@TomMcW heeeelp :D what did I get myself into:

> For example, the Boeing 747 is a family, so is the 747-400 (a variant of the bigger family that has its own variants) ...

link for sanity-check aviation.stackexchange.com/a/53609/14897 :D

@ymb1 I'd define it a little differently. 747 was a model, but is now a family and a type, 747-400 is a variant, 747-400 SP is a version. A320 is a model within the A320 family. A319 is a variant. I don't know about the neo's. I think legally A330 and A340 are the same type, but they're different models

And with Boeing, the model might actually be 747-446 for example, built for Japan airlines

@TomMcW i asked for help :P

I'm starting to think, based on what you said, that it varies by context

like many things in language, there's probably a name for such thing

The only one that has a firm definition would be "type." The rest is probably contextual. On a registration there would be "model number." And that would probably be the variant in most cases. For example: Make: Cessna, Model: 172S.

@ymb1 I picked a random N-registered plane. For N202UW the FAA site shows model # 757-2B7

EASA type cert was useless

don't why OP accepted so early, I asked them to wait :D more research needed (wasn't apparent then) :(

N123UW is registered as model A320-214

just read @fooot 's answer here aviation.stackexchange.com/a/9283/14897

> new versions like the A320neo are usually included in the same type certificate, but this can vary between authorities

followed by an example

to be continued (and more research needed) :D cya

before I go, @fooot re contrail dupe: the other answer doesn't explain how the winds aloft, etc., were obtained, which the new one asks for

I think fooot nailed it pretty well

I wonder if the Boeing 717 is still certified as a DC-9

anyone knows what is going on here?

@ymb1 where do you see the chat pinned? could you give me a link? I see no option to that effect

ah, it was indeed kulula airlines

@Federico i was asking if it was possible, I'm not sure if it is

at first it seemed so, but being top-left is likely activity related, but then again most/all rooms I've made never replace The Hangar's position

so I really don't know

@ymb1 the thing is that top left I NEVER saw any chat. Top RIGHT instead, below the "hot meta"/"pinned meta" box, I think is kind of random, it does not seem to be related either to activity nor else

@Federico sorry i was talking about the rooms page

the 'Aviation' been taking 'The Hangar' place recently

if there were more rows, top-left is where The Hangar hangs :P

or where it should I suppose :)

to clarify: yesterday Aviation room was in The Hangar's place

i even went there by accident, typed a message, then I looked around <this isn't right> and left :P

ah, yes, it is activity related

but if I create a room now, and talk there, i'm pretty sure it won't take the hangar place

shall I give it a go as a test?

actually no need, I'll just say something in one of the Discussion rooms on the right, much easier, brb

order wasn't changed -- it's no big deal, probably Discussion rooms are set to not replace the ones on the left

and for someone reason Aviation takes priority

so I was merely wondering if The Hangar can be pinned, the opposite of the setup of Discussion rooms as demonstrated

speaking of the G600, gotta love that touchscreen overhead panel en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… comes with systems tabs :'D

you can always pin it for yourself, clicking the star that now is grey, and visiting the "favorite" page instead of the "site" one (see top left of your screeenshot)

didn't work (talked in Aviation as test) no worries though, appreciate you looking into it

* visiting favorites page doesn't show the new site rooms though :D

@Federico but now you see what I mean, activity in other rooms (except Aviation) doesn't change The Hangar's position

@ymb1 that's not what I meant

@ymb1 that's what I meant

@ymb1 probably the system differentiates between normal rooms and comment rooms

I remember my custom concorde room didn't do that -- frozen can't test

but again no worries at all :) next time I create a custom room I'll look into it

which reminds me, that concorde room I had invited a user who asked about something, invites sends notifications right? I don't need to leave a comment with a link?

sorry not that concorde room, was another one

this i had left a comment for kevin

the autoland room it was -- invited cloud

never showed up :P

@ymb1 if you send an invitation through the interface, yes, the'll receive a notification

copy, thanks

I'm wondering why the engines failed on Pinnacle Airlines Flight 3701: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinnacle_Airlines_Flight_3701

This was the accident in 2004 on a repositioning flight (2 crew, no passengers) caused by the pilots intentionally performing various dangerous maneuvers during flight.

Wikipedia says that they "over-stressed the engines". I don't know what that actually means.

The NTSB report doesn't go into detail or anything; it says...

"The pitch angle increased to 29º, and the airplane entered an aerodynamic stall. Afterward, a left rolling motion began, which eventually reached 82º left wing down, the airplane's pitch angle decreased to -32º, and both engines flamed out."

@TannerSwett haven't looked too deeply into it, but it happened during a stall (high AoA), so basically the engine was starved of air (see 2nd bullet point in this answer aviation.stackexchange.com/a/23450/14897)

@TannerSwett line above: <They set the autopilot to climb at 500 ft/min (150 m/min) to FL410. This exceeded the manufacturer's recommended climb rate at altitudes above FL380.> To achieve that the engines will have to work harder than specified, i.e. they will be "overstressed"

@TannerSwett somehow similar to Tom Cruise's F-14 in Top Gun (RIP Goose)

@fooot re dupe, on second look you were right, Noah left the sources (though barely visible) and it takes you to pages where pressure info etc can be obtained

@TannerSwett The Wikipedia page has a pretty detailed description of exactly what happened to the engines. Looks like they overheated the cores by trying to climb too steeply at high altitude. Then they overrode the stall protection causing the plane to stall and the engines to flame out. They botched the windmill restart so the core cooled too fast and the turbines siezed.

Sounds like the kind of pilots I hope I never have flying my plane