) to Chicago for 30 days leave before Glasgow AFB, MT where no one went over the hill because there weren't any.
 

railiner

Conductor
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Messages
8,153
Location
South Florida
I also did basic at Lackland, in August/September of '62 and boy was it hot! Then they put us on a train to Denver (Lowry Field) for 10 months of tech school. And yes, I too was in PATS for a few days running a floor buffer. Then another train (BN) to Chicago for 30 days leave before Glasgow AFB, MT where no one went over the hill because there weren't any.
I was at BMTS-Lackland from 20 June until 3 August of 1966....I agree it was hot! We wore 'pith' helmets and were pushed to take lots of salt tablets...
There were many "red flag" and a couple of "black flag" restricted PT days...😓
 

anumberone

Conductor
AU Supporter
Joined
Aug 8, 2015
Messages
1,721
Location
Los Angeles
Not a small plane, but a FedEx cargo plane, I think 757 came into LAX night before last on a wing and a prayer so they say, one of the main gear wouldn't come down. Guess it dumped fuel over the ocean, made a couple of approaches and finally decided to land with one main and the nose gear extended. The pilot set it down smooth, it continued straight with just a shower of sparks, no fire. One of the two pilots was injured getting out of the plane.
 

PVD

Conductor
Joined
Jul 8, 2015
Messages
4,809
Location
NYC/Queens
I loved the 76, but seemed to have bad luck on them On my first 767 flight ( UA DEN-LGA) there was a rag stuffed in a space, that someone reached up and pulled out. I think it held back condensate water that wasn't draining and I got drenched. And on a red-eye leaving LAX (TW) there was a gear or gear door that wouldn't stow, and after trying some bouncing moves, we headed back over the Pacific to burn off fuel and return to LAX. They rolled out a sparkling practically new 757, which was great, except for listening to idiots whining about no longer having an aisle seat at 2 AM
 

Palmland

OBS Chief
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
849
Location
Carolinas
I loved the 767’s and I remember when Delta first put them to service. What a treat to have a new clean plane with plenty of seating not requiring dealing with someone in a center seat. The only downside was the early am departure from Jax for my regular flight.
 

HenryK

Service Attendant
Joined
Jul 12, 2015
Messages
233
I flew (as a passenger) on 767s from Chicago to Reykjavik on Icelandair and hated it. Those coach seats were thin and uncomfortable, far worse than those in my 1959 C150.
 

PVD

Conductor
Joined
Jul 8, 2015
Messages
4,809
Location
NYC/Queens
Most of the interior is determined by the airline, comfort on the same plane can vary widely carrier to carrier or even version on the same carrier. Like an A-320 on JetBlue the 150 seat earlier, or the 150 seat with some rows adjusted for legroom, and the 162 seat ones. Or the domestic and international setups some carriers use.
 

Devil's Advocate

Conductor
Joined
May 24, 2010
Messages
11,544
Location
Texas
Most of the interior is determined by the airline, comfort on the same plane can vary widely carrier to carrier or even version on the same carrier.
Very true. I can understand why a pilot would have a strong opinion about one aircraft over another but if you're a passenger then most of your experience will be determined by the airline and cabin fixtures. So far as I can tell the majority of improvements related to the 767 had little or nothing to do with the passenger experience. It seemed to be mostly about labor costs, fuel efficiency, and operational flexibility. No 767's served my home airport and few operated on the routes I flew so my experience was rather limited. I did enjoy more aisle seats and the relative rarity of a regional widebody jet but other than that it felt a lot like other aircraft from the same era. The 787 has a similar size and profile but seems a lot more popular and common than the 767.
 

PVD

Conductor
Joined
Jul 8, 2015
Messages
4,809
Location
NYC/Queens
There are quite a few years of progress built into the 787, larger windows, and improved cabin pressure and humidity levels help the passenger experience. The 2-3-2 coach in the 67 was very well received by passengers, as well as the extra set of overhead bins. You don't see many 787 in domestic service, the earlier 767-200 were not uncommon with major carriers. Many of those are gone, if you see a 67 today it likely a version of the larger 300 series, and probably not flying domestic.
 

Devil's Advocate

Conductor
Joined
May 24, 2010
Messages
11,544
Location
Texas
The 787 isn't a bad passenger aircraft but the 767 still beats it with better seat width and pitch. 767's also have passenger controlled window shades that can block out all of the light instead of creating that distracting blue haze you get on 787's. I hope the A350 did not borrow the B787's window shades.
 

PVD

Conductor
Joined
Jul 8, 2015
Messages
4,809
Location
NYC/Queens
The electronic shade is supposed to be progress, but lots of passengers don't like them, since they find them not really 100% effective. Seat pitch and width varies by airline and assignment group, the aircraft itself is not the predictor. I always use a sight like seatguru to see what I'm in for
 

MARC Rider

Conductor
Joined
Apr 5, 2011
Messages
2,144
Location
Baltimore. MD
Hmmm... This thread is called "Small Plane Discussion," and the last few pages are about Boeing 767s and 787s. I hate to think of the size of the planes described in the thread "Large Plane Discussion." But maybe everyone will use that thread to debate the relative merits of Beechcraft vs. Piper aircraft. :)
 

Devil's Advocate

Conductor
Joined
May 24, 2010
Messages
11,544
Location
Texas
The electronic shade is supposed to be progress, but lots of passengers don't like them, since they find them not really 100% effective. Seat pitch and width varies by airline and assignment group, the aircraft itself is not the predictor. I always use a sight like seatguru to see what I'm in for
You're quite right. If we still had a lot of 767's flying around today they would almost certainly be converted to 787 levels of width and pitch, but in my mind's eye the 767 will forever have the pitch and width of my last 767 flight. 😅
 

anumberone

Conductor
AU Supporter
Joined
Aug 8, 2015
Messages
1,721
Location
Los Angeles
IMG_0524.jpgSince we're looking out the window, I'll include a photo showing what it looks like looking out the front window. The window shot is over Connecticut with not much to see. After waiting three days for weather we finally got out of Providence IFR heading for Lancaster California with a stop over in Newcastle Indiana for the night at my in-laws. Cherokee 6 parked next to a cornfield at Newcastle. On to California the next day arriving about 1:00 am. I was just along for the ride.IMG_0523.jpg
 

anumberone

Conductor
AU Supporter
Joined
Aug 8, 2015
Messages
1,721
Location
Los Angeles
Nice flying without using mask unless your pilot insist! What's the range for a tank of fuel?
I think the fuel range is about 900 miles @ 65% power. We flew the plane back to California for a friend that just bought it used. Decent plane, looked terrible, really dirty, bad paint. We fueled at Newcastle Pennsylvania, Newcastle Indiana, someplace in Missouri, Dalhart Texas, Albuquerque NM and Bulkhead City Arizona.
 
Top