109 replies to this topic

[flanker]

webdenis12, on Nov 8 2004, 10:43 AM, said:

340-200 failure

340-300 good

340-500 very well

340-600 PWND!!!

LOL ###### strait!

[Kubus]

These pics do the Flying Shed justice...

Front view - this aircraft is literally a rectangular shape!

And this one



EDIT:

POST 500!!! Woohoo I'm IFR!!!

Well on the forums anyways... lol

Edited by Kubus, 08 November 2004 - 03:35 PM.

[UALWILLSTAND]

how bout a 757 in ATA config.  Ouch.  255 people in a friken 757 is way too much.
Ed

[flanker]

Kubus, on Nov 8 2004, 03:31 PM, said:

These pics do the Flying Shed justice...

Front view - this aircraft is literally a rectangular shape!

And this one



EDIT:

POST 500!!! Woohoo I'm IFR!!!

Well on the forums anyways... lol

haha.. hey at least it has big windows..

[SuperXero]

747SP.

What the ###### was the design team smoking?

[flightstar11]

What is the problem with the shorts 33_?

They might look a little wierd in pictures, but i saw a 330 used by the millitary a few weeks ago (at KVPC).

I think they look really good.....  

http://www.airliners....file/174058/L/

Edited by flightstar11, 09 November 2004 - 11:41 AM.

[B777_300ER]

Worst planes? Well, An-24, Tu-134 as well as Tu-154. Not economical at all, uncomfortable and not very advanced. Safety is also another big concern.  

Edited by B777_300ER, 09 November 2004 - 01:44 PM.

[FiveZeroBravo]

All the busses except the 330


For those of you saying the 764 was a failure, you are mistaken.  It wasn't built for the entire world, it was built for Delta and Continental (as said above) because they requested it.  It is loved by both airlines and is a huge success for them.

Edited by FiveZeroBravo, 09 November 2004 - 02:47 PM.

[flanker]

B777_300ER, on Nov 9 2004, 01:43 PM, said:

Worst planes? Well, An-24, Tu-134 as well as Tu-154. Not economical at all, uncomfortable and not very advanced. Safety is also another big concern.  

you been on any of em?

[Kubus]

The 747SP does look weird (especially how the fuselage humps down to the rudder & tail section) but it fullfills its purpose.  That's why it's short (duh) - 47'1" shorter than the -100 to be exact. That is ALOT to cut off a plane.  

Flightstar - how can you say the Shorts 330 & 360 look good? THEY'RE FREAKIN RECTANGLES WITH WINGS!!!   lol

[notadrater]

B777_300ER, on Nov 9 2004, 01:43 PM, said:

Worst planes? Well, An-24, Tu-134 as well as Tu-154. Not economical at all, uncomfortable and not very advanced. Safety is also another big concern.  

I'd be willing to bet that you have never travelled on the Tu-154. My experience was great with Pannon.

[air_transat]

Easily the A380

[Tom.D]

747SP, only one i dislike, and i don't dislike it that much.

[B777_300ER]

Quote

I'd be willing to bet that you have never travelled on the Tu-154. My experience was great with Pannon.

Quote

you been on any of em?

Do I have to be on any of them to judge? Those planes are old, clunky and falling apart   . This was why some said Cubana (they operate a lot of russian planes) was one of the worst airlines to travel on. Russian planes are not there yet, no where near Boeing plus their design is ugly...

Edited by B777_300ER, 10 November 2004 - 01:56 PM.

[pieterjan456]

N285CP, on Nov 8 2004, 12:47 AM, said:

What planes do I hate? None, I'll take anything and everything.

  

[Joker]

I know it serves it purpose well butwth
Wierd plane

Edited by Joker, 10 November 2004 - 02:31 PM.

[dolbinau]

B777_300ER, on Nov 11 2004, 05:55 AM, said:

Quote

you been on any of em?

Do I have to be on any of them to judge? Those planes are old, clunky and falling apart   . This was why some said Cubana (they operate a lot of russian planes) was one of the worst airlines to travel on. Russian planes are not there yet, no where near Boeing plus their design is ugly...

Yes you do need to have been on one; You can't comment on comfortness if you havn't even travelled on one.


You just hate russian planes; They arn't that unsafe. Its up to the airlines who service/Mantain them.

Yes; they are old planes and had served thier original purpose; thus indicating they won't be 737NG's but they arn't clunky or falling apart.

Thier design IMO is pretty acceptable.

Edited by dolbinau, 10 November 2004 - 03:00 PM.

[B777_300ER]

Quote

Yes you do need to have been on one; You can't comment on comfortness if you havn't even travelled on one.


You just hate russian planes; They arn't that unsafe. Its up to the airlines who service/Mantain them.

Yes; they are old planes and had served thier original purpose; thus indicating they won't be 737NG's but they arn't clunky or falling apart.

Thier design IMO is pretty acceptable.

Interesting, when I last checked how many planes Aeroflot (Main russian carrier) lost, it was like over 100. Most of those planes that were lost were russian planes. It can't be that it is the aircraft mechanics fault. Over a 100, come on. There is got to be somethign wrong with their planes and I mean in terms of structural design/electronics etc. This is why US carriers do not use them. Nor do Canadian or west european. I do not hate russian planes, I just do not like them. I love aviation, and for me, aviation should be safe and bring people together. Accidents and deaths because of mechanical problems of airplanes that shouldn't even be in service just brings sadness instead of happiness. No need to get mad here thought. It is just my opinion . I respect your opinion if you like them.

[dolbinau]

B777_300ER, on Nov 12 2004, 05:55 AM, said:

Quote

Yes you do need to have been on one; You can't comment on comfortness if you havn't even travelled on one.


You just hate russian planes; They arn't that unsafe. Its up to the airlines who service/Mantain them.

Yes; they are old planes and had served thier original purpose; thus indicating they won't be 737NG's but they arn't clunky or falling apart.

Thier design IMO is pretty acceptable.

Interesting, when I last checked how many planes Aeroflot (Main russian carrier) lost, it was like over 100. Most of those planes that were lost were russian planes. It can't be that it is the aircraft mechanics fault. Over a 100, come on. There is got to be somethign wrong with their planes and I mean in terms of structural design/electronics etc. This is why US carriers do not use them. Nor do Canadian or west european. I do not hate russian planes, I just do not like them. I love aviation, and for me, aviation should be safe and bring people together. Accidents and deaths because of mechanical problems of airplanes that shouldn't even be in service just brings sadness instead of happiness. No need to get mad here thought. It is just my opinion . I respect your opinion if you like them.

Actually; I don't like them. But I don't think they suck.

I bet if you swapped all the Russian fleet for boeings with Aeroflot they would be more unsafe.

Aeroflot just isn't a Safe airline.

[[V1]-[VR]-[V2]]

no way man! AN74 rulez!