BCL
Engineer
Longer than SNA, but then I realized its at high altitude.has to be passenger load, neither elko nor ely are that short, although ely's runways are not in good shape anymore
Longer than SNA, but then I realized its at high altitude.has to be passenger load, neither elko nor ely are that short, although ely's runways are not in good shape anymore
Often with really short flights they will actually fuel it up for the way there and back, to save time. For those distances, it's worth it to cut the turn around time and hassle, even if the outgoing flight is a bit less efficient.Flights that short wouldn't need to carry heavy fuel loads. Skywest flys it with 50 seat Canadair RJ's for Delta to this day....
I'm not a fan of scheduled service regional jets but the B732 is one of the ugliest mainline aircraft I've ever flown. The combination of torpedo engines hanging off a stubby wing connected to a bloated fuselage was visually unappealing and comically disproportionate. The TOGO stage cabin noise was almost unbearable and I'm pretty sure I lost some permanent hearing along the way.I always liked the looks of those "baby Boeing's"... I would rather fly in one of them, then the current cramped regional jets. And they were just as wide as their big brother 707-Intercontinental's.
Agreed. It's perfectly proportioned, the four engines are the perfect size and shape. It's the exact opposite of a 737 Classic, and an absolutely gorgeous bird.Then again the aircraft I find most aesthetically pleasing is the A346, which is about as far from a 732 as you can get.
Not sure that people living near airports (or just in the plane) would agree about the 707.I'll still take the 707 and 747 for my ideal Jets!
Aesthetically, the 707 was glorious. Practically and technically, it's an abomination by today's standards (and yes, I know it's 60 years old). And while the 747 is beautiful and one of the most important airliners in history, I have more of a soft spot for Airbuses.I'll still take the 707 and 747 for my ideal Jets!
Agreed. It's technically very impressive and IMO it looks beautiful (and I imagine even those who disagree with that won't deny that the design is at minimum unique), but I never had a personal connection to it. I guess I'm just not a Boeing person.The B707 was before my time and while the B747 is really unique and has many entries in the history books it never really grew on me. By the time I was traveling on intercontinental flights the 747 had generally been relegated to a high mileage low yield sub-fleet that was always two or three upgrades behind everything else. The squeaky rattles, worn-out upholstery, smoke stained interiors, noisy public address systems, washed out projection movie screens, and ancient fixtures didn't help.
The A340-600 is a nice plane. I fly Lufthansa A340-6's semi-regularly SFO-MUC and love the two seats instead of three on the window side. There was a time SFO looked like an A340 dealership with the Lufthansa, SAS, and Swiss variants all parked at the same time. A few years back I took pictures of the line of retired A340-500's at Changi and last year caught SAA's A340-6 at JFK.I really need to find a way to get a ride on this sexy beast before they're all gone...
[picture removed for space considerations]
Yeah it's sort of a stubbier 707 with modernized engines:KC-135 carry on. They are a tad smaller (skinnier and shorter) than a 707, but very close in appearance. A little different look with the replacement engines, but close. E3 AWACS were built on a 707-320B frame, there are some of those still flying.
First flight of the first B52 was within a week after my birth [emoji4]Nothing but the Best for our Troops right!
(lots of AU members Fathers werent even born when the B-52s,KC-135s etc. went into Service as the Backbone of SAC![emoji21])
A lot of those were converted to flying cargo. FedEx even specialized, where they designed and sold "hush kits" for a lot of those older planes.Then in the 1990s you had the Gulf War which had the double-whammy of spiking fuel prices and depressing demand. Yet, most airlines had fuel-inefficient planes from the 1960s and 70s and were too slow to replace them. Incidentally, much of the legacy airlines’ fleets were purchased in the era of regulation, such as DC-10s, L1011s, and even domestic 747s. They could fly them profitably when fares were regulated and they didn’t have to worry about competition. When deregulation hit, smaller planes killed the larger planes in terms of economics on most routes, which is why a carrier like Southwest, flying only 737s, was able to take on larger competitors. It’s also why the number of domestic wide bodies significantly decreased when the first generation were ready for retirement. You used to see DC-10s and 747s on short hops such as Chicago-Cleveland, Milwaukee-Detroit, etc. But once the carriers dumped them, they didn’t replace them with other 300-seaters, but with much smaller planes.
Me too! They remind me of one of my favorites...the DC-8-61 and 63....I really need to find a way to get a ride on this sexy beast before they're all gone...
Enter your email address to join: