Originally posted by sns3guppy: It's rough and designed to be maintained minimally using few tools, by those with minimal training.
I don't know why but that statement there would make me afraid to fly. LOL.
I dunno, you could say the same thing about the AK-47, and if that plane is half as practical and effective as an AK, it could be a pretty decent plane.
Posts: 2488 | Location: WI | Registered: December 29, 2012
Depends on your definition of good. Roughly built, poorly maintained, over-crewed, under nav'd, underequpped, antiquated systems, heavy, inefficient, etc.
A few years back we were at RIAT, RAF Fairford, and I got was talking to a former transport pilot out of Ukraine who had only ever flown Soviet or Ukrainian-built aircraft over his almost forty years of flying. At that time we were looking around the cockpit of a new Airbus 400M, at that time new into service with the RAF and others. The 'plane was 'alive' that is to say, the instrument panels were all lit up.
He just stood there, shaking his head, never having seen anything like it before - and remember that the glass cockpit is pretty vieux chapeau these days, right? The co-pilot was there scrolling through the menus and explaining them all to the onlookers...
Walking down the stairs into the load area, I asked him what he thought of it, compared to his last daily vehicle - an AN-22.
He looked at me, and said, 'Now I know exactly what goes through the mind of a dog watching a TV for the first time.'This message has been edited. Last edited by: tacfoley,
Posts: 11334 | Location: UK, OR, ONT | Registered: July 10, 2003
After blowing the perimeter fence down, it made a swift departure - well, as swift as any airplane weighing in a 650 tons could make...rake a look at the vortices/turbulence from 2:00 onwards.....
Posts: 11334 | Location: UK, OR, ONT | Registered: July 10, 2003
