"Ali Hopkins" wrote in message ...
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
pacplyer wrote:

As well, the lack of a robust wheel-well area that could not allow for
tire fragments at 200mph seems like another pioneering shortfall just
like square windows on a pressurized fuselage. My comments were not
meant to denigrate either spectacular flying machine, just to point
out that these were the first of their kind out of the gate, and that
without good factory/national support the continued operation of a
sole example seems risky at best. (but I too would like to see it fly
again.)

Err yes, and building lavatories that leak and cause structural
corrosion is 747s is a **** (sic) poor design feature as well. Your
point being?



Who cares? The 747 is so tough and has so much redundancy losing a
couple of stringers around the lavatory area is probably not going to
be catastrophic. Losing large portions of the rudder on the SST OTOH,
is potentially fatal (ever heard of Dutch roll?) Obviously, airlines
don't have to buy or operate 747's if they feel the quality control is
unacceptable. But if you knew anything about the airline world you
would know that these kind of things are common. Livestock charters
on 74 freighters cause thousands of times the corrosion you experience
from leaking lavs on pax birds. And none of them has ever fatally
crashed due to corrosion (or due to tires exploding under poorly
shielded fuel tanks for that matter.) You turd merchants like Ali who
ride around in the back and see everything from a pax perspective
don't have a clue what makes a good airliner. The truth is that in
many ways the 74 fuselage and wing plan form has not changed much
since 69'. The 74 was a timeless design. Unlike European airliners,
the Jumbo had four of everything. Losing generators or packs was a
non-event. On the other side of the showroom floor Airbus cut a lot
of that out and hence, were sold extremely cheap; they gave us our
simulators for free… and that's why airbus now owns half the world
wide market. Boeing under Condit, decided to just try and stretch
this outdated design and this is why the A380 managed enough orders to
go for it. (I won't even comment about the sorry Sonic Cruiser
fiasco.) My point, is that you can't fly an airframe forever and be
profitable without cooking the books. Many 100 series 747's are well
on their way to 100,000 hours. At 50,000 hours the electrical and
avionics harnesses were so bad in some of those things we went
straight to the bar because so many things failed on descent and
approach. We'd enter a dozen detailed write-ups in the log, and in
the morning the sign-off was "Chaffed wiring in inaccessible bulkhead,
OK to continue." We would memorize those junkers and the first thing
out of our mouth when the ramp agent made the alert call to the hotel
was: "What tail number is it?" If it was the "Cocaine Queen," which
was an Avionca bird seized by customs in Panama that sat with the tail
pointed out over the ocean for a year, which we later acquired, we'd
cringe. It had so much corrosion, the FAA wouldn't let us fly it in
our polished aluminum livery. They forced us to paint it just to hold
it together (that's what they told us!) But I'd rather be in that
thing than a ETOPs "Scarebus" A310 over the water with its dicked-up
ECAM and FMS computers and crummy man vs. machine autopilot issues and
psycho auto-throttle rollback to idle at 300 feet. Were the French
drinking wine when they programmed that code? LOL! What a bunch of
junk. (The power to weight was impressive, but the human interface
was a hazard to navigation.) Hell every time you fly in the rain the
roll spoiler computers quit. To save money there's no outboard
ailerons! It was tough to get out of a 45 degree bank at 330 kts!
Junk I say! It should have never been certified.

The 69' Concord is impractical and everybody knows it. If fuel spikes
way up the jumbo can just throttle back to LRC and still (in some
markets) break even on the belly freight alone, while the SST needs
to reduce service frequency until fuel gets cheap again (or
alternatively bilk the taxpayers.) But it's miserable and unhealthy
to fly in coach in 10 abreast seating for over five hours at high load
factors. The original 74 design only had 8 seats across. I hate
traveling in the back. I'm tired of breathing migrant worker airborne
TB particulates, and I'm tired of not having a ****ing armrest!

Maybe that petition should address the need to develop a new
generation SST. Put lots of lightweight airbus unobtainium in it,
cook the books, claim it will make a profit in ten orders, and then
have the gov pay for all the overruns again. What? Boeing did the
same thing with military contracts? No ****. Welcome to aviation you
boneheads. :^D LOL!

pacplyer – out

If it's not Boeing, I'm not Going!