Boeing 747-8 Intercontinental

[Ripsnort]

Why is that sad?
I think it is rather amazing that a twin engine jet can carry 300 people 6,000 miles, and do it an a regular scheduled basis without issue.

Yeah, I agree! Hell, I remember flying these! (picture taken yesterday)

[Ripsnort]

Is it really funny how an airplane crashed?

Well, we can make light of it now that no one died, can't we?

[dedalos]

Boeing  Airbus

You do know that if that was not an airbus it would not have been able to float for that long or at all, right?

[MachFly]

Well, we can make light of it now that no one died, can't we?

I was not referring to your post, but to the response to your post. (if that makes sense)

[mbailey]

Yeah, I agree! Hell, I remember flying these! (picture taken yesterday)

(Image removed from quote.)

Dang, thats a pretty bird 

[MachFly]

Yeah, I agree! Hell, I remember flying these! (picture taken yesterday)

(Image removed from quote.)

 

[Yossarian]

Boeing  Airbus

Fail troll.

[SIK1]

Yeah, I agree! Hell, I remember flying these! (picture taken yesterday)

(Image removed from quote.)

ahhhh plane pron.

I really love the connie. (super connie if I'm not mistaken.)

Just a fyi. My first commercial flight was in a prop driven air liner, (no unfortunately not a connie, a DC-6) and no I don't remember it. I was only a few months old, but that's what my dad told me.

[flight17]

Is it really funny how an airplane crashed?

he made a joke that was funny. how you get made at me for laughing at it but not the joke itself i dont get. it happened two years ago and nobody was hurt or injured time to move on.

You do know that if that was not an airbus it would not have been able to float for that long or at all, right?

proof/facts as im pretty sure a 737 would most likely have done the same with the same exact circumstances. Also they had lines underneath the plane rather quickly to keep it from sinking. As soon as the last person was off the plane, then they switched to keeping it from sinking mode. Water was coming up through the floor because the cargo door failed and then a pax opened the rear door.

http://fly.999games.in/game/Hudson+River+Landing.htm

[F22RaptorDude]

he made a joke that was funny. how you get made at me for laughing at it but not the joke itself i dont get. it happened two years ago and nobody was hurt or injured time to move on.
 proof/facts as im pretty sure a 737 would most likely have done the same with the same exact circumstances. Also they had lines underneath the plane rather quickly to keep it from sinking. As soon as the last person was off the plane, then they switched to keeping it from sinking mode. Water was coming up through the floor because the cargo door failed and then a pax opened the rear door.

http://fly.999games.in/game/Hudson+River+Landing.htm

There's a switch that seals everything so for water landings it won't sink, when it landed in the water the pilots had forgotten to switch it on. As i recall the pilot was trying to keep the plane from crashing, and the co pilot was concentrating on trying to restart one of the 2 engines.

[flight17]

There's a switch that seals everything so for water landings it won't sink, when it landed in the water the pilots had forgotten to switch it on. As i recall the pilot was trying to keep the plane from crashing, and the co pilot was concentrating on trying to restart one of the 2 engines.

all that does is seal the valves for instruments/systems on the belly to slow sinking, not stop it. Most of those valves are small anyways and Sulley was even quoted as saying (paraphased) "even if we closed them, they wouldnt have had any affect".

What caused the plane to sink was the combined failures of the cargo doors, the rear bulkhead failing and the rear port pax door being opened which couldnt be resealed. The water was coming up through the floors almost instantly so she was going to sink had it not been for the boats getting lines around her. by the time they tied her up at battery park, she was all but completely submerged.

[Denholm]

Why is that sad?
I think it is rather amazing that a twin engine jet can carry 300 people 6,000 miles, and do it an a regular scheduled basis without issue.

I'm a sucker for the 4-engine heavies.

[-tronski-]

Both are fine planes in their own respect, but other than Asia, the days of huge long haul aircraft are limited since most twin engine configurations are approved for over water flight, and the fact that no one wants to wait 1 hour to get de-planed or boarding at an airport.

@Sydney a full A388 usually only takes less than 30 mins to disembark pax, and they aim to board B744, B773, 30 mins and A388's 40 mins before departure depending on circumstance - longer for US/UK bound pax due security screening. In most circumstances in peak you'll be unloaded, via the bag carousels ,and through first & secondary screening (without being stopped) usually in less than an hour.

 Tronsky

[Angus]

So I guess that a Boeing would not stop despite sucking a squadron of birds into the engines? Come on, grow up.
Anyway, that 747 looks great. Good old 747
I worked on the freighters many years ago (openable nose and a large upper section). Upstairs (there was no stairway, just a ladder) we had 16 seats and some berths. Big seats! And a small kitchen. That was just fine.
Then they shortened the upper section, so there were only 8 seats. I cannot remember the types, but the latter one also had winglets.
But the Jumbo, - one heck of an aircraft!

[Golfer]

There's a switch that seals everything so for water landings it won't sink, when it landed in the water the pilots had forgotten to switch it on. As i recall the pilot was trying to keep the plane from crashing, and the co pilot was concentrating on trying to restart one of the 2 engines.

There's a Ditch button.  It's pretty useful in a computer lab based in theory.  It's pretty useless in practice when giant gaping holes are ripped into the fuselage upon impact with water.