I can think of a few more bad wars with the French...FatherTed wrote:
the French only get a bad rep from WWII tbf.
Helped build the Concord, i wouldn't really slate them off as shit aeronautical engineers.
Brits put in more money in the concorde and were more involved iirc.FatherTed wrote:
after once accident...
should have continued tbh...
fact of the day, i stayed previously in the hotel it smashed into. and we have a concord at Manchester airport.
As far as I know they stopepd using them because it wasn't profitable.FatherTed wrote:
after once accident...
should have continued tbh...
fact of the day, i stayed previously in the hotel it smashed into. and we have a concord at Manchester airport.
This.Gawwad wrote:
As far as I know they stopepd using them because it wasn't profitable.FatherTed wrote:
after once accident...
should have continued tbh...
fact of the day, i stayed previously in the hotel it smashed into. and we have a concord at Manchester airport.
Last edited by SplinterStrike (2009-06-02 07:38:53)
Nope, I believe it is the captain that should have final authority of a flight, not the airplane.Ioan92 wrote:
Oh for fuck sake. I hope you're joking.lowing wrote:
"If its not BOEING, I'm not GOING"
Last edited by lowing (2009-06-02 12:14:07)
Like, Day After Tomorrow TurbulenceRacoon_Flyer wrote:
I could not imagine turbulence being able to snap a wing off, that would be some insane turbulence if it did happen.
sorry, yer wrong, the arguments against Airbus are valid and vast.Ioan92 wrote:
You realize its like saying "I'm choosing a Corvette because I'm scared to ride in a Mercedes."
Those Airbus vs Boeing arguments are plain stupid and pointless. There all planes, they all fly, they all crash, same shit.
Last edited by lowing (2009-06-02 11:43:55)
Oh God! Give me strength.Stubbee wrote:
If it wasn't for the French, Americans would still be drinking tea. Having said that, if it wasn't for the English speaking countries, the French would be eating knackwurst and wearing leiderhosen (sp?) in October.
We need those black boxes ASAP. Lighting caused crashes are supposed to be a thing of the past with the big planes.
I am thinking turbulence snapped a wing. That would cause the error message received as well as cause the cabin pressure to drop.
It's in the middle of the ocean so they might not even be able to recover them.Stubbee wrote:
We need those black boxes ASAP. Lighting caused crashes are supposed to be a thing of the past with the big planes.
I am thinking turbulence snapped a wing. That would cause the error message received as well as cause the cabin pressure to drop.
I have no idea what you mean but I'm gonna say I have no idea what you mean.Bradt3hleader wrote:
@Gawwad
Errrr you do mean 20'000 leagues under the sea right?
Black boxes have 'Underwater Locator Transmitters'. With increasing depths the detection gets more difficult; anyway there've been cases where the boxes were recovered from water depths of like ~3km.Gawwad wrote:
It's in the middle of the ocean so they might not even be able to recover them.Stubbee wrote:
We need those black boxes ASAP. Lighting caused crashes are supposed to be a thing of the past with the big planes.
I am thinking turbulence snapped a wing. That would cause the error message received as well as cause the cabin pressure to drop.
And you think the 747-400 is not almost fully automated too? You think that the captain flies manually those long hauls?lowing wrote:
Nope, I believe it is the captain that should have final authority of a flight, not the airplane.Ioan92 wrote:
Oh for fuck sake. I hope you're joking.lowing wrote:
"If its not BOEING, I'm not GOING"
Following your retarded logic, I could say the absolute same for Boeing.lowing wrote:
sorry, yer wrong, the arguments against Airbus are valid and vast.Ioan92 wrote:
You realize its like saying "I'm choosing a Corvette because I'm scared to ride in a Mercedes."
Those Airbus vs Boeing arguments are plain stupid and pointless. There all planes, they all fly, they all crash, same shit.
You propably have no idea what they are discussing.Ioan92 wrote:
And you think the 747-400 is not almost fully automated too? You think that the captain flies manually those long hauls?lowing wrote:
Nope, I believe it is the captain that should have final authority of a flight, not the airplane.Ioan92 wrote:
Oh for fuck sake. I hope you're joking.
They is claiming that Airbus is a flawed design because the plane is almost fully automated, while thinking that other manufacturers aren't, they are, just not in the same way..Gawwad wrote:
You propably have no idea what they are discussing.Ioan92 wrote:
And you think the 747-400 is not almost fully automated too? You think that the captain flies manually those long hauls?lowing wrote:
Nope, I believe it is the captain that should have final authority of a flight, not the airplane.
If you're booking your flight based on the manufacturer of the aircraft there's something wrong with you anyway.CameronPoe wrote:
Statistically speaking the chances of you meeting your maker on either a Boeing or an Airbus is infinitesimally small. So basically fly Airbus to support European jobs or Boeing to support American jobs.
/discussion
I meant they're 10 trillion clickers (Kilometers) below the sea!Gawwad wrote:
I have no idea what you mean but I'm gonna say I have no idea what you mean.Bradt3hleader wrote:
@Gawwad
Errrr you do mean 20'000 leagues under the sea right?
