Mauricio Rozo agree 100%!

Ron Cromer That’s interesting as I thought the rear mounted engines would make for less sound?

@@AlexEssex8 It makes less sound inside the cabin. But outside, not really.

Must have been an experience to fly this aircraft..I have seen it only twice in my life but did not have the opportunity to fly it..once on a wet night at Heathrow, when I arrived on a BEA trident from Geneva(that was also a great airliner) amd one sunny evening when the BA afternoon flight from Heathrow landed..what noisy engines it had but a majestic plane..scrapped from the BA fleet in 1982...

Really, the 747 was terrible? Hows that? the main reason the Tri star didnt sell is because they only offered the RB211 engine.

@@supersixjones8905 No, no! I should have pointed this out more clearly. The DC-10 was terrible and the 747 was inefficient. Most airlines ordered the latter because of its range not because of its efficiency and certainly not because of its size.

@@MarioStahl1983 Not really, the 747s range, capacity and much lower per seat operating costs all added up to greater effeiciency which is why it made flying cheaper and much more affordable for the general public, not to mention its superior freighter capabilities. it is probably the most versatile airframes ever conceived. I was never a big DC-10 fan, but in all fairness, after its initial cargo door issues, it went on to have a very successful career. As an A&P, having to service the number 2 engine 25 feet in the air on a cold day out of a snorkel lift really sucked. The L1011 was much more user freindly in that regard. I always liked the L1011.

@@supersixjones8905 I know what you mean and, believe me, I'm fully aware of the incredible breakthrough the 747 meant for the entire airline industry. But the major reason for its success was the timing and the delay of other developments. Juan Trippe himself said that if the Trijets had been available only 3 years earlier he would never have ordered the 747. As impressive as it was, in the long run the 747 for many years really stood in the way of more reasonable developments. Same is true here in Europe with the A380. Most engineers responsible at Airbus (including a good friend of mine who worked on the A380) absolutely regret it today. They say if only half of the recources used for the developemnt of the A380 had beedn used for other things, the A350 would have rolled out almost 10 years earlier. It is these long term effects on development that make some planes a distater IN HINDSIGHT even if they appeared to be great AT THE TIME. But anyway. Now the big four-engine-monsters are history and rightfully so.

@@MarioStahl1983 One of the early design proposals for the 747SP was a trijet config. but was abandoned due to wing redesign issues. My favorit tri-jet of all time is the 727.

Yeah right! LOL

It wasn’t junk and in fact was very solidly engineered with advanced hydraulics. In order to achieve the short takeoffs required the VC10 was short and light and therefore couldn’t carry enough fare paying passengers to compete on lucrative routes such as London to New York or Sydney. The Super VC10 received a 11ft stretch but it really needed 22ft as originally planed. It deserves some criticism for engine placement which required more work to upgrade to new engines. The aircraft was noisy outside due to the early engines but relatively quiet inside. In reality the VC10 required two versions: a shortened STOL version for the 5% of 3rd world hell holes that could be bothered to add 50% to their runway and a stretch version that carried enough PAX to compete on modern countries.