BOEING is the best
Poll
Airbus or Boeing?
| Airbus | 37% | 37% - 89 | ||||
| Boeing | 62% | 62% - 146 | ||||
| Total: 235 | ||||||
As a matter of fact, why don't they start to make large cabin airplanes?Sh1fty2k5 wrote:
Don't forget the aussies!
---- First of all, go to www.airliners.net, read up and get some education about aviation ----
--- Then try www.boeing.com. and www.airbus.com ---
While the allure of 550 odd seats may be great, you must look at the future of tourism. In general, the workds population is getting older. Intra-regional travel will increase, resulting in a need for more short haul aircraft such as the 737NG family. A testiment to this aircraft families success is how well Southwest Airlines uses them.
Also, why would Boeing put so much effort into it's 777 family if it were to make the 747-8I "THE FUTURE!", as you put it.
Also, it's the 787-8, not -800...
@Usmarine - Australia doesn't make aircraft because it wouldn't be a profitable venture. Boeing does have offices in Melbourne, and I'm not sure about Airbus.
As for my favorite commercial aircraft (fav mil aircraft is the C-17), it would have to be an Embraer E-jet:
Mcminty.
--- Then try www.boeing.com. and www.airbus.com ---
The new 747 aircraft is the 747-8I and 747-8F. The I stands for Intercontinental and the F stands for Freighter.spray_and_pray wrote:
The 787-800 is small fry Boeing are coming out with the 747-800 THIS IS THE FUTURE as well as Airbus manufacturing its A350. The 747-800 has the same wing design as the 787 as well as some pretty neat lookin engines. Its nice n streamlined.
While the allure of 550 odd seats may be great, you must look at the future of tourism. In general, the workds population is getting older. Intra-regional travel will increase, resulting in a need for more short haul aircraft such as the 737NG family. A testiment to this aircraft families success is how well Southwest Airlines uses them.
Also, why would Boeing put so much effort into it's 777 family if it were to make the 747-8I "THE FUTURE!", as you put it.
Also, it's the 787-8, not -800...
@Usmarine - Australia doesn't make aircraft because it wouldn't be a profitable venture. Boeing does have offices in Melbourne, and I'm not sure about Airbus.
As for my favorite commercial aircraft (fav mil aircraft is the C-17), it would have to be an Embraer E-jet:
Mcminty.
Because the 777-200 LR and the 747-800 are two totally different aircraft. One can travel a excessively large amount of kilometres before refueling but only carries close to 350 people. The other travels shorter distances but still long range and carries 550 people thats why. I don't think you are aware of the Asian market which is looking for more seating spaces in aircraft and some are going to the extremes and strapping people to the back wall of the aircraft this actually is not illegal. I'm not sure that you are also aware that aircraft such as the 747 are used on shorter flights as well as older flights and operate kind of like a bus service eg. A Qantas 747 departs Perth to Sydney then Sydney to Los Angeles or Honolulu this is actually done. So instead of moving an empty aircraft which will be in the negative profit they move it with passengers and sometimes short distances to get to an area where they want to operate. As well as the 747-800 being as fuel efficient as it is and seeing how much passengers it can carry it will be able to increase airline profits such that ticket prices can go down. Now if i had 500 people i wanted to get from Perth to Dubai and i was using a 777 id have to do two flights to be able to transport all of them. With a 748 id be able to transport them all in 1 flight proving more money efficient.mcminty wrote:
---- First of all, go to www.airliners.net, read up and get some education about aviation ----
--- Then try www.boeing.com. and www.airbus.com ---The new 747 aircraft is the 747-8I and 747-8F. The I stands for Intercontinental and the F stands for Freighter.spray_and_pray wrote:
The 787-800 is small fry Boeing are coming out with the 747-800 THIS IS THE FUTURE as well as Airbus manufacturing its A350. The 747-800 has the same wing design as the 787 as well as some pretty neat lookin engines. Its nice n streamlined.
While the allure of 550 odd seats may be great, you must look at the future of tourism. In general, the workds population is getting older. Intra-regional travel will increase, resulting in a need for more short haul aircraft such as the 737NG family. A testiment to this aircraft families success is how well Southwest Airlines uses them.
Also, why would Boeing put so much effort into it's 777 family if it were to make the 747-8I "THE FUTURE!", as you put it.
Also, it's the 787-8, not -800...
@Usmarine - Australia doesn't make aircraft because it wouldn't be a profitable venture. Boeing does have offices in Melbourne, and I'm not sure about Airbus.
As for my favorite commercial aircraft (fav mil aircraft is the C-17), it would have to be an Embraer E-jet:
http://eu.airliners.net/photos/middle/9/4/3/0257349.jpg
Mcminty.
And no it is the 787-800 don't believe me google it. So before you attempt to flame me again get your facts straight and use more then one source. Ive been through airliners.net before and the only thing that they are good at is pictures their information is old and outdated (most) as well as the fact that I took an aviation course through to year 12 in high school and am a Cessna 152 flight instructor at the Royal Aero Club of Western Australia-Jandakot.
Only when you tell me your credentials i will even bother to reply to another post because of the rudeness of the last. Telling me to get an education in aviation is way out of what you should even attempt to say to me. Maybe if i have some free time ill write you up a guide on how an aircraft works until then you can google Bernoulli's Theory and Newtons 3rd law that will give you the basics on how a airfoil works then you can pick to look up different wing and empennage types then different landing gear types and the basics on how a 4 stroke engine works (GA prop aircraft) Then you can jump into Turbofan engines (Jetliners) While you are looking all this up you might also want to go over brief history on the Jet engine it goes back to 1944 with the Me262 and do not mistake it with the B1 as that is a rocket propelled aircraft. You will be able to compare the speeds of prop and jet aircraft now as well as have an understanding on how an aircraft fully works. You will then have re graduated year 8. Now you just got 9,10,11,12 and you might have the same possible understanding as me. Good luck.
http://www.planespotters.net/Production … index.html list of the 787-800 orders proof its the -800 not the -8 so please dont attempt to lecture me on learning about aviation when apparently your source was wrong Boeing orders list>Airliners.net
Last edited by spray_and_pray (2006-12-07 23:41:42)
Boeing all the way. I'm friends with a senior partner in the engineering dept. and because the new Airbus is vaporware. Didn't UPS or FedEx just dump their multi-billion dollar contract with airbus because the new super liners are pretty much non-existent?
I say airbus because each time I have travelled on one, its been a more pleasent experience, I dont really know why but I just prefer them. Still my ultimate fav has to be the 747, A380 will be uber awsome but 747 is just a desing classic, and with the new 747-8 they should make some edge way into A380's sales.
To bad tht plan I saw was false, apparantly there was an idea going around, boeing would fit a 5th engine on the tail, and push the plane well past mach one, therefor boeing could be credited with reintroducing supersonic travell to the world. That be awsome, 5 hours or less from london to new york, and just like with concorde the idea of arrive before you left. Boeings angle could of been, arrive as u leave, time stands still, OR SOMETHING. Bah I should run boeing!
Martyn
To bad tht plan I saw was false, apparantly there was an idea going around, boeing would fit a 5th engine on the tail, and push the plane well past mach one, therefor boeing could be credited with reintroducing supersonic travell to the world. That be awsome, 5 hours or less from london to new york, and just like with concorde the idea of arrive before you left. Boeings angle could of been, arrive as u leave, time stands still, OR SOMETHING. Bah I should run boeing!
Martyn
wow, do people have a favorite for every single thing on the planet?
Yes. Just like I know your girlfriends favorite position.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
wow, do people have a favorite for every single thing on the planet?
Hardy har har.usmarine2007 wrote:
Yes. Just like I know your girlfriends favorite position.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
wow, do people have a favorite for every single thing on the planet?
Martyn
OK smartass, here we go.
Plane Pax Range
747-400ER 416 / 3 class 14,200 km
568 / 2 class
777-300ER 394 / 3 class 14,600 km
479 / 2 class
550 / 1 class
I have bad news. I have no formal training. Took a semester of physics in college, can explain Bernulli and Newton with ease, but no wing design classes. No turbofan design classes. I can explain how they operate. I am familiar with the 4 cycle engine, as there is one in my car. I can explain how it works too. I'll even take you one further. I know how a RADIAL engine works. Do YOU know that? The principle's pretty much the same as a standard 4 cycle, just more efficient.
Now, best as I can remember, jets are faster than prop airplanes. I don't know for sure, but I bet it has something to do with the fact that a modern turbojet engine creates 63,000 pounds of force, and that airplanes fitted with these engines fly at heights generally unattainable to prop aircraft. These heights might have thinner air, which means that cruising speeds at FL420 are mach .855, or 913 km/h.. Who knows?
By the way, I do know how to fly. Have been doing it since I was about 12. My grandfather was an engineer and pilot for McDonald Douglass. He knows how to fly too. And he's a pretty good teacher. As a matter of fact, I'd bet a significant amount of money his pinky toe knows more about aviation technology than you and I put together.
1. Its the 747-8I and 747-8F. If you like you can go to BOEING's webpage for it located here to satisify yourself.spray_and_pray wrote:
And no it is the 787-800 don't believe me google it. So before you attempt to flame me again get your facts straight and use more then one source.
2. While the 747-8 and 787 series have similar wing designs, they are not the same by any stretch of the imagination. The simple use of composites makes them drastically different if not for the size difference.spray_and_pray wrote:
The 747-800 has the same wing design as the 787 as well as some pretty neat lookin engines. Its nice n streamlined.
3. First and foremost, the 777-200LR only has total orders for 42 aircraft. If you're going to compare the 777 to the 747, you compare the 747-400ER and the 777-300ER.spray_and_pray wrote:
Because the 777-200 LR and the 747-800 are two totally different aircraft. One can travel a excessively large amount of kilometres before refueling but only carries close to 350 people. The other travels shorter distances but still long range and carries 550 people thats why.
Plane Pax Range
747-400ER 416 / 3 class 14,200 km
568 / 2 class
777-300ER 394 / 3 class 14,600 km
479 / 2 class
550 / 1 class
4. The logical conclusion to airline profits increasing is NOT a decrease in ticket prices.spray_and_pray wrote:
As well as the 747-800 being as fuel efficient as it is and seeing how much passengers it can carry it will be able to increase airline profits such that ticket prices can go down.
5. The FAA and EASA just might disagree with you on this one. Now, I'm not disagreeing that the Asian markets want huge flying buses. Indeed they do. But, the place where the money is going to be made is the replacement of 5,000 737's, 1,000 757's, 1,000 767's, 2,000 727's, 1,000 DC-9's, 1,300 MD-80/90'sspray_and_pray wrote:
I don't think you are aware of the Asian market which is looking for more seating spaces in aircraft and some are going to the extremes and strapping people to the back wall of the aircraft this actually is not illegal.
6. Couple of problems here. First, the jet engine was first successfully tested on a lab bench in the late 30's, and the first jet aircraft flew in 1940. The ME262 was the first operational military jet aircraft, but not the first overall. Next, the B1 is an American aircraft, the Lancer. It is indeed a jet, a bomber. Capable of supersonic flight, even. You may have meant the V-1, but it was also a jet. A pulse jet, not a rocket. If you meant the V-2, that was a rocket.spray_and_pray wrote:
While you are looking all this up you might also want to go over brief history on the Jet engine it goes back to 1944 with the Me262 and do not mistake it with the B1 as that is a rocket propelled aircraft.
I was unaware of the requirement for formal training in aeronautical design and engineering for the Debate and Serious Talk section of the Battlefielf 2 S forums.spray_and_pray wrote:
Only when you tell me your credentials i will even bother to reply to another post because of the rudeness of the last.
I have bad news. I have no formal training. Took a semester of physics in college, can explain Bernulli and Newton with ease, but no wing design classes. No turbofan design classes. I can explain how they operate. I am familiar with the 4 cycle engine, as there is one in my car. I can explain how it works too. I'll even take you one further. I know how a RADIAL engine works. Do YOU know that? The principle's pretty much the same as a standard 4 cycle, just more efficient.
Now, best as I can remember, jets are faster than prop airplanes. I don't know for sure, but I bet it has something to do with the fact that a modern turbojet engine creates 63,000 pounds of force, and that airplanes fitted with these engines fly at heights generally unattainable to prop aircraft. These heights might have thinner air, which means that cruising speeds at FL420 are mach .855, or 913 km/h.. Who knows?
By the way, I do know how to fly. Have been doing it since I was about 12. My grandfather was an engineer and pilot for McDonald Douglass. He knows how to fly too. And he's a pretty good teacher. As a matter of fact, I'd bet a significant amount of money his pinky toe knows more about aviation technology than you and I put together.
Read before you reply first And no it is the 787-800 don't believe me google it. So before you attempt to flame me again get your facts straight and use more then one source.blisteringsilence wrote:
OK smartass, here we go.1. Its the 747-8I and 747-8F. If you like you can go to BOEING's webpage for it located here to satisify yourself.spray_and_pray wrote:
And no it is the 787-800 don't believe me google it. So before you attempt to flame me again get your facts straight and use more then one source.2. While the 747-8 and 787 series have similar wing designs, they are not the same by any stretch of the imagination. The simple use of composites makes them drastically different if not for the size difference.spray_and_pray wrote:
The 747-800 has the same wing design as the 787 as well as some pretty neat lookin engines. Its nice n streamlined.3. First and foremost, the 777-200LR only has total orders for 42 aircraft. If you're going to compare the 777 to the 747, you compare the 747-400ER and the 777-300ER.spray_and_pray wrote:
Because the 777-200 LR and the 747-800 are two totally different aircraft. One can travel a excessively large amount of kilometres before refueling but only carries close to 350 people. The other travels shorter distances but still long range and carries 550 people thats why.
Plane Pax Range
747-400ER 416 / 3 class 14,200 km
568 / 2 class
777-300ER 394 / 3 class 14,600 km
479 / 2 class
550 / 1 class4. The logical conclusion to airline profits increasing is NOT a decrease in ticket prices.spray_and_pray wrote:
As well as the 747-800 being as fuel efficient as it is and seeing how much passengers it can carry it will be able to increase airline profits such that ticket prices can go down.5. The FAA and EASA just might disagree with you on this one. Now, I'm not disagreeing that the Asian markets want huge flying buses. Indeed they do. But, the place where the money is going to be made is the replacement of 5,000 737's, 1,000 757's, 1,000 767's, 2,000 727's, 1,000 DC-9's, 1,300 MD-80/90'sspray_and_pray wrote:
I don't think you are aware of the Asian market which is looking for more seating spaces in aircraft and some are going to the extremes and strapping people to the back wall of the aircraft this actually is not illegal.6. Couple of problems here. First, the jet engine was first successfully tested on a lab bench in the late 30's, and the first jet aircraft flew in 1940. The ME262 was the first operational military jet aircraft, but not the first overall. Next, the B1 is an American aircraft, the Lancer. It is indeed a jet, a bomber. Capable of supersonic flight, even. You may have meant the V-1, but it was also a jet. A pulse jet, not a rocket. If you meant the V-2, that was a rocket.spray_and_pray wrote:
While you are looking all this up you might also want to go over brief history on the Jet engine it goes back to 1944 with the Me262 and do not mistake it with the B1 as that is a rocket propelled aircraft.I was unaware of the requirement for formal training in aeronautical design and engineering for the Debate and Serious Talk section of the Battlefielf 2 S forums.spray_and_pray wrote:
Only when you tell me your credentials i will even bother to reply to another post because of the rudeness of the last.
I have bad news. I have no formal training. Took a semester of physics in college, can explain Bernulli and Newton with ease, but no wing design classes. No turbofan design classes. I can explain how they operate. I am familiar with the 4 cycle engine, as there is one in my car. I can explain how it works too. I'll even take you one further. I know how a RADIAL engine works. Do YOU know that? The principle's pretty much the same as a standard 4 cycle, just more efficient.
Now, best as I can remember, jets are faster than prop airplanes. I don't know for sure, but I bet it has something to do with the fact that a modern turbojet engine creates 63,000 pounds of force, and that airplanes fitted with these engines fly at heights generally unattainable to prop aircraft. These heights might have thinner air, which means that cruising speeds at FL420 are mach .855, or 913 km/h.. Who knows?
By the way, I do know how to fly. Have been doing it since I was about 12. My grandfather was an engineer and pilot for McDonald Douglass. He knows how to fly too. And he's a pretty good teacher. As a matter of fact, I'd bet a significant amount of money his pinky toe knows more about aviation technology than you and I put together.
1. Its the 747-8I and 747-8F. If you like you can go to BOEING's webpage for it 787-800 i did not argue that its the 747-800 a little reading goes a long way but then again i cant blame you its 1 number difference. And no i don't mean the B-1 lancer that is an aircraft capable of launching nuclear war heads and traveling over the speed of sound. There is another B-1 rocket aircraft created by the Russians i believe some time in 1942-1943. The Me262 WAS the first Jet aircraft all while the idea for JET AIRCRAFT was put up in THE 1930's it was not used UNTIL the ME262. (Yes i do have problems with holding the shift key what can you do about it maybe people will notice things in caps.) All the currently available jet aircraft engines are learned in year 8 aviation so its pretty basic and i am familiar with the radial engines but you are wrong they are not more efficient even though while they were used in famous WW2 fighters FW190 the and a few others and transport aircraft that are still used today DC-3 your grandfather will know allot as this is manufactured by Douglas aircraft the military variant of the DC-3 was the CV-47 (off the top of my head). And Radial engine aircraft are a breed of engines being exterminated however sad it is they always had a nice low pitched grumbling sound if you go down to Anchorage you might see a few not many operate these days. FL420 is probably the Max Altitude of many modern day aircraft and your cruising height depends on your destination and is close to from FL400 to FL320 40,000 feet to 32,000 feet for jetliners and Mach also depends but it mainly varies from 0.80-0.92/0.94 (0.94 is pushing it for a lot of airplanes). Again pounds of thrust vary on the weight of the aircraft and the manufacturer of engines we can take the A330-300 for example here it runs Rolls Royce Engines Pratt And Whitney engines and GE engines. And for the 777 i said 777-200LR which holds the record for large cabin airliner in distance traveled which shows the difference in between the market so i don't know how the 777-300ER got out there but from where ever you got it, As well as you not including the 1 class passenger specification in the 747-8 which will most likely be used in the Asian market. (nothing racial to Asians or whatever but the Asian market it rapidly expanding). And no its not illegal FAA says that passengers must be strapped safely to the aircraft it doesn't say they need to be seated and strapped. So thats it I'm anticipating your reply which hopefully isn't another attempt at undermining my intelligence like the last one :P.
You've never had to load one LOL.usmarine2007 wrote:
Agree. 757 is my favorite plane.
OMG, you've obviously never had to load one either. A nightmare on the ground, and they seem to have trouble when flying north of the Tropic of Cancer (not that this would trouble you, mcaussie!) Also know as the Embreaker, and the Embarrasser.mcminty wrote:
As for my favorite commercial aircraft (fav mil aircraft is the C-17), it would have to be an Embraer E-jet
Aesthetics & ergonomics are more determined by airline (purchaser) decisions, IMO. I'm not sure Boeing > Airbus for reliability, they both have good record I think.kr@cker wrote:
reliablity=boeing
ergonomics=boeing
aesthetics=boeing
What about fuel economy on your list? This in hugely underrated factor. i.e. the 747 is an icon of passenger travel, but there are alot of them retired to the desert, or being used as freighters now, and I think fuel economy played a big part. Same with the DC-9, a very reliable workhorse, around longer than the 737s, but now mostly gone due to fuel economy.
Airbus has been using composite for years.money.cnn.com wrote:
Carson [of Boeing] said he believes the popularity of the 787 signals that composite materials will now replace aluminum on new aircraft designs.
Hey usmarine2007, you guys ordered 65 planes. I was surprised you went so big, what's the seat config, 135+? Did you guys consider something smaller, like a 700 CRJ?
EDIT: (put it in wrong part of post) Im not sure about gonig for the CRJ series i think most of the CRJ 200's are retired because they were almost losing money instead of making it. Good post not biased i like it.Rick_O_Shea678 wrote:
You've never had to load one LOL.usmarine2007 wrote:
Agree. 757 is my favorite plane.OMG, you've obviously never had to load one either. A nightmare on the ground, and they seem to have trouble when flying north of the Tropic of Cancer (not that this would trouble you, mcaussie!) Also know as the Embreaker, and the Embarrasser.mcminty wrote:
As for my favorite commercial aircraft (fav mil aircraft is the C-17), it would have to be an Embraer E-jetAesthetics & ergonomics are more determined by airline (purchaser) decisions, IMO. I'm not sure Boeing > Airbus for reliability, they both have good record I think.kr@cker wrote:
reliablity=boeing
ergonomics=boeing
aesthetics=boeing
What about fuel economy on your list? This in hugely underrated factor. i.e. the 747 is an icon of passenger travel, but there are alot of them retired to the desert, or being used as freighters now, and I think fuel economy played a big part. Same with the DC-9, a very reliable workhorse, around longer than the 737s, but now mostly gone due to fuel economy.Hey usmarine2007, you guys ordered 65 planes. I was surprised you went so big, what's the seat config, 135+? Did you guys consider something smaller, like a 700 CRJ?money.cnn.com wrote:
Carson [of Boeing] said he believes the popularity of the 787 signals that composite materials will now replace aluminum on new aircraft designs.
Airbus has been using composite for years.
Last edited by spray_and_pray (2006-12-08 21:31:25)
65 new deliveries starting near the end of 2008.Rick_O_Shea678 wrote:
Hey usmarine2007, you guys ordered 65 planes. I was surprised you went so big, what's the seat config, 135+? Did you guys consider something smaller, like a 700 CRJ?
As for the CRJ, we are being modeled after Ryanair in Ireland (the most profitable airline in the world), so CRJ's would not have fit that model. Hell if I know if that model can work in America, but we are going to try.
I thought you guys were starting next spring? Leasing until 2008 then?
Also (not to get down on your co.) Europe's population is twice that of USA. That's one of the reasons I was wondering about a smaller plane. Stretch RJ seats about 75, flies fast. Requires less staff&equip to work it as well.
Anyway, you'll be happy with the Airbus.
Also (not to get down on your co.) Europe's population is twice that of USA. That's one of the reasons I was wondering about a smaller plane. Stretch RJ seats about 75, flies fast. Requires less staff&equip to work it as well.
Anyway, you'll be happy with the Airbus.
going on 20 years with the airlines as a mechanic.........If it isn't Boeing I am not GOING.
Who gives a shit about how they comparatively fly.....Pilots turn on auto pilot about 1000 feet off the damn ground, ( if even that late). It is the maintenance that makes a good airliner. DC-9, B-757/767, B727, are some of the easiest to work on. Easy work means shorter down time. Shorter down time means more flying time. More flying time means more revenue.
Personally, the DC-9 I think, is an exception, in the sense that most McDonnell Douglas airplanes are a bitch to work on ( DC-10, MD-11, DC-8) , the DC-9 is a great airplane., probably my favorite airplane. I am telling you this from first hand experience, NOT something I read, or looked up, or heard from a guy that knows a guy.
Other than personal favorite airplanes, I doubt you will find any other airline aircraft mechanic in the US that would disagree with me.
Who gives a shit about how they comparatively fly.....Pilots turn on auto pilot about 1000 feet off the damn ground, ( if even that late). It is the maintenance that makes a good airliner. DC-9, B-757/767, B727, are some of the easiest to work on. Easy work means shorter down time. Shorter down time means more flying time. More flying time means more revenue.
Personally, the DC-9 I think, is an exception, in the sense that most McDonnell Douglas airplanes are a bitch to work on ( DC-10, MD-11, DC-8) , the DC-9 is a great airplane., probably my favorite airplane. I am telling you this from first hand experience, NOT something I read, or looked up, or heard from a guy that knows a guy.
Other than personal favorite airplanes, I doubt you will find any other airline aircraft mechanic in the US that would disagree with me.
Yes the DC-9 was a great aircraft too bad there are not much in service anymore and i do beleive that the autopilot is turned on from 1000-3000 feet after takeoff and the autopilot will also land the aircraft if the pilot uses a ILS approach aircraft also follow waypoints called VOR's all the way up to the airport so all the pilot has to do is monitor the instruments.lowing wrote:
going on 20 years with the airlines as a mechanic.........If it isn't Boeing I am not GOING.
Who gives a shit about how they comparatively fly.....Pilots turn on auto pilot about 1000 feet off the damn ground, ( if even that late). It is the maintenance that makes a good airliner. DC-9, B-757/767, B727, are some of the easiest to work on. Easy work means shorter down time. Shorter down time means more flying time. More flying time means more revenue.
Personally, the DC-9 I think, is an exception, in the sense that most McDonnell Douglas airplanes are a bitch to work on ( DC-10, MD-11, DC-8) , the DC-9 is a great airplane., probably my favorite airplane. I am telling you this from first hand experience, NOT something I read, or looked up, or heard from a guy that knows a guy.
Other than personal favorite airplanes, I doubt you will find any other airline aircraft mechanic in the US that would disagree with me.
I have sat in on CAT3 autolandings in 757's and 767's, very cool. Piolts don't use it very often, but it is required to perform a CAT3 autoland every 30 days on the aircraft. CAT3 autoland capability is installed on 757/767, 777, 737-800 the older aircraft DC-9 B727 etc never had this feature.spray_and_pray wrote:
Yes the DC-9 was a great aircraft too bad there are not much in service anymore and i do beleive that the autopilot is turned on from 1000-3000 feet after takeoff and the autopilot will also land the aircraft if the pilot uses a ILS approach aircraft also follow waypoints called VOR's all the way up to the airport so all the pilot has to do is monitor the instruments.lowing wrote:
going on 20 years with the airlines as a mechanic.........If it isn't Boeing I am not GOING.
Who gives a shit about how they comparatively fly.....Pilots turn on auto pilot about 1000 feet off the damn ground, ( if even that late). It is the maintenance that makes a good airliner. DC-9, B-757/767, B727, are some of the easiest to work on. Easy work means shorter down time. Shorter down time means more flying time. More flying time means more revenue.
Personally, the DC-9 I think, is an exception, in the sense that most McDonnell Douglas airplanes are a bitch to work on ( DC-10, MD-11, DC-8) , the DC-9 is a great airplane., probably my favorite airplane. I am telling you this from first hand experience, NOT something I read, or looked up, or heard from a guy that knows a guy.
Other than personal favorite airplanes, I doubt you will find any other airline aircraft mechanic in the US that would disagree with me.
Yeah autoland is basically on any modern aircraft. Other aircraft can still perform an ILS approach without the autoland feature though.
Yep, a few airlines are sub-leasing brand new orders to us.Rick_O_Shea678 wrote:
I thought you guys were starting next spring? Leasing until 2008 then?
Also (not to get down on your co.) Europe's population is twice that of USA. That's one of the reasons I was wondering about a smaller plane. Stretch RJ seats about 75, flies fast. Requires less staff&equip to work it as well.
Anyway, you'll be happy with the Airbus.
Lol, you don't have to worry about getting me down, I am VERY aware that success will be next to impossible. The biggest problem is Americans want to pay 50 dollars for a plane ticket, yet they want 1000 dollar service. That is not what Ryanair does, you pay 50 dollars you get 50 dollar service.
I know about the population of Europe, but we have a former "bean counter" from Ryanair who is helping us out, so we will see.
For the person that said B1 lancer here is the first B1 http://www.swannysmodels.com/Bereznyak.html
Boeing. Airbus can't supply the planes fast enough. Also, some airports need to modify their runways to accommodate the wingspan of the A380.
I definetly go for Airbus, here are the reasons
1. this company is european
2. I'd wont like to be in the aircrats that crashed in the wtc, especially that im sure they were remote controlled by the pentagon
3. Boeing has sabotaged many aibus flights, 3 at count, were the US had refused an emergency landing request to an sabotaged airbus, here is the proof http://www.vialls.net/airbus/transatflight961.html
4. airbus flights are confortable.
5.Compare the crash rates from boeing and airbus, well thanks to American Airlines boeing leads all these crash rates ( For AA they are 250+ crashes and Lufthansa, has less than 5 crashes, being composed of airbus planes mostly, funny the first crash of Lufthansa was when they tryed out this flying shit called 747 )
Final, dont flame me, i know much more than u guys know on planes
1. this company is european
2. I'd wont like to be in the aircrats that crashed in the wtc, especially that im sure they were remote controlled by the pentagon
3. Boeing has sabotaged many aibus flights, 3 at count, were the US had refused an emergency landing request to an sabotaged airbus, here is the proof http://www.vialls.net/airbus/transatflight961.html
4. airbus flights are confortable.
5.Compare the crash rates from boeing and airbus, well thanks to American Airlines boeing leads all these crash rates ( For AA they are 250+ crashes and Lufthansa, has less than 5 crashes, being composed of airbus planes mostly, funny the first crash of Lufthansa was when they tryed out this flying shit called 747 )
Final, dont flame me, i know much more than u guys know on planes
Not sure I understand this one.colonelioan wrote:
4. airbus flights are confortable.
Last edited by usmarine2007 (2006-12-10 09:03:56)
Well as far as i know, flying with Lufthansa is comfortable.usmarine2007 wrote:
Not sure I understand this one.colonelioan wrote:
4. airbus flights are confortable.