Sponsor Message:
Travel Polls & Prefs Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What Are Some Of The Weakest Airliners Built?  
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3504 posts, RR: 2
Posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 4168 times:

There has been a couple of post about the strongest airliners built, I should know I stated one. But I want to know what or some of the weakest airliners built. The A300/A310 Airbus come to mind.

8 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineFLY2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4156 times:

Weakest?

In what terms?

Structural integrity? Power? Sales? Ramp appeal?


User currently offlineNWADC9 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 4896 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4153 times:

In terms of structural issues, my vote goes to the Lockheed Electra and the Comet.
In terms of sales, An-225.
In terms of power, A340  duck 



Flying an aeroplane with only a single propeller to keep you in the air. Can you imagine that? -Capt. Picard
User currently offlineTrijetsRMissed From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2331 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4146 times:

For structure and safety the Comet is a no brainer. I will also add that old 741/2s have proven to be unpredictable with some bizarre accidents, more so than any other widebody. For example: TWA 800, El Al 1862, CI 611

Currently, the 736 is the king of flops when it comes to sales.

Quoting NWADC9 (Reply 2):
In terms of power, A340

 checkmark  Agreed.



There's nothing quite like a tri-jet.
User currently offlineMetroliner From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2007, 1067 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4112 times:

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 3):
For structure and safety the Comet is a no brainer.

no it isn't - the later comets proved themselves as being some of the toughest planes around. even the early comets proved amazingly crashworthy, as due to their speed and mass pilots took a few of them out due to their inexperience. there's an article on a.net about this.

anyway, how do you define 'weak'? all airliners are certified to do what they do - therefore they're by definition 'strong' enough. it's a good excuse to bash european metal, though, obviously. :P

toni



Set the controls for the heart of the Sun
User currently offlineMetroliner From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2007, 1067 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4104 times:

my bad - seems like there's no article on the comet crashes on a.net any more, though i distinctly remember reading about it. its safety record, however, illustrates what i mean.

see: http://aviation-safety.net/database/...190%&cat=%1&sorteer=datekey&page=1

it was a very overengineered bird, sadly with the fatal flaw of window shapes that caused stress buildup and fractures. not entirely surprising, but terrible bad luck given how little was known about metal fatigue at the time.

seems rather intuitive to us now, though!

toni



Set the controls for the heart of the Sun
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3504 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4089 times:

Quoting FLY2HMO (Reply 1):
Weakest?

In what terms?

Structural integrity? Power? Sales? Ramp appeal?

I meant structural integrity, but I welcome all the ones you stated.

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 3):
Quoting NWADC9 (Reply 2):
In terms of power, A340

checkmark Agreed.

When it come the 200/300 model I do agree, but the 500/600 model has a good amount of power. The 500/600 model even has a pretty sharpe take off rate.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24891 posts, RR: 22
Reply 7, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4071 times:

Quoting NWADC9 (Reply 2):
In terms of structural issues, my vote goes to the Lockheed Electra and the Comet.

Only the Comet 1. The final Comet 4 was probably one of the strongest aircraft ever built. The Electra also became a very sturdy and reliable aircraft after the early wing flutter problem was resolved.

Many aircraft maintenance people will tell you that, in general, older Boeing aircraft require more intensive maintenance, corrosion repairs etc, than equivalent types built by Douglas/McDonnell-Douglas after the same length of service, e.g. the DC-8 vs. 707, DC-9 vs 737 etc.

No airliners are really "weak" as they all have to meet very strict certification standards, and if problems are uncovered during service as with the unfortunate early Comet and Electra problems, among many others affecting other types, they're fixed.


User currently offlineTrijetsRMissed From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2331 posts, RR: 7
Reply 8, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 4040 times:

Quoting Metroliner (Reply 4):
no it isn't - the later comets proved themselves as being some of the toughest planes around. even the early comets proved amazingly crashworthy

Yes it is, it is by far. Amazingly crash prone was more like it. Not only did the British underestimate the importance of pressurization but the thinnest possible sheet metal was used for the fuselage. I hope you get a chance to see the "Seconds from the Disaster" episode that chronicles the Comet's notorious shortcomings. The fact the Comet 4 was improved is academic in the scheme of things. The market was already lost to the 707 and airliners should not get praise doing what they're supposed to do.

Quoting Metroliner (Reply 4):
all airliners are certified to do what they do - therefore they're by definition 'strong' enough. it's a good excuse to bash european metal

I don't have a negative bias against European metal, and the Comet was entering uncharted waters. But the fact is the original should have never been certified.

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 6):
the 500/600 model has a good amount of power.

True, there is no question the RR Trent engines were an improvement in engine power over the CFM56.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 7):
older Boeing aircraft require more intensive maintenance, corrosion repairs etc, than equivalent types built by Douglas/McDonnell-Douglas

Good point. In the states the DC-9 has outlasted the 732. In the future, the Mad Dogs will outlast the 733/4/5's.



There's nothing quite like a tri-jet.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Some Of The Best Pics On A.net? posted Sun Feb 11 2007 04:52:36 by Fiaz
What Are Some Good Airline Ads... posted Tue Oct 10 2006 18:38:18 by 777-200
What Was Some Of Your Longest Flights? posted Tue Jul 31 2001 04:19:29 by MSPman
What Are The Most Famous Feats Of Airmanship posted Tue Nov 21 2006 05:03:29 by JAM747
What Are Your Impressions Of The New ISP Terminal? posted Tue Aug 17 2004 03:17:23 by IslipWN
What Do You Think Of The New Pink Color? posted Sat Apr 1 2006 06:32:40 by B741
Annual Airliners.Net Airline Of The Year Awards posted Sat Jan 7 2006 14:05:07 by Dsa
What Are The Costs Involved In Startup? posted Thu Sep 1 2005 02:07:44 by DLX737200
What Are Your Views On The A350? posted Fri Aug 26 2005 18:32:28 by Holidaycharter
What's The Best Side Of The Plane To Sit To LHR? posted Mon Aug 15 2005 20:00:24 by Jacobin777