Planespotting II
|
Re: Planespotting II
Can't say I'm surprised, it has been on death row for awhile with only Emirates staying the execution. Airbus introduced it far too late (like over a decade) and at far too high a price for it ever to work. The 777 and A330 already proved that quad jets were irrelevant in the era of long range ETOPS ratings.
|
Re: Planespotting II
Heard supersonics were coming back, the other day.
We'll see... (Or rather, hear...) |
Re: Planespotting II
Originally Posted by civilservant
(Post 12637009)
Can't say I'm surprised, it has been on death row for awhile with only Emirates staying the execution. Airbus introduced it far too late (like over a decade) and at far too high a price for it ever to work. The 777 and A330 already proved that quad jets were irrelevant in the era of long range ETOPS ratings.
Ironically I suspect that stopping making new ones may lead to the ones that are already flying being maintained in revenue earning service much longer. If you have one that you have owned for several years, and would like to replace it with a new one but can't because they no longer make them, refurbishment may be an attractive option. :unsure: There are a number of examples of such aircraft that remained in service long after they ceased production, in some cases for decades, with the DC3 Dakota being a classic example. In the world of military aircraft they are currently talking of ongoing refurbishment of B52's, that are currently expected to remain in service into the 2040's being further extended into the 2050's, meaning that they will be approaching 100 years old! The A10 Warthog is on a similar trajectory only 20 years behind the B52. |
Re: Planespotting II
I seem to recall reading recently that the a couple of the original airframes are sat somewhere being stripped for cheaper second hand parts then getting new parts from Airbus.
I suspect that they have a long long career ahead, even if only as freighters. I know that Fedex couldn't afford to buy one new, but imagine what they can haul across their trunk routes with a converted A380?? |
Re: Planespotting II
Here's a report about a B-57 Canberra that NASA refurbished after 41 years in the boneyard! :blink: I heard that NASA pulled another one out of the boneyard as recently as a year or two ago, making three that they now have in service. I guess they don't make 'em like they used to. :unsure:
The USAAF also pulled a B-52 out of the boneyard in the last year or two, to replace one they had lost. Among the items to attend to before it was airworthy again, was to bolt the wings back on! :rofl: |
Re: Planespotting II
Originally Posted by Hotscot
(Post 12637052)
Heard supersonics were coming back, the other day.
We'll see... (Or rather, hear...) https://boomsupersonic.com/ The Grudian is already spreading alarm about it: Heathrow could get sonic boom 'every five minutes' from fast jetshttps://www.theguardian.com/environm...from-fast-jets |
Re: Planespotting II
Originally Posted by MidAtlantic
(Post 12637086)
Yes, here it is. I'm not sure that calling it BOOM is the best PR strategy.
https://boomsupersonic.com/ The Grudian is already spreading alarm about it:Heathrow could get sonic boom 'every five minutes' from fast jets. ….. That would be some serious acceleration if sonic booms generated by departing aircraft could actually be heard at Heathrow! :hysterical: …. What do they envisage, aircraft launched by some sort of nuclear-powered rail gun? :unsure: I would guess that Swindon or Oxford might have more to worry about. |
Re: Planespotting II
Originally Posted by Pulaski
(Post 12637087)
That would be some serious acceleration if sonic booms generated by departing aircraft could actually be heard at Heathrow! :hysterical: …. I would guess that Swindon or Oxford might have more to worry about.
No better sight than watching Concorde landing at LHR. |
Re: Planespotting II
Originally Posted by MidAtlantic
(Post 12637089)
Or maybe they will be arriving at supersonic speed.. I would love to watch those landings!!!!:hysterical:
No better sight than watching Concorde landing at LHR. All that said, I enjoyed even more seeing Concorde's RR Olympus engines flying in another aircraft. :) |
Re: Planespotting II
Originally Posted by MidAtlantic
(Post 12637089)
Or maybe they will be arriving at supersonic speed.. I would love to watch those landings!!!!:hysterical:
Are we even at the stage where efficient and affordable supersonic travel is close to being on the cards though? That Concorde (as much as I love it) lasted as long as it did was something of a fluke, surely. Don't get me wrong, the idea of a 4hr flight from North America to the British Isles makes me tingle in a funny way, but I'd hate to see some kind of poorly implemented program fall on its arse again.
Originally Posted by MidAtlantic
(Post 12637089)
No better sight than watching Concorde landing at LHR.
|
Re: Planespotting II
All that said, I enjoyed even more seeing Concorde's RR Olympus engines flying in another aircraft. |
Re: Planespotting II
Originally Posted by civilservant
(Post 12637122)
XH558?
I would have loved to see the Argies when one appeared over Port Stanley. Surely that was about the last thing they expected to see flying over the Falklands, though just 30 days earlier, neither did anyone else on the planet! |
Re: Planespotting II
Only got to fly on a A380 once. Can't say it felt particularly special. If anything it was a nightmare with the boarding and departing procedures due to the sheer volume of the thing.
Much prefer the 777 and 787's I've been on lately. |
Re: Planespotting II
Originally Posted by BenK91
(Post 12637145)
Only got to fly on a A380 once. Can't say it felt particularly special. ……
…. 787's I've been on lately. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 4:28 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.