747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2426 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.
NWADC9 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 4862 posts, RR: 10 Reply 2, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2411 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
Flying an aeroplane with only a single propeller to keep you in the air. Can you imagine that? -Capt. Picard
TrijetsRMissed From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2102 posts, RR: 6 Reply 3, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2404 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.
Metroliner From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2007, 1058 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2370 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
Metroliner From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2007, 1058 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2362 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.
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.
747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Reply 6, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2347 times:
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21679 posts, RR: 23 Reply 7, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2329 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.
TrijetsRMissed From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2102 posts, RR: 6 Reply 8, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2298 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.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, 
Agreed.
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2007, 1058 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21679 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
