B727 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 521 posts, RR: 1 Posted (10 years 1 month 9 hours ago) and read 4590 times:
Remember when an aircraft pulled into a gate and you could identify it in 2 seconds ie: B727 DC10 DC-9 L-1011. These are the original jets, the first generation jets. Most of todays twin jets to me are boring, the older jets have so much history and spark because they were the original "jets" of modern travel. I am probably date myself with this post, but the 767's 777's and A3XX series dont do anything for me. Sure the older jets have higher operating costs, maintenance issues, but in my mind these are more romatic if you will. I sure miss the Tri-jets of the 60's and 70's Anyone else feel this way?
Lindy field From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 3120 posts, RR: 13
Reply 5, posted (10 years 1 month 9 hours ago) and read 4471 times:
Yeah, I miss yesterday's diversity of airliner designs. Today almost everything is a twin with wing-mounted engines. Boeing 737-300s & A319s I find particularly vanilla. On the other hand, the 737NGs with winglets look great, the Embraer 170s are sharp, and it will be fun to spot the A380 and 7E7 when they arrive.
Hopefully, more colorful airline liveries will come back into fashion in a few years. I'm sick of nearly every airplane being painted white and blue.
RareBear From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 553 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (10 years 1 month 9 hours ago) and read 4448 times:
I miss the sound and feel of the first generation jets, the 707s and 720s, the early DC-8s, the CV-880. You could hear the roar, and knew you were in a jet. The modern ones have a sound more like a hum.
LVZXV From Gabon, joined Mar 2004, 2041 posts, RR: 36
Reply 7, posted (10 years 1 month 8 hours ago) and read 4375 times:
I agree. Today's aircraft are becoming flying buses, or to be more precise "Airbuses". Not that I dislike Airbus, but they do bore me with their "off-the-shelf-nothing-fancy-aircraft-commonality" approach to aircraft design and they are selling very well. Nothing's original. To me, the Sixties and Seventies were the zenith in creative designs. Now yes, the Canadairs and Embraers may be sharp but I do not consider them as worthy successors to the BAC 1-11, DC-9 or F28. And I am certainly not happy about the A340-600, B777-300 and A380 stepping into the shoes of the timeless Classic B747. We do live in a very conformist age, in which 2 engines and Eurowhite are in, and 3/4 engines and COLOUR are [going] out. Real shame.
Na From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10736 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (10 years 1 month 8 hours ago) and read 4354 times:
Iagree with you, mainly with the second part you wrote.
The boringness of the bulk of new aircraft has nothing to do with which manufacturer is behind it though. With the exception of the grand 747 no Boeing aircraft is more interesting than its direct competion from Airbus or vice versa.
If B777, Tu-204 or A320, the twin-engined/underwing concept is the most boring looking aircraft configuration I can imagine.
Hmmmm... From Canada, joined May 1999, 2104 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4240 times:
The sonic cruiser would have been a departure to something exciting. Instead, we'll get the 7E7. Another medium-sized twin jet on the horizon. But what's special about it is that it will be more fuel efficient - Hurray!
As airliner aficionados, what's sad is that the performance envelope of today's jets is pretty much the same as it was 50 years ago. In 50 years, only efficiency and reliability have changed drastically. Airliners still fly at around 40,000 ft, at around mach 0.8. That was the case with the Convair 880/990 in the early '50s and it is still the case today half a century later.
And in size little has changed in the last 35 years. The largest plane could carry about 450 passengers in 1970. Today, 35 years later, the largest plane can carry about - 450 passengers. In a few years, a supposedly massive plane will enter service carrying - 550 passengers - an increase in size of 20% over a span of 35 years. Not historically impressive.
In aviation, half a century is the difference between the Ford TriMotor and the moon landing. But in the physics of airliners, raw performance has been stagnant. Yes, there are sound technical and economic reasons for this stagnation. And that is the sad part.
[Edited 2004-08-25 05:10:22]
An optimist robs himself of the joy of being pleasantly surprised
Isitsafenow From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4984 posts, RR: 23
Reply 10, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4220 times:
RAREBEAR is right! Its just not the same kiddies, as it was in the 60's. From the outside,the jets were noisy and smelled more...the fuel was a different mixture and had a heavy kero odor compared to todays light odor. And they had something called visible exhaust....REAL Visible......Not today, gang.
getaways were few and far apart. We boarded on stairs and really went outside to get on the plane. In flight meals were HOT and real like in a restaurant....no sandwiches
If two people agree on EVERYTHING, then one isn't necessary.
Zippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 5478 posts, RR: 12
Reply 13, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4158 times:
How about those old original DC-8's. The ones with those Palomar funky seats with the light built in the back of your seat back! This really dates me; I remember as a wee lad that if you flew out of the airport formerly known as BAL (Friendship) now BWI that if you wanted to fly nonstop to MIA and even ATL, it was EA or DL. And back in the day (early to mid 60's) at the gate stood an 8 complete with curtains and that hybrid jet/prop cabin with those seats. And those Boeing 720's flown by EA! Yeah baby, those were swinging 60's ultra cool and modern with those space age dome lights.
Miamix707 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4087 times:
Look at your car, it might have the aluminium of a DC9 in it.....
Ha hahaha never thought about that, makes me go outside and kick my car to "feel" for aluminum
To me, there is still nothing like hearing an L-1011 Tristar starting up its engines. That deep rumble goes right through you. Sadly, they are almost all gone
Oh yeah baby yeah! Sounds like a locomotive or something when spooling up, have that sound fresh on my mind!
I'll have to agree with LVZXV completely. While some new aircraft are impressive, analyzing the looks the A340-600s and those overstretched/ overshrunk Airbuses and some Boeings are just ugly. They look even worse in pictures, not anywhere as photogenic as the good old jets were. Overall the 60s and 70's produced great creativity, today the best they can do is try their hand at retro looks to re-live these decades. I hope that would carry over to aviation but so far it hasn't happened.
As far as civil airliners and their evolution has remained relatively flat. As Hmmm said above only efficiency and reliability have changed drastically, and im not even sure if I'd call the change drastic.
Hopefully, more colorful airline liveries will come back into fashion in a few years. I'm sick of nearly every airplane being painted white and blue
I hope they hear you!!! This horrible trend of horrendous liveries in the past 10 years doesn't seem to end ;(
Ringwaymanc From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 81 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4037 times:
Ah! A man after my own heart...I used to work at Manc UK (ring) in the 80's and early 90's...Real airplanes...tri-jets a-plenty...The noise around the airport was better...1-11's and 727's made everything shake...What a difference a decade or two makes in aviation......Turn back the clock is what I say.....