ThirstyBarbarian
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2013
- Messages
- 12,249
- Reaction score
- 7,482
Yes. All bras must be inspected for loose fasteners. We can’t have them flying off in midair. Safety never takes a holiday!
Come on, Boeing.
- Thread starter cvanc
- Start date
Help Support The Rocketry Forum:
Yes. All bras must be inspected for loose fasteners. We can’t have them flying off in midair. Safety never takes a holiday!
I don’t think Boeing is going anywhere, stock-wise (long term) or corporate existence-wise. They are too big of a defense contractor to just disappear.
What I fear is that, if one more head smacking buffoonery incident like this happens, the future of Boeing’s commercial airliner division may be in doubt. It would be sad to see the maker of iconic planes like the 707 and 747 stop making commercial airliners.
Airbus planes are fine but they just don’t have that Boeing vibe. And they use a joystick as the steering wheel. Please!
I have been on an Airbus once, and I didn't like it. Seemed weird with all the 7xx planes I had flown on for decades.
I flew on a Delta A320 KSLC-KSAN once. Once inside I didn’t think it looked or felt all that different from how you’d expect a commercial airplane to be, although I expect being higher off the ground could be a little disorienting if you’re more used to the low-set fuselage of a 737 or MD-80.
I had had prior experience flying on 767s with Hawaiian and a 757 with Delta, so maybe that played some part.
I remember a video of an Airbus doing a demo. The pilot was trying to climb. The airplane thought it was landing and wouldn't let him pullup. Plane flew into trees at the end of the runway. This was when they first came out. I don't like to fly on them. I remember flying on one from San Diego to Las Vegas. When we touched down all the oxygen masks deployed. I don't want to fly on one.
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2009
- Messages
- 3,193
- Reaction score
- 1,404
Dislike Airbus' for two reasons:
1 - The windows/body is too round - sidewall are to far away from seat for comfortable sleeping.
2 - I hate how the center overhead bins shake like crazy during takeoff and landing - instills zero confidence in the structure.
1 - The windows/body is too round - sidewall are to far away from seat for comfortable sleeping.
2 - I hate how the center overhead bins shake like crazy during takeoff and landing - instills zero confidence in the structure.
Last edited:
If I want to fly, oh I don’t know, anywhere, the first leg (at least) of that journey will be on an Airbus - No choices.
I don’t mind them. I’ve flown on worse things (anything owned and flown by British Airways, for example).
I don’t mind them. I’ve flown on worse things (anything owned and flown by British Airways, for example).
Charles_McG
Ciderwright
I got caught up in this mess. Midday Friday, Alaskan cancelled my Sunday Portland to ORD flight, with no rebooking. Max 9 problem.
We changed plans, headed home early, and I’m sitting in DFW boarding to Chicago soon.
We changed plans, headed home early, and I’m sitting in DFW boarding to Chicago soon.
Isn't that how the story of McDonnell Douglas ended?
It is.
But God forbid.
They were trying to get new airliners to market basically until the merger. Their problem was that they had gambled on the future of the passenger-carrying trijet when it was obvious that large twinjets would be the way forward (except for the odd high-capacity or long-range quad). Their five-abreast cabin in their endless line of DC-9 derivatives was also seen as antiquated and limiting. Boeing was doing pretty well though, competing with Airbus, which made them attractive for a merger.
By contrast, McD’s military contracts were pretty healthy, and they continued manufacturing variants of the AH-64 Apache, AV-8B Harrier II, C-17 Globemaster III, F-15 Eagle, F/A-18 Hornet, and T-45 Goshawk all the way through the merger. Boeing’s military side was weaker and they wanted a slice of that.
Last edited:
There’s a little more to it than that. The crew were executing a low-speed pass at low altitude, a maneuver that just isn’t done in commercial operations, and mismanaged the aircraft’s airspeed and altitude, flying far lower and slower than planned at too high of an angle-of-attack. The aircraft’s Normal Law flight controls prevented them from stalling the aircraft. They hit the trees because they failed to take into account that the engines would take about 6 seconds to spool up to the requested power setting and climb out. I think the captain did some prison time for manslaughter.
Failure to monitor the instruments can be disastrous in any aircraft type, including this 737-500 (short-body Classic series) that crashed three years ago after the crew responded incorrectly to an autothrottle failure and aircraft upset in IMC.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sriwijaya_Air_Flight_182
That’s why commercial airliners have a two-crew flight deck, so the roles can be split.
The Airbus flight control system also likely contributed to the 100% survival rate in the famous US1549 ditching, as Captain Sullenberger lost too much airspeed approaching the Hudson and the control system prevented him from stalling the airplane (although he did find himself unable to flare).
That’s pretty wild. Somebody should be looking at the Passenger Service Units, that shouldn’t be happening. Although if I had to pick a failure mode, masks deploying when they shouldn’t is far less scary than them not deploying when they should.
Had the same thing happen landing at Oakland a few years back. It was an incredibly hard landing (we bounced quite high) and the oxygen masks deployed. Don’t know what make of plane it was nor why we “landed” so hard. It was a bit unnerving.
From the country that invented the chauchat?
From the country that invented this car?
What could be wrong with their airplanes?
I'll try to stay away from them too.
To be honest, even the biggest Citroenophile wouldn’t fly in a 2CV. 
boatgeek
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Messages
- 7,413
- Reaction score
- 7,962
Alaska used to fly 737 cargo/passenger planes (standard runway length, 6000’) into Dutch Harbor, AK (actual runway length 4000’). SOP was to hit the very end of the runway hard with no bounce and apply maximum brakes as soon as possible. It’s an exciting landing. A colleague had the oxygen masks come down during a particularly hard landing.
My parents had a 2CV for a while. Sure, it was uninsulated, had a bicycle tube frame in the passenger compartment, and a lawn mower engine (2CV was for the 2 hp engine, though I think they upgraded later). It was also a great rough road/no road car. It had great ground clearance and if you got stuck, three adults could lift the car out of the pothole.
I've never had what I would call a systemic A vs. B issue. True, some Airbuses had that window placement issue, and true I simply loved the B757. I always preferred Boeing but had some good rides on Airbus as well. A good friend used to fly the A330 on the transatlantic routes for US Airways (now American). I got some great rides from Philly down to Puerto Rico on that bird when they were selling those fancy international 1st class seats for only a little more than coach.
RocketDestroyer
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2014
- Messages
- 432
- Reaction score
- 327
Years ago we were flying into Tokyo on a JAL DC-10. We were in seats 1A and 1B. We hit very hard and bounced up. All of the masks came down and the lockers holding the cups and stuff opned it they came down on top of us. It took a long time to touch down again. By the time we finally stopped we were off the end of the runway looking down into Tokyo bay. It was a wild ride.
It originally had 9 hp, not 2. The name comes from French tax laws; there's a formula to calculate the taxable horsepower, and it was taxed as a 2 hp vehicle. CV is the standard government abbreviation for taxable horsepower, from "chevaux-vapeur".
For those who wished to deride the motor as even smaller than it actually was, CV also looks like it could be from just plain "chevaux" — just plain "horsepower".
boatgeek
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Messages
- 7,413
- Reaction score
- 7,962
Thank you for the correction, though I stand by the description as a lawn mower engine.
Thank you for the correction, though I stand by the description as a lawn mower engine.
Go big. Twin engined 4x4 2CV Sahara. Actually a very capable, if complicated, vehicle.
Yes, #citroenaficianonado.
Wasn’t the 2CV the forfeit car in Top Gear’s Patagonia special?
Always enjoyed flying in those MD-80’s. Fun plane. Didn’t Delta fly them until they just wore out?
I believe the last Delta flights on the type were during the pandemic, but basically yes. A few places still operate them, secondary markets like South American charter and cargo operators.
I remember that car from a Bond film chase scene It was in a lot of WWII movies too.
I'm not an airplane expert but at some point they started calling them "Super 80"s.
Southwest Airlines flew the 737 and a lot of the AA routes had the MD80/Super80. The 737 seemed like a hotrod by comparison, on the runway it would seem to accelerate faster, the Super80 seemed to take a long time to get up to speed for liftoff. The biggest difference was the engine position. If you sat in the front of the Super80 you didn't hear much engine noise. One time I managed to be seated in the last row of the Super80 with the engines right outside the window. That was noisier and there is always this thought of fan blades come out of the cowling.
The MD-80 was a DC-9 variant and even shared the same type certificate. At launch they were branded as the “Super 80 series” and adopted the MD designation later. It’s possible that a few airlines retained the Super 80 moniker in their company material.
aclaibor
New Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2023
- Messages
- 3
- Reaction score
- 6
Or at least ask for an aisle seat.If someone tries to sell you a seat on a 747 Max 9, then walk away.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2022
- Messages
- 1,751
- Reaction score
- 1,764
And to be fair to the 2CV, when the car was new, parts did not fall off it while driving. In fact, Citroen is well known for providing a very smooth ride in even the roughest terrain. Ok, it won't win a race with a Dodge Charger, but, the car had some very innovative features. And there's no denying that another car from the same firm, the DS, looked like a spaceship and was also quite innovative. But enough about them, we're busy dissing Boeing.
Similar threads
