Not political but interesting -

Status
Not open for further replies.
Unlike modern planes, which use computers to control flight surfaces on the wings and tail, the 757 used cables and pushrods.
Click to expand...
That is not how the 757's flight controls work. The 757/767 flight controls are hydraulic using three independent hydraulic systems. Each control surface is powered by at least two of the three systems--the rudder is powered by all three.

They criticize the airplane for being too old because it first flew in 1991. The 747s, currently serving as AF1, were first flown in 1987. They called the Trump Shuttle's 727 fleet "obsolescent" though they were, at the time (1988), mainstays of every major US airline.

I disagree that the article is not political. Its purpose is to discredit Trump, not fairly evaluate his 757.
 
Last edited:
A guy just can't win. Fly a fancy, new jet - they say you're a wasteful billionaire and out of touch with us commoners. Fly an older jet - you have bad taste and are just pretending to be rich.

I'd hate for the authors of that article to discover that most people driving Porsche sports cars aren't millionaires or billionaires, either, but people barely making the payments...they'd probably die of shock.
 
Last edited:
dtuuri said:
Nailed it. It's an article penned by a snooty private pilot that reeks of jealousy and ignorance. Must be a newbie student and ardent anti-Trumper. Just sayin'.
Click to expand...
I wonder if the author will need a SI medical certificate for TDS? Might need an anonymous call to CAMI. :D
 
It's a very big airplane. Not like one of those little Gulfstreams that the other guys have. A beautiful airplane. The best. Very big.
A pilot came up to me the other day, very famous, everyone knows him, very famous, and he said "Sir, you have a big airplane."
Nobody has a big airplane like me. Nobody. Who knew? Nobody. Nobody knew. Very big.
 
SkyChaser said:
Fly a fancy, new jet - they say you're a wasteful billionaire and out of touch with us commoners. Fly an older jet - you have bad taste and are just pretending to be rich.
Click to expand...
I think it's safe to say anyone flying their own private 757 is out of touch with the issues facing us plebs ;)
Then again, I can't remember the last time I saw a politician, 757 or not, that really understood anything about issues facing the proletariat.
 
I skimmed the article, but it just seems that anyone who asks "Why doesn't he have a gulfstream?" doesn't really understand Trump at all. Trump wants something big! I'm sure when he got the plane he wanted something that seemed presidential - something that would be more like air force one than a business jet. A gulfstream isn't going to be able to accommodate his luxury bedroom, gold plated toilet, and all that. He doesn't give a damn about how modern the avionics are. He employs pilots to handle all that. He probably also doesn't give a damn that it doesn't fly quite as high or as fast as some other jets. Size and luxury is what matters to him.
 
CaptainXap said:
He doesn't give a damn about how modern the avionics are. He employs pilots to handle all that. He probably also doesn't give a damn that it doesn't fly quite as high or as fast as some other jets. Size and luxury is what matters to him.
Click to expand...
Triple-INS, triple-FMC, triple-GPS, triple-autopilot w/zero-zero autoland capability. I'm not sure what avionics you'd want that it doesn't have. It you want to replace the remaining analog instruments, there are flat panel mods available which also get ride of the original six crt efis and eicas tubes. ACARS, Satcom, and CPDLC capable.

At the weights at which they likely fly, straight up to FL400/410 on most flights. That's as high as any airliner.

As to performance, it handles short fields very well. Eagle, CO or Jackson, WY would not be a problem. (Didn't the military "AF2" 757s take Chaney to JAC regularly?) Aspen doesn't allow anything larger than a CRJ-700 but that's the airport's restriction. A 757 could do it just fine if it were allowed.

I've been flying since 1981, airliners since 1990. I don't have much time in the 757 but it's still the best plane I've flown. That's why I think the article is ridiculous.

The only thing Trump is giving up with his 757 is a lower fuel bill. It's 7,000 to 8,000 pph.
 
I read the article—well, as much as I could stomach. The author (from NY) makes every effort to expose his vapid jealousy and huge T D S. But I'm not political.
 
Who’s plane is this plane…?
 
I ask why wasn’t it stored in a dry climate those 4 years in sat in storage
 
Scrabo said:
I ask why wasn’t it stored in a dry climate those 4 years in sat in storage
Click to expand...
The choice of storage locations is something that whomever manages the airplane would have made. No way to know what factors drove the decision on the location.
 
I believe a person can own and maintain any plane they like as long as they can afford it. How it is cared for only matters to me if I'm asked to ride in it ... :biggrin:
 
Larry in TN said:
That is not how the 757's flight controls work. The 757/767 flight controls are hydraulic using three independent hydraulic systems. Each control surface is powered by at least two of the three systems--the rudder is powered by all three.
Click to expand...
You realize that the author was comparing FBW to conventional systems, right? And the 757 is not FBW.
 
172andyou said:
You realize that the author was comparing FBW to conventional systems, right? And the 757 is not FBW.
Click to expand...
Lots of airliners are not FBW. That doesn't make them obsolete, as the author implies. Some are still rolling off the assembly line without FBW. The airplanes that fly the president around are not FBW. Those that will (eventually) replace them are only partially FBW (spoilers and outboard ailerons).
 
172andyou said:
The 757 is mostly retired because it's obsolete.
Click to expand...
The 757/767 fleet is still in extensive use around the world.

The 757 production was stopped, not because its technology was obsolete, but because newer designs were more efficient. The replacements, mostly the A321 and 737-900/9, are more efficient but they are also less capable and have a shorter range. For airlines, that's a good compromise. They'll deal with the small percentage of flights that the more efficient replacements can't do in order to get the increased efficiency on the majority of the flights those airplanes fly.

As to FBW, the primary benefit is efficiency. It operates the flight controls in a manner that produces less drag and it reduces weight, as compared to a hydraulic-based system. It can also reduce drag by allowing you to build an airplane that is less inherently stable and using the FBW system to increase stability.

For a private operator, who flies relatively few flights per year, the increased efficiency has minimal impact on overall cost. The lower acquisition cost, as compared to a new replacement, far outweighs the ~15% higher fuel burn. They also gain the increased range and hot/high/short field capability they wouldn't have with a newer design.

Your message makes it clear that your primary criticism of the 757 is not of the airplane, but of Trump himself. I haven't said a word in support of Trump, and I'm not going to start now. Both candidates are significantly flawed, but that's a topic for another forum; one on which I will not participate.

As I said earlier, the 757 is the best airliner I've flown. I do not know of a single airliner, of that size and performance capabilities, that is better and that includes the latest designs. There is no newer replacement that can do what it can do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top