How about worst looking airliner?

Steven P. McNicoll writes:

[ L-1011 vs. DC-10 #2 engine placement ]

It wasn't a matter of not having room for the boom operator,
it was the effect on the receiving aircraft.


The RAF has used Tristar tankers for years. They use the
U.S. Navy-style probe and drogue refueling system, which,
if I remember correctly, appears to place receiving aircraft
at least as close to the #2 engine exhaust stream as the boom
system would've.



Geoff

--
"While everyone was delighted that P.J. had finally spoken
his first words, 'Give me back my zweiback, cock-gobbler'
was eventually deemed unfit for the baby book."
-- lizmo the Wonder Horse

"Geoff Miller" wrote in message
...


Steven P. McNicoll writes:

[ L-1011 vs. DC-10 #2 engine placement ]

It wasn't a matter of not having room for the boom operator,
it was the effect on the receiving aircraft.


The RAF has used Tristar tankers for years. They use the
U.S. Navy-style probe and drogue refueling system, which,
if I remember correctly, appears to place receiving aircraft
at least as close to the #2 engine exhaust stream as the boom
system would've.


B777 - bland boring unimaginative and just dull.

"Dave" wrote in
:



B777 - bland boring unimaginative and just dull.




Still better looking than the A320 series though... they look like a flying
math equation. I remember a time when the pointy end of a jetliner used to
be put on the front.

Dave writes:

B777 - bland boring unimaginative and just dull.


That's true of most airliners nowadays. Everything
looks generic, with two engines either under the
wings or stuck onto the aft fuselage. I never
thought I'd consider the once-ubiquitous 727 to be
exotic. but as far as design and appearance are
concerned, it certainly is by today's standards.



Geoff

--
"When a woman behaves like a man, why doesn't
she behave like a _nice_ man?" -- Edith Evans