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 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...
Small plane discussion
- Thread starter Bob Dylan
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
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...
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.
I believe it was a 767
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
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.
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.
On an airline with decent seats and pitch 2-3-2 767 coach was very good
Devil's Advocate
⠀⠀⠀
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.
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
⠀⠀⠀
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.
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
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
⠀⠀⠀
Since 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.
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.
B757Guy
Service Attendant
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2015
- Messages
- 144
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.
That's easy, it's Beechcraft, hands down! I have been in love with my Bonanza A36 since the day I bought her. Several panel upgrades, tip tanks, and new interior later, I'm still thrilled and lucky to fly her.
I have experienced a limited variety of small planes but my first experience was with Beavers over East Germany and East Berlin. I have the story in my website, along with a story about flying in BEA's BAC-111 and Super 111. The BAC-111 was either a small big plane or a large small plane. Rather than typing out the stories here, I'll post the link.
Air Corridor Pawns
The attached photo is a Beaver-eye view of the isolated Velten S-Bahn Betriebshof which is now a Stadler facility.
Air Corridor Pawns
The attached photo is a Beaver-eye view of the isolated Velten S-Bahn Betriebshof which is now a Stadler facility.
Attachments
I would say more in the large plane category, since some airlines used them as mainline. I had one BUF-LGA on Agony I think (alleghany)
