PDA

View Full Version : OT New AIRBUS A380 Roll Out Pictures 1 BIG PIC 2 links



Taylortony
07-09-2004, 11:03 AM
Being in the Business I tend to get things sent to me that are not floating about yet, so i thought I would share these with you, so I have uploaded them for your pleasure, they are a bit off topic and are of the NEW Airbus A380 SuperJumbo being rolled out, this is the static test fuselage and is also believe it or not, The SMALL SHORT BODIED VERSION....Lol

Because of the size of the pics I have posted one and linked you all to the other 2 so the 56kr's amongst us can get a look at her http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/IL2_Skins/Guest/DSC_2487.jpg
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/IL2_Skins/Guest/DSC_2499.jpg
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/IL2_Skins/Guest/DSC_2495.jpg

Taylortony
07-09-2004, 11:03 AM
Being in the Business I tend to get things sent to me that are not floating about yet, so i thought I would share these with you, so I have uploaded them for your pleasure, they are a bit off topic and are of the NEW Airbus A380 SuperJumbo being rolled out, this is the static test fuselage and is also believe it or not, The SMALL SHORT BODIED VERSION....Lol

Because of the size of the pics I have posted one and linked you all to the other 2 so the 56kr's amongst us can get a look at her http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/IL2_Skins/Guest/DSC_2487.jpg
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/IL2_Skins/Guest/DSC_2499.jpg
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/IL2_Skins/Guest/DSC_2495.jpg

Black Sheep
07-09-2004, 11:15 AM
They really are huge aren't they !

Thanks for sharing ! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

One13
07-09-2004, 11:34 AM
The wings are made in Broughton, Cheshire and in order to get them to Toulouse they are floated down the river Dee on a barge. A couple of months ago I saw them do this as the factory were I work is right by the river.
They can only do this at high tide.
The wings to other Airbus aircraft are flown to Toulouse in a specially enlarged aircraft (called the Beluga?), I have seen that flying overhead occasionally.

-----------------------------
First flight 20th Sept.1943

http://uk.geocities.com/peter.squire3@btopenworld.com/vampire-sig.jpg

Get my skins at....
il2skins.com (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=one13&ts=1073140490&comefrom=credits)

PBNA-Boosher
07-09-2004, 11:54 AM
The next Generation of airliners!

Boosher
_____________________________
"So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide. All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you..."
-Gandalf

hughlb2
07-09-2004, 12:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by One13:
The wings are made in Broughton, Cheshire and in order to get them to Toulouse they are floated down the river Dee on a barge. A couple of months ago I saw them do this as the factory were I work is right by the river.
They can only do this at high tide.
The wings to other Airbus aircraft are flown to Toulouse in a specially enlarged aircraft (called the Beluga?), I have seen that flying overhead occasionally.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I saw some footage of the wings being moved not that long ago, its amazing how quick they've put it all together.

I don't think this is the extended body version, thats quite a bit longer, sort of like with the 777-200 compared to the 100.

How long until they strap some engines to this thing and get it into the air? Also, any word on the Boeing 7E7, is it going to enter production?

Slechtvalk
07-09-2004, 12:09 PM
The hangar is more impressive for me then the airplane.

ddsflyer
07-09-2004, 01:20 PM
Hmmm... Shades of the old Boeing double decker Stratoliner.

P4 3.4GHz Northwood
Intel D875PBZ
ATI Radeon X800XT PT
1.0GB Kingston HyperX PC3200
W.D. Dual 80GB SATA RAID
Plextor PX-708A
Lite-On 52x
Creative Audigy2 ZS
NEC FP2141SB

Stormer777
07-09-2004, 03:30 PM
That's pretty cool but you know it's going to get creamed by something that Boeing comes up with.

crazyivan1970
07-09-2004, 03:37 PM
WOA.... huge fellow

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

VW-IceFire
07-09-2004, 03:48 PM
Prize to the biggest next generation liner is definately going to this one. The 7E7 gets the prize for nicest looking (inside and out).

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

mortoma
07-09-2004, 06:57 PM
I avoid flights on Airbuses if at all possible, especially after that vertical stab broke off that one near JFK. They are a piece of junk.

Nexus2005
07-09-2004, 07:07 PM
lol! You aren't American by any chance are you? Do you work for Boeing? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.bobcs.co.uk/sig/Nexussig/sig2.jpg (http://www.bobcs.co.uk)

HuninMunin
07-09-2004, 07:09 PM
@ mortoma

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif


Airbus owns Boeing.

Simon "Hunin" Phoenix

Oberst der Deutschen GoF Trolling Korps

Korolov
07-09-2004, 07:12 PM
I don't see any gun ports. Is that supposed to be a Rammj√¬§ger?

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/klv_sigp38shark1a.jpg

heywooood
07-09-2004, 07:13 PM
huh..you call that flaming?... hurrrumph.



http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v250/heywooood/ac_32_1.jpg
"Check your guns"

Black Sheep
07-09-2004, 07:15 PM
Hmmm.... didn't a few of the early model 737's take a lazy Dutch roll into the ground after the rudder failed and jammed in full deflection ?

Taylortony
07-09-2004, 07:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Moo.Cow:
Hmmm.... didn't a few of the early model 737's take a lazy Dutch roll into the ground after the rudder failed and jammed in full deflection ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They still do, last time i looked they have to replace all of the rudder actuators to stop this happening and as for the fin snapping off, well it was found to be caused by pilot error and was proved no airliner would have withstood the forces involved and when tested it was discovered that a metal fin would have given up the ghost along time before a carbon fibre version would have............. but i digress this is the baby version of the Airbus and as a person in the industry, I think Boeing has lost the plot a bit, they seem to have lost the get up and go that put the whole company on the line to develop the 747 and now seem to be content with producing versions of the same 30 to 40 year old designs and working on their merits ,where at least Airbus, ( and they ain't my favourite company by a long chalk) have the dangalise to put their money where their mouth is and develop new models....... seem to remember 20 years ago they were being looked on as the young upstart that will turn turtle and die within 10 yrs or so................. well look at em now

Gibbage1
07-09-2004, 07:46 PM
I was watching a TV show with John Travolta hosting it about the A380. Bit project! Peaces are made all over Europ and then shipped/trucked into the assembly plant in Germany. They drove the body of that beast through a small town in Germany and only had about 1-2 feet clearance on each side from the buildings. Its a biggy alright! Very impressive. Lets see them sell it.

Gib

Franzen
07-09-2004, 09:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I was watching a TV show with John Travolta hosting it about the A380. Bit project! Peaces are made all over Europ and then shipped/trucked into the assembly plant in Germany. They drove the body of that beast through a small town in Germany and only had about 1-2 feet clearance on each side from the buildings. Its a biggy alright! Very impressive. Lets see them sell it.

Gib<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I remember reading recently, but can't remember where, (Economist?) that they've already received quite a few orders. If the cost : profit ratio is as good as has been prophecized then we'll see lots of these in the sky.

Fritz Franzen

MEGILE
07-09-2004, 09:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The wings are made in Broughton, Cheshire and in order to get them to Toulouse they are floated down the river Dee on a barge. A couple of months ago I saw them do this as the factory were I work is right by the river.
They can only do this at high tide.
The wings to other Airbus aircraft are flown to Toulouse in a specially enlarged aircraft (called the Beluga?), I have seen that flying overhead occasionally. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

CC i live under the flight path to the runway of Hawarden.. and the beluga flies right over my house.. sodding noisy bastige.. but cool

http://www.5thairforce.com/e107_files/public/p51lightj.jpg

Countdown to 1337 post count = P minus 174

mortoma
07-09-2004, 10:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Taylortony:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Moo.Cow:
Hmmm.... didn't a few of the early model 737's take a lazy Dutch roll into the ground after the rudder failed and jammed in full deflection ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They still do, last time i looked they have to replace all of the rudder actuators to stop this happening and as for the fin snapping off, well it was found to be caused by pilot error and was proved no airliner would have withstood the forces involved and when tested it was discovered that a metal fin would have given up the ghost along time before a carbon fibre version would have............. but i digress this is the baby version of the Airbus and as a person in the industry, I think Boeing has lost the plot a bit, they seem to have lost the get up and go that put the whole company on the line to develop the 747 and now seem to be content with producing versions of the same 30 to 40 year old designs and working on their merits ,where at least Airbus, ( and they ain't my favourite company by a long chalk) have the dangalise to put their money where their mouth is and develop new models....... seem to remember 20 years ago they were being looked on as the young upstart that will turn turtle and die within 10 yrs or so................. well look at em now<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Using designs 30 or 40 years old?? Not all I'm afraid. I guess you don't know as much as you think. The 7E7 is brand new in development and I don't think one has even flown yet. Probably not as far along as the big Airbus. And the 777 is not very old at all, I think it entered service only about 10 or 12 years ago.

Franzen
07-09-2004, 11:18 PM
My best friend is a 777 driver. He has 25 years experience in airliners and says the 777 is his favorite. I had asked him before if he looks forward to taking the 380 for a spin(no pun intended) and he said he'd be happy if he never flew anything but the 777 again.

Fritz Franzen

WTE_Ibis
07-10-2004, 01:19 AM
They have been ordered by the safest airline in
the world (re rainman}and also Singapore. They
will sell well on long haul flights be sure,ready in 2 weeks. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://server6.uploadit.org/files/Ibissix-schmile.JPG
http://premium.uploadit.org/Ibissix/MAKE-MY-DAY.jpg
Join us or oppose us, either way "MAKE MY DAY"

Black Sheep
07-10-2004, 02:29 AM
Yep, the 777 is fairly new - if I remember correctly development began in 1990 and the first fare paying flight was with United in 1995.

http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/ilsigs/Nachtjaeger.jpg

WhiskeyBravo
07-10-2004, 04:36 AM
Nice big airplane but have they fixed the .50 cals in it?

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WB.

Capt.England
07-10-2004, 05:07 AM
On the Pravda forums the other week some die hard rednecks was calling for the A380 to be banned from flying into US airports. One reason was that it was not made in the US http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif and another reason was that the plane would not sell and would cost American jobs (How, if it would not sell in big numbers?)

To shut them up I replied with the answer that I work for a company with the letters E + G and that the order book for new engines and also pressure sensors (my line of work) for this plane would make 1000's of jobs in the USA.

As for safety, How many crashes have there been of Airbus type planes, and how many crashes of Boeing type planes in the life time of airbus? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

Mispunt
07-10-2004, 05:44 AM
Well if it's any consolation to the Boeing fanboys ; she might be bigger than a 747, she still looks like a stubby pig compared to the elegant grace of the Jumbojet. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://server6.uploadit.org/files/Mispunt-MisSig.jpg

dragonhart38
07-10-2004, 06:05 AM
Bahrain has orders in for the stretch version of this a/c. Hmm... Looks like to me Airbus wants to get into a whose got the bigger pe**is contest with Boeing. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

http://showcase.netins.net/web/pedalplane/P51.GIF

flockzap
07-10-2004, 06:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Franzen:
My best friend is a 777 driver. He has 25 years experience in airliners and says the 777 is his favorite. I had asked him before if he looks forward to taking the 380 for a spin(no pun intended) and he said he'd be happy if he never flew anything but the 777 again.

Fritz Franzen<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your friend , as I would, would fly a bucket if he was payed well enough http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif

flockzap
07-10-2004, 06:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mispunt:
Well if it's any consolation to the Boeing fanboys ; she might be bigger than a 747, she still looks like a stubby pig compared to the elegant grace of the Jumbojet. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://server6.uploadit.org/files/Mispunt-MisSig.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Efficiency is the issue here... not elegance http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif

Monson74
07-10-2004, 06:55 AM
Whoa - big lady http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

S!

Monson


"The Zerst√¬∂rers will form an offensive circle." - G√¬∂ring

ploughman
07-10-2004, 08:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Bahrain has orders in for the stretch version of this a/c. Hmm... Looks like to me Airbus wants to get into a whose got the bigger pe**is contest with Boeing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think maybe Airbus wants to make aircraft that sell, make some money, and keep hundreds of thousands of people in good jobs throughout the aviation industry.

If it means that everyone who benefits gets to have a larger Johnson to park in their pants, well that would be swell but I doubt that was considered when the suits decided to build the thing. It would be nice to think that the boardroom made the decision entirely based on how much bigger their Richards would look when viewed from an A-380, and that even as we speak, executives at Boeing are getting out their tape-measures and plotting an even more extravagant expression of manhood to restore their dimished pride. Reading some of the posts you get the impression that people are mistaking the A-380 for someone elses wedding tackle and feeling threatened because it hasn't got the right flag painted on it. The A-380 is going to be a big fat people employer that moves other people where they want to go, cheaply, and that's fine with me.

Mispunt
07-10-2004, 09:38 AM
Hear hear, give this man a cigar.
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://server6.uploadit.org/files/Mispunt-MisSig.jpg

Huxley_S
07-10-2004, 10:04 AM
Looks a bit smaller than I thought it would be but still, jolly well done! (also, it seems to have a Thomas the Tank Engine style face, with a red nose http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif)

http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap/fileadmin/Image_Archive/badges/69giap_badge_huxli.jpg (http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap)

FB Music and Campaigns @
http://www.onemorewild.org/huxley

Aaron_GT
07-10-2004, 04:48 PM
"I remember reading recently, but can't remember where, (Economist?) that they've already received quite a few orders. If the cost : profit ratio is as good as has been prophecized then we'll see lots of these in the sky."

In the last year for which figures were available (I don't have space to keep all my back copies of the Economist ro check), if I remember correctly, Airbus received orders for more units than Boeing, but the numbers were very close.

IL2-chuter
07-10-2004, 05:03 PM
I work as a mechanic (at the moment, still) for a major bankrupt airline, and my favorite C-check is the A319/A320. Triples aren't bad but the older Boeings (including '47) are a lot of dirty work. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

IIRC, the A380 has the industry's first welded spar (due to its extreme length) and has skins that are longer than 16 ft. due to skin manufacturing advances. I can't remember how long the skins are though, sorry.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

"I fly only Full Real in Il2 Forgotten Battles." -Mark Donohue

Z4K
07-10-2004, 06:04 PM
I'm freaking out over here in Aus (in a good way). Just started an Aircraft Maintenance Engineering apprenticeship with a certain airline (just think kangaroo, no that's too obvious, try http://www.ctg.it/images/qantas.gif instead http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) - and we're taking delivery in 2006. So I should get to work on them as soon as they turn up. If, that is, they find a hangar big enough for them by then.

Hooray!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Let's play Global Thermonuclear War

ElAurens
07-10-2004, 06:57 PM
Pfffftttt........

You know nothing of elegance.

http://server6.uploadit.org/files/ElAurens-2004_0205Image0035.JPG

This is elegance.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

HarryVoyager
07-10-2004, 09:10 PM
Airbus had a higher sale value, not unit sale, and a significant percentage of that was pre-orders for the A380, so if the A380 is not all that and a bag of chips, Airbus is in for rought times ahead.

As for the two 737 crashes, related to the failure of the tail actuator, it was traced to a batch of actuators made of parts combines from two specific factories, that when combined happened to have just the right overlap to set up a condition for the hydraulic fluid to backflow, reversing the rudder control for hte aircraft.

It was a very facinating series of accidents, but the only reason they came about was because Boeing has sold something on the order of 5000 737s.

The primary complaints I have with Airbus is their reliance on a unified architecture for all of their aircraft, with the implication that if a pilot can fly one Airbus, they are equally proficent at flying any Airbus. To my mind that encourages very bad crewing practices in an industry that is already notorious for little regard for its pilots.

An additional aspect of this is their overly high reliance on computerized cockpits. Several Airbus crashes have been caused because the computer decided the plane was going on direction, when the pilot told the plane to go somewhere else. I'm sorry, but having to navigate through fifteen pages just to find the button that turns the engines back on is not pilot error, it is bad design.

Composit construction is area I have mixed on. While it is true that composits have greater stress tolerances and lighter weight than steel construction, they are also significantly harder to correctly diagnose problems in.

One of the biggest problems in training maintainers for the F-16 is training them to correctly diagnose problems with that plane's composit tailplane. Students would constantly miss severe problems with the tailplane, even though they followed the diagnostic proceedures pretty much correctly. These were people with years of experience maintaining Mirage and Dassault fighters, who could not find a problem in the composite tailplane to save their life.

Finally, every Airbus I have been in has had significant, visible electrical problems. You should not have the lights dim every time they start an engine. If these planes are going to be that heavily computerized, then they had better have an electrical system that can handle a full mid-air engine restart. Somehow I doubt they do.

Harry Voyager

Texas LongHorn
07-10-2004, 11:20 PM
Harry, you make a couple of interesting points. I'm an A & P (Airframe and Powerplant Mechanic) and have worked mostly on Boeing AC, but some experience in AirBus. I'm mostly retired from the turning wrenches business but have been around long enough to speak on the subject. The AB electrical system is a flat out nightmare (electrical is my thing &lt;ggg.&gthttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I have nothing against the ships in general but you are right in that the computerized flight control system (fly by wire) doesn't instill alot of confidence in my book. There's is an old saying around the Seattle area... "If it's not Boeing, I'm not going." True actually, I rarely fly on anything other than the Lazy B. All the best, Mike

http://img49.photobucket.com/albums/v149/msdavis/My_Sig_Image2.jpg

HarryVoyager
07-11-2004, 03:41 AM
You would have gotten a kick out of the F-16's power system. The early versions of that plane had something on the order of a five+ layer redundent system. That one had a main generator, auxiliary generator (both powered off the engine), emergency power unit completely separate from the engine, and something on the order of five batteries each capable of powering the entire aircraft for an hour.

The thing doesn't even notify the pilot until there have been at least three power supplying systems go offline.

Can you tell the USAF was a bit freaked out by the thought of having no mechanical connections to the control surfaces?

Harry Voyager

Taylortony
07-11-2004, 04:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HarryVoyager:
You would have gotten a kick out of the F-16's power system. The early versions of that plane had something on the order of a five+ layer redundent system. That one had a main generator, auxiliary generator (both powered off the engine), emergency power unit completely separate from the engine, and something on the order of five batteries each capable of powering the entire aircraft for an hour.

The thing doesn't even notify the pilot until there have been at least three power supplying systems go offline.

Can you tell the USAF was a bit freaked out by the thought of having no mechanical connections to the control surfaces?

Harry Voyager<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow all that redundant electrical junk and then they go and stick ONE engine in it..


Reminds me of the Tornado, that has a fully computerised FCU and the throttles are mearly big potentiometers, with a redundant path, if A fails B takes over, if B fails A takes over the, If the lot Fails, the engine was designed to accelerate to full power so they could climb from the panes normal low level regime to height so they could sort out what there options was. First time it ever happened in anger they found there was not limiter on the engine due to the computer being down, so the engine just kept adding fuel and spinning up till it eventually went bang...They soon fixed that one..

One of the most remarkable ones I read was when i was in the RAF and involved an RAF Phantom transiting back from the States, mid pond they lost an Engine and carrying full droppers they found they could not maintain height on one engine so would not make landfall, jettisoning the tanks it could climb but would not have enough fuel to make land fall... Faced with an early bath an ingenious plot was hatched, one of the Victor Tanker Aircraft that had met up and refuelled some of the earlier phantoms with its remaining fuel load was diverted and the phantom met up mid ocean and hooked up to it, very, very slowly over a distance of many hundreds of miles, the Victor started a slow climb towing the Phantom on the end of the drogue to altitude until sufficent height was available for the Phantom to make landfall on it own power and fuel... The pilot i seem to remember was awarded a medal for his actions.

Covino
07-11-2004, 05:23 AM
I heard that Airbus and Boeing will probably one day merge due to the huge costs and competition in developing airliners

Huxley_S
07-11-2004, 05:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I heard that Airbus and Boeing will probably one day merge due to the huge costs and competition in developing airliners<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's bad! Competition is good. Boeing and Airbus going head to head means better, safer, greener, more economical planes.

http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap/fileadmin/Image_Archive/badges/69giap_badge_huxli.jpg (http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap)

FB Music and Campaigns @
http://www.onemorewild.org/huxley

Franzen
07-11-2004, 10:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by flockzap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Franzen:
My best friend is a 777 driver. He has 25 years experience in airliners and says the 777 is his favorite. I had asked him before if he looks forward to taking the 380 for a spin(no pun intended) and he said he'd be happy if he never flew anything but the 777 again.

Fritz Franzen<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your friend , as I would, would fly a bucket if he was payed well enough http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For a small percentage of his pay I'd fly a bucket too. With his experience on different planes though, I don't think they'll bother retraining for the flying bucket; the cost is too high http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Fritz Franzen

Aaron_GT
07-11-2004, 10:18 AM
Harry, thanks for the more details on the sales/unit sales. I wonder if the relative Euro:dollar ratio comes into this at all in addition?

"The primary complaints I have with Airbus is their reliance on a unified architecture for all of their aircraft, with the implication that if a pilot can fly one Airbus, they are equally proficent at flying any Airbus. To my mind that encourages very bad crewing practices in an industry that is already notorious for little regard for its pilots."

I think it is a good idea to unify things. You don't want to swap to a new plane, and then accidentally drop the gear when you actually wanted to tune the radio to listen to the Archers :-)

"An additional aspect of this is their overly high reliance on computerized cockpits. Several Airbus crashes have been caused because the computer decided the plane was going on direction, when the pilot told the plane to go somewhere else."

AFAIK, one crash of a prototype/pre-production aircraft at the Paris airshow in 1988, and one in Strasbourg in 1992 may be attributable to a combination of interface design and pilot interaction with it. Given the nature of software, I am surprised that crashes in part attributable to Airbus software have been so low - I would have expected more. But then all planes these days rely on quite a bit of software to run: none are immune these days.

Black Sheep
07-11-2004, 10:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HarryVoyager:

I'm sorry, but having to navigate through fifteen pages just to find the button that turns the engines back on is not pilot error, it is bad design.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's in the middle of centre console, right between the fuel run switches.

Right behind the throttles.

Along with the autostart switches on the right hand side of the overhead panel.

Frankly, if the pilot can't find them without resorting to the manual he shouldn't be in command of a Cessna, let alone an airliner....

http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/ilsigs/Nachtjaeger.jpg

HarryVoyager
07-11-2004, 11:55 AM
I was actually reffering to an incident where an Airbus went crunch, because the aircraft's computer shut down the engines during decent, and didn't bother to tell the pilots why, and they had to spend the rest of the flight going through the computer's interface to find out why the engines had shut down, and how to turn them back on.

It later turned out that the computer system had automatically shut down the engines during decent, as a fuel saving measure, and if they had sharply pulled back on the stick, the computer would have restarted the engines. Nobody had bother to tell the crew that, though, and the computer was happily overriding any attempts to restart the engines. After all, it was in a perfect unpowered glide, why would it need to restart the engines?

By 'pages', I was reffering to screens an MFD displays, not paper pages in a book. What I was saying is that they were going through a fifteen layer deep computer menu in order to tell the computer to knock it off. It's a bit of an exageration, true, but that was essentially what happened in that crash.

Hopefully, they have changed it significantly since then, but I'm not holding my breath.

Interestingly enough, the F-16's single engine hasn't been a real problem. Despite their reputation, the F100's have been quite reliable in the F-16. Now the early GE F110's on the other hand, those had problems. They had one wonderful flaw that would vent the entire engine's oil supply overboard. I'm told it's quite an experience having your engine seize on full mil afterburner. The Viper's not a heavy plane compaired to the mass of its engine...

They've fixed that now.

Harry Voyager

Black Sheep
07-11-2004, 01:03 PM
Blimey, I hadn't heard that one before - and stand corrected. I wonder what on earth the passengers thought - not happy campers I suspect. And what sort of idiots would design a system that physically shut down the engines rather than just going to idle http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

Do you know of any on line reports into this specific incident - I don't necessarily disbeleive you, I would just like to hear a little more about it.

Cheers,


M

Sturmtrooper
07-11-2004, 01:38 PM
Great , another "REPAIR" Bus . The A-300s were a cheaply made lot . They cost about half as much as a Boeing 767 and broke down about four times more often . A lot of the parts on the old A-300s were designed to cut cost, and corners . In others words "cheap". Plastic instead of aluminum , you know .
Hopefully the Britsh/French consortium will get it right this time .

http://home.bellsouth.net/coDataImages/p/Groups/183/183586/pages/456377/untitled1.gif

Freycinet
07-11-2004, 01:56 PM
I hope that you guys dissing either boeing or airbus (mostly airbus in this thread) realise you're all talking BS when you go on and on about such "severe" safety issues.

Both airbus and boeing are certified to fly passengers in both europe and the US. Planes with just the slightest problem in electrical systems, cockpit design, etc., etc. would of course be grounded ASAP.

Both companies have excellent safety records for their planes.

Jasko76
07-11-2004, 01:58 PM
The A320 of Austrian Airlines was the best airliner I ever flew in. The shoddy old MD-80 of the SAS the worst. I really don't like airliners... gimme a Piper or something! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Regards,

Jasko
http://users.skynet.be/orbus/Images/husein_kapetan.jpg

Zmaj od Bosne

HarryVoyager
07-11-2004, 02:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Moo.Cow:
Blimey, I hadn't heard that one before - and stand corrected. I wonder what on earth the passengers thought - not happy campers I suspect. And what sort of idiots would design a system that physically shut down the engines rather than just going to idle http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

Do you know of any on line reports into this specific incident - I don't necessarily disbeleive you, I would just like to hear a little more about it.

Cheers,


M<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was a very early fight with just a cockpit crew onboard I believe.

It was an examply one of my old programming lecturers liked to use to show how making a system to complex can cause serious problems in real world operation.

It may have been the engines went into full idle, and wouldn't come out of it. I'll have to track down the incident and find out.

Still, shutting down the engines is not a serious problem. Jets do tend to be finiky out midair restarts, but it is perfectly doable, when the engines are properly designed for it. The real problem was that the computer system was not adequately communicating with the pilots, and was unwilling to yeild control to them in the event of a disagreement.

Frey, yes we are holding Airbuss and Boeing aircraft to exceptionally high standards. That is precisely how we keep air accidents as low as they have been.

Don't forget, those two crashes involving the 737 very nearly grounded the entire 737 fleet. That's something on the order of 4000 operational aircraft that the FAA was going to give the No-Fly to, if the problem wasn't fixed.

Harry Voyager

Huxley_S
07-11-2004, 03:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The primary complaints I have with Airbus is their reliance on a unified architecture for all of their aircraft, with the implication that if a pilot can fly one Airbus, they are equally proficent at flying any Airbus. To my mind that encourages very bad crewing practices in an industry that is already notorious for little regard for its pilots.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

C'mon, that's a sour grapes comment if ever there was one. Unified architecture across a series of aircraft can mainly be seen as a positive step. Whether that particular architecture is any good is another matter. All you Boeing fanboys can rest assured that the new airbus will be focusing minds on what has until now been a monopoly that is bad for innovation, environment and the fare paying passenger. Good luck to them all!

http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap/fileadmin/Image_Archive/badges/69giap_badge_huxli.jpg (http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap)

FB Music and Campaigns @
http://www.onemorewild.org/huxley

HarryVoyager
07-11-2004, 03:51 PM
Their addprint is that if you can fly a 318 you can practically fly a 380. What I am afraid this is going to lead to is management swaping crews around, with little regard for what planes they have time in. After all, they're all identical, right? The problem is, they never are. An A318 is not going to fly just like an A321.

I strongly suspect that this is going to lead to a much greater rate of "pilot errors" in future, but they haven't really been flying long enough to get good data on it.

Harry Voyager

Black Sheep
07-11-2004, 04:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

An A318 is not going to fly just like an A321.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To be pedantic, an A318 flies pretty much the same as an A321 - both are derivatives of the A320, along with the A319, the former a shortened version, the latter lengthened; they all have identical pits, systems etc and are in effect the same aircraft; pilots rated on one are rated to fly the other two.

Note, however, that this does not automatically qualify them for a an A330 / A340 rating, a conversion course is required for that.

I'm still intrigued by this incident with the pilots being unable to bring the engines out of idle thrust during an open / managed descent.

You see, the throttles on Airbus aircraft are rather different than those found on other manufacturers - they are gated.

In addition to the normal range of free movement, there are several modes that work in conjunction with the autothrust system, activated by moving the thrust levers through the gates; in all of these, all the pilot need do to regain direct control of the throttles is disengage autothrust - mounted on the coaming with the rest of the autopilot direct controls.

If you do ever come across that report, I'd be fascinated to read it - PM me if ya do cuz I think we're getting way off topic http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Cheers,



M.

[This message was edited by Moo.Cow on Sun July 11 2004 at 03:34 PM.]

Nexus2005
07-11-2004, 04:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> To shut them up I replied with the answer that I work for a company with the letters E + G and that the order book for new engines and also pressure sensors (my line of work) for this plane would make 1000's of jobs in the USA. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Pfffft! Trent 900 all the way! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

http://www.bobcs.co.uk/sig/Nexussig/sig2.jpg (http://www.bobcs.co.uk)