The 707 has had 174 hull losses out of 1010 made. So your point is? Having worked on both airframes the Dc-8 is definitely the stronger airframe. The whole thing is almost completely a 7075-T6 extrusion. The only thing I didn't like about the DC-8 was the amount of cable operated systems,especially the fuel system.
Best airliner?
- Thread starter Exhaustgases
- Start date
Originally Posted by Exhaustgases
I feel the best aircraft manufacturing company as well, too bad they don't exist any more.
Douglas DC-8 has done something no other Jet airliner has done that wasn't purpose built for the task. It was the first airliner to break the sound barrier.
It flew super sonic on August 21 1961.
https://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/i-was-there-when-the-dc-8-went-supersonic-27846699/
It is pretty much common knowledge that most any other airliner that would try that would likely break up from flutter and aerodynamic forces. Awesome plane.
Don't most trans Atlantic flights break the speed of sound on the ground speed? I know they didn't do it at actual air speed with tail winds.
I feel the best aircraft manufacturing company as well, too bad they don't exist any more.
Douglas DC-8 has done something no other Jet airliner has done that wasn't purpose built for the task. It was the first airliner to break the sound barrier.
It flew super sonic on August 21 1961.
https://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/i-was-there-when-the-dc-8-went-supersonic-27846699/
It is pretty much common knowledge that most any other airliner that would try that would likely break up from flutter and aerodynamic forces. Awesome plane.
Don't most trans Atlantic flights break the speed of sound on the ground speed? I know they didn't do it at actual air speed with tail winds.
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2013
- Messages
- 3,084
Douglas DC-3...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_DC-3
In service since the 1930's, it has been used as an airliner, gunship, military transport, etc...
16,000 built...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_DC-3
In service since the 1930's, it has been used as an airliner, gunship, military transport, etc...
16,000 built...
Those cables gave it the advantage of reliability. Main thing now that stops air crashes is stuff like, synthetic vision, enhanced vision, TCAS, Terrain avoidance systems etc. I can see the need for more improvements in all those systems like enhanced vision with millimeter radar etc. If all the aircraft that recently crashed because of fog and clouds, or near by traffic had these systems the crashes would likely not have happened. I have always felt very comfortable in the old Douglas planes, DC-9 was nice, 757 sounded like a garbage truck when deploying the landing gear up or down.
Originally Posted by Exhaustgases
Those cables gave it the advantage of reliability. Main thing now that stops air crashes is stuff like, synthetic vision, enhanced vision, TCAS, Terrain avoidance systems etc. I can see the need for more improvements in all those systems like enhanced vision with millimeter radar etc. If all the aircraft that recently crashed because of fog and clouds, or near by traffic had these systems the crashes would likely not have happened. I have always felt very comfortable in the old Douglas planes, DC-9 was nice, 757 sounded like a garbage truck when deploying the landing gear up or down.
No.
Just, no.
While those systems have enhanced air safety, they are not the reason for air safety. MCAS was a safety system. It enhanced the handling characteristics of the 737 Max. But in the hands of a poorly trained crew, the safety system killed everyone on board.
Synthetic vision and enhanced vision are simply not used in the airline industry. Not one of the over 700 airplanes at my airline is equipped with them. So, they're not adding to the safety record. You keep talking about them, but they're not widely used.
Safety advancements are the result of several factors.
One is huge gains in aircraft reliability - like replacing old, complex, failure-prone piston engines with simple, reliable turbines.
There have been huge improvements in pilot training and crew resource management. UAL 232 is a study in flying the unflyable airplane - no flight controls, and yet, through brilliant problem solving and resource management, Al Haynes and his crew were able to fly the airplane to Sioux City airport.
There have been huge gains in procedures standardization and analysis - icing, windshear, ETOPS, runway length and landing performance, all have seen dramatic improvements in the ability to assess, analyze, and mitigate risk in operations that could encounter adverse conditions.
You seem to think safety, in flying, is the result of technology.
It isn't.
Giving you a new, sharper, more capable scalpel will never make you a neurosurgeon and can never replace decades of medical school, training, and experience. It's not, and never has been, the tool that makes the craftsman. It's the experience and understanding of the profession that makes a skilled professional; that enables that professional to judge the best course of action, and to reach a successful outcome.
Those cables gave it the advantage of reliability. Main thing now that stops air crashes is stuff like, synthetic vision, enhanced vision, TCAS, Terrain avoidance systems etc. I can see the need for more improvements in all those systems like enhanced vision with millimeter radar etc. If all the aircraft that recently crashed because of fog and clouds, or near by traffic had these systems the crashes would likely not have happened. I have always felt very comfortable in the old Douglas planes, DC-9 was nice, 757 sounded like a garbage truck when deploying the landing gear up or down.
No.
Just, no.
While those systems have enhanced air safety, they are not the reason for air safety. MCAS was a safety system. It enhanced the handling characteristics of the 737 Max. But in the hands of a poorly trained crew, the safety system killed everyone on board.
Synthetic vision and enhanced vision are simply not used in the airline industry. Not one of the over 700 airplanes at my airline is equipped with them. So, they're not adding to the safety record. You keep talking about them, but they're not widely used.
Safety advancements are the result of several factors.
One is huge gains in aircraft reliability - like replacing old, complex, failure-prone piston engines with simple, reliable turbines.
There have been huge improvements in pilot training and crew resource management. UAL 232 is a study in flying the unflyable airplane - no flight controls, and yet, through brilliant problem solving and resource management, Al Haynes and his crew were able to fly the airplane to Sioux City airport.
There have been huge gains in procedures standardization and analysis - icing, windshear, ETOPS, runway length and landing performance, all have seen dramatic improvements in the ability to assess, analyze, and mitigate risk in operations that could encounter adverse conditions.
You seem to think safety, in flying, is the result of technology.
It isn't.
Giving you a new, sharper, more capable scalpel will never make you a neurosurgeon and can never replace decades of medical school, training, and experience. It's not, and never has been, the tool that makes the craftsman. It's the experience and understanding of the profession that makes a skilled professional; that enables that professional to judge the best course of action, and to reach a successful outcome.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Concorde.
If we are talking traditional jets, the nicest I've been on was a very new Air Canada 777 with the absolutely massive GE engines.
If we are talking traditional jets, the nicest I've been on was a very new Air Canada 777 with the absolutely massive GE engines.
Concorde was a brilliant bit of design and engineering, but it's got the room of an RJ. 2 by 2 seating in an extremely narrow fuselage. The service was exemplary, and for $10,000+ a ticket, it should be...
The Best? What is the best . I don't have expertise in the aviation industry but I am 100% positive I can tell an airliner when I see one. A plane,.Semi truck etc needs to be reliable and economical to operate for a business to be able to show a profit in its particular market. For example the 747 could be considered a great plane yet economics and usage patterns has them being replaced by planes that have lower costs to operate.
That being said my favorite planes to look at are the 747, 727, DC9 types and the amazing to look at the 777.
That being said my favorite planes to look at are the 747, 727, DC9 types and the amazing to look at the 777.
I think the best depends from point of view. Is one looking it from management eyes (cost=profit), pilots eyes, passengers eyes.
I am passenger, so for me currently, Aribus 340-600 and B787 are best. I really like B777, but from comfort stand point, A346 is bit better due to lavatories below passenger deck. And this is just my preference. B787 bcs. big windows, more humidity (though living in Colorado, dry air is not an issue).
I will probably fly this May on A350 from DEN to MUC, so we will see.
I am passenger, so for me currently, Aribus 340-600 and B787 are best. I really like B777, but from comfort stand point, A346 is bit better due to lavatories below passenger deck. And this is just my preference. B787 bcs. big windows, more humidity (though living in Colorado, dry air is not an issue).
I will probably fly this May on A350 from DEN to MUC, so we will see.
Originally Posted by Astro14
Originally Posted by Exhaustgases
Those cables gave it the advantage of reliability. Main thing now that stops air crashes is stuff like, synthetic vision, enhanced vision, TCAS, Terrain avoidance systems etc. I can see the need for more improvements in all those systems like enhanced vision with millimeter radar etc. If all the aircraft that recently crashed because of fog and clouds, or near by traffic had these systems the crashes would likely not have happened. I have always felt very comfortable in the old Douglas planes, DC-9 was nice, 757 sounded like a garbage truck when deploying the landing gear up or down.
. Not one of the over 700 airplanes at my airline is equipped with them. So, they're not adding to the safety record. You keep talking about them, but they're not widely used.
Safety advancements are the result of several factors.
One is huge gains in aircraft reliability - like replacing old, complex, failure-prone piston engines with simple, reliable turbines.
.
No aircraft should be with out the synthetic vision or EVS. Do the study most of the crashes in the old days was either pilots that could not fly the plane well or got lost and hit mountains etc. Turbines are not reliable there have been more turbine failures than old piston engine failures. Most modern piston engine failures are from using the wrong fuel. Turbine engines have parts that are under way more stress than a piston engine. And the parts for them are thousands of dollars more.
If Sully was flying a DC-7 he would not have ended up in the Hudson.
Originally Posted by Exhaustgases
Those cables gave it the advantage of reliability. Main thing now that stops air crashes is stuff like, synthetic vision, enhanced vision, TCAS, Terrain avoidance systems etc. I can see the need for more improvements in all those systems like enhanced vision with millimeter radar etc. If all the aircraft that recently crashed because of fog and clouds, or near by traffic had these systems the crashes would likely not have happened. I have always felt very comfortable in the old Douglas planes, DC-9 was nice, 757 sounded like a garbage truck when deploying the landing gear up or down.
. Not one of the over 700 airplanes at my airline is equipped with them. So, they're not adding to the safety record. You keep talking about them, but they're not widely used.
Safety advancements are the result of several factors.
One is huge gains in aircraft reliability - like replacing old, complex, failure-prone piston engines with simple, reliable turbines.
.
No aircraft should be with out the synthetic vision or EVS. Do the study most of the crashes in the old days was either pilots that could not fly the plane well or got lost and hit mountains etc. Turbines are not reliable there have been more turbine failures than old piston engine failures. Most modern piston engine failures are from using the wrong fuel. Turbine engines have parts that are under way more stress than a piston engine. And the parts for them are thousands of dollars more.
If Sully was flying a DC-7 he would not have ended up in the Hudson.
Last edited:
That is a completely false set of statements exhaustgases, and you sir know it
Originally Posted by 53' Stude
That is a completely false set of statements exhaustgases, and you sir know it
Don't be like that. It is fun read
That is a completely false set of statements exhaustgases, and you sir know it
Don't be like that. It is fun read
Edyvw: stepdad read that along with me. I highly think my stepdad knows a lot as does Astro14 as stepdad has a LOT of aviation flying/experience as does astro14.
PimTac: I dont read any into exhaustgases posts anyways. Lot of errors in them stepdad told me from his reading them
Originally Posted by 53' Stude
That is a completely false set of statements exhaustgases, and you sir know it
You mean the Sully deal? Piston engines don't eat birds like jets do. Nor do they have high thermal stressed (there is no cooling cycle in a turbine, it is constant flame) high centrifugal force stressed parts running into the 10,000 plus rpm range, nor do they cost into the 3 or more millions to rebuild.
That is a completely false set of statements exhaustgases, and you sir know it
You mean the Sully deal? Piston engines don't eat birds like jets do. Nor do they have high thermal stressed (there is no cooling cycle in a turbine, it is constant flame) high centrifugal force stressed parts running into the 10,000 plus rpm range, nor do they cost into the 3 or more millions to rebuild.
Last edited:
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
I flew in a turbo prop today … one thing they can eat is time …
Two to go:
A319 and B772 … (lie flat service while GE's hum over Pacific)
Two to go:
A319 and B772 … (lie flat service while GE's hum over Pacific)
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted by Exhaustgases
Originally Posted by 53' Stude
That is a completely false set of statements exhaustgases, and you sir know it
You mean the Sully deal? Piston engines don't eat birds like jets do. Nor do they have high thermal stressed (there is no cooling cycle in a turbine, it is constant flame) high centrifugal force stressed parts running into the 10,000 plus rpm range, nor do they cost into the 3 or more millions to rebuild.
Piston engines are more complex and have a significantly higher moving parts count and those parts, rather than spinning around a single plane, have constantly shifting forces. On top of that, the turbo slapped to it will be spinning at a much higher speed than a traditional turbine. There is nothing inherently more stressed about a turbine, that's why they run for decades in power plants and why, even choking on exhaust, turbochargers last as long as they do.
You seem to have some vendetta against anything using a turbine (C-130 for example) and it strikes me as pretty weird at this point, as you've had multiple experts completely contradict whatever agenda it is you are peddling
Our company owns a couple of planes, one is a Cirrus SR22 Platinum, which replaced an SR20. This is used for short trips typically. The turbo has been replaced as well as a few other items on it. The 2nd is a Citation Mustang, which is a small 7-seater Jet, used for longer flights. The operating and service cost differences between the two aircraft are not massive, and an overhaul on the two turbines once they reach their hour limit isn't insanely expensive.
The TBO on the Cirrus is 2,000 hours, vs 3,500 hours on the turbines in the Mustang.
The overhaul cost on the PW615F-A is ~$200,000; $57 per hour of operation.
The overhaul cost on the Continental IO-550-N is ~$60,000; $30 per hour of operation.
The plane we had before the Mustang was a Piper Navajo. It flew lower, slower, and was significantly louder. It had a 1,600hr TBO period at a cost of ~$40,000; $25 per hour of operation and you were putting on more hours, because it was significantly slower.
As you can see, these costs are not insane. The little Mustang will accrue fewer hours per flight because it is that much faster. Ergo, the number of trips we get out of the Mustang between overhauls is significantly higher, offsetting the higher overhaul costs.
Originally Posted by 53' Stude
That is a completely false set of statements exhaustgases, and you sir know it
You mean the Sully deal? Piston engines don't eat birds like jets do. Nor do they have high thermal stressed (there is no cooling cycle in a turbine, it is constant flame) high centrifugal force stressed parts running into the 10,000 plus rpm range, nor do they cost into the 3 or more millions to rebuild.
Piston engines are more complex and have a significantly higher moving parts count and those parts, rather than spinning around a single plane, have constantly shifting forces. On top of that, the turbo slapped to it will be spinning at a much higher speed than a traditional turbine. There is nothing inherently more stressed about a turbine, that's why they run for decades in power plants and why, even choking on exhaust, turbochargers last as long as they do.
You seem to have some vendetta against anything using a turbine (C-130 for example) and it strikes me as pretty weird at this point, as you've had multiple experts completely contradict whatever agenda it is you are peddling
Our company owns a couple of planes, one is a Cirrus SR22 Platinum, which replaced an SR20. This is used for short trips typically. The turbo has been replaced as well as a few other items on it. The 2nd is a Citation Mustang, which is a small 7-seater Jet, used for longer flights. The operating and service cost differences between the two aircraft are not massive, and an overhaul on the two turbines once they reach their hour limit isn't insanely expensive.
The TBO on the Cirrus is 2,000 hours, vs 3,500 hours on the turbines in the Mustang.
The overhaul cost on the PW615F-A is ~$200,000; $57 per hour of operation.
The overhaul cost on the Continental IO-550-N is ~$60,000; $30 per hour of operation.
The plane we had before the Mustang was a Piper Navajo. It flew lower, slower, and was significantly louder. It had a 1,600hr TBO period at a cost of ~$40,000; $25 per hour of operation and you were putting on more hours, because it was significantly slower.
As you can see, these costs are not insane. The little Mustang will accrue fewer hours per flight because it is that much faster. Ergo, the number of trips we get out of the Mustang between overhauls is significantly higher, offsetting the higher overhaul costs.
Originally Posted by 53' Stude
Edyvw: stepdad read that along with me. I highly think my stepdad knows a lot as does Astro14 as stepdad has a LOT of aviation flying/experience as does astro14.
I do not think you got my post.
Edyvw: stepdad read that along with me. I highly think my stepdad knows a lot as does Astro14 as stepdad has a LOT of aviation flying/experience as does astro14.
I do not think you got my post.
