mia305 From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 321 posts, RR: 0 Posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4570 times:
If anyone could keep one type/s of aircraft operating today such as L1011, DC10,
727 etc....... What would you keep flying and why? I would love to see the 727's still
fly they were the workhorse, then could carry a lot of freight and bags & would still be
ER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2941 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4542 times:
DC-10. I loved that plane. Flew more times on the DC-10 than just about any other type back in the 80's and early 90's. Was a frequent traveler between ORD/SEA and UA used to run about four flights a day with the DC-10. For its time, their first class cabin was pretty nice on that aircraft. I'd get upgraded fairly often and it was a comfy ride. Have flown other routes as well (ORD/LAX, ORD/SFO, SEA/HNL, SEA/MSP to name a few) but it's the fond memories of ORD/SEA/ORD that made me of big fan the DC-10
migair54 From Spain, joined Jun 2007, 2553 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 4433 times:
B757.... it´s the flying pencil!!!!! I think nobody will ever match that performances and the L-1011, i love that plane... it looks sooo nice... I saw one in NBO not long ago but when I went there they were boarding already so I can´t visit the cockpit... .... it has few special features that i wanted to see but maybe next time...
n729pa From UK - England, joined Jan 2011, 542 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 4376 times:
Nice question.....I've always liked the Tristar and miss never having flown in one. But I think for me it would have to be Concorde. It's was so unique, it's one of my regrets in life that I never flew in it. You always think it will be there and maybe one day you'll do it, then you wake up one day and it's being retired and the fares are megabucks or the options are limited.
Haven't been in a 757 either (well it's all A320s or 737 these days isn't it), but I miss the 727s, I flew on 3, N1972 with AA one of the real earlier ones (no.21 I think), N7020U with UA and N322AS with AS . Surprising really how few there were 1300+ compared to the millions of 737s and A320s we have now, and yet it wasn't too long ago 727s were everywhere.
mia305 From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 321 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4324 times:
I flew the 727 a lot on different routes all nice flights. They were the workhorse as mention above.
Just wished they never phased them out.
I only flew the MD11 twice from MIA/DFW on AA and ATL/LAX on DL. Both very nice and smooth.
But, I heard they were not very easy to load as the inplane system always failed. A lot of ground crews
were happy they were phased out like the A300.
Well, yeah that goes without saying but still I probably should have mentioned it.
Quoting aloges (Reply 12): So glad I got to witness one of her take-offs shortly before retirement... that was one impressive moment.
Saw it a few times - best up close view was at OSH - they took off about a half hour after a rain storm and to see the spray kicked up behind her and the roar of those engines was an experience I'll never forget!!
Was also lucky enough to see the final approach of G-BOAG as it came in to BFI to be put on permanent display at the Museum of Flight. Snuck out of work early that day to catch it
Ldriver From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 64 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4232 times:
I was the lucky friend of a wealthy tycoon who flew me to Europe on the Concord. If I had known at the time it was effectively a death trap I would have almost certainly backed out.
One of my favorites is the 747SP. Something about its appeal is hard to define. It had a wider feel inside than the standard 747s owing to its stubiness. Maybe I was fond of its being smaller and therefore more personal. Or maybe just because it was rare. It cruised higher than other widebodies so was less turbulent (so it was claimed.) Then again, maybe it's because when I flew it transpacific in 1982, the market was far smaller, and the coach sections were often less than half full. That was in sharp contrast to today's sold out coach sections. This was the case on both of my JFK-NRT Pan Am SPs. Most people in coach effectively had a couch, so there was no need for C class. They were also newer, and when I transferred to a Pan Am 747-100 at NRT, it was noticeably dingier.
A nice treat in the 1970s were TWA Tristars. I flew one BOS-SFO 1976. Most of the planes hadn't been repainted in the new 1974 livery, so there it stood on arriving at the terminal, its classic golden globe-graced tail announcing to you that despite the cutbacks and fuel crisis, you would still be stepping on an important airline indeed . As the authors of the book "Destination Disaster" wrote, these "airbuses" (as the DC-10 and Tristar were then often called), were reminiscent of the airships of old, with an atmosphere of quiet elegance. They were often half empty, and before deregulation, had generous seat picth and 8-across seating in economy. TWA served a C-class style appetizer and choice of 3 meals in the economy cabins. In the middle of the 4 middle seats ran a small space down the middle, almost a mini-aisle, where as i recall the air conditioner units were located. The First class seats swiveled around a circular table for dining. Compared to the DC-10, I always thought the rear engine design more elegant on the Tristar. It was claimd to be more technologically advanced than the DC-10, and was arguably more soundly built (I make a controversial claim, for which I have no proof) As a result, the DC-10 was cheaper to build, so fewer airlines bought Tristars.
Interesting that Delta was one of the original DC-10 customers, then in short order replaced them with the L10. Does anyone know why?
n901wa From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 508 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4165 times:
L-1011. I miss the Old Lockheed Tri Tianic. Adjusting the FFR on nbr 1 and 3 with the eng running. Full power runs after a eng change, Hung starts, and all the field trips. Oh and the case of Oil you had to drag out everytime it came to you gate I still look for them when I do make it up the the desert to check on some of her younger 767s stored there.
Maybe so. I follow air safety pretty avidly, but perhaps I don't have as thorough a command of the Concord crash as some others might. That said, what is your opinion on the probability that if, say, a 767 or Airbus (any model) had run over the metal strip, that it would also have crashed?
mia305 From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 321 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4062 times:
I believe if it was any other aircraft that had crashed it would've been a big deal.
But, because it was the Concorde and caught on camera it was a huge deal
and blown out of proportion. In general the concord had a pretty good safety record.
Sad when it happened? Yes. Over the last decade airline safety has been good if not outstanding.