Not sure, but the new Smithsonian has lots of room, I'd like to see a Stratocruiser join the exhibit. They have a DC-7C coming, and I believe a Connie. I would hope they get a 737-100, and a DC-8. Of course I would kill for a 747-SP.
Posted on 06/06/2005 10:41:11 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
Not sure, but the new Smithsonian has lots of room, I'd like to see a Stratocruiser join the exhibit. They have a DC-7C coming, and I believe a Connie. I would hope they get a 737-100, and a DC-8. Of course I would kill for a 747-SP.
The 247 was a revolutionary plane when introduced, but Boeing made the error of committing the initial deliveries to United, which was a sister company. This effectively froze all the other airlines out of the new technology. So Jack Frye of TWA went to Donald Douglas and asked him to build something that could compete with the 247. Thus was born the DC-1 and its follow on DC-2 and DC-3 versions.
Boeing's "United preference" caused the competition to build an alternative that turned out to be a "better mousetrap". There is a lesson to be learned here!
I think they'll get the prototype 737-100 that NASA used as test bed.
Thank you. This one-sided bashing, deserved or not, isn't very informative, so your input (being an aviation enthusiast and a veteran in the field) is refreshing.
There is no way that Boeing received, in any form, anywhere near as much "government cheese" as Airbus has received for the development of this one plane.
And how do you feel about Boeing ?
My airline flew the last 737-100 in service in the US. It was a hangar queen, spend lots of time stuck because of it being broke down. Its been scrapped since.
I think they are going to keep that NASA plane in a museum.
I like Boeing, I spend a lot of time on 757's and 747-400's. I really like the 717 (technically not Boeing), and wish that they could have sold lots more, it beats the hell out of flying on a noisy ATR-72, which I seem to get stuck with frequently.
The fact is, that was back in the late 60's, they don't do that anymore the first 777 is still in the air. And don't go preaching to me how to behave at FR, you came onto this thread like a braying ass and can't handle any opposite views.
You are getting worked up over a plane for god's sake, imagine what you would do over something important!
The FAA amd CAA are responsible for the certification of these new airplanes from the design through production, testing and delivery. I agree with you that many on this board diss Airbus because of the "French connection" which is kind of juvenile. What I tend to look at are the little things that Boeing does (and MDC used to do) to please the airlines because their profit margins had to be met. As long as Airbus has part of their costs born by their mother countries, they will never learn what true competition and customer satisfaction is all about.
They do tests and destroy stuff, but they don't sacrafice a whole plane like in the old days. They have enough data so that "if its fixed, don't break it"
One of the great things about living in Phoenix is that Boeing does heat testing of new designs here in the summer. We got the first 747-400 and the first 777, it was cool to be able to see them coming in and out on a blazing hot day.
As for the ripping of Airbus, yeah, its irrational, good thing everyone here likes Brazil, otherwise Embraer would be villified!
I like Mcdonnell Douglas planes, with the exception of the MD-11, it was not a good plane. I really miss the L1011, an advanced plane for its time, ATA just sent a bunch of theirs into D check, so they will be flying in the US for a few years (mostly military charters).
I can't help but wonder about how much "Oil for Food" money went toward building Frances Air Folly!
Maybe they found a radio tranmitter within the carbon-fiber core of the first jumbo-liner;
that had the business card of Al-Ansar-bin-Atwat-bin-Gringo-bin-Raghed, and got concerned about the Arabic employees on the assembly line.
The FAA and JAA (sorry, I said CAA earlier) review the design submittals and work with the manufacturers to ensure the necessary tests are done to achieve an Airworthiness Rating. This includes calling for demonstration tests on any new or uniquely designed areas of the plane. If that means that the design is "new" enough where there is no existing data to rely on, then a full-scale test can be called for. Believe you me, I sat though enough design strategy sessions trying to pencil whip a design to the point where it is "similar enough" to an existing one so that a high cost test could be avoided. There haven't been as many full-scale tests because there haven't been enough all new designs coming out of the box - most are derivatives of existing ones so that similarity can be claimed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.