That blue Tu-154, which airline is it and is it a regular visitor? I am thinking of visiting DUS in a few weeks. Would be in the weekend but not this weekend.

Are there any cheap(ish) places around the airport to park the car? Or am I better of going by train? That’s what I’ve done in the past roughly 10 times. Them ICEs are great!

In the 21st century we should be looking at speed not size.

The same was said for the Concorde. In the 70s we should be looking at speed, not size! Even Boeing agreed, that’s why the 747 was designed from the onset with freight in mind. Boeing figured that airlines would move passengers with the B2707 (and perhaps a few Concordes for good measure 😉 ).

Concorde was an achievment which now seems was tried, tested, succeeded and then left as if SST had been “conqured”.

The Concorde did not succeed at it’s goals. The goal was to make a safe plane to fly across the atlantic that would make a profit for the airlines and manufacturers involved.

Some of these goals where met. It was a safe plane. It could cross the Atlantic, but only just. If there was a strong headwind over the Atlantic than Air France’s CDG -> JFK service had to divert to take up fuel.

It did make a profit for the airlines, but what if BA and AF had paid the full price instead of the token price they had to pay? Would that still have generated a profit? If so, would that profit have been large enough to warrant buying it? If the same money had gone to a few more 747s, would BA/AF have made more money? It’s easy to make a profit if something is just given to you. And still it took BA years to get the Concorde profitable!

And as for profit for the manufacturers involved, let’s not even go there. At least the French and UK government got a few nice plane out of their money where the US government got just a wooden model and a pile of paper. Profit? Yeah sure!

…but indirrectly as well due to the affects on the oil industries.

Considering how the oil prices are rising and rising I think any airline bean-counter will think twice before taking a very fast plane that is likely to be very thirsty. It will definately be more thirsty than the B747 and A380. Unless there is a revolution on jet technology, but if there is it will probably be just a matter of time before it is added on the B747 and A380 rendering them even more competitive over the SST.

Unfortunately aviation right now is lagging the farthest in “technological evolution.

I would not say that. The shape of the plane may not be changing a lot, but that does not mean a lot. The B777 is widely regarded as a plane that was cuttin edge incorporating lot’s of new technology. But set it next to a 767 and people outside the aviation industry will have trouble telling which is which.

The A380 will bring new advances, in particular in the field of composites the A380 is making great leaps. “Glare” is a new material that is light yet very strong that will be used for many parts of the fuselage. Airbus will offer loads of innovative luxuries for the cabin (whether airlines opt for it remains to be seen of course, probably not).

For the 7E7 the engines will be state of the art. And if the plane looks like the artist impressions (remains to be seen as well) then aerodynamicly it will be an evolution as well. I would not say revolution as the basic fuselage with a wing and tail is still the same.

For both planes the environmentally friendlyness (emissions, noise, fuel consumption) will be second to none. In todays world that is more important than speed! Officially Concorde was not allowed to fly anywhere because it broke almost every environmental rule in the book. Not to mention the sonic boom. Yes a modern SST will be more environmentally friendly, but it will not compete with a 7E7 or the A380. Again, not even mentioning the sonic boom!

Speaking of revolutions in the air industry, SRB as announced Virgin Galactic or something offering flights to space performed by Space Ship 1.

yep

i had hoped to fool you considering Phuketair had already been done. Having said that… technically this plane was never sold to Phuketair as they decided to take another plane! The real owner is actually ILFC, but that may be taking things too far.

another one then

it’s PH-BUK which will be for the Aviodrome. Note I said will be for the aviodrome cause for now it still belongs to the KLM. In other words, EAL_King is right!

PH-BUK
Boeing 747-206BM(SUD)
c/n 21549/336

The VC-10s in use by the RAF. None in commercial service I know of.

This is based on the cost to the company of doing the recall against the total costs they would have to pay for all the deaths caused by it (about £1 million per person). Is this used in the aircraft industry also?

This system was used by the car industry. This led to some very dangerous situations. Best known of these was the Ford Pinto. It had a mayor design flaw in the fuel system. If an accident where to happen the fuel tank would explode. Several people where killed because of it.

The design flaw became known to the public after yet another Pinto fireball. The refitting proved to be rather cheap ($5,08 per car), but considering there where loads of Pinto’s Ford had decided not too do the recall.

Angry crash survivors and relatives where quick to sue Ford. They where awarded an extremely large sum of money. Going easily into the 100s of millions, but I can’t find the exact sum.

Ever since the economical benefit of saving on safety features has been considered to be nill.

I would like to think that the aviation industry won’t have to learn the automotive industries lesson.

p.s. Welcome aboard!

I’m getting quite good at this… :p

My reasons for choosing a BEA Trident are:

1. As I said above. Look at what appears to be red text on the fuselage. By looking for just a few seconds, you can make out that it says BEA.

2. The red, white and blue tail also is a giveaway – it’s so British.

3. The nose is quite significant on the Trident and you can clearly see it in this shot.

4. The position of the aircraft, behind those rather distinct barbed wire fences.

shoot, should have known that one