• You do not have permission to post in chat.
@ David Collins « Wed 5:24:50 pm »
@Jetlink, What are your thoughts on the whole situation with spirit and American in Dallas
@ Jetlink « Wed 5:16:54 pm »
LOL
@ Raildudes dad « Wed 4:09:20 pm »
If we ever get together again I can expound on chip seals - JT wouldn’t miss it lol
@ Raildudes dad « Wed 4:07:59 pm »
Chip seal depends a lot on the aggregate. Natural stone is round stone, slag or traprock is angular crushed. A number of agencies are fog sealing the chip seal which takes the curse off the sharp edges. A good chip seal does not have any loose stone or dust. Kent County requires their aggregate to be double washed.
@ GTWwatcher « Wed 3:05:21 pm »
has started a new topic: GM Flint Assembly Questions
@ ~Z~ « Wed 2:48:37 pm »
a quick google search for "chip seal bad for tires" shows many results about being bad for road sized bicycle tires, so that’d be my guess what Chip doesn’t like about the type of road surface named after him.
@ David Collins « Wed 2:47:38 pm »
~Z~ wrote: bike tires, car tires, or both?
depends, what is it for?
@ ~Z~ « Wed 2:46:08 pm »
bike tires, car tires, or both?
@ Chip « Wed 2:43:11 pm »
Jetlink wrote: I don’t mind the chip seal. It is good for the roads.
Murder on your tires though.
@ Jetlink « Wed 11:59:47 am »
Never would have thought of that.
@ Jetlink « Wed 11:59:38 am »
Not really an issue out here. We don’t have any.
@ Jetlink « Wed 11:59:19 am »
Manhole covers eh?
@ PerRock « Wed 10:23:14 am »
has started a new topic: ID an old Fowlerville station building
@ ~Z~ « Wed 10:19:03 am »
the only real problem I have with the chip seal is how the height of the manhole covers are related to the height of the road. When they do these projects, sometimes the manhole covers are now too low, or too high compared to the road surface. I’m dodging manhole covers are Clyde Park and Burlingame now due to it.
@ Jetlink « Wed 8:58:41 am »
It was 2 days old yesterday. In the wheel tracks was already fine. Just don’t want to stray out of them.
@ Jetlink « Wed 8:58:05 am »
But I do avoid when fresh.
@ Jetlink « Wed 8:57:48 am »
It isn’t bad to ride on after a week or two. It’s just the interim that sucks.
@ Jetlink « Wed 8:57:20 am »
I don’t mind the chip seal. It is good for the roads.
@ ~Z~ « Wed 8:29:17 am »
most of the roads nearby my home got chip sealed in the past 2 months.
@ ~Z~ « Wed 8:24:25 am »
2:02 does qualify as 2+ hours :)
@ AARR « Wed 6:50:44 am »
:lol:
DaveO wrote:
AARR wrote: Font from my phone is still white 8)
AARR defeats the evil grip of technology
@ AARR « Wed 6:50:28 am »
#2 B II BCG&A
@ Chip « Wed 5:48:55 am »
I can’t stand that chip seal garbage
@ Jetlink « Wed 12:17:47 am »
Jeff L wrote: It’s an entirely different kind of flying
Does Jeff L have experience flying as well? I’ve never heard you mention it before.
@ Jetlink « Wed 12:16:43 am »
I detoured substantially on the way home to avoid that 1 mile of tar and chip again.
@ Jetlink « Wed 12:16:14 am »
Includes 2 miles of gravel and 1 mile of fresh chip-seal-coat.
@ Jetlink « Wed 12:15:43 am »
34.36 Distance(mi) 16.84 Avg Speed(mph) 2:02:24 Duration 1,756 Calories(kcal) 575.8 Elevation Gain(ft)
@ Jetlink « Wed 12:14:34 am »
Bikey complete: Wanted to go out for at least 2 hours since I couldn’t get my 100 in today.
@ Jetlink « Wed 12:12:41 am »
Yes. PC-12 is a great aircraft but fairly advanced for a trainer. Could be done though. Imagine it would be pricey. I learned and got my private ticket in a Cessna 150 to start. Then flew a PA 28 and a CE 172.
David Collins wrote: Honestly I’d rather stay with the Cherokee since it’s what most ppl train on next to the 172
@ Jetlink « Wed 12:10:50 am »
Good strategy. Glad you fixed it.
~Z~ wrote: bike tire is hopefully fixed. So i took out the tube, pumped it up in a tub of water, and found the leak. Matched it up on the tire, and found a small thorn from a bush/tree that was wedged in there. Removed and hopefully that’ll fix the repeat pops I’ve been having.
@ Jeff L « Wed 12:00:01 am »
#1 Alpha Male
@ ~Z~ « Tue 10:07:02 pm »
bike tire is hopefully fixed. So i took out the tube, pumped it up in a tub of water, and found the leak. Matched it up on the tire, and found a small thorn from a bush/tree that was wedged in there. Removed and hopefully that’ll fix the repeat pops I’ve been having.
@ DaveO « Tue 9:26:54 pm »
AARR wrote: Font from my phone is still white 8)
AARR defeats the evil grip of technology
@ Jeff L « Tue 8:49:31 pm »
It’s an entirely different kind of flying
@ David Collins « Tue 8:42:48 pm »
Honestly I’d rather stay with the Cherokee since it’s what most ppl train on next to the 172
@ David Collins « Tue 8:41:39 pm »
Jetlink wrote: How was the PC-12
Unfortunately I haven’t gone up yet, it failed it’s annual because the guy that owns it has been more focused on trying to get a new paint job for the thing and not working it
@ Jetlink « Tue 8:24:26 pm »
How was the PC-12
@ Jetlink « Tue 8:18:57 pm »
could be anything. LOL
@ Jetlink « Tue 8:18:48 pm »
but 121 supplemental is a funny business.
@ Jetlink « Tue 8:18:31 pm »
I bet someone else is operating it or wet leasing it. It is just a co incidence that it is at PTK
@ David Collins « Tue 8:17:56 pm »
I bet it came back for recertification
@ Jetlink « Tue 8:17:55 pm »
I believe you. I was just surprised that IFL had it. Because I didn’t think they operated any 737’s anymore
@ Jetlink « Tue 8:17:25 pm »
They re registered it after IFL parked it last August.
@ Jetlink « Tue 8:17:10 pm »
registered as an Oklahoma City corporation. They specialize in fractional ownership of aircraft.
@ David Collins « Tue 8:16:57 pm »
Well it is here, I saw it
@ Jetlink « Tue 8:16:28 pm »
International trading company of yukon owns it
@ AARR « Tue 8:16:23 pm »
Font from my phone is still white 8)
@ AARR « Tue 8:15:49 pm »
Test
@ David Collins « Tue 8:14:55 pm »
Jetlink wrote: I’ll see if I can find a flight plan for it in the system
I couldn’t find anything on it when it flew here because it has a Sierra Transponder and is almost impossible to find… and maybe KPTK is IFL’s HQ and maybe they’re doing work on it?
@ Jetlink « Tue 8:10:33 pm »
I’ll see if I can find a flight plan for it in the system
@ Jetlink « Tue 8:10:15 pm »
OK. I buy that. That is the only 737 on their operating certificate. But it is listed as stored in Renton WA.
@ David Collins « Tue 8:08:45 pm »
Jetlink wrote: Probably a wet lease most likely. Or an ACMI carrier. They can paint whatever they want on the side of it. What call sign were they using. That would tell a lot .
ok so I did some research, it is not a NG, it’s a 737-446F, if you want to see what it looks like it’s tail # is N129AC, don’t let the windows fool you, IFL is freight only
@ Jetlink « Tue 8:05:44 pm »
Probably a wet lease most likely. Or an ACMI carrier. They can paint whatever they want on the side of it. What call sign were they using. That would tell a lot .
@ Jetlink « Tue 8:04:23 pm »
I don’t doubt what you saw. Just doesn’t jive with other info sources.
@ Jetlink « Tue 8:04:02 pm »
But anyway
@ Jetlink « Tue 8:03:50 pm »
IFL doesn’t operate any 737’s They have some -400s which are classics not NG but they are stored/scrapped.
@ Jetlink « Tue 8:03:14 pm »
HMMM
@ David Collins « Tue 7:54:27 pm »
I know the IFL has CRJ200F’s which I thought never existed
@ ~Z~ « Tue 7:51:18 pm »
lawn mowing hath been completed
@ David Collins « Tue 7:46:25 pm »
@Jetlink, ok, it was being operated by the IFL Group out of KPTK (Oakland County INTL), it must have been a 737-700NG since it was kinda small for a 737 and IIRC had wingtips, I honestly couldn’t tell you how it was loaded since I only saw it landing. But I know for a fact it is cargo because IFL (the owner) is a cargo only airline

Who is chatting

offline E-8 
offline SD80MAC 
offline Talk