It is. It's a opportunity for someone to try and make cheap points on both sides.

Given that the government is now in the position that they won't allow banks to repay TARP money to maintain more control of them, the role of government versus economy is very much apropos, but this is just he said/she said crap.

The United States millitary has embraced that idea. In fact, they are quite good at destroying C&C centers to keep militaries from organizing. That worked very well against the Taleban as a government, Saddam Hussein twice, and Soviet russia, but does not work so well against decentralized authorities. Then pure and simple bullets applied to enemies is the most vital thing.

The evolution of Lincoln's views is far more radical then the parent poster understand. His view is a troll.

Just as a note, Lincoln's views changed radically from the start of the war to the very end of it. While we would still consider his views antiquated in comparison to our now enlightened views (hah!) there is no doubt that by the end of the war, he, and the rest of the radical republicans, were far more committed to a version of the future that included true equality and civil rights.

It is one of Histories great tragedies that Lincoln died, leaving a true Bigot - Democratic President Andrew Johnson. Johnson who handily extended slavery in America by 100 years.

They are all ripoffs of the 707 or 747.

The 707 and the 747 were the templates. So far everything else is a optimization. Just like Vista is a copycat of Windows 3.1.

There were other jets, but they were not as successful, and certainly are not still in modern production as the 737 and 747 are.

The point on the A300 is good. I would still argue that the 737 solved that problem first on a smaller scale ;-)

Before you cry foul on that - the 737, 727, 747 were all in production more or less simultaneously.

Actually, not always. The cost per passenger of a 747, with first class to offset empty seats is much lower then a CRJ.

Absolutly. It's not a recommended means of travel ;-)

Fair enough, I should have said double decker pressurized jet.

CRJ's don't have any where the CASM advantages that the 747, and the widebodies have. Hence part of the move to cut back on CRJ's across the board.

Joe Sutter has written a awesome book on the 747. It really goes into how the plane was developed. It was kind of the black sheep at Boeing - everyone was focusing on the SST - the big brother of the Concorde.

They spent a lot of time looking at the behavior of the plane well before manufacturing. These engineers have passed from the scene, and given how much both Boeing and Airbus have screwed the pooch with the A380 and 787, the engineers after them have not yet lived up to their mentors.

Sure. Just like the A300 is just, in turn, a rip off of the 707, the first commercial plane to have detached engine pods, and jet engines.

The article is absolutely correct. Not only was the 747 the first widebody aircraft, it also was the first double deck plane, and the first built for hi-bypass engines. So yes, the A380 is really nothing more then a bigger 747. There are no design challenges in that plane on the same scale as figuring out how to build the 747 in the first place.

Actually, I think the 772LR is the longest range plane that Boeing sells.

United, IIRC, is getting ready for a refit of the cabin shortly.

747s have broken the sound barrier on at least two occasions. One was during certification, and a second during a in-flight screw up on China Airlines 006. (Powered descent).

Both airframes survived.

Honestly, not the FAA's fault. In fact, it's no-one's fault other then when the 747 started to fly, flying was out of the reach of almost all Americans, save the jet-setters. Nowadays, you can get a non-stop from Denver to Atlanta for $169 bucks. Of course it's going to be a cattle call.

Do I wish that I could have taken a trip on a 747 in the glory days of Pan Am? Absolutly. Would I rather live now and have the ability to fly to London for $500 bucks? You bet your a$$.

Sorry, at less then 60 actually build, and for being built for cargo rather then passengers, I would not consider the An-124 to be a viable commercial aircraft, just as I would not consider the C-5 galaxy to be in this space.