mia305
Topic Author
Posts: 322
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 5:26 am

Fantasy: Planes That Should Still Be Flying?

Tue Mar 05, 2013 5:18 pm

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
useful today.

[Edited 2013-03-05 09:21:12]
 
abrown532
Posts: 163
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 5:17 pm

Fantasy: Planes That Should Still Be Flying?

Tue Mar 05, 2013 5:19 pm

B757 Obviously. Beautiful aircraft.
 
mia305
Topic Author
Posts: 322
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 5:26 am

Fantasy: Planes That Should Still Be Flying?

Tue Mar 05, 2013 5:22 pm

The 757is beautiful but is still flying
 
User avatar
ER757
Posts: 2473
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 10:16 am

Fantasy: Planes That Should Still Be Flying?

Tue Mar 05, 2013 5:23 pm

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
Posts: 2146
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:24 am

Fantasy: Planes That Should Still Be Flying?

Tue Mar 05, 2013 6:07 pm

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...
 
mia305
Topic Author
Posts: 322
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 5:26 am

Fantasy: Planes That Should Still Be Flying?

Tue Mar 05, 2013 6:14 pm

I loved flying the L1011 I remember taking trips on them from mia/lax, atl/lax and to sfo.
Nice flights on all of them, ill never forget the RB211's the hum they had on start up and flying.
 
CamiloA380
Posts: 355
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 3:51 pm

Fantasy: Planes That Should Still Be Flying?

Tue Mar 05, 2013 6:19 pm

For me its between MD11 and 732. I'll go with the 732, simply 'cuz it's the best machine Boeing ever made! 

Regards.
Flying4Ever!
 
martinrpo1
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 6:40 pm

Fantasy: Planes That Should Still Be Flying?

Tue Mar 05, 2013 6:20 pm

B727 and MD-11. The two most beautiful planes ever built.
 
n729pa
Posts: 623
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 6:16 pm

Fantasy: Planes That Should Still Be Flying?

Tue Mar 05, 2013 6:21 pm

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.
 
JU068
Posts: 2094
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2009 8:23 am

Fantasy: Planes That Should Still Be Flying?

Tue Mar 05, 2013 6:22 pm

I would go for the Tu-154!
 
mia305
Topic Author
Posts: 322
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 5:26 am

RE: Fantasy: Planes That Should Still Be Flying?

Tue Mar 05, 2013 7:02 pm

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.
 
dc9northwest
Posts: 2142
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 5:33 am

RE: Fantasy: Planes That Should Still Be Flying?

Tue Mar 05, 2013 7:09 pm

DC-9... by this time next year.
 
aloges
Posts: 14842
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: Fantasy: Planes That Should Still Be Flying?

Tue Mar 05, 2013 7:14 pm

Quoting n729pa (Reply 8):
I think for me it would have to be Concorde.

Definitely! I cannot fathom how it took until reply #8 for her to be mentioned. So glad I got to witness one of her take-offs shortly before retirement... that was one impressive moment.   
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
mia305
Topic Author
Posts: 322
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 5:26 am

RE: Fantasy: Planes That Should Still Be Flying?

Tue Mar 05, 2013 7:26 pm

I remember seeing to concorde take off form mia. Those afterburners
shook everything around. Ahh the memories.
 
User avatar
ER757
Posts: 2473
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 10:16 am

RE: Fantasy: Planes That Should Still Be Flying?

Tue Mar 05, 2013 9:06 pm

Quoting n729pa (Reply 8):
it would have to be Concorde

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
 
User avatar
solnabo
Posts: 5019
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:53 am

RE: Fantasy: Planes That Should Still Be Flying?

Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:56 am

For me it would be Convair 990 - Coronado hands down, the fastest jet at the time

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LBHZvLDhvU

Cheers   

[Edited 2013-03-05 17:06:31]
Airbus SAS - Love them both
 
Ldriver
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 8:45 am

RE: Fantasy: Planes That Should Still Be Flying?

Wed Mar 06, 2013 4:03 am

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?
 
aloges
Posts: 14842
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: Fantasy: Planes That Should Still Be Flying?

Wed Mar 06, 2013 8:07 am

Quoting Ldriver (Reply 16):
If I had known at the time it was effectively a death trap I would have almost certainly backed out.

Surely you are joking?!
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
User avatar
neutrino
Posts: 948
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 5:33 pm

RE: Fantasy: Planes That Should Still Be Flying?

Wed Mar 06, 2013 1:44 pm

Quoting aloges (Reply 17):
Quoting Ldriver (Reply 16):
If I had known at the time it was effectively a death trap I would have almost certainly backed out.

Surely you are joking?!

He's not.
Just misinformed and ill-informed.
Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
 
User avatar
n901wa
Posts: 410
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 5:38 pm

RE: Fantasy: Planes That Should Still Be Flying?

Wed Mar 06, 2013 3:37 pm

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.
 
User avatar
readytotaxi
Posts: 3315
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:09 am

RE: Fantasy: Planes That Should Still Be Flying?

Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:01 pm

The Vickers Vanguard, my first flight as a child, wonderful big big windows, wow.
vickers


Also the L1011, huge cabin space and a great take-off sound. 
you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
 
mia305
Topic Author
Posts: 322
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 5:26 am

RE: Fantasy: Planes That Should Still Be Flying?

Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:33 pm

The A300 was nice as well. A hastle to load as the inplane system never worked.
But it could carry a decent number of pax and a lot of freight.
I flew on them a lot never any bad flights.
 
Ldriver
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 8:45 am

RE: Fantasy: Planes That Should Still Be Flying?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:47 am

Quoting neutrino (Reply 18):
Quoting neutrino (Reply 18):
He's not.
Just misinformed and ill-informed.

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
Topic Author
Posts: 322
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 5:26 am

RE: Fantasy: Planes That Should Still Be Flying?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 5:40 am

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.
 
Quokkas
Posts: 1327
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 5:51 pm

RE: Fantasy: Planes That Should Still Be Flying?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 10:31 am

"Hush Power."

With its T-tail and four rear-mounted engines, the Vickers VC-10. It set a record for sub-sonic trans-Atlantic flight and were it not for the price of fuel...
“Not to laugh, not to cry, not to hate, but understand.” Spinoza
 
Ldriver
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 8:45 am

RE: Fantasy: Planes That Should Still Be Flying?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 7:19 pm

Quoting mia305 (Reply 23):
In general the concord had a pretty good safety record.


I don't believe it. We can estimate this by the stats given on each of the 14 Concordes that flew commercially. They totaled about 210,000 hours upon their collective retirement. If we assume that each Concorde flight averaged at least 2.5 hours, we get about 84,000 flights total. One fatal event in 84,000 is pretty poor safety no matter how you cut it. That gives it - by far - a worse record than any Boeing or Airbus type, not to mention virtually all other Western-built types in operation during the same time as Concorde. At such an accident rate, we could expect over 100 fatal events annually in the US alone. That's absolutely terrible safety.
 
User avatar
Mortyman
Posts: 4140
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:26 pm

RE: Fantasy: Planes That Should Still Be Flying?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 7:43 pm

*
*
*
*

****Concorde****

*
*
*
*
 
RussianJet
Posts: 5983
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 4:15 am

RE: Fantasy: Planes That Should Still Be Flying?

Fri Mar 08, 2013 1:54 am

Quoting Ldriver (Reply 16):
If I had known at the time it was effectively a death trap I would have almost certainly backed out.

A 'death trap'?? That would be one of the single most foolish comments I've had the misfortune to read on this forum.

Quoting martinrpo1 (Reply 7):
MD-11
Quoting JU068 (Reply 9):
I would go for the Tu-154!
Quoting abrown532 (Reply 1):
B757 Obviously

You can get a ride on all of these without too much hassle at all. Well, MD-11 is on the brink but still possible. The other two are still around in serious numbers. The thread title is pretty clear.
✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
 
Ldriver
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 8:45 am

RE: Fantasy: Planes That Should Still Be Flying?

Fri Mar 08, 2013 2:45 am

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 27):
Quoting Ldriver (Reply 16):
If I had known at the time it was effectively a death trap I would have almost certainly backed out.

A 'death trap'?? That would be one of the single most foolish comments I've had the misfortune to read on this forum.

Hi,

Just wondering what your reasoning is. Just to make my meaning clear, the term death trap I use in a somewhat casual manner of speaking. It expresses what I believe to be an aircraft whose margins of redundancy were significantly less than other major airliners, and whose fatal crash rate was by far the worst in the industry. It would be the equivalent of the 777 having had 66 fatal events to date (it has actually had none) The Concorde crash I believe reflected an unsafe condition. A 777 would have no trouble taking off with a single engine. Ditto any other Boeing or Airbus machine with only half of its engines working. The Concorde crash plane couldn't even stay airborne with three of its 4 engines still operating.

regards
Chris
 
RussianJet
Posts: 5983
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 4:15 am

RE: Fantasy: Planes That Should Still Be Flying?

Fri Mar 08, 2013 2:54 am

Quoting Ldriver (Reply 28):

Just wondering what your reasoning is. Just to make my meaning clear, the term death trap I use in a somewhat casual manner of speaking. It expresses what I believe to be an aircraft whose margins of redundancy were significantly less than other major airliners, and whose fatal crash rate was by far the worst in the industry. It would be the equivalent of the 777 having had 66 fatal events to date (it has actually had none) The Concorde crash I believe reflected an unsafe condition. A 777 would have no trouble taking off with a single engine. Ditto any other Boeing or Airbus machine with only half of its engines working. The Concorde crash plane couldn't even stay airborne with three of its 4 engines still operating.

For starters, any such comparison when concorde has had only a single deadly incident is plainly ridiculous - it will never bear any statistical validity. Secondly, 'death trap' is a ridiculously strong term. Read up on the accident - like most crashed it had far more than one cause. You say you used this term 'casually' and yet it is inherently extreme in nature. Last of all, you used the term to describe an aircraft which a huge number of us here just about revere, widely acknowledged to be one of the greatest things to grace us in civil aviation ever, on a site for people with at least a semi-serious interest in aviation. That's why I consider your comment ridiculous.
✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19046
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Fantasy: Planes That Should Still Be Flying?

Fri Mar 08, 2013 3:39 am

Quoting Ldriver (Reply 16):
Interesting that Delta was one of the original DC-10 customers, then in short order replaced them with the L10. Does anyone know why?

Reply 2 in this thread explains why DL acquired the 5 DC-10-10s in 1972/73 and operated them briefly until 1975 when they went to UA.
Delta DC-10's (by Eadc910 Feb 3 2009 in Civil Aviation)

They were actually sold to UA after they were ordered and then leased from UA while operating for DL. They were basically an insurance policy in case the L-1011 wasn't delivered on time, or possibly not at all due to Rolls-Royce going bankrupt and having to be nationalized by the British government, which also almost caused Lockheed to go bankrupt until they were bailed out by the U.S. government to protect their various defense programs.

Once the L-1011 issues were resolved the leased DC-10s went to UA.
 
mia305
Topic Author
Posts: 322
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 5:26 am

RE: Fantasy: Planes That Should Still Be Flying?

Fri Mar 08, 2013 4:37 am

The Concorde crash wasn't a failure of the plane. It ran over a metal strip from
a CO DC10 that took off before it. It's tyres burst causing shrapnel to penetrate
the fuel tanks. When it caught fire that's when all the systems failed including
the engines. They were running normal unit just before impact with the ground.

Similar to the miracle on the hudson. One engine failed until they both went off.

It was a chain of events that caused the Concorde to crash

[Edited 2013-03-07 20:39:39]
 
Ldriver
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 8:45 am

RE: Fantasy: Planes That Should Still Be Flying?

Fri Mar 08, 2013 5:02 am

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 29):
For starters, any such comparison when concorde has had only a single deadly incident is plainly ridiculous

Thank you for your reply.

I didn't expect such a pointed reaction to a common phrase. So let me politely concede that "death trap" may be unduly harsh, and that one fatal event may be to little to go on, at least in and of itself. Sure, it's just one little number.

All this said, the statistic is not just sitting there by itself. It was also Conorde's high non-fatal incident rate, and the shortcomings in design suggested in the Paris crash, and past warning over the potential for a catastrophic take off accident going back 20 years. To make the case that Concorde was an accident waiting to happen seemed reasonable even to the NTSB. A handful of flights per day, it just strikes me as an unusually high number of events. How about if I changed the phrase to "potentially a death trap"? I don't think that's reckless speculation, even if not entirely provable.


And all THAT said, I did enjoy my Concorde ride in 1992. It vibrated continuously at low speed, and the windows were quite warm to the touch. When crossing the transonic zone, I didn't experience any unusual sensation. My main disappointment was not being able to see the plane up close from the outside. Even upon boarding I recall that the plane and the "tunnel" were completely sealed. But beautifully smooth it was once up there.

Cheers
 
rwy04lga
Posts: 1976
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 7:21 am

RE: Fantasy: Planes That Should Still Be Flying?

Fri Mar 08, 2013 5:13 am

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 24):

Agree! Without question, the VC-10 was, is, and always will be the most beautiful aircraft to grace the skies!

2nd: L-1011
3rd: Vanguard
4th: Constellation
Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
 
Ldriver
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 8:45 am

RE: Fantasy: Planes That Should Still Be Flying?

Fri Mar 08, 2013 5:18 am

Quoting mia305 (Reply 31):
The Concorde crash wasn't a failure of the plane. I

I understand the point. It was a chain reaction event. The point that I was disturbed by is, should we expect a tire explosion to bring down an airliner? Or a 17 inch long metal strip? Maybe this was just a fluke series of events. Or maybe not. That Concorde could not maintain altitude even with three engines still running suggests to me a less robust redundancy than other Western aircraft of its generation. And with just a handful of flights daily, such an event is of more alarm than had this been a proven aircraft with a few million take offs under its belt. That's just my thinking, foolish or otherwise. I leave others to judge that.

regards

Chris
 
mia305
Topic Author
Posts: 322
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 5:26 am

RE: Fantasy: Planes That Should Still Be Flying?

Fri Mar 08, 2013 5:32 am

I don't think we will see anymore crashes from a burst tyre. Concorde
had afterburners that caught the fuel on fire.

I doubt there will be another accident similar to that.

Overall the last decade of air safety in general has
good to outstanding. As I mentioned above
 
Ldriver
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 8:45 am

RE: Fantasy: Planes That Should Still Be Flying?

Fri Mar 08, 2013 5:45 am

Quoting mia305 (Reply 35):
Overall the last decade of air safety in general has
good to outstanding. As I mentioned above

On that last point I hope no one disagrees. It's really more astounding than most people seem to realize. In the US, for example, if you exclude commuter and regional aircraft, there have been something like 50-60 million airline flights, and no fatalities since 2001. There has never been anything like this before. The major crashes on 1st tier airlines are now so rare that when they do happen, some of my friends get all nervous (e.g. AF 447) I remind them that perhaps it's because accidents aren't as commonplace anymore that creates the paradoxical sense of alarm.
 
User avatar
neutrino
Posts: 948
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 5:33 pm

RE: Fantasy: Planes That Should Still Be Flying?

Fri Mar 08, 2013 6:39 pm

Quoting Ldriver (Reply 34):
The point that I was disturbed by is, should we expect a tire explosion to bring down an airliner?

Ever heard of the nursery rhyme "For want of a nail"?

For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the message was lost.
For want of a message the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.


In other words, small actions/occurances can and do result in large consequences.
I rest my case.
Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
 
Ldriver
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 8:45 am

RE: Fantasy: Planes That Should Still Be Flying?

Fri Mar 08, 2013 7:06 pm

This not being a Concorde safety thread, I'll end by saying, having reviewed the evidence again, it appears I am off base. There is, I think, a case the airplane had less redundancy, but the evidence for that is only suggestive. So I retract the "death trap" remark, and will try to remain more modest in the future.

Chris
 
moby147
Posts: 70
Joined: Fri Mar 08, 2013 12:30 am

RE: Fantasy: Planes That Should Still Be Flying?

Fri Mar 08, 2013 11:01 pm

My brother, sister & myself were able to buy a ticket for our father on Concorde 2-3 years before it 'retired' I was very sad that we did not have enough cash at the time for me to join him  

He always said it was the best flight he ever had in his life - Good enough for me
 
hh65man
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 7:52 am

RE: Fantasy: Planes That Should Still Be Flying?

Thu Mar 14, 2013 4:46 am

For me, it would have to be any prop driven plane. Bring back the sweet music of hearing pistons. I love the look of the Boeing 377, Connie and others...

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], deltaguy767 and 5 guests