Favorite Plane???

[Jakemaster]

Light aircraft: Donno
Military: F-15C Eagle.
Warbird: P-51D
Helicopter: AH-64D and 'Littlebird'.
Commercial:
DC-9
MD80
MD87
MD88
MD90
Boeing 717. There is no plane which is in the same class which compares to the 717 in sound, safety, looks, efficiancy and payload. None. It's simply the best plane.

The only reason it didn't get many orders was it was to late, to small and lacked the range (Wasn't intended for the anyway).

Well since its your favorite, I assume you know the DC-9 and 717 are the same plane, the 717 designation was given after Boeing purchased Douglas Commercial and began producing the DC-9.  The 717 was updated to have new avionics and I believe some slight design changes, but again, same plane.

EDIT: I also assume you know all those MDs that you listed are pretty much the same, the 7, 8, and 90 are streched variants of the 80

[Woodlouse2002]

Which just goes to show that all jet airliners are the same.

[EGNX]

Military (New) = MiG 29 or Eurofighter Typhoon

Military (Old) = F4 Phantoms or EE Lightnings
Warbird = Spitfire!  ::)

Helos = EC120
Hevies = Tu 154, L-1011 or DC-10-30  :P

Classic Heavies = B707 or HS 121

Commuter = Fokker 28 or ERJ 140

I've got a thing about Tri-jets!  :D

[F3Hadlow]

[quote]ATTENTION MISTER SAFETY!

I just crunched the numbers.

[Tweek]

TBH, I couldn't really give a toss about things like safety/efficiency/amount passengers it can carry, etc! Hell, I don't care if it's even successful!

The F-104 had a woeful safety record, yet I still think it's a great aircraft.
The Lightning could barely get into the air without having to refuel again, but it's still one of my favourites.
The A380 can carry a whole lot of passengers, yet I have no interest in it, whatsoever!

Give me a mix of this lot:
TU-22M, Jaguar, F-4F, P-3C, Lightning, VC-10, Spitfire, TSR.2, TU-95, Super Etendard, Vulcan, MH-53, etc, etc, etc.

[Hai Perso Coyone?]

Commercial (Western)-Airbus A340-500
Commercial (Russian)-Tupolev TU-154
Military/Cargo-Ilyushin IL-76
Military (Jet)-Tupolev Tu-160 "Blackjack"
Helo-Eurocopter EC120B Colibri
Vintage Airliner-Boeing 707
Vintage Prop-Tupolev Tu-114
Vintage Military-Supermarine Spitfire

My rather small list...Have them all for FS9...Except maybe the Tu-160... :-/

EDIT: Alphasim has released a Tu-160!!!

[Jakemaster]

ATTENTION MISTER SAFETY!

I just crunched the numbers.  ACCORDING to airdisasters.com, there have been 34 civilian 747 incidents.  Also, according to the same site, there have been 207 DC-3/C-47 Civilian incidents.  According to Wikipedia, 10,655 DC-3s were produced, and 393 747s have been produced.

With those numbers, 8.65 percent of the 747s produced crashed in civilian accidents.  Comparitively, only 1.94 percent of DC-3s built crashed in civilian accidents.

SO...although the DC-3 has crashed MORE TIMES than the 747, compared to the 747, the DC-3 has a lower PERCENTAGE rate of accidents in the civilian market.  Therefore, the DC-3 is SAFER than the 747.

Also, since 1970, the year the 747 entered commercial service, only 36 DC-3's were involved in civilian accidents, compared to 34 747s.  Keep in mind the DC-3 was already 35 years old in 1970 while the 747 was brand new.

I rest my case.  I feel MUCH safer on a DC-3

Your posts in this (and others) thread have made me wonder Jake, do you work for Douglas?

I wish!  I might work for Cessna one day though...

[NDSP]

I think that more lives have been taken in a 747, but there has been many many many less incidents. So the 747 is the safer plane. The only reason that more people were killed was because newer 747 models can hold 500 people.

Would u rather go KJFK-EGLL knowing your in a modern and safe plane,

or

go KDFW-KORD with worrying that the old DC-3 your flying in might fall apart???

Actually, i dont even know if the DC-3 can make it from KDFW to KORD lol

Nick

The 747 is NOT a safer plane just because its had fewer incidents.

[NDSP]

I would feel much safer in a DC-3

1. Have you ever even been in one???
2. Your just saying that because you need a good responce.
3. Did you ever realize that if the pilot falls asleep or something happens to him, theres no chance for the plane to stay in the air (hint hint, no autopilot) and will run out of fuel and ditch.
4. If it hits turbulence during the night and the altitude indicator fails, its gonna be a rough night.
5. I no someone whos has been on both, he said that when he was on the DC-3 he was afraid it wasn't gonna make the trip (I am not lying just for a comeback). Yet when he was on a 747 with my family and I,

[Tweek]

Face it, unless they are a complete DC-3 nut (as in you) a person would rather be on an airliner when making a commercial trip.

Erm... I'd much rather fly aboard a DC-3 than any shiny new airliner. Not for a long journey, obviously, but I'd go for style over performance.

It'd be much nicer to take a trip on a vintage aircraft. I find very little interesting about Boeing 757s.

[Chris_F]

[quote]
SO...although the DC-3 has crashed MORE TIMES than the 747, compared to the 747, the DC-3 has a lower PERCENTAGE rate of accidents in the civilian market.

[Nexus]

Light aircraft: Donno
Military: F-15C Eagle.
Warbird: P-51D
Helicopter: AH-64D and 'Littlebird'.
Commercial:
DC-9
MD80
MD87
MD88
MD90
Boeing 717. There is no plane which is in the same class which compares to the 717 in sound, safety, looks, efficiancy and payload. None. It's simply the best plane.

The only reason it didn't get many orders was it was to late, to small and lacked the range (Wasn't intended for the anyway).

Well since its your favorite, I assume you know the DC-9 and 717 are the same plane, the 717 designation was given after Boeing purchased Douglas Commercial and began producing the DC-9.

[Jakemaster]

I think that more lives have been taken in a 747, but there has been many many many less incidents. So the 747 is the safer plane. The only reason that more people were killed was because newer 747 models can hold 500 people.

Would u rather go KJFK-EGLL knowing your in a modern and safe plane,

or

go KDFW-KORD with worrying that the old DC-3 your flying in might fall apart???

Actually, i dont even know if the DC-3 can make it from KDFW to KORD lol

Nick

The 747 is NOT a safer plane just because its had fewer incidents.  Its had fewer incidents because it is 30 years younger than DC-3 and  there are a signifigant number LESS 747s than DC-3s.  More than 10,000 DC-3s were built and they have been around for 71 years, OF COURSE its had more incidents.  A DC-3 is safe and reliable.  Why do you think companies still fly them?  Ive read about companies that do things like skydiving that have chosen to keep their DC-3s instead of buying a turboprop because a DC-3 is more reliable and easier to maintain because it doesn't break down. THey are not unsafe, that's part of why I like them so much, it truly is an AMAZING design.

I'm pretty sure a DC-3 can make it from KDFW to KORD, thats only 700 miles.

Have you ever realized that there is ALWAYS at least one 747 in the air. There are only 100-200 DC-3s left and in the past two decades the 747 must fly at least 20 times more than the DC-3 does. That explains that. So actually considering 10+ 747s take off every minute, and maybe... uh 1 DC-3 per day takes off, since the debut, the 747 has had less accidents with more flights. Another thing, NOT ALL 10,000 DC-3s are still flying. There are maybe 200 or even less are  left in the world... actually im being nice, i coulda sworn i saw that something said there were only 45 left, but im not sure so ill go with a safe (nice toward you) 200.

Nick

45?  What kind of crap are you reading.  There are AT LEAST 200 still flying, probably closer to 500.  Besides, not ALL 393 747s are flying either.  You really need to think more about what you are saying.  As Ive said before, COMPANIES still OPERATE the DC-3 on a DAY TO DAY basis.  10 or so takeoff DAILY from Opa Locka florida for Four Star and TolAir delivering cargo to the Caribbean.  Also, since debut., the DC-3 has had a heck of a lot more flights than the 747.  The DC-3 made up NINETY PERCENT of ALL AIRLINE TRAFFIC until almost 1950!  

I know I may be a little over zealous about the DC-3, but at least I know what Im talking about.  If you want to argue against it, get you're facts straight, at least I did my research on the 747 before I discussed it.

And don't even make me bring up how far Air Traffic safety has come from the time the DC03 was first introduced.  You could probably cross off 25% of the DC-3s incidents because of lack of knowledge and technology in the safety sector.

[Jakemaster]

I would feel much safer in a DC-3

1. Have you ever even been in one???
2. Your just saying that because you need a good responce.
3. Did you ever realize that if the pilot falls asleep or something happens to him, theres no chance for the plane to stay in the air (hint hint, no autopilot) and will run out of fuel and ditch.
4. If it hits turbulence during the night and the altitude indicator fails, its gonna be a rough night.
5. I no someone whos has been on both, he said that when he was on the DC-3 he was afraid it wasn't gonna make the trip (I am not lying just for a comeback). Yet when he was on a 747 with my family and I,  he had no stress at all because he trusts a 747. Why, because it is a greatly selling airplane that everyone trusts. Why does everyone trust it?? Because it is an airliner, and there are very very few airliner crashes. (most airplane crashes are props....)

Face it, unless they are a complete DC-3 nut (as in you) a person would rather be on an airliner when making a commercial trip.

By the way this started this whole thing

and i think it should be everyones favorite plane

Nick

Jeez, learn this word: RESEARCH!

1.  No I havent.  In fact, Ive never seen one in the air.  Does that make it any less safe? No.  It means that I have enough confidence in the design to fly it.
2.  No actually Im not.  I would feel much safer in a DC-3
3.  What crap is that?  A DC-3 has a Sperry autopilot (and many have upgraded avionics with new autopilot systems).  Not only does it have an autopilot, but your precious queen has autothrottle, which wouldn't exist if not for the DC-3 because the first autothrottle system was installed and tested on a DC-3
4.  Not really.  Thats what your EYES are for, and thats why planes have LIGHTS.  Not to mention the good old bubble sextant for night time navigation by the stars.
5.  That is just the most absurd statement ever.  Yes, airliners are safe.  Its the safest way to travel.  But you have to consider the fact that a prop will be loud and vibrate, giving a sense of insecurity to someone used to flying on a jet.  Most airplane crashes are props as in single engined light aircraft.  And I am assuming when you say 'airliner' you mean Jet airliner, because the DC-3 is an airliner BTW

You never asked if I would rather be on a jet or a DC-3 when making a trip.  Of course I would rather be on a jet, it gets me there faster.  But if I was given the choice between flying on a DC-3 for a day or a 747, I would chose a DC-3.

Look, I got out of hand with the 'it should be everyones favorite' comment, but lets face it: until you can get your facts straight you arent winning any battles or arguements over the two aircraft

EDIT:  To number 3, I read about a C-47 in WWII that ran out of fuel.  The crew ditched, only to find that their plane had landed itself a few miles away with minimal damage.  So even if your hypothetical no autopilot DC-3 was to hypothetically run out of fuel, you wouldnt be up a creek because the DC-3 doesnt need thrust to fly.  Your super heavy 747, however, needs lots of thrust to stay airborne, so if both pilots die and the plane continues on AP and runs out of fuel, well then it goes down, and not softly.

[Jakemaster]

SO...although the DC-3 has crashed MORE TIMES than the 747, compared to the 747, the DC-3 has a lower PERCENTAGE rate of accidents in the civilian market.  Therefore, the DC-3 is SAFER than the 747.

I think that would only be a reliable gage of safety if you're a pilot and planning on flying a single airplane from its birth until it goes to the junkyard.  In that case you'd be better off flying a DC3, you're correct (although the 747 has yet to reach the end of its production run so the jury is still out).

HOWEVER, if you're a normal pilot (not planning on wedding yourself to a single airframe) or a passenger, then hours aloft or miles traveled are MUCH better safety indicators.  Although there are fewer 747s built than DC3's I would hazard a guess that the total miles accumulated by that small number of 747s is greater than that of the DC3s, and the number of hours in the air probably tells a similar story.  Today's 747 is much harder working than its old DC3 brethren (more hours flying per year in service) and obviously flies much further on each flight.

Miles is probably more but I don't know about hours.  I mean there were 10,000 DC-3s and its not like any of them flew for an hour or so and then stopped.  Going back to some of the earlier arguements, you also have to consider the amount of stress and work each airframe is designed to take...