The International Cessna^® 170 Association

Here's my contribution, a study done by Boeing itself on world wide jet transport hull losses since 1959. Scroll down to page 20 for accident rates by aircraft type. Russ Farris

http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/1549.pdf

Airbus uses two laminated straps that hold the vertical stab to the airframe. Your 170 stab is held in place by one sheet metal screw on each side and two brackets at the rear of the vertical Stab. I have never heard of a vertical stab departing the airframe of a100 series cessna, so wiggle away. I was hoping this would be closed, but if you really want to know about Va and Vb in part 25 certification section .33. Go to in flight separation of vertical stabilizer of American flight 587 airbus A300-605 N14053 it's only 212 pages of why you don't go from stop to stop with any control surface at or NEAR Va or Vb in any configuration. Midol bob out.

Just going to put my finger in the pie and say that in the past 30 years I worked on a many Boeings, Douglas's and Airbus, all have their weak points and strong points. seen stuff that will turn you "" "". I give Boeing thumbs up for structure, Airbus for ingenuity, and douglas for being Douglas. But I as a Technician were to cast my vote on a favorite airplane ( large transport) with out hesitation would be the B727-200 advanced with the JT8-17R engines they to me are bullet proof, bomb proof, pilot proof, mechanic proof, fast .9 mach cruise and like a good old dog it will allways come home. And if I were to pick a aircraft that I shiver when I think about it would be the B787..I know its new but after 5 weeks of class on the aircraft and poking around the ship alittle well lets just say Hmmm.... And really guys antifreez and radiators?
JUST MY OPINION of course!!

runerider wrote:Airbus uses two laminated straps that hold the vertical stab to the airframe. Your 170 stab is held in place by one sheet metal screw on each side and two brackets at the rear of the vertical Stab. I have never heard of a vertical stab departing the airframe of a100 series cessna, so wiggle away. I was hoping this would be closed, but if you really want to know about Va and Vb in part 25 certification section .33. Go to in flight separation of vertical stabilizer of American flight 587 airbus A300-605 N14053 it's only 212 pages of why you don't go from stop to stop with any control surface at or NEAR Va or Vb in any configuration. Midol bob out.

The front of my vertical stab is held by 2 AN-4 bolts and the dorsal fin by 1 10-32 screw and a bolt. If yours is really only held by one sheet metal screw on each side I don't think I'd be flying it

runerider wrote:Airbus uses two laminated straps that hold the vertical stab to the airframe. Your 170 stab is held in place by one sheet metal screw on each side and two brackets at the rear of the vertical Stab. I have never heard of a vertical stab departing the airframe of a100 series cessna, so wiggle away. I was hoping this would be closed, but if you really want to know about Va and Vb in part 25 certification section .33. Go to in flight separation of vertical stabilizer of American flight 587 airbus A300-605 N14053 it's only 212 pages of why you don't go from stop to stop with any control surface at or NEAR Va or Vb in any configuration. Midol bob out.

It's been awhile since I read that but I seem to recall that Airbus managed to influence certification rules sufficient to accomodate certain "deviations" from the standard rules. I suppose other mfr's do as well,... but I just don't worry about Boeing rudders or Boeing pilots being capable of avoiding/recovering from stalls and upsets. It's a personal but persistent conviction. But I can see why an aviator might feel a bit defensive if he was assigned to an airplane whose design reputedly implies crew decision-making limits.
PS: I don't take Midol or any other girlie-drug no matter how much Pauli Girl I dring...(hiccup)...

I hate to hijack a thread, but this one needs it. George, I happen to think Midol is a miracle drug . I had migraine headaches when I was in my 20's. Bad, bad headaches. Thank God I don't anymore. When Tina and I had been married a few months, I had a bad headache (not because of her). I couldn't find ANY aspirin, tylenol, etc around the house. She said "here, take this". I took it, and it helped better than anything I had ever taken. Long story short, I smuggled Midol around for a few years and it was a well kept secret until now .
Well, I weaned myself off the stuff, finally I guess that ole saying; What's good for the goose, is good for the gander" is true . Now, I just have a dark beer

mrpibb wrote:Just going to put my finger in the pie and say that in the past 30 years I worked on a many Boeings, Douglas's and Airbus, all have their weak points and strong points. seen stuff that will turn you "" "". I give Boeing thumbs up for structure, Airbus for ingenuity, and douglas for being Douglas. But I as a Technician were to cast my vote on a favorite airplane ( large transport) with out hesitation would be the B727-200 advanced with the JT8-17R engines they to me are bullet proof, bomb proof, pilot proof, mechanic proof, fast .9 mach cruise and like a good old dog it will allways come home. And if I were to pick a aircraft that I shiver when I think about it would be the B787..I know its new but after 5 weeks of class on the aircraft and poking around the ship alittle well lets just say Hmmm.... And really guys antifreez and radiators?
JUST MY OPINION of course!!

By happy coincidence the B-727-200 advanced with the JT8D-17R engines was MY favorite large transport to fly. Which includes other Boeings, Airbuses, McDonnell-Douglas, Embraers and Fokkers.

The 727 was a design achievement that ranks with the DC-3 and P-51.

Russ Farris

As a passenger, I have to agree on thumbs-up to the 727. After making somewhere over 500 trips from Anchorage to above the Arctic circle year-round for 20 years in 727s and 737s, the 20 minutes longer in the 737 was not appreciated very much. The planes were leased wet and the 727s would be flown at .92mach. Some flights were delayed for mechanicals but they were never cancelled, the old 727s always made it.

MMO By type certificate B-727-100 M.90 and B-727-200 M.88
I have not flown this type, but how often would they be flown at or near MMO ?

When the gas is free.

.92mach is what the pilots told me they flew, there was 20 minutes difference between the 727 and 737 trips which is the only number I was interested in.

We're gettin' old Richard. I'll bet it was .82M (The "M" stands for MeMory)

The early 737's (like the -200 I believe Arco used to operate) ran around at .76 typically,...that might explain the difference in travel times.

You're probably right George, that was over 20 years ago and like I have said several times before, I'm not a jet pilot, I just wanted to get home quickly.

I've been following this topic with interest and would like to add my two cents. I think I can speak from a position of neutrality. I have owned and enjoyed Boeings finest ( Stearman) for over twenty years, have flown the Airbus since 1994 and spent over a year and a half of my life supported by her wings. The company I fly for will receive additional new 777ER's, 747-800 freighters and A330's for the next few years and then the A350 will arrive.
My cousin, who is a pipe fitter by profession, would always tell me " it's not the tool, it's the operator." The statement equally applies to Pilots. One must learn the aircraft to get the most from it. When you read accident reports or watch Mayday reconstructions, no manufacturer stands out as better or worse than others. There are far too many pilot cause factors.
I loved all the aircraft I have flown and respected them all. Some suffered inattention badly. The T33 easily fin stalled and tumbled. Did that and scared myself. The 104 was respected totally. The last new Boeing I flew was the CF18 and it was pure delight. The L1011 Tristar I must admit was not my favourite, sorry but I really enjoyed my transfer to the 330, 340.
Yesterday I flew A 330 serial number 12. It was one of the Rolls Royce engine development aircraft when the aircraft was being tested for certification. She would have been built in 1990 or 91 and is still flying beautifully and the tech log was without defects.
On the occasion we flew the 104 above 500 feet and entered the airways we cruised at .9 Mach. It was so irritating to be passed by those highspeed 727's. I'd accelerate to Mach 2 and still couldn't catch them!
My 170 was purchased this summer and I've enjoyed 30 hours learning her. She's a beauty and my wife states it's her favourite aircraft. But, to fly it well I have to study, practice and practice some more. It's not the tool, it's the operator.

crwrpmr wrote:I've been following this topic with interest and would like to add my two cents..............

On the occasion we flew the 104 above 500 feet and entered the airways we cruised at .9 Mach. It was so irritating to be passed by those highspeed 727's. I'd accelerate to Mach 2 and still couldn't catch them!

I know that must have hurt to be passed by a 727.

Our 727s had afterburners and when they kicked-in all 5 stages we could keep up with SR-71s although we could only climb up to 75,000'. Even leasing the planes wet, they only used all 5 stages when we were going to be late for happy hour, and on holidays.

OK....surely with that last post it's time to close and lock this topic.