Sparrow
Veteran
@Sparrow...exactly...they were like kites with humans in them.
I'll take my 737 any day!
... max windspeed one can taxi a tiger moth 13 knots, but it would be a brave man doing it ...
... without power though, I'd rather be in one than a 737 ... what's the glide-ratio for the Bowing? 1:15 at a couple of hundred knots, whereas the moth can't keep up with the traffic on the M5 in a headwind, with the engine running, in some other respects the Bowing probably has the edge
... the heater springs to mind
Addy101
Well-known
That plane was still climbing when it lost power in the engines. It did make a more or less controlled landing in the Hudson. It couldn't glide to Teterboro airport due to lack of altitude, not of lack of gliding power. This story also proves my point that modern planes aren't bricks.
That barn door might be a correct description btw
biomed
Veteran
biomed
Veteran
Out to Lunch
Ventor
Permanently 'in flight' at the airport of Chisinau, Moldova. A Tupolev? CV Bessa R3M - Heliar Classic 2/50. December 2010.
Addy101
Well-known
It is a Tupolev Tu-134.
biomed
Veteran
CH-21B
biomed
Veteran
RC-45J
biomed
Veteran
XF8U-1
Bill58
Native Texan
Permanently 'in flight' at the airport of Chisinau, Moldova. A Tupolev? CV Bessa R3M - Heliar Classic 2/50. December 2010.
The only Russian plane I'd ever fly in (in static display).
Addy101
Well-known
Soviet planes are safe - they may not feel like it, but they are strong and reliable.
Of the 854 built Tu-134's there were 69 written off due to accident or war. Of the 976 DC-9's built, 112 were written off due to accidents. So, there is no reason to avoid Russian planes as the Tu-134 is safer then the DC-9.
gary2881
Established
Vintage photos of vintage aircraft.
Bill58
Native Texan
Sorry--not convinced.
Addy101
Well-known
Well, no problem. Facts are facts, but you don't have to be convinced.
A plane that really isn't that really isn't safe
Sony A900 | Minolta 28-70G | 28mm | f/2.8 | 1/3s | 1600iso
