[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/n/ - Transportation


Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 20 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]


Janitor applications are now closed. Thank you to everyone who applied!



>you will never fly the 747-200
why even live?
>>
You can try to fly on a cargo plane
>>
>>1140782
I've flown on three 747s. IIRC the first was a -200 and the others -400.
I don't think you're missing very much.
>>
File: 747 fe panel 2.jpg (78 KB, 640x439)
78 KB
78 KB JPG
4226 hrs sitting sideways supervising young cunts on how to fly a goddess.
>>
>>1141595
Tell me more, Kalittafag
>>
>>1140782
You're right.

*bang!*
>>
>pretending an airliner is something more than a greyhound bus with wings

>>1141595
stop sperging
>>
>>1140782
Why would you want to fly on an older, noisier, and less well equipped 747? Just book a flight on Lufthansa and enjoy the glorious 747-8 with the new interior and 5000% less noise.

I love classic airliners as much as the next guy but don't act like flying old planes is glamorous.

Would you want to be stuck on a DC-7 for 8 hours across the Atlantic and be deaf when you landed? Or would you rather fly a 787 and charge you laptop at your seat with a nice big window?
>>
>>1141600
ATLAS
>>
>>1141752
Pretending your parents basement is Central Battle Command
>>
>>1142086
don't get the reference ( i don't play video games )
>>
Never literally flown a 747, but I've been in one multiple times, even business class from DC to London.
Shit was pretty class but only for the free upgrade; I'd never pay for it.
>>
>>1141905
get out
>>
Thought I had never flown a 747 in my life, only to find a pic of young me about to board a Martinair 747-200 (MIA to AMS).

That was a really awesome find, though I don't think it counts since I don't remember!! Gotta give the newer sister a try one of these days!
>>
>>1141905
I enjoy flying on MD-80s, going to be sad to see them go
>>
File: cdg_t2e_old.jpg (150 KB, 1024x768)
150 KB
150 KB JPG
>>1140782
I have! An Iberia 747-200, JFK-MAD, all the way back in December 2001. Wasn't bad, although, TBF, I enjoyed the Air France 747-400 I'd end up flying in three years later a lot more.

Speaking of France...
>you'll never visit the old concrete/deathtrap Terminal 2E
>>
>>1143268
Reminds me of every WMATA station ever
>>
>>1143268
Why deathtrap? To me it just looks very uninviting, but not deadly.
>>
File: 797 patent.jpg (45 KB, 920x613)
45 KB
45 KB JPG
Will double deck twinjets ever be a thing?
>>
>>1143830
Unlikely:
>airlines demand smaller planes
>large crosssection fuselage increases air resistance
>boarding is more complex on multiple decks

Most planes in the near future will be twin engined single deck.
>>
>>1143838
While I agree that it's unlikely, none of these are the reasons why.
>>
>>1143839
>none of these are the reasons why
A smaller plane is less likely to require multiple decks.
A additional deck increases fuselage crosssection.
Boarding multiple decks increases complexity.
>>
>>1143842
It's like you're intentionally missing the point.
>>
>>1143852
stop being an obtuse cumshot and just say why then
>>
>>1140782
>"Anchorage Center, Japan Air 1628, ah, do you have any traffic, ah, seven o'clock above?"
>>
File: cdg_t2e_old_collapse.jpg (58 KB, 650x375)
58 KB
58 KB JPG
>>1143628
It collapsed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_de_Gaulle_Airport#Collapse_of_Terminal_2E
>>
>>1143830
No, planes are all just going to look the same in the future. All one deck, all twinjet, nothing unique about them at all.
>>
>tfw will never fly any plane
>>
File: ceottk053.jpg (110 KB, 800x340)
110 KB
110 KB JPG
>>1144116
>"Ah negative. And reporting it may be a career limiting move. Over"
>>
>>1143966
Your fault you don't understand where modern airliner efficiency comes from. A 2 deck twin engine airliner with new, massive ultra high bypass turbofans could more than conceivably have lower seat-mile costs than any existing big twin.
>>
>>1144425
Actually itd be better to make the bubbles side by side...
>>
>>1143830 >>1144425
There are practical limits to how big the engines can be. So I think a more likely they'll have two engines generating thrust and electricity, plus at least two extra fans consuming electricity to generate thrust. Though IIRC I've previously tried and failed to convince others of the merits of that solution.




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.