What's the best airliner, and why is it the A220?
>>1680984It really is
>>1680974It looks like an airplane, but it's just not sexy
>>1680974>not posting the 752How does it feel to be wrong, OP?
>>1681029Based. Boeing was retarded for canning it.
>>1680974What do you mean with "best"?Best in it's era? Best aesthetics? Best sound?Actually, never mind, the answer is always the Super Constellation.
>>1680974What a disgusting livery
>>1680974Always and forever, the tristar
>>1680974What a nice livery
You're all wrong.
>>1681029Boeing could've avoided the MAX disaster if they just kept pumping this out
>>1681295>ywn fly 4,000 nmi on a 757-8 with geared turbofans
>>1681249But anon that's a 747 not a 757
>>1681295Boeing really fucked themselves over by discontinuing the 757
>>1681254This is the correct answer
>>1681317what the fuck is that
>>1681323BAe-146. Looks like it might be the former British Royal BAe-146
>>1681249Based jumbo chad
>>1681317>>1681328They're really quiet. At least compared to the 737s that also fly out of my local airport.
>>1681348They were marketed as a Whisperjet.
From a passenger perspective the A380 is the best airliner although the A220 is the most comfortable narrowbody. From an airline perspective the A320 NEO is the best with the B737MAX a close second.
>>1681412I've never flown on the A380, what makes it better for the passengers than other big widebodys like the A340 or 747?
>>1681416Nothing. Interior comfort and amenities are determined by the airline operating it, not the manufacturer.
>>1681412>From a passenger perspective the A380 is the best airliner.Why wouldn't it be a 787 with its lower cabin altitude and humidity system?
>>1680974it's actually the md11
>>1681424Whew lad>It was during this period that flaws in the MD-11's performance became apparent. It failed to meet its targets for range and fuel burn. American Airlines in particular was unimpressed with the 19 MD-11s that it received, as was Singapore Airlines who canceled their order for 20 MD-11s and instead ordered 20 Airbus A340-300s. American Airlines cited problems with the performance of the engines and airframe, while Singapore Airlines stated that the MD-11 could not operate on the airline's long haul routes. Pre-flight estimates indicated that the P&W-powered MD-11 was to have a 7,000 nautical miles (13,000 km) range with 61,000 pounds (28,000 kg) of payload. With the Phase 1 drag reduction in place then, the aircraft could only achieve its full range with 48,500 pounds (22,000 kg) of payload, or a reduced range of 6,493 nautical miles (12,025 km) with a full payload.>In an effort to improve fuel efficiency, McDonnell Douglas designed the MD-11's center of gravity to be much farther aft than other commercial aircraft. There was also a fuel-ballast tank in the MD-11's horizontal stabilizer since its tailplane was smaller than the DC-10's to improve fuel efficiency, but this was found to inhibit the MD-11's crosswind performance. These design features, coupled with standard landing speeds 20-30 knots faster than comparable aircraft, significantly reduce the MD-11's margin for error during the takeoff and landing phases, making it more difficult to handle than the smaller DC-10. A number of operators have introduced special training to assist crews in safely handling the MD-11's critical phases of flight. Because of the aft center of gravity, several incidents have occurred where the aircraft has been overloaded with cargo and tipped back on its tail, leaving the nose gear off the ground.
>>1681249Indisputable. The Jumbo Jet is like the T-Rex of Airliners.
>best Airbus is a rebadged Canadian planeHow will Euros recover?
tasteless children, the lot of you
>>1681412This isn't even true.>>1681422This is the best, all other things being equal.
>>1681505Shame about the …everything really. It was such a gorgeous piece of machinery.
>>1681003My Nigga!>tfw when you got to ride the last of SWA's -200 but will probably never make it to Montreal to fly on Nolinor out to the sticks on a gravel stripFeels bad man
>>1681435>Singapore Airlines who canceled their order for 20 MD-11s and instead ordered 20 Airbus A340-300s.B R U T A LRUTAL
>>1681435it's still the most fuckable airliner ever built and that is the only metric that matters
>>1681607it's so obviously old-fashioned, but there's something about that metallic look, it just works
>>1681317I'm surprised high wing airliners aren't more popular given how heug engines are getting nowadays
>>1681729high-wing looks awful though
>>1681730wallah you would be receiving a beating were we in person
>>1681435>This MD-11 that was involved in the accident at the airport this week...>The one that tipped over? That's not very typical, I'd just like to make that point.
>>1681788What's the MD-11's minimum crew reruirement?
>>1681759>posts one of the ugliest aircraft in the skies todaythe short ones are borderline ok but that's just gross
>>1681759ATRs are better is every way.
>>1681059Now that's a beauty.
>>1682104but look at the proportions, how even the longest variant looks RIGHT with those big slim engines
>>1682126Thats so pretty. Its such a shame flying turboprops is so rare in the US
>>1682126>Landing gear in the engine nacelles
>>1682161where the fuck else are you gonna put it on a plane like this?
>>1682163Not like it hasn't been done...
>>1682126i was not lied to about this board
>>1682169spill the beans, what did you hear?
>>1682174we see dead people
>>1682126>rear half of the plane>fuck yo view
>>1682200flight on a dash-8 lasts about two seconds, yo
>>1681321meh, the MAX 10 is basically the same as a 757 anyhowwhat they need is a 767 refresh to fill the gap
>>1682518the 757 was superior because it actually had more potential to continue the design, since it had a better airframe and higher landing gear. further variants would have likely outranged it as well. the MAX 10 on the otherhand commits seppuku because of its engine placement and its software.
>>1682275I remember riding the original Shamu out of Houston Hobby back around 2000. It sucked because it was at night and you couldn't see it out the gate window all that well.
>>1682518737 MAX 10: 230 single class seats.757-200: 239 single class seats. You aren't wrong, but the 752 with its original engines can go about 700 nmi more than the 737 MAX 10. Plus, for reasons stated in >>1682546, it can accept larger turbofan diameters. Just an engine change would get 20% more range for the 752, and would give a 753 the same range or better than a 737 MAX 10 with 65 more passengers in a single class setup. It really is too bad that Boeing canned the production line, because the hypothetical 757 MAX 7, 8, and 9. are the planes they needed four years ago.
>>1682624they still have the 767 line open though, hopefully someone is working on some refresh variants of it
>>1682872especially since a LOT of 767's are about to come due for retirement soon, a like-for-like replacement would be well-received by the airlines
>>1682872>>1682874They only make dedicated freighter 767s still (and tankers). They have long since stopped building passenger versions.
>>1682882it'd still be a lot easier to convert back to passenger versions than to spin up an entirely new assembly line
>>1682962Based. Best looking medium haul by far.
>>1683032>>1682962the proportions of such a long narrow-body plane seem like they OUGHT to be comical, but it works somehow
I'M SORRY, WHATI CAN'T HEAR YOU OVER THE SOUND OF HOW AWESOME I AM
>>1681759>dashtrashI can't wait for Embraer's new SuperBro to finally rid the world of the Q400.
>>1683401>putting turboprops on an A220why
>>1683403Why not? Turboprops are the future. Once all the people who think every prop is a DC-3 are gone we could start using them for like 90% of regional domestic flights in the us with no perceiveable difference to the passenger.
>>1683401that looks sexy.>>1683457I can't wait, m8. Flew on a Saab 340 over in Scotland and was hooked instantly.
>>1683457I can't imagine they're less noisy than fans inside and out
>>1683401>T-tail>those sleek af engine podsOnly weird thing is how the wing box is far larger than the actual wings.
>>1683457Why would turboprops be the future aside from efficiency/economy reasons? If you like them so badly I can give you a very loud speaker, a microphone and a bag full of horny mosquitoes to stuff your head in. I'll make sure the experience lasts long so you can enjoy the slow as fuck speeds too.
>>1683547>aside from efficiency/economy reasonsI mean that’s the big one. But let’s do some real rough math and say you’ve got a 2000km flight: an e170 can do it in 2 hours 30 minutes, a dash 8 can do it in 3h20m. Considering flights would be shorter than that, since that’s about the max range of a dash 8, I don’t think it’s that much of a trade off if ticket prices dropped 20%.
>>1683558That's a loss of almost an hour. I'd need a bigger discount than 20% to take it. (Ignoring that fares are set by demand)
>>1683558There is no way that offsets the additional accumulating operating hours on the airframe. Just on a time basis in your example, the turboprop would have to be less than 75% the cost of the turbofan per hour. All those extra hours in the turboprop mean one fewer cycle per day, too.
>>1683569>>1683567I used that as an example because that would be worst case. 1200km and you could cover both coasts north to south from a central hub, and that’s only 2 hours in the air. If we could fly more smaller planes and therefore cut down on airport times, the difference starts to be negligible.
>>1683579Those ranges are too far to make business sense for turboprops. There's a reason it's not done despite the technical capability already existing.
>>1681249This is the correct awnser
>>1683547>Why would turboprops be the future aside from efficiency/economy reasons?Love how you just skip the most important and obvious reason that motivates virtually every company, government and organization in existence.
>>1681323A jumbolino.Really great lil thing.
>>1682962weird long legged insect creature of an aircraft
This is the ideal narrowbodyYou may not like it, but this is what peak performance looks like
>>1686423Looking pretty sleek for a plane that's pushing 60 years.
>>1686423too good for this sinful earthnow all we have are hideously overbloated A380's and stupid 737's that crash on takeoff
>>1680984>737fuck yeah>first-genfuck no
>>1687932The 737 only looks good with low-bypass engines.Change my mind
>>1688115go back to bed, grandpa
>>1682874The 767 is ancient by today’s standards, its used only as a cheap cargo planes or as an airforce tanker
>>1688305Delta is currently in the middle of putting new interiors in their whole 767 fleet
I miss it so much
>>1688307I thought Delta was scrapping their entire 767 fleet within the next few years>>1688308massively overhyped as an actual plane, but goddamn was it sexy
>>1683401>engine pods ABOVE the wingswho the fuck thought that was a good idea
>>1688193The 707 changed the world and went on to become the most important military asset for hvaa for the usaf with thousands of tails and over 10 variants, most of which are in service today.Best plane of all time
>>1688364>>1688193Youre right about the 707, but that is a convair I think
>>1688365definitely an E-3 Sentry, based on the 707
>>1688316>I thought Delta was scrapping their entire 767 fleet within the next few yearsThey've been recalling the older -300ERs to service from storage as routes to countries that demand that kind of aircraft open up. Only the bare minimum a/c they need to recall will be used. I don't know how many are stored awaiting return to service, but some of them may never fly again (with Delta at least) before their stated retirement in 2025.
>>1688387what's going on with this weird tumor
>>1688388Satellite entertainment system/ internet and other shit
>>1688387Agreed, the 737 is the most sovlful plane in production today, it’s just so photogenic
>>1688391it's deffo a sexy-ass plane
>>1688364>>1688365>>1688368You posted an E-3 yes but >>1688193 is a Convair 880
>>1688317It's been working for the Saab 340 just fine.
>>1688317Works well for the Honda jet
>>1688387I miss the old scheme
>>1688522>so loud you have to yell to your seat mate>literally shakes itself apart>too big for no reason other than dick waving in front for the brits and the french>complete and utter failureBut it was first. Technically.
>>1688544Still looks better
>>1688522>AEROFLOTI'd rather walk home
>>1688544Comfort is for fat bourgeois passengers.
>>1688777but I like comfort
>>1688539Doesn’t look pretty at all, the best scheme for the 737 is the old metallic American scheme
>>1688879maybe not best, but it was a damn good one
>>1688879yeah i liked the polished aluminium as well
name a more iconic duoyou can't
are these any good?I was thinking of buying a couple to spruce up my desk at home
>>1686423holy shit that's like 757 with 4 engines. Love it
You are all horribly wrong.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OndIPDsFbX4
>>1689129>mountains completely stripped bare of treesdid hawaii get all eco-fascist in the last 40 years or why do modern pictures not look like an apocalyptic 3rd world wasteland?
>>1689635tourism is their number one industrypeople will stop coming if the whole place looks like hell
>>1689635I suppose the hills are more bushy in my pic, but the low plains there is most likely a sugar cane plantation, another big product for Hawaii, though not as much GDP as tourism.
>>1689685* more bushy than full tree'd
>>1689632the DC-8-61/63/71/73 is the longest single-aisle airliner ever made at 187 feetthe 757-300 is the second-longest at 179 feet
>>1688705It's actually pretty good now. Better service than any of the shit USA airlines
I like the dreamliner. I used to fly a lot when I was little on all types of weird passenger planes and then when I flew with this when I was older it was really nice with the moist air, higher cabin pressure, ambient lights, lower noise. Looks kinda modest too.
>>1690166flew a 787 from Paris to Chicago, easily the nicest plane I've ever been on
>>1690230AA recently told their flight crews not to do that
>>1690230That's an airline practice, not a manufacturer's setting
>>1690244>The fact that any airline was given that capability at all was a shit idea by Boeing.Pure autistic seething lol
>>1690244anything important on a plane should be controllable by the crewstill makes them assholes for making it regular policy until recently though
>>1690509>He thinks getting the last word in means "he wins"Your weakness is sperging out just like this. Just accept that the problem with the window tint locking was solely the airline's fault and not Boeing's. It's not a big deal to be wrong, dude.
>>1690566Did you mean to reply to >>1690519?
>>1690460Take your meds faggot.
>1690590>Take your meds faggot.
>>1690237Cabin crew do that, we don’t give 2 shits about what the passengers are doing
>>1690566Umm why does that 747 has the Pedrollo logo, while under continental livery?
>>1691417Continental has been using that logo since the 60's, brah
>>1691507well, "had"....they got bought by United in 2012
Everything I know about Continental and United indicates Continental was the smaller but better airline between the two
>>1681424DC-10/MD-11 is the only good-looking tri-jet
>>1681759whoever approved that tail art should be fired
>>1682275flew on Shamu from Detroit to St Louis when I was 9, that was really fucking cool
>>1692965I think it's nice
>>1681317It's about the easiest jet to land. Pretty difficult to slam it in! The Queen would expect nothing less.
>>1681317god that's hideous
>>1686423too good for this sinful earth
>>1681759PORTER PORTER PORTER PORTER PORTER PORTER PORTER PORTER PORTER PORTER PORTER PORTER PORTER
>>1693940It's actuallyporter porter porter porter porter porter porter porter porter porter porter porter porter
>>1692965the tail I like, what always gets me is the company name slapped in random sizes on random bits of the fuselagein what situation can you see the fore, but not the cockpit, and not the engines, and NEED to know it's porter?
>>1694079that livery is terribleI love it
>>1694072it would be different if the name had the/a logo next to it, or the text itself was at least visually interestingbut nope, it's some really boring-looking font, in all lower-case
>>1694079did they steal it from an estonian line and just give up halfway through repainting?
>>1694079that's five different colors, if you count bare metal as onewho the fuck approved that
>>1694079How did anyone ever think naming an airline "Anilingus" was a good idea?
>>1694344no idea, m8
>>1690166I don't know much about airplanes, I only come to /n/ for bike threads, but I flew on a dreamliner a few years ago on a 13 hour flight and it was easily one of the most silent planes I've been on. It was surreal how quiet it got once it reached cruise altitude.
>>1691193Learn how to use 4chan newfag
>>1694951most modern planes are like this now, but the 787 is so damn good at itbattery problems aside, it's the one thing Boeing has gotten right since the merger
>>1680974The 737 by far is the best
A320 checking in, what’s it like not even having a tray table?
the best airliner is whatever happens to be landing currently at your local airport, obv
>>1695765can confirm, lol
>>1695765this, but unironically
>>1695770Is that some kind of spook shuttle or what?
I like the pencil plane.
>>1695765Best callsign, too.
>>1696009that's a nice livery on that plane, simple, but still interesting
>>1681505*disintegrates in mid-air*
>>1696324the debris and crushed houses is where the soul comes from
>>1681063that ducted engine was a mistakejust slap the third one on the tail like the DC-10 and fucking own it
>>1696370The DC-10 looks like a fucking ms-paint edit, S-ducts are sleek. The big fuck up was designing it to only take one engine, and a fucking rolls Royce at that.
>>1696387RR was the only company offering an engine compact enough to work with the S-duct (and also generate enough thrust) at that timeactually, that's not exactly true...NOBODY had a suitable engine at the time, but RR was the only company willing to promise they could make one in time for rolloutS-ducts aren't sleek, they look like someone forgot half the engine
>>1696392While that’s true, look how that worked out. Rolls had to be nationalized because failing to deliver the engine meant Lockheed fails to deliver the Tristar and subsequently bankrupts itself, which turns into an international relations disaster.Unless they had a backup design from another manufacturer, is there really no way to design the plane to accommodate a larger engine?
>>1696404"Lockheed engineers were able to maintain straight-through engine performance by limiting the curve of the S-duct to less than a quarter of the radius of the engine intake diameter."If they went with a bigger engine, the current duct would have to curve too sharply to feed it air, which would mean a bigger/more-forward duct, at which point you're probably just better off going the DC-10 route
>>1696410I’m no aerospace engineer, but can you not have the back of the engine extend past the tail? Obviously they would have thought of that but I guess I wonder why not?
>>1696429planes need to pitch up for takeoff (to get the right angle of attack on the wing for sufficient lift), and also on landing (so the stronger landing gears in the fuselage and/or wings touch down first)the longer a plane is, the less rotation angle you get before you either get a tailstrike, or you have to reposition the landing gears to compensate
>>1683398>How awesome I was supposed to beHow's it feel to only exist in concepts?
>>1683398This guy needs to carry an epipen.
based turboprops, coming through
>>1683398The MD-12 was such a bad idea that they didn't even build it after McDonnell collapsed and their management took over Boeing.
>>1697574LETS FUCKING GO!!!!!!!
>>1697595wtf is thatit's like the airline version of a short bus
>>1698165>Soviet 727 knockoffno thx
>>1696835Could you have something more like a dorsal fin than a tail fin?
>>1698556the vertical (and, for the same reasons, horizontal) stabilizers are placed at the absolute rear of the plane for a very good reason....LEVERAGEthe further away from the center of mass (almost always near the center of the plane's length, for a variety of reasons), the more pitch and/or yaw you can generate by moving the control surfaces....pushing them forward on the plane's fuselage just makes them more inefficient
>>1698560That actually makes a lot of sense, thanks
>>1681063Boo-eing and Arbusss can't tristar ▲ ▲ ▲
>>1682275Silly plane, you're a plane, not a se-animal-whose-name-escapes-me-as-I-write-this
>>1688300Looks like one of those short but really fat cocks.
Lmao this thread is back >it appears my superiority has lead to some controversy
>>1699030C H O D E P L A N E
>>1699034look how they massacred my boy
I wanna work at airport
>>1680974>A220Perfect size. Good rival to 737 max
>>1702082Boeing needs a 717 refresh to counter, the MAX 7 is too big
>>1702142I hope to fly on a 717 again sometime in the future
>>1702192Delta still has some, see plenty of them operating out of Atlanta and Detroit
>>1702230Delta doesn't seem to use them on the west coast. I'll be going to Hawaii next year. I think they still have them as "island hoppers"
>>1702236They're the only other US airline who uses themhttps://www.hawaiianairlines.com/our-services/at-the-airport/our-fleet/boeing-717-200
>>1702247Thanks for posting that. It was informative for my future plans.
>>1702230>Delta still has someI thought Delta leased them all to Hawaiian?
>>1702895>9 passengers>200 knots>unironic piston engines
>>1683547Yeah why should the future be about efficiency? We should instead mandate diesel sprayers on every aircraft to create a burning smoke trail as they zoom across the skies.
>>1704347>designed to ferry overpaid businessmen between the cape, islands, and their summer home in the hamptonsTurbines are overkill, these things just need to have zero downtime and go up and down a thousand times a day.
>>1704365Jets are more reliable than pistons...
These were always cool
>>1704403I like those.
>>1681317I have only flew twice on it between lgw to inv and it was comfy as fuck. The high wing gave great views and it's cabin was unusual wide and spacious.A shame that they are so rare these days.
>>1704403God I miss that United livery.
>>1704539I like the "globe" tail logo better than the "tulip", but the rest of the livery is boring AF....all three of the main US carriers are pretty shit besides the tail, actuallyonly the cheapo airlines bother to do interesting liveries
as an ATC, all those slow climbing pieces of shit can go fuck themselvesE190A320B737All of the rest is fucking garbage.High performance private jets are god tier.
>>1704564https://youtu.be/zbcmrYfrc18I’d kill to experience a takeoff like this
>>1704564*blocks your path*
>>1704572Oldfag here. I remember flying on Eastern Airlines as a kid in the 1970s. The pilot would let the engines come up to 100% power while holding the brakes, you'd hear the turbojets roaring, then he'd release the brakes and plane would haul ass. Once he got off the ground, he'd climb out scary-steep.It was a joy to behold and you could tell the dude was former military in the way he handled the plane. No nanny bullshit or fuel management, it really seemed like he had a little fun with the plane.
>the only airplane on this list without a hull loss resulting in loss of life (other than A340)Best plane.
>>1705718The smaller e-jets are super comfy
how much freight can you even put in one of these
>>1706034That’s a long flight for that little guy, and it’s not like there’s not already a shitload of traffic between Fort Worth and Austin. Must be something important.
>>1706035gotta be something super time-sensitive to even bother with a plane at that rangethey're only saving an hour, maybe two at most, instead of just trucking it from Dallas to Austin
>>1706040I see one of these all the time flying BDL-BDR, which is only a 2 hour drive in the absolute worst case. Maybe blood/organs/something medical?
I think the 737 MAX is incredibly pretty. It's too bad the aerodynamics were calibrated by a truffle pig, but still.
>>1706601MAX 10 should be scrapped in favor of an actual 757 successor
>>1706607>large narrowbodies are unprofitable!>introducing our new lengthened medium-size narrowbody!What was Boeing thinking?
>>1706781they (and Airbus) figured that large widebodies would continue to rule the roostRIP the 747 and A380
Boeing needs to re-work their lineup of planes to fill four niches:*A high-capacity wide-body that can seat up to 400 and make trans-pacific flightsThe upcoming 777x fills this role, though the stated range on the -9 (7285nm) cuts it a bit close on routes like Dallas-Hong Kong (7058nm) or Los Angeles-Sydney (6507nm), and can't fly directly from LAX to Singapore (7620nm)....an extended-range option would be nice at some point*A smaller wide-body with roughly the same range, but less capacity....up to around 300 seatsThe 787 sits here, though again even the longest-ranged variant (the -9 at 7635nm) leaves no room for error on the aforementioned LAX-Singapore route....ER options should be looked at for "skinny" routes as airlines start to shift away from hub-and-spoke*An increased-range narrow-body, with models of, say, around 170-175 and 215-220 seats, for cross-continent and trans-atlantic operationsThe 757 once occupied this slot, and it's a massive blunder on Boeing's part that they haven't yet launched their "NMA" to fill the niche....Airbus is trying to steal their lunch money in this segment with the A321XLR (range 4700nm), which can fly Atlanta-Frankfurt (4009nm) or even Dallas-Paris (4299nm) without having to stop in New York or London on the way*A smaller, high-efficiency narrow-body with models of between 100 and 150 seatsBoeing hasn't really been here since the 717, which wasn't even their plane, acquired and re-badged in the McDonnell-Douglas mergerAirbus, ironically, ALSO got theirs through acquisition, buying Bombardier's C-Series jets and rebranding them as the A220....and they're selling like freaking hotcakesThe A220-100 (3450nm) and -300 (3600nm) technically have the range to fly from the east coast to London, but the real market here is to basically be a "jumbo regional jet"....3000nm would be more than enough for routes like Seattle-Miami (2367nm) or London-Tel Aviv (1940nm) or even Frankfurt-Dakar (2466nm) with room to spare
>>1707012The 737 MAX is trying to be both of the last two niches at once, with the MAX 7 likely seating around 140 when configured for tri-class operations, and the MAX 10 around 200, but shoehorning both into the same basic airframe design just isn't good enough enough anymore, and the range on the MAX 10 (3300nm) is barely adequate to fly New York-London (2999nm)
>>1707557The MAX line is shit and the world can’t exist solely on composite wing engineering wet dream planes and tweaked designs from the 60s, but nobody is building anything in between.
>>1707557Boeing needs two separate models, instead of the 737 pretending to be both a small and a big plane
>>1681029>How do you do fellow 757s?>>1681063Pure aesthetics. Middle engine looks like twitterinos when I post racism>>1681505Based bad teeth tribe>>1699034>made by Jews>oversized noseImagine my shock
>>1698165Middle engine reminds me of pic related
>>1704773who the fuck thought this was a good idea
>>1683398OH LAWD, HE COMING
>>1694079good ol' Air Dingus
>>1681469Canadians are French anyway
>>1689635it's called a rainshadow moron
>>1680974For me, it's the A340.
Why is the A300 considered a bad airliner?
>>1705722>fly on delta e175>be 5'10 manlet>stand up too fast>smash head on overhead bin that's at neck heightoh yea real fucking comfy my guymaybe if you're a 4 foot el goblino
>>1681249other four-engined planes need not apply
>>1718898"Is" in the present tense -- because it's obsolete."Was" in the past tense -- it wasn't considered bad at the time
>>1720449That's what you get for standing up at your seat like a geriatric disphit.
>>1720449I’m 5’11” and just flew basic economy on a delta e175 and a crj900, sounds like a you problem
>>1720449>drive F-150>be 5'10" manlet>stand up>smash head on roofwtf bros the F-150 is for 2 feet manlets????
>>1704539It was my favorite United livery
For me, it's the C919.
>>1722108North American airlines straight-up won't buy itEuropean airlines will easily prefer the A320neo refreshesmaybe you can sucker some African airlines into buying it, but this is mostly for the domestic market only
>>1681424all tri-jets except 727 are ugly shits. especially md11 etc. talk about ugly.
You are all wrong. The VC-10 is the best.A340-600 is 3rd, Concorde is 2nd.
>>1724484>4 engines>all fuselage mountedterrible, take a lap
>>1681317I used to fly these all the time from Perth to Barrow Island for work, operated by Cobham air. Very quiet as everybody knows and the jets I flew on were comfortable with good leg room.Their appearance is also very endearing.
>>1681729Why do airliners typically opt for a mid-wing while military transporters use high-wings?
>>1681505You absolute Nimrod
>>1683547They make the same amount of (if not less) noise than jets. I find the the hum more pleasant anyway; Jets can sometimes be like being blasted with white noise from inside a seashell.Bring back the efficient unducted fan concept for ultimate ear-splitting buzz, say I.
>>1680974it is tho
For me, it's the One-Eleven
For me, it's La Caravelle
>>1729095>>1729102>engines attached to the fuselageabsolutely disgusting
For me it's the 777.There are some that are longer, some that are chonkier, but it just strikes a great balance to me. Plus I like the look of the nose&cockpit windows.
>>1729155one of the best engine sounds
>>1729234Definetly. Almost embarrassed I forgot to mention it haha
>>1681249Based 747 enjoyer. Found this thread and immediately thought OP was retarded, glad some people realize that Jewbus is not the way.
>>1729155luv me those fuckhueg engines