Comments by "Derek Taylor" (@derektaylor2941) on "Mentour Now!" channel.

3:50 no, the reason for the 727 having its engines where they were is because that's where they were placed by Hawker Siddely on the Trident. Apparently on early 727s some of the parts were stamped HAWKER SIDDELY as Boeing forgot to erase the designer's markings. The British aviation industry wasn't just infiltrated by Russians stealing designs for Concordski. We also 'shared' a lot of data with our American "friends and allies."
8
Out of curiosity does anyone know if Norwegian caused the 2008 economic collapse? Does anyone know if they brought the World to a standstill with Covid? Unless the answer is a certain 'yes' to both of them, young Peter here is really out of order with his statement that airlines should not have been allowed to re-start unless [insert whatever his demands were]. No, there was a lot of help for people in Western Countries but very little for companies. He's wrong on this.
2
You don't need to watch the video and its many adverts to know that the 737-Max effectively duplicated the 757.
1
David Gunson answered this back in the 1980s. It's at the back because they never knowingly reverse into hills and if you want ultra safety, find where they've put the black box, because if that's the only bit they expect to get back, you want to be fastened to it. (David Gunson, What goes up, Might come down- available on Amazon etc, also YT...)
1
They've taken an engine and pushed it to the performance limits and people are surprised it needs more maintenance? Would they be surprised to learn that an Aston Martin has a shorter maintenance interval than a Volkswagon Golf?
1
The aviation industry will tell you that flying is far safer than travelling by car. But that is debatable. If you look at deaths per passenger miles then of course aviation is safer based solely on the much higher passenger miles a flight includes (say 500 passengers for 3,000 miles=1.5 million passenger miles for a 747 UK/Europe to USA)... Compare to a commuter train 50 miles * 500 passengers= 25,000 passenger miles). However, you could probably use the same argument of passenger miles to show that space travel is safer than aviation using the same statistical model. Or you could use the fatalities per journey and that would show overwhelmingly that cars are much, much safer than aeroplanes. It's all about statistics. You can play Russian Roulette and the odds are in your favour. Same with flying. But if you're on the unlucky flight, you're finished in most cases.
1
@jeffleverence4554 what utter nonsense. If you were right- which you aren't- then every car, plane, truck, bus would be a death trap, every food manufactuter would be killing you and every service provider constantly in the news for causing injury and death due to cost cutting. You are simply knee jerk reacting to what amounts to relatively isolated incidents. Grow up.
1
@mennol3885 I am a capitalist at heart, having seen the alternatives when in Russia during the cold war. However, capitalism has one inherent problem and that is its eventual dominance by one or two market leaders. Here in UK in the 1960s we had over a dozen companies that were capable of designing and making aircraft from scratch; our neighbours the French something similar, as was Germany. In USA, despite being a larger company, probably had slightly less, but themselves much larger. Now Production is worldwide split between Europe/UK Airbus and USA Boeing. Yes, with a tiny share by others. Do you think there is any chance of a new aircraft builder emerging to take on the Boeing/Airbus duopoly? Not when the startup capital will be in the 10s of billions. Governments need to leave capitalism to generate money, for society needs it. BUT must have competition laws (anti-trust in USA) to prevent capitalism consolidating to form monopoly positions.
1
@burtlangoustine1 tell that to the Russians who saw all their companies 'nationalised' and they lived in poverty for decades as a result.
1
@Kat-amber-t2z what's your suggestion then? Make everything state owned? That worked how well for the USSR?
1
8:40 and when Boeing couldn't get their supersonic aircraft to work, they turned to their government and said "we cannot allow anyone but flag saluting Americans to make a supersonic aircraft work. Make sure you cause as much trouble as possible for Britain and France- our supposed allies." This was, incidentally, about the same time that UK's greatest ally- America- was doing its best to destroy English Electric too.
1
10:50 I have to laugh when people call British Airways the UK's flag carrier. A Spanish listed company chaired by a succession of Irish and Spanish CEOs, based in Madrid, flying American and Anglo-French built aircraft, with IT support provided by India, baggage handing supplied by an Arabic owned company and it is financed with Chinese money. A terrible organisation- both as an airline and a British Ambassador.
1
'sucks'? Hmm....
1