|
If it's widebodies with skinny engines you want,
|
# ? Oct 19, 2017 22:25 |
|
|
# ? Mar 28, 2024 21:30 |
|
gently caress it, Trijets forever. D C fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Oct 19, 2017 |
# ? Oct 19, 2017 22:28 |
|
Psion posted:shameful discussion of 4-engine planes without posting a 747 Uh, Concorde.
|
# ? Oct 19, 2017 22:57 |
|
Needs more internally mounted engines. Shame about the square windows though.
|
# ? Oct 19, 2017 23:10 |
|
No Il-62 yet. Sad! (I'm too lazy to find and post a picture right now).
|
# ? Oct 19, 2017 23:18 |
|
Four internal engines, you say? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Wemyw-5czU
|
# ? Oct 19, 2017 23:19 |
|
drgitlin posted:Uh, Concorde. Except for the whole "making money sustainably" part.
|
# ? Oct 19, 2017 23:32 |
|
mlmp08 posted:Four internal engines, you say? gently caress yes
|
# ? Oct 19, 2017 23:33 |
|
Look on my four engines ye mighty and despaaaaaa'm in the dirt
|
# ? Oct 19, 2017 23:36 |
|
This plane is not a looker, but how am I not going to post such a weird trijet?
|
# ? Oct 19, 2017 23:43 |
|
mlmp08 posted:This plane is not a looker, but how am I not going to post such a weird trijet? "Bob, what if we tried just sticking them ever which way and see how each one does?"
|
# ? Oct 19, 2017 23:46 |
|
mlmp08 posted:This plane is not a looker, but how am I not going to post such a weird trijet? This plane is Kerbal as gently caress.
|
# ? Oct 19, 2017 23:53 |
|
Small Swept Wing looks so dumb on mk3 fuselage.
|
# ? Oct 19, 2017 23:54 |
|
FrozenVent posted:Except for the whole "making money sustainably" part. BA made money operating it, it was just Air France that was a failure.
|
# ? Oct 20, 2017 00:00 |
|
mlmp08 posted:This plane is not a looker, but how am I not going to post such a weird trijet? What do you mean, not a looker? Ban this sick filth! (Also I was wrong earlier about the -114/Connie... bc I honestly forgot both the Vulcan and the Victor)
|
# ? Oct 20, 2017 00:12 |
|
mlmp08 posted:This plane is not a looker, but how am I not going to post such a weird trijet? According to wikipedia the XB-51 had excellent low level maneuverabilty. Which blows that whole "looks good, flies good" theory out of the window.
|
# ? Oct 20, 2017 02:21 |
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Considering where airline development went, it is a sort-of platonic ideal, isn't it? It also first flew two decades after the 707, and after Ilyushin met with Boeing engineers about Boeing's design choices.
|
# ? Oct 20, 2017 02:26 |
|
The biggest difference between the Il-86 and the 707 is that the Il-86 might have the powerplant equivalent to the 707, but it's got the body of an early-model 767 or A300. Two aisles. Hell, I remember the first design proposal for the 747 had two 707 fuselages stacked one on top of the other with a single aisle on both. Can you IMAGINE how long it'd take to deplane that fucker?
|
# ? Oct 20, 2017 02:38 |
|
Godholio posted:It also first flew two decades after the 707, and after Ilyushin met with Boeing engineers about Boeing's design choices. Oh yeah, I knew that, I was thinking of platonic airliners, I suppose.
|
# ? Oct 20, 2017 02:43 |
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:
Apparently some of the early A380 concepts were envisioned using a pair of A340 fuselages side by side, which I can't find photos of what I can find is a horrible 747 full length double deck concept hurrrrrrr
|
# ? Oct 20, 2017 02:49 |
|
a patagonian cavy posted:Apparently some of the early A380 concepts were envisioned using a pair of A340 fuselages side by side, which I can't find photos of Still looks less bad than an A380. No fivehead.
|
# ? Oct 20, 2017 02:53 |
|
Previa_fun posted:According to wikipedia the XB-51 had excellent low level maneuverabilty. Which blows that whole "looks good, flies good" theory out of the window. Looking good is a sufficient but unnecessary condition for flying good.
|
# ? Oct 20, 2017 03:02 |
|
mlmp08 posted:This plane is not a looker, but how am I not going to post such a weird trijet? My great-uncle was one of the designers of the XB-51. If you can track down a DVD of Toward The Unknown, the XB-51 is the Gilbert XF-120 experimental fighter in the movie. Lots of great footage.
|
# ? Oct 20, 2017 03:46 |
|
a patagonian cavy posted:Apparently some of the early A380 concepts were envisioned using a pair of A340 fuselages side by side, which I can't find photos of That looks like one of the Hasegawa Eggplanes.
|
# ? Oct 20, 2017 04:06 |
|
FrozenVent posted:Except for the whole "making money sustainably" part. That should never be included in a discussion of pretty planes. drgitlin posted:BA made money operating it, it was just Air France that was a failure. Well, BA was better at cooking its books at least.
|
# ? Oct 20, 2017 04:33 |
|
Finger Prince posted:Well, BA was better at cooking its books at least. BA used to offer Concorde flights ~gratis~ to First Class passengers it had to bump off of 747 flights on the same routes Concorde flew. It was likely cheaper than reimbursing them because fuel was way cheaper back then.
|
# ? Oct 20, 2017 04:36 |
|
a patagonian cavy posted:Apparently some of the early A380 concepts were envisioned using a pair of A340 fuselages side by side, which I can't find photos of No. The TOP design here is the one: That's combined with a Conehead. Also notice that despite it being double-decker - there's only one row of windows. Evidently this was called the "Anteater" design. I was also a bit luckier in finding the side-by-side A340 design: The only way I could see interior row seating working on that mutant plane is if they incorporated things like *actual tables* and old-style front-and-back facing seats, so it'd be like riding on a train. Also plenty of room for a lounge area in each class. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 04:48 on Oct 20, 2017 |
# ? Oct 20, 2017 04:39 |
|
|
# ? Oct 20, 2017 05:42 |
|
I’m pretty sure it’s just occlusion fuckery, but drat if those don’t look like unbalanced trijets.
|
# ? Oct 20, 2017 06:04 |
|
This MF'er knows waz up. General Dynamics reprezent!
|
# ? Oct 20, 2017 16:35 |
|
|
# ? Oct 20, 2017 16:39 |
|
a patagonian cavy posted:Apparently some of the early A380 concepts were envisioned using a pair of A340 fuselages side by side, which I can't find photos of This looks like something out of Thunderbirds
|
# ? Oct 20, 2017 17:26 |
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Oh yeah, I knew that, I was thinking of platonic airliners, I suppose. Good lord
|
# ? Oct 20, 2017 17:37 |
|
If you need something to read this gloomy damp friday, here's a BBC future article on the Tu-144, which includes its second life as a NASA test bed.
|
# ? Oct 20, 2017 18:43 |
|
Alaska Airlines has retired their last Combi.
|
# ? Oct 21, 2017 04:02 |
|
What are these? 707s with turbofans?
|
# ? Oct 21, 2017 04:32 |
|
~Coxy posted:What are these? DC-8 Super Seventies. DC-8s re-engined with CFM-56s.
|
# ? Oct 21, 2017 04:35 |
|
Old airplanes just don't look right with modern turbofans.
|
# ? Oct 21, 2017 06:01 |
|
Huh, I had no idea these were a thing. Much less w/ Alaska Air
|
# ? Oct 21, 2017 11:02 |
|
|
# ? Mar 28, 2024 21:30 |
|
Combis are pretty kick rear end, there are still a few 737-200C quick change with gravel kits operating in Canada and those things are basically bush planes on steroids.
|
# ? Oct 21, 2017 12:19 |