Don't worry, Michael, I think the MD drivers had some funny names for the Boeing bunch too.
Ask the guy with the BMW about the Mercedes owners for example.

I find Death Star a bit harsh too, as stated above. But hey, Lou even calls "his" old 727 a pig. 

Lou's Agenda:

1. Insult Douglas

2. Insult McDonnell Douglas

3. Look out, Airbus!

boeing247 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2011 at 2:44am:


Airbus cleaned their clock big time at Le Bourget this year.

Michael Cubine

Hey you all,

I never bashed Airbus. I think they have a very good product at a good price.

Boeing has had some problems in the past, and now they are falling behind with the 787. Each manufacturer has good points and bad. The fact that Airbus is supported by various nations should give them a big hand up in their ventures. I have never flown an Airbus, but have ridden in the cockpit many times. The basic philosophy of Airbus differs from Boeing when it comes to how the pilot interacts with the plane. I think both methods are valid, but I just have more experience with Boeing, so I'm more comfortable in a Boeing plane. The same is true with other plane makers.

Lockheed, IMO, made a real pilot's plane. Very well thought out and comfortable for the pilot and passenger alike. Too bad they did not sell more of the L-1011. The engines were a poor match. Convair also made some cool planes, but Boeing planes won out. As for Douglas, I think they started to slip with the DC-8, and continued to slip with the stretching of the DC-9 series. I know they made a lot of MD-80's, but having been in the cockpit too many times and sat in the cramped cabin also, too many times it is not a good customer product. The DC-9 was a great little short leg (one hour) plane. Great for city hopping. When they made it longer and longer, they flew it further and further and I find it a very cramped cabin on a cross country flight. One time, I sat in the back of a stretched DC-8. The load was light so I could see most of the rear cabin. As the plane lumbered down the runway you could see the tops of the seats rolling back and forth like a wet noodle. I just think the plane was much too long!

Now, what you've been waiting for - The A-380!  

All I have to say about it is....it's big. From a passenger standpoint I bet the first class cabin is a trip, but if you're in coach on a full flight I'll bet it will be a mess, not unlike the 747 when it's loaded. For most "older" airports the A-380 is a bit too big. For newer, better designed airports it will do just fine. Remember, it takes the same airspace as a small commuter jet.

I tease CoolP and a few of you by calling some of the planes by their "industry" names. It is not meant to be anything but funny. As CoolP said the "industry" always called the 727 - "THE PIG" because of its lack of performance in the climb. The 737 was called "FLUF" or "FAT ALBERT" and the 747 was called the "WHALE." Even ATC sometimes would say..."follow the Whale."

And then there is the famous quote: "If it doesn't say Boeing, I'm not going."  

OK - fire away!

Lou

Godd evening everybody,

when I listen to the MD80 Sound, at the end of the tape, the aircraft should makes a go around, It's true ? 

P.S : I know where is the exit

Lou

Check out this article about the MD-11 crash at Narita -  http://avherald.com/h?article=416e7619/0014&opt=0. Maybe an unknown name for the MD-11. See the post by Mad Dog #11 on July 18 2011 at 2050Z

Michael Cubine

Yup Michael, very sad to read something like that.

Peter, I never got to fly the Convair, just flew in it.
The pilots that flew it loved it - it was a fast jet with fairly simple systems.
This is just my thought about the 880 & 990...
A bit too small of a cabin - not enough PAYload.

The 757 followed by the 727.
The 767-200 was OK, but the -300 was a good size plane for the mission.
The 707 was a busy F/E plane as was the 747. A lot of things would break!