Wouldn’t an aircraft engine have some kind of tolerable range of operation, +/- 5% or so? And we’re talking about 4-8minutes on a cross-country trip, not even noticeable compared to ground taxi-to-gate times. I’d say kudos to the airlines for figuring out a way to save cash without taking extra pickles out of the sandwhiches.
Uhhhh, what? That is an incredibly odd statement. Any turbine engine that is properly designed and properly maintained should have no additional vibration due to low speeds. Unless you’re talking about compressor stall, and that’s a whole other issue. To even imply that an airliner slowing down a few knots is going to induce some engine vibration is simply foolish. Perhaps you’ve heard of this little thing called approach and landing? We tend to slow down, and I’ve never felt anything different from the engines.
Offtopic, but does anyone else’s heart rate quicken when the landing gear clunks into place? It never sounds graceful.
else’s heart rate quicken when the landing gear clunks into place?
I agree, it never sounds good.
Sounds better than hearing the gear motors whining and NOT hearing the “thud” as the gear locks into place. Now, you want to talk about a disturbing sound? Listen to a gear up landing!
Worse then fingernails on a chalkboard!
Good point, except I never plan to land a plane gear up and never had.
AFAIK, none of the pilots who landed with their gear up ever intended to either. You know the old saying about two kinds of pilots.
I am just trying to use some humor. Of course, no one tries to land gear up.
Wouldn’t amphibious aircraft landing on water be an exception?
Depends what you consider their gear. And whether or not its fixed into place. I’d say it’d be an exception to an exception.
The pilot of this plane may agree with that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-48V1m_MZxE)
An amphibious aircraft, by definition, doesn’t have fixed landing gear.
I’m sorry, I’m picturing in my head the Alaskan puddle jumpers with the floats, that seems like landing gear to me. Of course I’m not a plane guru by any means. I just load them.
It is, but you were responding to a statement regarding amphibious aircraft, which means an aircraft capable of both water and land operation. All float equipped aircraft aren’t amphibious.
Don’t some float equipped aircraft have wheels? That’d qualify it for both would it not?
We have one of these that stop in my airport. Talk about a “SUV” look to it, being so durn tall.
What you describe above is what JHEM I believe is “describing” as an amphibious plane (not just a float plane).
Wheels retract in the pontoons (I guess those things are called that) when landing on water, but use the wheels on land, therefore not a fixed gear plane.
As Allen and I have both pointed out, an amphibious aircraft has BOTH the capability to land on water or on land.
If you leave the wheels down on an amphibious aircraft when landing on water, the end result is what happens in the video that Quickburn posted.
I think the primary problem here is one of semantics. Float equipped aircraft and flying boats can’t land at an airport, only on water. Amphibious versions of either type (float equipped or flying boat) can do both.
This is an amphibian:
http://www.republicseabee.com/Images/loufitz2.jpg
This is a flying boat, it did not have landing gear:
The ubiquitous PBY Catalina is an example of an amphibious flying boat as it is equipped with retractable tricycle landing gear:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/PBY_Catalina_landing.jpg
Seaplanes, like this Twotter, are usually fitted with non-amphibious floats for water only operation. Amphibious floats are much heavier than non-amphibious ones:
I’ve been told “semantics” are* a common problem for me.
*fixed
As someone else on here (CAFlier?) has correctly pointed out, semantics is just an offshoot of ignorance and is easily remedied in an open mind.
It’s stupidity that’s terminal and as Ron says:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6e/You_can't_fix_Stupid_Album_Cover.JPG
