all hail the C-47
until Airbus does Military contracting
until Airbus does Military contracting
Poll
Which is better? Airbus or Boeing?
| Airbus | 31% | 31% - 42 | ||||
| Boeing | 68% | 68% - 92 | ||||
| Total: 134 | ||||||
Boeing FTW +1stryyker wrote:
all hail the C-47
until Airbus does Military contracting
SoC./Omega the dreamliner isn't going against the A380 no plane can compete against it, its the only plane of that size in the market. as soon as Boeing makes a plane that can carry 550 people then we got a competition on our hands.
love the pics of the dreamliner shame most of the cabin interior wont be like that in all of the different company's planes, BA/virgin/AA will rip them seats out and put in the ones we have today smaller seats= more seats = more money!!!
love the pics of the dreamliner shame most of the cabin interior wont be like that in all of the different company's planes, BA/virgin/AA will rip them seats out and put in the ones we have today smaller seats= more seats = more money!!!
Last edited by mavrick 3399 (2006-08-03 05:59:34)
There's no way I will fly on the A380. I have no desire to fly across an ocean with 500 other people then have to wait an hour to get off of the damned thing.
I will take a 747 first.
I will take a 747 first.
Airbus;
most technical accident occured on Boeing ...
most technical accident occured on Boeing ...
Actually, no, as you know that there are more americans in the forum than europeans.The_Mob_Returns wrote:
I think the results speak for themselves.
Airbus 25% 11 votes
Boeing 75% 33 votes
I believe that Aérospatiale and BAC are the best in creating the Concord.
Now that was a jet.
Now that was a jet.
Last edited by BigmacK192 (2006-08-03 15:01:10)
never trust an airplane that has its tail snap off because of too much rudder input. If the first dummy wasn't allowed to input so much rudder, the plane never should have let him. Can you say "rudder throw limiter".
as the ole' saying goes........"If it's not Boeing, I'm not going"
as the ole' saying goes........"If it's not Boeing, I'm not going"
Can you say trained pilot?
gonna have to call you out on that one ...BigmacK192 wrote:
I believe that Aérospatiale and BAC are the best in creating the Concord.
http://www.flygplan.info/images/concord.jpg
Now that was a jet.
THAT was a jet ...
EDIT - forgot damned IMG tags
Last edited by PuckMercury (2006-08-03 15:05:10)
lol, Okay, Military wise, Puck is right. The SR-71 pwns all.
As for passenger jets, Concord FTW.
As for passenger jets, Concord FTW.
Last edited by BigmacK192 (2006-08-03 15:06:54)
well it is painfully obvious that he WASN'T trained in regards to that system now doesn't it????????BigmacK192 wrote:
Can you say trained pilot?
Then why was he flying it?
I cant beleive someone made such a pointless poll. Who actually cares? My Dad is an engineer and designed parts for the A380, but that dosnt swing me towards Airbus.
And Yeah Concord ftw and ftw even more cos of it being partley British design
And Yeah Concord ftw and ftw even more cos of it being partley British design
Last edited by daffytag (2006-08-03 15:12:14)
Well had you stipulated, "Now THAT'S a passenger jet" then I would have let it lie ... but to make such a statement as "Now THAT'S a jet" was a step too far!!!BigmacK192 wrote:
lol, Okay, Military wise, Puck is right. The SR-71 pwns all.
As for passenger jets, Concord FTW.
;-)
It cracks me up that the Concord lands at such a steep angle of attack the nose/cockpit actually has to tilt down like 30 degrees ... looks like a bird with a broken beak. Nice plane, though.
Pilots are human just like you and me, and if the tail is gunna fall off because of too much input into a rudder system, prudence and safety, (not to mention common fuckin' sense) would dictate that you not only train the pilot about such occurrences, but you also mechanically keep such inputs from being applied in the first place.BigmacK192 wrote:
Then why was he flying it?
Or are you gunna tell me that there is no need to put rails on ships, that training the sailors not to fall over board is good enough.
you should not permit an aircraft to perform an action detrimental to it's integrity. Cars have speed sensitive steering, it isn't a stretch to carry such a system over to speed sensitive rudder/aileron/elevator range.
the smartest part was Airbus building a jet so big no airport could handle it, there's foresight, they really pissed me off the way they more or less ignored the enviro laws in expanding their facility, in addition to endangering all the historical building with turbulence at the end of the runways, any germans on here know if that beautiful church with the several hundred year old pipe organ has been damaged yet?DSRTurtle wrote:
There's no way I will fly on the A380. I have no desire to fly across an ocean with 500 other people then have to wait an hour to get off of the damned thing.
I will take a 747 first.
(Airbus's main test facility is located in Germany, despite them being French)
does anyone else feel like we have gone backwards by scrapping concord??
it was too expensivemavrick 3399 wrote:
does anyone else feel like we have gone backwards by scrapping concord??
and to clear up any wandering minds as to who is the superior builder
boeing.
boeing.
boeing.
boeing.
boeing.
boeing.
boeing.
questions?
Last edited by stryyker (2006-08-04 02:19:31)
most of them are military aircraft. and the fact That airbus dont make any no competition!!!
ps stryyker love the sig!!!!
ps stryyker love the sig!!!!
It is a huge plane..it looks clumsy. Plus.. imagine you are having a shower in the plane, and the pilot suddenly announces.."The seat belt sign has just come on. Passengers, please return to your seat and fasten your seatbelts until the seatbelt sign is off".. You are butt naked, in a shower..and the plane is flying right into turbulence, what the hell do you grab? Fasten yourself on the toilet seat?cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Airbus A380 holds more ppl, pretty efficient and its classy
