NationStates Jolt Archive

OK, in your opinion, what aircraft is most deserving of the nickname "lawn dart?"

I have to go with F-16s, they seem to crash at an insane rate and are considered the original Lawn Dart.

OK, in your opinion, what aircraft is most deserving of the nickname "lawn dart?"

I have to go with F-16s, they seem to crash at an insane rate and are considered the original Lawn Dart.


I'm not sure thats fair, when you consider just how many missions they fly.

But, I'll say the Airbus. Compared to its competition, it flys like a cow.

Not even close. Try those new cirrus, or any single piston engine by piper.

(Every aviation joke starts, so there was this lawyer in a piper.........).

paper air planes:p :D

I'm not sure thats fair, when you consider just how many missions they fly.

But, I'll say the Airbus. Compared to its competition, it flys like a cow.
They have a high loss rate per mission and even too many during regular training. The problem is when something goes wrong in a 1 engine plane, you are fucked. That is why the Navy has avoided the single engines for so long, but we have to go back to it in the F-35. The F-35 engines are more reliable so the pilots aren't upset.

Not even close. Try those new cirrus, or any single piston engine by piper.

(Every aviation joke starts, so there was this lawyer in a piper.........).

I've flown Piper singles, hell I rent one out. Never had any problems with it.

I think yall must keep in mind that 95% of aviation accident are due to pilot error. So, it's not so much the machine, but the person flying the machine.

MiG-29 Lawn Dart in the true sense of the word.

http://www.angelfire.com/hi/luckypuppy2840/MADDOGJET/mishaps/mig29crash.jpg

I thought the F-5 was the first lawn dart.

But, I'll say the Airbus. Compared to its competition, it flys like a cow.
What's wrong with the Airbus? I give you that it isn't American, but apart from that, they seem to be quite popular.

For me, the original widowmaker will always be the Starfighter.

paper air planes:p :D

They actually start trying to find efficient gliders by making paper airplanes, you know.

I think yall must keep in mind that 95% of aviation accident are due to pilot error. So, it's not so much the machine, but the person flying the machine.

Single engine piston aircraft are significantly more dangerous, not least of which is because of the rapidly aging fleet.

I also think the 95% figure is more a function of the way the NTSB operates than the true figure. I can think of several cesna accidents that were not caused by pilot error that the NTSB attributed to that.

When it comes to military aircraft, I will say many of the crashes are the result of blackouts from G forces. That is why you will hear about crashes where the crew didn't eject when they had ample time too.

What's wrong with the Airbus?

As long as they stay on the ground, nothing.

I give you that it isn't American, but apart from that, they seem to be quite popular.

Ya, for the same reason the Yugo was. I don't want to fly in one of those, either.

TIE fighters also seem to have a lot of accidents.

What's wrong with the Airbus? I give you that it isn't American, but apart from that, they seem to be quite popular.

For me, the original widowmaker will always be the Starfighter.

Airbus fly-by-wire significantly limits the maximum climb/bank angles and maximum Gs compared to boeing. There are good arguments on either side for both approaches in respect of safety. Some pilots feel that the airbus handling suffers from that though.

Also boeing rudder/stablizers don't fall off when there are excessive rudder control inputs.

Realistically, there is not much to choose between them. My prefered plane for trans-atlantic flight is the 777 though. The flight just seems smoother.

I'll be interested to take a 380 when it comes on line and see how that feels.

The 777 has a perfect record to date, but I don't want to cross an ocean on 2 engines. Give me a 747.

F-104G, especially in Luftwaffe service.

The 777 has a perfect record to date, but I don't want to cross an ocean on 2 engines. Give me a 747.

Engines are so much better these days, so that doesn't really bother me. Anway, a 777 flies perfectly well on one, so it's not a big deal.

I did some work on the 777/767 a few years back. It's a pretty impressive piece of kit, the only thing I don't like about it is the potential for tail strike.

F-104G, especially in Luftwaffe service.
I should've listed that. That plane was a definite lawn dart. It even looked like the toy that it got the name lawn dart from. The plane was a fast interceptor to take out bombers, but the Germans put anti-ship missiles on those stubby little wings, that didn't help them stay airborn.

Ya, for the same reason the Yugo was. I don't want to fly in one of those, either.
I don't think Airbuses are all that much cheaper than Boeings. Fact of the matter is that apparently many airlines have come to the conclusion that Airbus jets are a better deal for them, and they will have made all the considerations necessary, so the Airbus does what it's supposed to do.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060117/ap_on_bi_ge/france_airbus

And besides, I heard that the Yugo actually has such a bad reputation because people didn't care for them properly.

TIE fighters also seem to have a lot of accidents.
By Starfighter I meant the F-104 of course.

Some pilots feel that the airbus handling suffers from that though.
Fair enough, I'm not a pilot. But how much does handling and agility really matter in a jet like this, compared to other factors like maintenance costs, fuel consumption and so on?

Realistically, there is not much to choose between them. My prefered plane for trans-atlantic flight is the 777 though. The flight just seems smoother.
To be honest, I never really cared as long as they had a Nintendo in the seat...:p

Airbus has had some problems lately from rudders flying off to numerous failed nose gears. It seems like Airbus planes are about as unsafe as the DC-10 was during the 1970s and early 80s (believe me that is extremely unsafe.) They need to get a handle on this soon. I still wouldn't classify them as Lawn Darts.

Airbus has had some problems lately from rudders flying off to numerous failed nose gears. It seems like Airbus planes are about as unsafe as the DC-10 was during the 1970s and early 80s (believe me that is extremely unsafe.) They need to get a handle on this soon. I still wouldn't classify them as Lawn Darts.
Meh, I've flown in Airbuses a billion times, and my grandma even more. Never had a problem.

In fact, the only plane trouble I ever had was with a 777 where the engine wouldn't start in Singapore and we had to wait for an age and a half.

Nonetheless, I maintain that if there were any doubts about how good the various Airbuses are, they wouldn't be as popular with airlines all around the world. The "free market", so to speak, is giving me an indication that they are just as good as Boeing's.

EDIT: Oh, and I think comparing the Airbus to the DC-10 is a bit harsh. Do you have a source on that?

Fair enough, I'm not a pilot. But how much does handling and agility really matter in a jet like this, compared to other factors like maintenance costs, fuel consumption and so on?


Everything post A318 limits control inputs that would produce an acceleration over 2.5g on the hull. Normally this is fine, but in the event of extreme weather or the aircraft falling into uncontrolled flight, recovery may be harder - if not impossible - when compared to a similar boeing type. Likewise airbus, by limiting the angle of climb may run afoul of wind shear where a boeing may not.

These are extreme cases however, and airbus envelope portection also offers some advantages.

Airbus's philosophy still has a lot of baggage to shake from the paris air show accident however, before it will be universally accepted. (If that ever comes).

I've flown Piper singles, hell I rent one out. Never had any problems with it.

I think yall must keep in mind that 95% of aviation accident are due to pilot error. So, it's not so much the machine, but the person flying the machine.

I agree. Been a long time since I have flown one, but with that 11 or 12 to 1 glide ratio, engine failure never concerned me for even a minute. Same with the Mooney's, if I can glide 10+ miles for every mile I'm up, my options are many times more than they are with other aircraft.