What about investigating the history of jet crashes?

[Quiproquo]

What about investigating the history of jet crashes? The beginning, frequency, number of deaths? There has got to be a way to find out the truth.

:)

[beachnut]

What about investigating the history of jet crashes? The beginning, frequency, number of deaths? There has got to be a way to find out the truth.

:)
???

You left out the subject, goal, meaning, etc, etc, etc

[ozeco41]

What about investigating the history of jet crashes? The beginning, frequency, number of deaths? There has got to be a way to find out the truth.

:)

The truth about what?

What is the purpose of this thread?

[Dog Town]

The truth about what?

What is the purpose of this thread?

To Troll!

[Quad4_72]

What about investigating the history of jet crashes? The beginning, frequency, number of deaths? There has got to be a way to find out the truth.

:)

They have been investigated extensively. What are you looking for exactly?

[ozeco41]

To Troll!
In the absence of any evidence to te contrary I agree with you...

....and I don't feed trolls. :)

[cjnewson88]

most aircraft incident or accident over the past 100 years have been investigated, I fail to understand the point of this..

Unless of course you are trying to find out the truth of Gravity.. Most truthers havn't got a hold of this concept yet, so perhaps there may be some merit here guys.

:troll :troll :troll

[fuelair]

What about investigating the history of jet crashes? The beginning, frequency, number of deaths? There has got to be a way to find out the truth.

:)

Try the FAA. Like here: http://www.faa.gov/data_research/accident_incident/

You're welcome!!


Thanks and a tip of the fuelair hat to www.dogpile.com.

Google is messy, dogpile is your friend!! :)

[fess]

In my over 40 years of military and commercial aviation experience, I can’t think of one accident, jet or otherwise, that hasn’t been investigated in one way or another.

[Travis]

I could have sworn we had an agency that did that. Something called the NTSB or similar.


I guess I was imagining that.

[leftysergeant]

I could have sworn we had an agency that did that. Something called the NTSB or similar.


I guess I was imagining that.What we see here is somebody trying to build a theory of a vast conspiracy from a half-vast data base.

[Scott Sommers]

Are you talking about the named hijackers who showed up alive at US consular bases after the attacks?

Are you talking about the fact that all of the hijackers' names were absent from the fateful flight lists? There were not even any names of Middle-Eastern descent.

Please Dave, you are embarassing yourself.

There is simply no "evidwence" that any of these hijackers committed these attacks. The simple fact that no one has ever been indicted for the WTC tragedy is proof of lack of evidence. The simple fact the FBI has not charged UBL is proof of lack of evidence.

So apparently, Anti-Truthers also seem to make "assumptions" with no evidence to back them up.

This brings us back to where and why the Truth movement began: the warranted demand for a new investigation into the attacks.

The OP is a fellow who thinks there is no evidence there were hijacked planes on 9/11 and that there actually are named hijackers still alive. Go boy...go...win that Pulitzer Prize...go find these living hijackers and make yourself famous. Or is that large numbers of people, like all the newspapers and TV stations and everyone who works for them, don't care about this? Or are they covering it up so that Bush can invade Iraq? Or is it the reptilian overlords brainwashing us from their caves deep inside the Earth?

I wonder what Quiproquo is going to say to that final proof there is no thermite in that WTC dust?

[SpitfireIX]

The truth about what?

What is the purpose of this thread?


JAQing off. :mad:

[sylvan8798]

What about investigating the history of jet crashes? The beginning, frequency, number of deaths? There has got to be a way to find out the truth.

:)
Perhaps you would do better to investigate the history and efficiency of psychiatry.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

What about investigating the history of jet crashes? The beginning, frequency, number of deaths? There has got to be a way to find out the truth.

:)


Well, ****, you got us. Truth be told, there have never been any airplane crashes. Ever. Not a single one.

[dafydd]

Well, ****, you got us. Truth be told, there have never been any airplane crashes. Ever. Not a single one.

All faked by the NWO and the international Zionist conspiracy.

[Dash80]

What about investigating the history of jet crashes? The beginning, frequency, number of deaths? There has got to be a way to find out the truth.

:)

Um... Sense, try to make some.

You want to investigate jet crashes for whatever reason, do so. Read books and articles and learn something, yourself.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I missed this my first time through...

What about investigating the history of jet crashes? The beginning, frequency, number of deaths? There has got to be a way to find out the truth.

:)


The beginning, really? Like... when jets started crashing? Not aircraft in general; just jets? Yes, I wonder when such a thing might have started occurring... :rolleyes:

(If in the general history of aviation, I don't think it's a stretch to say that planes started crashing before they started flying.)

[JimBenArm]

Look, I've been flying on jets for over 35 years, and not one time has one of them crashed. So it's obviously disinfo.

[sheeplesnshills]

Look, I've been flying on jets for over 35 years, and not one time has one of them crashed. So it's obviously disinfo.

I've seen one crash....crash land anyways and it ceratinly looked real to me at the time.....and I've seen the aftermath of another (Lockerbie) up close and if it was staged (:rolleyes:) it was one hell of a job.

So, yes, I'd say they do crash from time to time. :boggled:

[JimBenArm]

I've seen one crash....crash land anyways and it ceratinly looked real to me at the time.....and I've seen the aftermath of another (Lockerbie) up close and if it was staged (:rolleyes:) it was one hell of a job.

So, yes, I'd say they do crash from time to time. :boggled:
Ahem. It's a patented JimBenArm post, so there is nothing serious contained within. Taking it seriously can cause stomach upset, crossed eyes, hammertoes, hammerheads, vertigo, verdigris, and excessive discharge from various orifices.

[Dash80]

Unsurprisingly Quip hasn't elaborated, he's probably just throwing **** at the walls again.

What kind of "jets" exactly, commercial ones?

I think the first commercial jetliner crash was a De Havilland Comet in the early 1950's, more than one crashed actually.

Hey Quip, how does this relate to 9/11 anyway?

[Jack by the hedge]

I think the first commercial jetliner crash was a De Havilland Comet in the early 1950's, more than one crashed actually.

Hey Quip, how does this relate to 9/11 anyway?

I don't know but I bet the answer involves the words "fatigue" and "failure". :)

[njslim]

National Transportion Safety Board (NTSB)

[BaaBaa]

.... half-vast data base.

tres subtle,monsoor....

[twinstead]

You'd think after 25 or so responses the OP would at least clarify why exactly he started the thread...

[JimBenArm]

As a vehicle for my nonsense, obviously. I can detect no other reason.

[Travis]

You'd think after 25 or so responses the OP would at least clarify why exactly he started the thread...

I continue to be quite curious myself.

[ElMondoHummus]

As a vehicle for my nonsense, obviously. I can detect no other reason.

Pfff... as if you need a vehicle for your nonsense. Your nonsense tends to be mostly self-propelled! ;):D:p

------

On a more serious note to any lurkers and potential new readers: What is it about conspiracy peddlers that makes them allergic to basic research? The post above linking to the FAA site is easy to find, and hell, one of the common aviation magazines (is it Airplane?) routinely publishes crash report summaries as lessons to its readership. It's not like the information is hard to find; heck, before I even discovered 9/11 conspiracy fantasy, I was reading those summaries at my local library. It's published information, and it's easy to find. It just takes a tiny bit of effort.

Well, as we all know, the answer to my question is not that they're truly avoiding basic research. It's more that they're not merely asking questions, but rather that they're using questions to make insinuations. It's been patently obvious to all of us here for some time now. The insinuation here is that there's a lack of knowledge about plane crashes among the commentariat here. The reality is that there's anything but. The only lack of knowledge ends up being on the truther end.

JAQ'ing off is more than just an attempt to be annoying. It's merely agumentation via slanted questions. You'd think that conspiracy addicts would realize they're not being clever when they try this, but they don't seem to get it.

[Dash80]

I continue to be quite curious myself.

I'm curious too, not going to loose sleep over it but mildly curious. If Quip ever gets to the bloody point, it's probably something dumb anyway.

[DGM]

I'm curious too, not going to loose sleep over it but mildly curious. If Quip ever gets to the bloody point, it's probably something dumb anyway.
I think he's trying to get 201 responses to his OP. Beating his last atempt for attention,

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=226593


:rolleyes:

[beachnut]

I think he's trying to get 201 responses to his OP. Beating his last atempt for attention,

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=226593


:rolleyes:

He has run out of claims, and makes a failed burst that makes no sense. An OP which failed to get on topic. I have a feeling we are dealing with exactly what the OP is evidence of.

[Faustus]

I'm reminded of EgyptAir Flight 990 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_Flight_990#NTSB_investigation_and_conclus ion), a regularly scheduled flight from Los Angeles International Airport to Egypt, with a stop at NYC.
On 31 October 1999, the Boeing 767 operating the route crashed into the Atlantic Ocean, about 60 miles (97 km) south of Nantucket Island, Massachusetts, killing all 217 people on board.

This appears to have been more than just pilot error, or a mechanical failure. Does anyone remember this making the news, and any doubts having been announced in the debate about what might have caused the accident?

[Skwinty]

He probably believes all aircraft crashes are caused by errant/deliberate missiles as Donaldson believed happened to TWA 800.

Sent from the far side

[SpitfireIX]

I'm reminded of EgyptAir Flight 990 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_Flight_990#NTSB_investigation_and_conclus ion), a regularly scheduled flight from Los Angeles International Airport to Egypt, with a stop at NYC.


This appears to have been more than just pilot error, or a mechanical failure. Does anyone remember this making the news, and any doubts having been announced in the debate about what might have caused the accident?


Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zom-1vNRSI) is the episode of Air Crash Investigations that covered this on YouTube.

The Egyptian government didn't want to admit publicly that the first officer could have deliberately crashed the plane because he was retired from their air force and was considered a national hero IIRC, and because suicide is anathema to Muslims. However, at least some Egyptian officials privately conceded to the NTSB that the report was correct.

[jaydeehess]

Unsurprisingly Quip hasn't elaborated, he's probably just throwing **** at the walls again.

What kind of "jets" exactly, commercial ones?

I think the first commercial jetliner crash was a De Havilland Comet in the early 1950's, more than one crashed actually.

Indeed that is as I recall it too. The problem with the aircraft was metal fatigue on the fuselage itself due to the large, rectangular windows. These were made so that passengers would have a spectacular view but created two issues that acellerated metal fatigue; first they obviously removed a lot of material from the fuselage which weaked the structure; secondly, the rectangular shape allows stress to be greater at the corners.

After enough trips the planes literaly came apart in mid air. Newer models, IIRC , were made with smaller, oval or round windows but by then no one wanted to get on a Comet.
Seems to me that a similar fate befell the L-1011 when an engine fell off on take off in Texas(?) and the plane crashed and killed all on board.
Same with Concord which had an engine fire on take off, crashed and killed all on board. Concords don't fly anymore either.
Suprisingly the Boeing 747 survived many crashes to remain wildly popular even after such causes as the rear pressure panel failing and taking out all tail surface controls in Japan.
how does this relate to 9/11 anyway?

Looks like most people would like to have an answer to that question but Quip doesn't do answers.

[George152]

Indeed that is as I recall it too. The problem with the aircraft was metal fatigue on the fuselage itself due to the large, rectangular windows. These were made so that passengers would have a spectacular view but created two issues that acellerated metal fatigue; first they obviously removed a lot of material from the fuselage which weaked the structure; secondly, the rectangular shape allows stress to be greater at the corners.

After enough trips the planes literaly came apart in mid air. Newer models, IIRC , were made with smaller, oval or round windows but by then no one wanted to get on a Comet.
Seems to me that a similar fate befell the L-1011 when an engine fell off on take off in Texas(?) and the plane crashed and killed all on board.
Same with Concord which had an engine fire on take off, crashed and killed all on board. Concords don't fly anymore either.
Suprisingly the Boeing 747 survived many crashes to remain wildly popular even after such causes as the rear pressure panel failing and taking out all tail surface controls in Japan.


Looks like most people would like to have an answer to that question but Quip doesn't do answers.

The military version of the Comet was flying anti submarine patrol until quite recently:
Quoted :

The Comet became a specialised maritime patrol aircraft variant, the Hawker Siddeley Nimrod. Nimrods remained in service with the Royal Air Force (RAF) until they were retired in June 2011,[6] over 60 years after the Comet's first flight.

[Dash80]

Oh I saw a DH Comet fly when I was about twelve years old, there was atleast one commercial Comet 4 used for airshows then. Not sure if it still flies today though.

*sigh* I miss Concorde, those things were incredible. There is one on display at Manchester (England) airport, unfortunately nobody can go inside anymore, people were constantly ripping things out the interior.

Anyway, back on topic (or should that be non topic?). I suspect Quip just wants to spew some crap about how he thinks the 9/11 plane crashes should have looked/been investigated, using completely different and unrelated crash examples.

That's my prediction.


ETA: Lazy truther also wants others to do his research for him, no surprise there.

[Dash80]

The military version of the Comet was flying anti submarine patrol until quite recently:
Quoted :

The Comet became a specialised maritime patrol aircraft variant, the Hawker Siddeley Nimrod. Nimrods remained in service with the Royal Air Force (RAF) until they were retired in June 2011,[6] over 60 years after the Comet's first flight.

I have to laugh when I see that name, all the awesome names given to military aircraft and the poor RAF Comet got called a NIMROD.

[SUSpilot]

<snip>
Seems to me that a similar fate befell the L-1011 when an engine fell off on take off in Texas(?) and the plane crashed and killed all on board.
<snip>


Sure you're not thinking of the American Airlines DC-10 that crashed at O'Hare in 1979, are you?

The only L-1011 crash in Texas of which I'm aware is the Delta crash at DFW. As a CFI, that's one I use with students to talk about the hazards of strong wind shear, especially when caused by thunderstorms (wind shear to headwind, followed by a shear to a severe downdraft, followed by a shear to a strong tailwind - not a good set of circumstances...)

[njslim]

National Geographic has prioduced a series of episodes dealing with aircraft accidents
(and occasiona other type accidents)

http://www.tv.com/shows/national-geographic-channel-air-emergency/episodes/

[Oystein]

Cool, a thread has made it to page 2 without any efford and substance from the OP :D

Sooo... The other day, I visited the Miniature Wonderland in Hamburg. At its restaurant, they have books laying around, and one was telling the stories of maybe 15 aircraft incidents that everybody, miraculously, survived.

So there are even entertaining books out aimed at the general public with lots of detail about aircraft incident investigations!

[Kid Eager]

I think it would be beneficial to investigate the history of steam engines. After all, James Watt was part of a big consipracy - which is why you don't know about it.

[Travis]

Indeed that is as I recall it too. The problem with the aircraft was metal fatigue on the fuselage itself due to the large, rectangular windows. These were made so that passengers would have a spectacular view but created two issues that acellerated metal fatigue; first they obviously removed a lot of material from the fuselage which weaked the structure; secondly, the rectangular shape allows stress to be greater at the corners.

After enough trips the planes literaly came apart in mid air. Newer models, IIRC , were made with smaller, oval or round windows but by then no one wanted to get on a Comet.
Seems to me that a similar fate befell the L-1011 when an engine fell off on take off in Texas(?) and the plane crashed and killed all on board.
Same with Concord which had an engine fire on take off, crashed and killed all on board. Concords don't fly anymore either.
Suprisingly the Boeing 747 survived many crashes to remain wildly popular even after such causes as the rear pressure panel failing and taking out all tail surface controls in Japan.

I think this is because the public blamed the air lines in most of the huge 747 disasters. And now we no longer have Pan Am and TWA.

Japan Air is still around I think though.

[cjnewson88]

I think this is because the public blamed the air lines in most of the huge 747 disasters. And now we no longer have Pan Am and TWA.

Japan Air is still around I think though.

Japain Airlines is still around but suffered bankruptcy due to its own inefficiencies and poor evolving of its business model rather than a bad rep from its 747 disaster or other safety issues associated with the airline.

You are right, and to be fair they had reason to, as by the time the 747 took to the skies a lot of prior mechanical and technological issues which plagued earlier jet liners had been minimized and the aviation industry was really just starting to wake up to the real danger of failing to manage Human Factors. So when 747 disasters like Tenerife occurred, the public was well enough informed by that stage to know that pilot error and poor management/organisational commissions and omissions from within specific airlines were to blame far more so than any safety vulnerability of the aircrafts themselves.

[Dash80]

Kid Eager.

What do you mean we don't know about it? Everyone knows the early steam engine pioneers conspired to sink the Titanic!

:D

[SpitfireIX]

Sure you're not thinking of the American Airlines DC-10 that crashed at O'Hare in 1979, are you?

The only L-1011 crash in Texas of which I'm aware is the Delta crash at DFW. As a CFI, that's one I use with students to talk about the hazards of strong wind shear, especially when caused by thunderstorms (wind shear to headwind, followed by a shear to a severe downdraft, followed by a shear to a strong tailwind - not a good set of circumstances...)


That's affirmative; no L-1011 has ever crashed due to mechanical failure. One crashed in the Everglades due to pilot error; one was lost in Saudi Arabia with all aboard due to a cargo fire, and one crashed at DFW due to weather. Those are the only three fatal L-1011 hull-loss accidents. There was also a hull-loss crash on takeoff in NY due to pilot error, but, amazingly, everyone aboard escaped before the aircraft was consumed by fire.

Contrast this with three DC-10 crashes due to mechanical failure: Paris (cargo door), Chicago (engine loss), and Sioux City (engine explosion). Sad that the DC-10 outsold the L-1011 2:1. :(

[sheeplesnshills]

I think it would be beneficial to investigate the history of steam engines. After all, James Watt was part of a big consipracy - which is why you don't know about it.

But it was an English locomotive that first killed someone! (Watt was a Scot, I used to work in the town where he was born.)

[Bell]

Look, I've been flying on jets for over 35 years, and not one time has one of them crashed. So it's obviously disinfo.

Says the man who sailed on ships that were already sunken.

[DGM]

Says the man who sailed on ships that were already sunken.
With no sails...........................:D

[Jack by the hedge]

But it was an English locomotive that first killed someone! (Watt was a Scot, I used to work in the town where he was born.)

I suspect the conspiracy will turn out to involve Big Coal. Watt's improvements meant that steam engines used much less coal but made them so useful that they found lots and lots of new applications, therefore actually creating a demand for lots more coal.

[DGM]

I suspect the conspiracy will turn out to involve Big Coal. Watt's improvements meant that steam engines used much less coal but made them so useful that they found lots and lots of new applications, therefore actually creating a demand for lots more coal.
Who cares about the exact origins? Every time there's a disaster, be it hurricane, tornado or a host of other things, the common denominator is, "it sounded like a freight train". WAKE UP PEOPLE.

WHEN WILL THIS MADNESS END?

:mad:

[cjnewson88]

Contrast this with three DC-10 crashes due to mechanical failure: Paris (cargo door), Chicago (engine loss), and Sioux City (engine explosion). Sad that the DC-10 outsold the L-1011 2:1. :(

But of course if there is double the number of one aircraft than another then its statistical certainty that the one with the highest number will suffer more issues or be involved in more air incidents/accidents than the other. As for the Sioux City accidents, what needs to be taken into account is that aircraft manufacturers don't build their own engines. DC-10s use either General Electric or Pratt and Whitney engines, and if these fail, it has little to do with the aircraft manufacturer and a whole bunch to do with the engine manufacturer.

[jaydeehess]

Sure you're not thinking of the American Airlines DC-10 that crashed at O'Hare in 1979, are you?

The only L-1011 crash in Texas of which I'm aware is the Delta crash at DFW. As a CFI, that's one I use with students to talk about the hazards of strong wind shear, especially when caused by thunderstorms (wind shear to headwind, followed by a shear to a severe downdraft, followed by a shear to a strong tailwind - not a good set of circumstances...)

That's affirmative; no L-1011 has ever crashed due to mechanical failure. One crashed in the Everglades due to pilot error; one was lost in Saudi Arabia with all aboard due to a cargo fire, and one crashed at DFW due to weather. Those are the only three fatal L-1011 hull-loss accidents. There was also a hull-loss crash on takeoff in NY due to pilot error, but, amazingly, everyone aboard escaped before the aircraft was consumed by fire.

Contrast this with three DC-10 crashes due to mechanical failure: Paris (cargo door), Chicago (engine loss), and Sioux City (engine explosion). Sad that the DC-10 outsold the L-1011 2:1. :(

:footinmou

Yes, I was thinking of the DC-10 (well the L-1011 does have a "10" in it:D )

IIRC the biggest operator of DC-10 now is Fed Ex.
at least 3 engine loss incidents in its first decade of service.

[jaydeehess]

But of course if there is double the number of one aircraft than another then its statistical certainty that the one with the highest number will suffer more issues or be involved in more air incidents/accidents than the other. As for the Sioux City accidents, what needs to be taken into account is that aircraft manufacturers don't build their own engines. DC-10s use either General Electric or Pratt and Whitney engines, and if these fail, it has little to do with the aircraft manufacturer and a whole bunch to do with the engine manufacturer.

True, but do passengers see it that way?

[sheeplesnshills]

True, but do passengers see it that way?

They tend not to see it anyway....they tend to be dead.:(

[cjnewson88]

True, but do passengers see it that way?

Not exactly that way, but they by far tend to view the airline as dangerous rather than the aircraft or engine manufacturer.

[Kid Eager]

Who cares about the exact origins? Every time there's a disaster, be it hurricane, tornado or a host of other things, the common denominator is, "it sounded like a freight train". WAKE UP PEOPLE.

WHEN WILL THIS MADNESS END?

:mad:

it's so obvious - you're an airline disinfo agent. Steam trains are the only true path to enlightened travel.

Why are you trying to scare the children?

[SpitfireIX]

But of course if there is double the number of one aircraft than another then its statistical certainty that the one with the highest number will suffer more issues or be involved in more air incidents/accidents than the other..


Actually it's not certain; it is simply more probable. And that's only assuming that the aircraft are equally reliable, or at least close.

Further, if you divide 3 by 2 you get 1.5. The actual ratio was 466:250 IIRC., so it's closer to two. That's still two crashes due to mechanical failure vs. zero.

As for the Sioux City accidents, what needs to be taken into account is that aircraft manufacturers don't build their own engines. DC-10s use either General Electric or Pratt and Whitney engines, and if these fail, it has little to do with the aircraft manufacturer and a whole bunch to do with the engine manufacturer


Yes and no. The DC-10 has three hydraulic systems, all of which pass through the tail section. Thus all the hydraulic lines were severed by the disintegrating engine, leading to an almost total loss of control. The L-1011, in contrast, has four hydraulic systems, only three of which pass through the tail section. Had the aircraft been an L-1011, the crew would have retained aileron control, and would likely have been able to have landed safely.

By the same token, although the root cause of the Chicago crash was improper maintenance, the location of the hydraulic lines along the wing leading edge left them vulnerable to damage in the event of engine separation. In the L-1011 the wing hydraulic lines are located farther back, and are thus less vulnerable.

[cjnewson88]

The DC-10 has three hydraulic systems, all of which pass through the tail section. Thus all the hydraulic lines were severed by the disintegrating engine, leading to an almost total loss of control.

True, perhaps poor foresight by the aircraft designers, but on the other hand had the engine maintenance been operated correctly by United Airlines, there wouldn't have been an issue.

[beachnut]

True, perhaps poor foresight by the aircraft designers, but on the other hand had the engine maintenance been operated correctly by United Airlines, there wouldn't have been a issue.
I think they redesigned the 10s systems after the accident to keep the systems from being lost due single point damage. Hydraulic fuses, etc...

There are planes which have systems more fault tolerant. These accident lead to change.

The L-1011 did suffer a major engine failure in the tail, it damaged 3 of 4 systems, the L-1011 did limp back in.

The L-1011, I think it suffered from a poor deck angle at speeds below .86 MACH. Means a cart with soda was hard to push up "hill"...

[cjnewson88]

The L-1011, I think it suffered from a poor deck angle at speeds below .86 MACH. Means a cart with soda was hard to push up "hill"...

hahaha really? Thats quite funny. Yeah I do believe IIRC they redesigned the 10s with 4 hydraulic systems instead of 3 after Sioux City. Don't quote me on that, I just remember reading something along those lines when we looked at it in one of my air safety investigation papers..

[ozeco41]

But of course if there is double the number of one aircraft than another then its statistical certainty that the one with the highest number will suffer more issues or be involved in more air incidents/....

Just another example of "Why do white sheep eat more than black sheep?"

[Disbelief]

Just another example of "Why do white sheep eat more than black sheep?"

Because if they ate just black sheep, they would not have a very balanced diet? ;)

[Travis]

I kinda wish Lockheed would get back into the airliner market. It doesn't seem right for it to be dominated only by Boeing and Airbus.

[sheeplesnshills]

I kinda wish Lockheed would get back into the airliner market. It doesn't seem right for it to be dominated only by Boeing and Airbus.

Don't worry I'm sure the Chinese are working to correct that.