Best 5-abreast twinjet

Lucky me, I flew on all four (not at the same time) and each – from an slf point of view – was much the same as the others, it was a plane, it had seats, I was a kid and I loved flying so they were all great. Not much help, I know, for which I apologise.

I have a soft-spot for the 111, I used to play on the Channel Airways ones aged 4, flew on Courtline ones in the early ’70s, and then years later went to Dublin in an EAC one from Luton in ’96, and after years of Boeings, it felt closer to travelling in a Hawker 800 than a 737 – much more agile and less than half the distance from the ground on it’s undercart, which on roundout made me wonder for a moment if he had forgotten it!

From the passenger point of view one aluminium tube is much like any other. FWIW I’ve always had a soft spot for DC-9s (to say nothing of MD82s et seq) but that may be nothing more than the fact that somehow I seem to have ended up in four-abreast club class more often.
Can’t speak for Caravelles, but I’ve done Comets (same fuselage cross section) and the only thing that sticks in the mind is that they were quite cosy, but noisy blighters if your seat was aft of the exhausts – a remark that doesn’t apply to the Caravelle, obviously.
Not rear-engined, I know, but Air Inter’s Mercures felt like they were an extension of the Paris Metro…airbus in its original meaning perchance? (although I have heard a similar remark about the 1960s BEA being nothing more than a division of London Transport.)
At the risk of drifting off-thread, I found the word ‘airbus’ in John Wyndham’s sci-fi book The Day of the Triffids the other day. The book dates from the early 1950s – was this the first time the word appeared in print?

William

Er… yes.

And what has that to do with profit?

Moggy

My guess is that an airline will buy aircraft that earns them a profit…and won’t buy a aircraft that won’t.

Purchase price is only part of it…maintenance, fuel, and crew costs.

Over on the Military Thread some always suggest buying new AN-224s over C-17s or A400s…sure the initial price is less, but other costs would be higher.

Likewise, in my prior life I was seriously asked why the USAF didn’t sell used B-52s as cargo aircraft…I expained that a converted 727 or something would be much cheaper at the end of the day.

In which case it is easy to check how many of each were bought.

Er… yes.

And what has that to do with profit?

Moggy

Remember in commercial aviation “best” is determined not by a pilot or even passengers…and certainly not spotters who like the looks of one plane over another.
Rather “best” is determined by the person who does the math and sees if the company is making a profit.

In which case it is easy to check how many of each were bought.

But what are the impressions of passengers and pilots? (I think both BAC 1-11 and DC-9 were as a design constraint light enough to fly without a flight engineer)

Again define “best”…
Remember in commercial aviation “best” is determined not by a pilot or even passengers…and certainly not spotters who like the looks of one plane over another.
Rather “best” is determined by the person who does the math and sees if the company is making a profit.

You mean, Tu-134? Well, it differed from the four by having 4-abreast cross-section. Which makes it more an equivalent of CRJ…

I wasn’t counting seats you understand – the fog wouldn’t allow it 😀

Believe me their Russian equivalent was far far more bizarre.

You mean, Tu-134? Well, it differed from the four by having 4-abreast cross-section. Which makes it more an equivalent of CRJ…

Of the 4 I’ve flown in the DC-9 and the Fellowship.

The DC-9 flights were to some extent rather white-knuckle given the airstrip they were operating out of – but I survived so they must be OK.

While the flights on the Fellowship were largely remembered for the rather cramped seating – but that comes of regular flights with underground miners and rugby players. All of whom tend to be on the larger side.

So I am an expert on two but those are rather exceptional circumstances.

Believe me their Russian equivalent was far far more bizarre. Picture a flight where none of the seat upholstery matched and, on take-off, all seats went into full recline and couldn’t be induced to return to the landing position, and the moment the aircraft got clear of the ground the passenger compartment filled with a dense fog. Again I survived.

😀

Who knows? But most are contemporaries of Concord or earlier so I’ll leave the post here.

I think you’d better make some attempt to define ‘best’ though.

Do you mean most-liked by the customers? Greatest return on investment for the operators? Most profitable for the manufacturer? Most consistent reliability record? Prettiest? Most pleasant to fly? Lowest cost per seat mile?

Otherwise the question is meaningless.

Moggy

Was this intended for Commercial?

Considered it – but had serious doubts whether Caravelle is commercial, or historic. When did aviation history end?

What does ‘best’ mean?

Was this intended for Commercial?

Moggy