PDA

View Full Version : A380 on fire


747FOCAL
19th Apr 2005, 06:40
Not even flown yet and on fire.....


A380 fire (http://www.airliners.net/open.file/813517/L/ )


Maybe practicing for evac test.......:E

Rollingthunder
19th Apr 2005, 06:49
Engines destorage (here #3) The smoke is created by the combustion of the "storage oil" in the engine fuel system

Looks like RH MLG brakes to me. Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

"destorage" That's a new one for me.

B Fraser
19th Apr 2005, 06:52
The absence of any flame in your picture suggests the smoke is actually unburned fuel.

The A380 must have really rattled your cage 747Focal, so many posts and all with a negative attitude. (I suspect you will actually be as pleased as everyone else when it flies)

I remember the anti-Concorde backlash from the USA when their supersonic project was dropped..... sour grapes are so undignified :(

Loose rivets
19th Apr 2005, 07:18
No no no....they're testing the little known power coupling to the main wheels. All part of a quick getaway system.


Well it is Jet Blast -- not technical.;)

Buster Hyman
19th Apr 2005, 07:24
Have you ever seen anything that big that didn't get flatulence?

Windy Militant
19th Apr 2005, 09:05
No It's obviously a fake done on Photo Shop If you look carefully the angle of incidence of the sunlight falling on the smoke is three arc radians less than that falling on the rest of the picture. :p :p

eal401
19th Apr 2005, 09:07
747Focal demonstrating his lack of knowledge again. :rolleyes:

And why did it take so long, this pic was out ages ago.

surely not
19th Apr 2005, 09:20
maybe a potential rename to '747 knows foc'all'

:D

Grandpa
19th Apr 2005, 09:38
..............and what about refraction?

Capt.KAOS
19th Apr 2005, 09:45
Where there's smoke, there's fire....

You did it again FOCAL ;)

lasernigel
19th Apr 2005, 10:11
Why has he posted on Jet blast we wonder?????
Is it because R & N are fed up with him being a Boeing Baby.
Never mind 747 focal we'll wipe another smile off yer face by Friday.:ok:

swh
19th Apr 2005, 10:31
The A340-600 behind it looks so small :ooh:

Duckbutt
19th Apr 2005, 11:17
Where's the problem, my car does that every morning.

Jerricho
19th Apr 2005, 11:41
Wassamatta 747Focal?

All your porn site passwords expired? You've linked much better than that.

chuckT
19th Apr 2005, 11:50
aaaah porn... :p The 380 must be a spotters version of a BBW...

Damn its big ! :)

Scrubbed
19th Apr 2005, 12:49
747Focal demonstrating his lack of knowledge again Coming from a CLERK, I find that particularly hilarious.... HAHAHAHAHAAAAAA.......! :rolleyes:

Anyway you gotta give it to the blindly pro-Airbeast punters around here. Even when the 380 is delivered LATE and found, like previous products, to not fly:
As far
With as great a load
As fast
Off runways at pressure altitudes/lengths/temps promised
And has endless problems with in-flight entertainment
Noisy air-conditioning
A caveat on rudder use
two reversers instead of four
Endless revisions to manuals as the "designers" discover new vices
Systems that defy logic (except Garlic logic) and exclude pilot interaction
Not to mention being overweight

...they will not admit that this aircraft is a lemon like the others out of Tool-oose.

Where's the bowling alley the Frogs promised to install?
Massage parlour?
Putting green?
Helipad?
Dance floor?

What a heap of [email protected]

BALIX
19th Apr 2005, 12:59
...they will not admit that this aircraft is a lemon like the others out of Tool-oose.

Tell you what, though, there was an excellent crop of lemons coming from southern France last year. More, in fact, than came from the Everett lemon grove. :bored:

Some people DO get worked up about the strangest things. My guess is that 99.99% of airline passengers don't give a shit what they are flying on as long as it gets them safely to their destination for as little cost as possible. :confused:

sixmilehighclub
19th Apr 2005, 13:23
You're all wrong.
It was a lovely day and they decided to test the barbeques installed in the lower deck.
(situated between the jacuzzi and the mini golf course)

FLCH
19th Apr 2005, 13:32
The plane landed long..... Capt.Clouseau squeezed the brakes a liitle too hard, but managed to miss hitting the honey wagon and the South African aircraft erroneousely parked on Taxiway Alpha....

eal401
19th Apr 2005, 13:32
I'm trying to find the words to describe Scrubbed, but I know any abuse towards him will be deleted whilst his abuse will be allowed to stand.

Why don't you find some security guards to bully, that seems to be your best ability.

spannerless
19th Apr 2005, 13:44
On Fire!!!!

As an Engineer in the airforce more often than not we would forget to notify air traffic that we were about to carry out post engine change ground runs much to their alarm!!!!!

I'm not saying we did it deliberately but sometimes there was quite a bit of inhibiting oil left in the pipe lines after the engine change and the net result would be a big red fire truck hurtling across the runway whilst making ready its water cannon!!!!

fortunately the fire crew use to see it as good quick response practice rather than turn the water cannon on us :E

just as well really!

So I think u'll find its a nice start from a new engine.

sounds a like a boeing addict hoping it was true to me.

eal401
19th Apr 2005, 13:51
So I think u'll find its a nice start from a new engine.
At least someone knows what they are talking about!

lasernigel
19th Apr 2005, 14:06
they will not admit that this aircraft is a lemon like the others out of Tool-oose.

So we take it as read that Boeing has nothing to worry about.It's sales are over 90% of the market.Oh and it's never had a subsidy off the U.S. goverment in all it's existance.

True or False??

Biggles Flies Undone
19th Apr 2005, 14:10
Maybe someone could remind me...... what was that about a Sonic Cruiser and and what happened the the Tanker contract? :hmm:

IFTB
19th Apr 2005, 14:20
they will not admit that this aircraft is a lemon like the others out of Tool-oose.
The airlines seem to be rather partial to some lemons.
Maybe someone can quote how many lemons Airbus sold in the last 5 years?
And then Mr Focal can advise how many civil aircraft Boing has sold the last 5 years?

Maybe lemons are the hot selling item at the moment Mr Scrubbed ? :rolleyes:

eal401
19th Apr 2005, 14:23
BFU, thanks for reminding me. Second-hand Boeings. WTF were we thinking? :confused:

747FOCAL
19th Apr 2005, 14:27
LOL. You bunch of tards......

I know its oil from the engine start. Thats why it is in JETBLAST. Remember, its a joke forum.

Long Live the greatest package freighter ever produced. :E

Jerricho
19th Apr 2005, 14:27
Betchya 747Focal is reading this and pissing himself lauging (Just like Onan)

Well done matey!

surely not
19th Apr 2005, 14:28
The Beast hasn't flown and yet pprune has someone who knows that it won't fly as far, with as much, has endless problems with the IFE (on the 1st test a/c?) etc etc.

Maybe we should all wait for it's 'actual' performance from properly conducted flight trials before jumping in to either praise or denigrate the Beast.

Cheerio, I cannot agree with your favourite in a rough ride and overall. With it's unexplained rudder probs I prefer the 737 in calm weather thanks, and the A320 beats it hands down for cabin comfort.

I like the 747 (though not the Focal version :D ) and have had quite a few enjoyable flights in various versions, but I am really looking forward to my first flight in the A380 and sampling some of the delights the airlines, not Airbus, have promised.

Biggles Flies Undone
19th Apr 2005, 14:44
For what it's worth, I sussed the trolling - it was the post by Scrubbed that I was aiming at. Nobody can argue that he's a prime target ;)

I'm with surely not - don't enjoy the 737 in turbulence. In my personal opinion, nothing rode the chop better than the L-1011.

Jerricho
19th Apr 2005, 15:10
Long Live the greatest package freighter ever produced

The Ford Transit?

747FOCAL
19th Apr 2005, 15:18
uggh... I really hate Fords.

Jerricho
19th Apr 2005, 15:23
No...... I don't believe you.

A strong dislike for something. You. Never. ;)

(What if we chucked a few girlie mags in the back.. I'm sure that would sway you)

Scrubbed
19th Apr 2005, 16:10
it was the post by Scrubbed that I was aiming at Yeah. Since you had to draw a picture of what you were trying to blurt out, I guess you need to refine your technique somewhat...At least someone knows what they are talking about! HAHAHAHAHAAAAA..........!!!!!!! Ah eal... You have finally hit the nail on the head for once instead of on the thumb. Do you understand your own irony.....The airlines seem to be rather partial to some lemons. Wouldn't be the first time "cheap" outsold "functional". Ask a pilot for a real opinion.... if you can find one around here.

El lute
19th Apr 2005, 16:19
Scrubbed,
Quote
Where's the bowling alley the Frogs promised to install?
Massage parlour?
Putting green?. . .
Unquote

Airbus doesn't decide what is to be installed in the cabin. They just provide the space to airlines who can (within regulatory limits) do whatever they want to with it.

eal401
19th Apr 2005, 16:19
Do you understand your own irony.....
Well, I know I wasn't talking about you. That says more.

Scrubbed
19th Apr 2005, 16:29
They just provide the space to airlines who can (within regulatory limits) do whatever they want to with it Yeah it's called marketing. Run ads showing bowling alleys and happy people living well and maybe the punters will support any airline that buys the abomination of a thing.

Of COURSE the airlines never planned to have lap-pools, petting zoos or jacuzzis on board. You really thought they would?!?!????

That didn't stop the sly frogs from promising it to you all......

The frogs are right to be so worried about the 787 and the 737-replacement.... :ok:



hmmm..... eal, frog, snail..... coincidence???

Big Tudor
19th Apr 2005, 16:33
scrubbed
Ask a pilot for a real opinion.... if you can find one around here.
Tell us where to find one and we will !

IFTB
19th Apr 2005, 16:41
Mr Scrubbed Wouldn't be the first time "cheap" outsold "functional". Ask a pilot for a real opinion.... if you can find one around here.

Do not worry, I know.

Maybe you should stop putting your foot deeper in your mouth.

With kind regards,
IFTB :rolleyes:

Scrubbed
19th Apr 2005, 16:47
Another staunch defender of the undefendable - The Plastic Fantastic. :rolleyes:

Well I admire that, I really do. :ok:

To be honest, though, I'm tired of hearing ex-Boeing pilots whinge about flying the Blunderbus. They only have themselves to blame.

In your case, probably never flown a Boeing or other proper aircraft, it is NOT your fault. It is simply NOT a "pilot's airplane".

But always remember, when you find yourself deeper and deeper in a hole, the best thing to do is stop digging.



Big T: Exactly....

IFTB
19th Apr 2005, 17:09
I'm tired of hearing ex-Boeing pilots whinge about flying the Blunderbus. They only have themselves to blame

Mr Scrubbed continues to spout stupidities.
Some of us were too young to obtain an A320 (family) license.
And there were not many A300/310s around. SO it would be normal that Boeing aircraft (or a British product) would be the only way to work for a 'western' airline.
The result was that a large amount of pilots were ex-Boeing pilots and had a problem with getting used to sidesticks and FBW logic. Hardly a surprise.


However, it all has nothing to do with being succesful in selling lemons!

BahrainLad
19th Apr 2005, 17:37
The Plastic Fantastic.

We'll have no anti-787 sentiment in here, thank you.

acbus1
19th Apr 2005, 18:48
Any French chaps feeling like retaliating? (noting that many of the posters here are Brits.)

One word should do it.........Eurofighter

Redefines the term "lemon", plus a few other terms as well.

The French had the sense to stay out of it.....and, BTW, design and build the Rafale in a fraction of the time at a fraction of the cost.....before the role for it became obsolete.

Scrubbed
19th Apr 2005, 20:10
And hasn't the Rafale been a success story..... overseas orders have been piling in..... :rolleyes: The frogs just love their delta wings don't they???

Anyway what's the point in defending Frog honour by pointing at the limeys and eurofighter (why would they name a jet after a kangaroo???)..... The poms haven't built anything of note since the Spit and even that was made of WOOD!!!

Oh hang on, I forgot the mighty BAe-146, aka the puffjet, fluffjet, jumbolino, quadro-puff, huff 'n' puff, Bring Another Engine.... what an engineering masterpiece!

By wars end they were buying P-51s, F4U4s, etc, etc, etc...

Then there was the vomit-comet but they couldn't figure out how to make the windows stay attached. Took the yanks to do that.had a problem with getting used to sidesticks and FBW logic HAHAHAHAHAAAAA......

Well that MIGHT be a valid point if there actually WERE any "logic" involved but we're talking about a Blunderbus here... Try to stay with us, Kaffir Fruit Licker or whatever it is....

Grandpa
19th Apr 2005, 20:31
Airbus isn't French anymore, it's European.

Caslance
19th Apr 2005, 20:33
Sorry, Scrubber. Which planet was this again??? :hmm:

Scrubbed
19th Apr 2005, 20:42
Well you created it, old man... don't try to unload the blame on all ya neighbours.

kooyheier
19th Apr 2005, 21:11
so scrubbed why do you call it the blunderbus exactly.....
Because of it's very pilot friendly (read ergonomic) flight deck??
Because of it's protections to protect pilots from F*ck ups or ...
Or maybe it's because your jealous that you haven't had the pleasure of flying an airbus....

you tell us...

Scrubbed
19th Apr 2005, 21:20
Because of it's protections to protect pilots from F*ck ups Don't be ABSURD.

Even Airbus own test pilots (RIP) came to grief operating their product.

Then there was the A320 "lawnmower". Fat lotta good the protections did on THAT flight....

I can't be bothered listing the many complaints my 320/330/340 mates have of the blunderbus.

:rolleyes:

Capt.KAOS
19th Apr 2005, 21:22
By wars end they were buying P-51s...whose fuselage was actually designed by one of the German designers responsible for the famous Me109 and it took the British RR engines to save the P-51 from ground attack roles only.

kooyheier
19th Apr 2005, 21:25
SCRUBBED
Yes and boeings never ever crash do they????

Well I've asked you to list some complaints why you call it the blunderbus but you fail to do so..

And taken from your post "I can't be bothered listing the many complaints my 320/330/340 mates have of the blunderbus"

Meaning you haven't flown it yourself...
So from my point of view your just full of it!!

Now go away and hassle some other people....

cheerio

Scrubbed
19th Apr 2005, 21:46
Here we go with the "RR Merlin" angle again..... We'll never get tired of hearing about your contribution!!

Did they put the Merlin in the F4, P-47, P-38 (maybe they did....), P-39, F8, B-25, B-17, B-29, etc, etc, etc....???? I doubt it.

Funny, isn't it, Keyholer, how the ones who get the most upset about bus-bashing are those who have no choice but to fly the bags o'shite.

Does the airline you work for operate any Boeings?

Capt. K:

HAHAHAHHAAAAAA......!!!

"A sort of urban legend has grown up about Edgar Schmued, which claims that he had once worked for Willy Messerschmitt and that the Mustang was heavily influenced by the Bf 109."

Nice try...... (http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/1999/11/stuff_eng_p51early.htm) :ok:

kooyheier
19th Apr 2005, 21:51
Yes my airline does operate boeings as well (757-767). And having flown both... I do know what I'm talking about
But still no complaints from you about the blunderbus....
Still waiting.....

Solid Rust Twotter
19th Apr 2005, 21:59
P-38 was powered by a pair of Allisons IIRC. Don't think RR got to play with it. Think Packard also had a go.

Capt.KAOS
19th Apr 2005, 23:07
You were talking P-51's. Nice try too, Scooby.

"As Edgar Schmued, designer of the P-51, who had received his practical experience in aircraft design as an employee of the Messerschmitt company once told me, "After the 109E was put into production, it was clear that if one wished to participate in the development of a truly world‑class aeroplane, one would have to do it elsewhere than at Messerschmitt."


link (http://www.letletlet-warplanes.com/Bf109K.htm)

tony draper
19th Apr 2005, 23:11
Was not the P51 Mustang ordered by and built for the RAF originally?.
:confused:

Biggles Flies Undone
19th Apr 2005, 23:24
The poms haven't built anything of note since the Spit and even that was made of WOOD!!!
Actually, it wasn't. Perhaps you're thinking of the Mosquito, Scrubber?

Anyway, whether or not you know the difference between a single and a twin, you're still a boring Troll.

http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/yawn2.gif .... and that's my last word on the subject.

Send Clowns
19th Apr 2005, 23:27
Scrubbed

Damn, I think you should tell the pilots of the Spitfire that it was wood. Those I've flown with had all been taught that it was a metal semi-monocoque*.

Thummmmm ....... Bang!!! Another armchair hero's credibility shot down in flames ...

A hero who has never heard, apparently, of the Meteor, the Hunter, the Canberra, the Vulcan, the Harrier, the Hawk etc. ... . Three of these were even sold to the Americans, against the normal US procurement rules, because they had nothing with the same capability (come on - which were they. Hint: all were built at least partly in the US to get around the rules).

Who apparently wasn't aware that the P-51 was an inadequate fighter (or pursuit aircraft, as the then USAAF would have it, hence the P) before it gained a British engine so is now hastily backpedalling, and didn't really mean the P-51 at all, but a host of other letter and numbers.

Even the implied criticism of the 146 is ridiculous (you seem entirely unable to frame any real argument against any of the aircraft you criticise; something about Airbuses you seem unable to explain, being wood, being the first **). It was a very specialised design, and sold quite widely to be used in the niche it fulfilled. More modern designs have made that largely obsolete, but that is not a fault in the original design. If that had been a problem then they would not have been a commercial success.

Who the £_(< names a kangaroo Typhoon ?!???

*Of course there were some awesome all-wooden aircraft that were massively more capable than any metal opposition (Mosquito being the most obvious) so I'm not sure what point you were trying to make in the first place.

** The UK engineers did solve the Comet problem without US help, and it is hardly surprising the Americans never had a similar problem because they were second, so had the British data to use! Do you even know why the tests did not show up the problem?

Scrubbed
20th Apr 2005, 00:04
Yeah I think we all know the Mossie was a wooden wonder. But if your cred is so good, why are you all getting so defensive about it?

Yeah the -146 is widely known as a great aircraft, 4-engine rollbacks, icing ceilings and lung-killing oil fumes being but three of its finer points. Yes a "very special design". Special... yes.

Yep, the yanks enjoyed using the canberra as a target drone.....

Didn't the yanks remove the faults and inefficiencies of the Harrier and re-design it as the AV-8B? Or was that the limeys? I notice the Spanish and the Italians prefer the US model.... Hey look, it was developed by...... Boeing!!

Ho-hum......

Too late for the comet which was never going to gain public approval anyway. Not when they come down in more pieces than they go up. Was the comet made of wood, too?

Wooden airplanes..... how delightfully quaint!!

aeroconejo
20th Apr 2005, 00:12
what a scrap!!!

I cannot believe that such a debate has debased itself to such a level :confused:

shameful :*

aeroconejo :suspect:

Maude Charlee
20th Apr 2005, 10:41
This is exactly why if I don't grow up I want to be a pilot. :}

Toulouse
20th Apr 2005, 11:15
Scrubbed... what's your point?

panda-k-bear
20th Apr 2005, 12:06
What a bunch of suckers! Scrubber's never flown an Airbus - nor, evidently, any other aircraft come to that. Clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. Can't create an argument without resorting to insults. He thinks he knows about the history of aviation - sorry, little man, not doing too well their, either. :p
He obviously feels indebted to the U.S. for everything aviation related (including, no doubt, the jet engine).

Why are you all rising to it? :suspect:

BillHicksRules
20th Apr 2005, 12:08
Send Clowns,

I am surprised to see you responding to such obvious trolling.

This guy does not his ass from his elbow.

He is Australian and is having a go at the British and European Aviation industries!!

We must not forget the massive contribution made by those Dunnunda to the history of aviation.

I mean who has not stood in awe at the Fosters Transport, the design so spectacularly used to great effect to make sure all those cobbers were saved in the Great Beer Drought of 1976.

And the sleek lines of the Minogue Mosquito, I know some said it was too short but what a rear end it had.

Cheers

BHR

Buster Hyman
20th Apr 2005, 13:12
"HOW DARE YOU SIR!":suspect:

Was what I was going to say to BHR...then I remembered the Nomad.:(

Windy Militant
20th Apr 2005, 13:23
We must not forget the massive contribution made by those Dunnunda to the history of aviation.

That'll be the Jindivik then. :rolleyes: ;) ;)



It's a nice day I won't bother with a coat thanks.

Scrubbed
20th Apr 2005, 13:47
No, that would be the boomerang. Developed and refined without mathematics, computers or even a straight-edge by Australians, prior to the Limeys unloading their cons upon that unspoilt land.

Big mistake, that. Shoulda left the scum behind and come down yourselves.... look who's laughing now! The poms have been trying to un-do that one for years now.

Anyway, yes the Jindivik is widely hailed as a great flying machine. So good it doesn't even need a pilot in it. So good even the yanks bought some but they had no need to improve it, unlike the limey machines they bought.

Blunderbus complaint #1

Every week my mates who fly the bus in other airlines receive a swath of amendments for the thing whereas we on Boeings receive 1 or 2 a year. This says a lot for their organisation, for starters.

Rhodie
20th Apr 2005, 14:15
Y'know Scrubbed - it's been said earlier...

You can stop digging the hole now - it's deep enough and all the sheeite your talking aint going to make a step for you either...

Now, if you do it quietly, change your name, leave town and go back to school, soon everybody will forget and you will soon be able to go out again...

panda-k-bear
20th Apr 2005, 16:30
Didn't know Microsoft provided ammendments.

Jerricho
20th Apr 2005, 16:54
change your name

Again :E.

Scrubbed
20th Apr 2005, 17:05
Hey man, we do what we have to......

When I get around to re-registration, we'll see what we can do.

Jerricho
20th Apr 2005, 17:07
I can think of a few good ones ;) :E

Scrubbed
20th Apr 2005, 17:11
PM them. I'll throw them in the hat with the others if they look like they have potential....

:ok:

Scrubbed
20th Apr 2005, 17:45
Not everyone appreciates my talents.

Caslance
20th Apr 2005, 17:46
And those would be.........? :confused:

Scrubbed
20th Apr 2005, 17:47
I rest my case.

Caslance
20th Apr 2005, 17:50
No - that would be a luggage rack. A talent is something one has a natural ability in.

Having read your contributions above, though, I can well understand your confusion. :E

Scrubbed
20th Apr 2005, 19:27
#2

Wheel-brakes on stupid middle LG leg throwing off the system on wet runways due slippage on painted centreline.

PT6ER
20th Apr 2005, 21:13
Quote "Yeah the -146 is widely known as a great aircraft, 4-engine rollbacks, icing ceilings and lung-killing oil fumes being but three of its finer points. Yes a "very special design". Special... yes. "

Interesting to note that two of the three problems are associated with the darling LF502 / 507 engine made .........in Stratford Ct, U S of A

Jerricho
20th Apr 2005, 21:17
Aww Scrubby, why did you edit back from Air-Hag??

Scrubbed
20th Apr 2005, 21:33
Well I like to dangle a little bait now and then. It always gets a bite and amuses me somewhat.



As for Yank engines to blame:

Not really.

Who designed the aircraft EAI systems???

Who designed the AC, bleed and pressurisation systems?

#3

SSC set-up where PNF does not intuitively know what PF is doing with SSC unless he looks at Maltese cross on PFD (only available on ground and during rotation)

Scrubbed
20th Apr 2005, 22:11
The mods don't want you to know. :*



#4

Reversers on only two of the four engines on the A380 Fatbody due to bloated over-weightness.

PT6ER
20th Apr 2005, 22:44
"As for Yank engines to blame:

Not really.

Who designed the aircraft EAI systems???

Who designed the AC, bleed and pressurisation systems?"

AC, Bleed and pressurization systems take compressed air from the LP compressor which has been known to introduce strong oil odors and some smoke along the way.

Any "us and them" kind of argument is typically unanswerable but why dont we just celebrate our combined successes and join together in slaggin off the French / Welsh / United Fans / Yankees Fans / Fixed Wing Pilots / Helicopter Pilots etc etc etc

Got to love this place haven't you?
;)

Scrubbed
21st Apr 2005, 12:37
And those steadfastly defending the Plastic will have to admit the selling price is a major draw-card.

There is always a market for ''cheap and nasty''although we rarely hear abut the subsequent cost of maintaining the product, let alone the attitude from the manufacturer whenever something goes wrong with their Garlic offspring.

EG when a rudder falls off.

But with the USD down and the Yeeros up, the cost of a blunderbus for many airlines will make it less appealing than the quality alternative product.

IFTB
21st Apr 2005, 12:39
middle LG leg

such spot-on terminology. :rolleyes: a real insider.

BahrainLad
21st Apr 2005, 17:29
Yes, because of course, if they were cheap to buy and cost a bomb to maintain, no one would ever re-order would they?

Moron.

Scrubbed
21st Apr 2005, 18:06
Ahhhh, BrainLad... what an appropriate title. Yet another hapless bus-driver who insists its a wonderful machine and "we all really, really enjoy flying it, a real pilot's jet!!" :ok:

:rolleyes:

You must really love that table. Do you mind not knowing what the airplane's brain is attempting to do half the time???

Wow. You don't see other jet-jocks so strenuously and brutally defending their machines like those down-and-outers who lost out and now work for airlines run by bean-counting, blunderbus-buying accountants...

Hey Kaffir Leaf Licker, I take it you didn't approve of the deliberate use of "middle leg" in order to further deride the ridiculous French pile of [email protected] Sorry I'll try not to do that again!!

Hunter58
21st Apr 2005, 20:32
Ahhh, how nice would it be to be 16 again an so full of energy to play grown - up...

Hey Scrubby... ya know... just to tell you...

In the real world Airbusses are NOT programmed by PSS and Boeings by PMDG.

But maybe someone will have told you that before....?

(BTW just for your knowledge base... the ttle incident in Habsheim, the Bus that kissed the forest you emntioned? That was becasue Mr SuperspecialIknowitallchiefpilot did actually DIS-Engage all Protections. The real problem was then that he expected the Aircraft to react as WITH protection, which (if you really think about it it come to you as being logical) it did NOT. I know he still claims that this is not true, but... oh well...)

(BTW another one for your knowledge base. You know WHY Airbus sells more than Boeing? There are a handful of reasons, and it is NOT price. No,one of the most important is that Airbus actually has the absolute novel concept of talking to you about possible sales, WHOEVER you are, not only if you want to place an order for 100 aircraft plus. Keeps the guys really sharp on their friendliness skills. You have to understand that PILOTS [sorry chaps, but the real ones amongst you certainly know this already] do NOT decide on the airplanes that are being bought. But it is really important to talk to the people who prepare the desision for the board, and those usually include mechanics, dispatchers, pilots and the occasional bean - counter. I hear most guys in Airbus nowadays doing that on one side of the Atlantic worked in Long Beach before....)

AntiCrash
22nd Apr 2005, 01:05
So, any news as when the thing lifts off?

IFTB
22nd Apr 2005, 08:00
the deliberate use of "middle leg"

Yeah, right. :}

I've heard 10 year olds coming up with better stuff.

panda-k-bear
22nd Apr 2005, 10:30
It's OK IFTB, the little guy's only 8 himself. He's dying for his 9th birthday - his mum and dad are going to buy him the DC9 add on for FS.

Send Clowns
22nd Apr 2005, 10:52
Ah, scrubbed responds to my post pointing out his ignorance ... by demonstrating it yet again!

The Yanks used the Canberra as a bomber, because there was, at the time, nothing in the entire world with the capability. They also used the original, all-British-designed Harrier, as the AV-8A. Bet that's a revelation, why they called the later one the AV-8B, isn't it? A great design, there was little change before the aircraft that won the Falklands conflict.

In case you hadn't noticed, or in case you know absulotely nothing about the aviation industry, later aircraft are improvements on earlier ones, and develop to overcome their flaws. However interestingly enough the earlier ones have to come first, no-one has found a way round this.

Of course for the Harrier II the design was developed on both sides of the Atlantic (scratch another one against Scrubber's knowledge of what he is talking about), but that was a perfectly ordinary piece of design work, improving an existing concept, revolving around an all-British engine. That concept was one that beat all efforts of the other nations trying to do the same. I am willing to agree that it's odd that the Spanish and Italians didn't choose the earlier, by then obsolete, design but hey, I've got to humour you at some point, it is hard to struggle against delusion!

Still not got the third, have you? Do you want a clue, to help your Googling?

The 146 has performed excellent service, not least in your country and the USA (not know for buying foreign aircraft just to help the nation's industry). Presuming that your own aircraft industry is so hot, why not use your own unique STOL aircraft? It can carry one passenger. Sorry, that was a German design, wasn't it? If the 146 had a flaw, you are right in one of your criticisms, it is in the engines, their bleeds to the air conditioning has been known to pass small amounts of mild toxin. Would you find out for me who made the engines, since you're so good a googling?

Of course it was too late for the Comet II, and as you said it was all public perception, nothing to do with the design that was excellent and is still flying today! So another good, British aircraft subsequent to the Spitfire - your wild statements start to look increasingly inaccurate. The Americans learnt by our mistakes, and the 707 was a fine jet airliner, it was just the second rather than the first (is there a theme here? You pointing out that later aircraft are better?).

So you really don't know why the flaw didn't show up in the test stage for the Comet. Do you want a clue about that too? It was purely bad luck.

Finally, since you mention rudder problems, I take it that the airlines are more concerned about rudder hard-overs than rudders falling off? The latter, after all, has only happened once, the former is a regular occurence and has destroyed several aircraft of a certain design.

Scrubbed
22nd Apr 2005, 11:27
They did indeed send clowns....

Your national pride knows no bounds. Everyone else is of the opinion it was the AIM-9L sidewinder which won the air war for the Brits. Followed by 'H' and the paras on the ground.

Not to kiss US @rse here but who built that missile??? You guys???

But it's not your fault you couldn't develop your own worthwhile AAM missile technology. The 146 has performed excellent service, not least in your country HAHAHAHAHAAAAAA......!!!!

Who told you THAT whopping porky pie???!?!?

Yes it's true the aircraft WAS operated in this country. Abeles bought a few of them when he was p!ssed, just before he let the frogs talk him into buying Deathstars by buying him a free snail dinner.

"Excellent service"... HAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA........!!! I love it, keep it coming, Krusty...!!

Yeah you're right, the B-52 didn't arrive for a couple of years after the Can't-berra. What did the yanks do with them then???

Attached Radio Control units and shot them down!!!!

The AV-8A was a real success story in US service.

Yes, interesting the Spanish opted to wait until someone else finished re-developing the Harrier into something they were prepared to buy. Yes... interesting.The Americans learnt by our mistakes Well who's the smarter then???707 was a fine jet airliner, it was just the second rather than the first The second what? Airliner? I thought the 70 was the first and the Comet was in pieces??

Okay, sorry... I'm going to read my dad's airplane books and check it out.

As for rudders, no points for the 737 "hitch", it was so obvious I'm disappointed to see you resort to it.

But was it Boeing or Blunderbus who issued a bulletin stating on their aircraft "full rudder input is evaluated out to Vmo/Mmo." Hint: Airbus simply issued a disclaimer in their manuals stating if you break it off, it's your fault.




PS Vmo/Mmo means "max speed" in simple terms.....

panda-k-bear
22nd Apr 2005, 12:45
Google B-47. Just for the dates, like. They were perfectly able to build bombers themselves. But for a different mission.

Then look up what a B-52 was designed to do. And then look up what the B-57 was designed to do (know what a B-57 is, scrubber). Oh, doesn't 57 come AFTER 52? Maybe not to Aussie rules. Think you'll find B-52s are [email protected] at low level strikes - a bit too big, you see...

And without our wilfully abhorrent government policies, you'd be flying TSR2s and not F-111s now.

Whilst you're at it, Google SkyFlash and ASRAAM.

We're all still waiting for you to tell us what the 3rd British designed machine in U.S. service is (oh, there's another one, by the way - a 4th - think you can find that one? Oh and there's a 5th, thinking about it go on - list 'em all!).

Send Clowns - am I right in thinking that the only other "foreign" machine, bar these 5, to spend time with the U.S. Air Force, Navy, Army and/or Marines was the IAI Kfir (as the F-23 Lion)?

dmanton300
22nd Apr 2005, 13:00
Yes, interesting the Spanish opted to wait until someone else finished re-developing the Harrier into something they were prepared to buy. Yes... interesting.

What's really really interesting is yur continued lack of basic knowledge. In actual fact the Spanish bought AV-8A's. . called the AV-8S Matador in Spanish service. The initial batch had to purchased via the US due to export restrictions in place against Spain at the time, the second batch ordered later came direct from the UK production line to Spain.

So in fact the Spanish didn't wait at all. It's not often you're right, but you're wrong again. Is it a habit or a hobby?

Scrubbed
22nd Apr 2005, 13:18
I did look up ASRAAM and it said:The Germans concluded that the ASRAAM demonstrated a serious lack of agility compared to the Russian Archer. Sounds like even Ivan has you guys out-classed with his tube-technology. I gather the krauts were the orginal brains of the ASRAAM but they pulled out because they thought UK involvement was turning it into a lemon.... kind of like the Eurofighter shambles and the carrier sh!t-fight.

Hey man... just telling you what Google says. Want the link?

Infact, when WAS the last time the limeys did anything ON THEIR OWN???? The original Junk Jet?? Back in the 60s (or whenever...)??? The Enfield SA-80??? HAHAHAHAAA!!!

Anyway since the ASRAAM is equipped with a Raytheon-Hughes infrared seeker (the guts of the thing), I hardly think you should be jumping up and down about it. Is Raytheon-Hughes a Brit company???

Jeezuzzz... how much can a panda bear???

Ok Panda, so since the B-17 was around during WWII, we can extrapolate using your simple and quaint English numbers "logic" and determine that the B-1 was in use during the Boer War. So why did the Brits lose that war with such technology at hand???

And why didn't someone in an F-4 kick Von Richtofen's @rse in WWI since it came so long before the F-86 in Ko-rea???

I'm getting ahead of myself. Google also says Skyflash is the RAF's major air defence weapon. The Skyflash was a development of the AIM-7E2 Sparrow....entered service with the RAF ..... for use by the F-4 Phantom HAHAHAHAHAAAAA......!!! Ah my guts hurt now...

Who built the Sparrow? You guessed it: Raytheon. You tell me who built the F-4.... way back in 1919 (using your logic and aeronautical knowledge). Shame..... too late for WWI.

I confess... I don't know what a TSR-2 is. I guess I AM more ignorant than you. I'll have to look it up.still waiting for you to tell us what the 3rd most advanced British designed machine in U.S. service is Answer:

The Chip Fryer.

tony draper
22nd Apr 2005, 13:25
Yup, no slouches those German engineers, after all, they put the first men on the moon.
:rolleyes:

BillHicksRules
22nd Apr 2005, 15:37
Send Clowns,

I wonder what US carriers would look like without all those nice British/European innovations aboard.

No jet engines
No steam catapults
No angled decks
No nuclear reactors
No RADAR

Cheers

BHR
:) :) :)

Scrubbed
22nd Apr 2005, 15:57
You also have much amusement-value, Wild Bill Hiccock Rulz...

Why mention those items when everyone was working on the SAME "innovations" at the same time??? May as well claim the Japs invented the first carrier specifically designed as such.... which they did.

The turbine was nothing new.... been around for years.

You may as well claim you were the first to invent chewing with your mouth closed.

Everyone was working on The Bomb too but we're not jumping up and down about the fact it was the yanks who did it.

Going back to earlier, I forgot to mention the Quadro-puff was reviled in Aust aviation circles and laughed at. Abeles lost a lot of respect for buying that fleet of lemons.

They could not carry enough, far enough, fast enough or off hot enough fields to keep anyone happy. And they look ugly to top it off.

Being poisoned by the thing was the final indignity for many pilots.

And then the A320 Deathstar** purchase when he was drunk just floored everybody. Except the French who asked no questions, quietly took the money and RAN!!




**They called it "Skystar" so people wouldn't associate it with chainsaws or Indians...

tony draper
22nd Apr 2005, 16:40
General Santa Anna, he that gave those Texicans a wellying at the Alamo invented chewing gum,not many people know that.

:rolleyes:

Hunter58
22nd Apr 2005, 16:54
Scrubby

you now what the really really good thing is?

You don't work in Aviation. And something tells me you don't have what it takes to ever do it. Becasue Aviation is in general international with common sharing of information and technology. But a xenophibic greenhorn like you won't be able to see that anyway.


So now after the French it is the Brits that did everything wrong? Who will come after that? The Canadians? Or maybe the Brazilians? The Germans? The Argentinians? The Indians? The Chinese? The Russians? The Colombians?.... (fill in at own will)...


Well, so now that Megajet is building their new plastic monsters in China and Japan, Hairbrush soon will have more american components in their 'lemons' that Megajets... Or maybe that is so already...??? Basically the most important person in aviation does not care about it anyway. That person is calles 'Passenger'.


The real problem Megajet is having is that for some little time they actually listened to 'lemons' like yourself, becasue they really for a long time did think that Hairbrush was not to be taken serious. Oh well...

BahrainLad
22nd Apr 2005, 17:18
Absolutely.

"They'll sell about a dozen and then go out of business."

Senior Boeing Exec, early 1970s.

Whoops!

West Coast
23rd Apr 2005, 06:06
BHR

How many of those still exist in the UK?

BillHicksRules
23rd Apr 2005, 09:39
West Coast,

Touche.

Cheers

BHR

Gouabafla
23rd Apr 2005, 10:01
I hesitate to jump into this debate - but here goes anyway.

Basically the most important person in aviation does not care about it anyway. That person is calles 'Passenger'.

I spend a lot of my life sitting in the back of aeroplanes. I used to take a keen interest in what particular model I was flying in, but that pretty soon became a pointless exercise. Walking down a jetway all you see of the aircraft is the door - and for the most part they all look the same anyway. The inside layout of the plane seems to be determined by the airline rather than the manufacturer. When I sit down in cattle class for a few hours in the tender hands of the airline industry, I want to know two things.

1. Where is the nearest exit (and yes, I do listen to the safety announcement)?
2. What is the IFE system like?

As a Brit, I want Airbus to do well, but as a passenger, all I care about is a smooth ride, friendly crew and an equal number of take offs and landings.

acbus1
23rd Apr 2005, 11:28
Scrubbed
I confess... I don't know what a TSR-2 is.
That's a pity, Scrubbed.

You could have a veritable field day with the TSR2........with my blessing.

Horrendously expensive beyond belief, costs spiralling ever higher, completely out of control, serious engine and airframe problems promising even higher costs to come.

The self same company........the self same factory even, is now engaged in the Typhoon (Eurofighter) project. Old habits die hard......especially old spending habits. :*

Scrubbed
23rd Apr 2005, 13:32
Oh the TS R-2.........

"All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics. TSR.2 simply got the first three right."

- Sir Sydney Camm

Well if looks could kill the TSR-2 would've....... but I have to admit the BE Lightning was a [email protected] machine. Loud and fast, the two best words in aviation.

Interesting though, that the F-4 model the UK introduced with British engines also turned out to be a lemon and much inferior to the stock-versions bought later to beef up the numbers...


As for who should get it next.... I'd say it is a tie between the Indians and the Chinese. Not many of either around here so I'll save my strength for another day.


Meanwhile, I see they've postponed the first flight of the A380 Mega-Mall indefinitely. Someone finally admitted it is an over-weight queen-slug.

Seems even sheer ugliness will not cause the earth to repel it into the sky.

I told you so.

Caslance
23rd Apr 2005, 14:04
Haven't you got any homework to do, Scrubbed? :rolleyes:

panda-k-bear
25th Apr 2005, 12:28
Oh dear, Scrubber. You accuse ME of a lack of knowledge.

I'll save you the bother of Googling, shall I? (kind of me isn't it?).

On the 1st September 1962 the United States introduced the Joint Numbering System for all of it's military aircraft programmes. The United States Air Force had been using the basis for this system since the WWII era, but the Navy, Army etc. had not - they were brought into line, but starting back at 1. Thus the first new bomber to enter service AFTER 1st September 1962 was the B-1 (B-1A, actually, but that was initially cancelled, then reinstated by Reagan). Although the Navy had reached high designations, they were all reset, thus, by pure luck, really, the F4H (H denoting McDonnell) became the F-4; the A4D (D denoting Douglas - they were separate entities at that time) became the A-4; the A3J became the A-5 and so on. The F-1 was actually the Fury.

So please don't lecture me on the history of aviation when you clearly know nought.

And as for an indefinite delay - French press seem to think it'll be Wednesday of this week.

Send Clowns
25th Apr 2005, 14:50
Exactly, BHR, they would have a tough time.

Scrubbed

Do you realise that I usually charge for teaching people things? You are getting great value here, you're being educated by many fine people here for free!

AIM 9L was very useful, yes. Would have got nowhere without an aircraft to fire it though. Only one aircraft could operate in the circumstances presented, adn it was the Harrier. The Harrier could have operated without the 9L, although another missile would have to have been used. Had Sidewinders not been available to the British then another missile would have been procured or developed (in fact the Sidewinder replacement was almost finished in development at BAe Dynamics at the time, a high off-boresight missile called SRAAM, superior in every way to 9L. Unfortunately politics interfered and the ASRAAM and AMRAAM programmes were started, and SRAAM technology amalgamated into the multinational project which then took years to come up with little improvement). The point of the Harrier was that the other major aviation nations tried to develop equivalent and failed; the only similar aircraft was a drastically inferior Soviet copy.

You get dull when you just laugh at and rubbich other people's posts because you don't know enough to justify your arguments. Many companies carried on buying the 146 and its successors. The RJ-X was only cancelled due to dropped orders after September 11th. Unless you seriously intend to suggest that airlines tend to charitably buy from manufacturers just to keep them in business, you should be feeling ratehr foolish right about now.

You are lying. You didn't "think" at all, you haven't bothered since you started posting here. The Boeing 707 was the second jet airliner design. You can't change that by screaming and shouting, you just look more and more stupid.

The rudder hard overs exist. I have a friend who experienced one on a 737, fortunately in a phase of flight where he could cope with it. Now it is known about the Airbus rudder problem (which may also affect Boeing aircraft, no-one has tested them all) it is not really an issue. I like Boeings, by the way. You looked at one problem with one aircraft, then used it to suggest another manufacturer was better. I pointed out that that manufacturer has its problems too. I only used the example because it related to the same control. I could equally have talked about airliners blowing up in mid air.

But you now admit that the Americans did need the Canberra. What they did when they no longer needed it frontline is irrelevant, doesn't affect it's qualities as an aircraft. They use F4s as remote-controlled targets now, doesn't mean they weren't excellent aircraft in their time, whether British or US engines were used. Your tired attacks with no justifications won't make the former a lemon however much you scream.

What aircraft did the Americans specifically ask the British to send to Afghanistan, Scrubbed?

Someone has reminded me of another great British aircraft. The Blackburn Buccaneer. In many ways as capable as the F-111 that the RAF wanted and never got (the RAAF got lumbered with it though, didn't they?). Some commentators even put it as a superior aircraft, and it was certainly cheaper and simpler.

You'd get a lot further in your argument if you switched off the tendency to ranting and irrationality. You'd also do better to realise that people who know what they are talking about will rip apart the garbage you get from Google. Or are you like the kid my mother was teaching who, on being told that something was wrong said "it must be right - I found it on the internet"?

P.S. I know what Vmo and Mmo mean. I didn't even have to look it up. You might find that most of the people who know waht they're talking about here didn't. So where did you look it up?

747FOCAL
25th Apr 2005, 14:54
Not to derail the current beating (I mean education) of Mr. Scrubbed, but I find it real comforting to know that even if there is or was a rudder hard over problem on the 737 at least the tail stays on so you have some hope of recovery..........:E

Biggles Flies Undone
25th Apr 2005, 15:02
Yeah, and I suppose when the top popped off the 737 at least the passengers got a better view..... :p

Send Clowns
25th Apr 2005, 15:02
P.P.S. I did say you could have a hint as to the other UK design in US service on the list - all three were on my original list, so my challenge is easier than Panda's! This one is in US Navy service as your first clue.

P.P.P.S. You think you know about great plans and have never heard of the TSR2? The greatest legend of great "should-have-been"s? You display your ignorance at every turn.

How about another challenge - what famous WWII 'plane was derrived from a prototype designated TSR-2?

Panda-K-Bear

I didn't know about the Kfir. Doesn't surprise me though. The reason the US won't procure abroad is they don't trust their allies to supply them in times of war, a policy Belgium showed to be sensible in the first Gulf War. They do trust the UK and Israel though.

BillHicksRules
25th Apr 2005, 15:36
SC,

Is the aircraft you are thinking of named after a rather rare and beautiful raptor?

Cheers

BHR

Send Clowns
25th Apr 2005, 15:59
It is :D

Biggles Flies Undone
25th Apr 2005, 16:07
That sounds magical ;)

panda-k-bear
25th Apr 2005, 16:23
Does the U.S. actually use the G222? If so I have to add another nation and aircraft to my list - something I was pondering of the weekend. Ooh-ooh - what about the new Marine One fleet?!

Must give up my spotter-ish tendencies and get on with my evaluation of the relative merits of Boeing and Airbus aircraft - but of course that's what I do for a living so I have to be far more objective than Mr. Scrubber.

VnV2178B
25th Apr 2005, 17:17
Send Clowns.

Give the Canuks some credit, the 707 was the third jet liner design !

VnV

380FOCAL
25th Apr 2005, 17:55
Even if it WAS a fire (which it isn't ) all the 380 would have to do it to dump the contents of the on-board swimming pool onto the trucks.

I'd like to see a 747 try that.

BillHicksRules
25th Apr 2005, 20:59
SC,

At the risk of becoming the anorak of this thread is the original TSR2, named after a big game fish in the Caribbean?

Cheers

BHR

p.s. The other UK plane in US service was the T.45 Goshawk

Send Clowns
25th Apr 2005, 21:32
That is impressive. Both entirely correct, BHR :) Of course it was only after the TSR1 crashed that they built it as the TSR2.

For real spotter nerd cred, and a neat completeness of the thread, why was the post-war TSR2 not the TSR1? What came before? (I admit I got this from google, but only when confirming other material I knew, it is the first fact here I had not known without research).

VnV

I do apologise. I had entirely forgotten, which is not good considering my case.

Panda

Hey, yes, once they build them the new Marine 1 it will be a (partly) British design. Now sure about the G222, think they had an equivalent that might be mistaken for it, but I could be mistaken there. Unlike some here I am not willing to comit when I am not sure of my facts :p

Scrubbbed
29th Apr 2005, 13:18
Dearest Send Klowns,

Sorry it took me so long to respond one more time. Anyway here it is:

Re the 146, since you know absolutely nothing about operating conditions outside your GA airport, I don’t expect you to understand what a failure the 146 was in Australian conditions. The fact it was brought in by a nutter didn’t stop it being made use of once the deal was done. Not the aircrafts fault, it was designed as a cheap alternative for short routes with low loads, not flying across a LARGE country with nice clear HOT weather. HOT... do you understand how this affects the aircraft?

As for the sidewinder, seriously…… did you listen to yourself??? Develop a replacement?? In two weeks?????? Sorry Krusty, the AIM-9L saved the RN butt over there and you know it. Just admit it. That war (or conflict or whatever), as anyone who has studied mil histroy would know, hung in THE BALANCE and the -9L was one factor that made a big difference.

And airbus…. Look, I know it’s been fun. I post a few random lines and you spend days researching and posting rude, indignant and rant-filled replies. But why can’t you accept the truth, do you have shares in Airbus or something?

The buses in the airline I work for are NOTORIOUSLY unreliable. I’m talking reliability, complex failure-prone fuel and transfer systems,
-flap-drive failures just two weeks ago, TWICE in the same lemon on the same attempted departure, while airborne,
-another two air-turnbacks (no I don’t mean when you have an engine failure in your 152 and try to do a 180, I mean when an airliner carries out an RTB [Return to Base] ),
-engine run-downs after landing during training flights here (important - don't you think???)
-fundamental PFD-related differences between models of the same type, previously certfied as supposedly CCQ (PFD = Primary Flying Display –on a Boeing, use your google function skills to find out what the airbus calls it) particularly during TAKE OFF which have led to near disaster recently,
-the Boeings “make fuel” on long sectors (I don’t expect you to be familiar with that term) whilst the bus “loses fuel”,
-loud AC noise,
-short-cuts in structures like flooring (you can feel ‘give’ when some walks past on the other side of the aircraft),
-grinding cargo-door and flap drive jack screws audible in the cabin to the worried pax,
-uncomfortable pressurisation ‘bumps’ on the ground,
-non-intuiitive FMC,
-ECAM systems initiate actions that exclude the pilots from “the loop”,
-they are SLOW,
-they are HEAVY,
-the 380 has already failed to meet performance specifications before it even FLEW, Only TWO reversers!!!
-look at the flap drive fairings all over the wings on an Airbus, even the new models – Boeing has been able to do without these drag-alleviating devices, what else…..
-winglets. the 777 was evaluated for winglets but DIDN’T NEED THEM. What does that tell you?
-System logic (or lack of it) Yes, Boeing now use Fly-By-Wire technology but this doesn’t mean they copied Airbus, the technology was in use long before Bus put it in the 320. Do you understand the concept of Maneouvre Demand vs Surface Command? And how this led to a near-disaster in a 340 not long ago?
-IFE failures are STANDARD COMPLAINTS from our Fas about the airbus. I don’t have to tell you what IFE is do I? I’m sure you’ve used it.
-constant heater failures in the BCRC -do you know what that is?
-No thought went into the ramifications of having a centre LG leg braking over wet RWY centreline paint. The reference was added in the performance manual as an AFTERTHOUGHT.
-And as someone else pointed out, the 340 lands about 3 different times as all the different LG leg positions come into contact with the ground. All they had to do was copy the 747 system!!!

The passengers hate them, the engineers hate them, the pilots…. well some don’t but it’s PRIDE speaking usually. I’d be the same….. maybe?? The accounatns? Oh the bean-counters LOVE them but they don’t have to answer for it later when the engineers spend overtime working on them. I guess I could go on forever but I’ve forgotten more complaints by the guys who admit to them than I can remember. Seriously.I should write them all down. My friends who have flown several models of both loathe -LOATHE- the Bus.

When I had the experience you have now I loved the idea of the Bus too. A SSC* and a table. WOW!!! Later I realised these were not worth giving up the notion of really flying it and that part of the benefit of a yoke is that one guy know what the other is doing with the controls without waiting for a maneouvre to take place. In a 152 this may not have seemed important to you. I certainly never thought of it when I flew lighties so don’t worry about it.

I realise now you work at a flying school, hence the importance of “performance” might be lost on you. We are not talking about a few Kgs here and there or a few Kts. The Blunderbus does NOT deliver. Step out of your school and talk to someone who operates larger aircraft. Talk to a few on both sides, do not rely on what you read here or what pride tells you MUST be true.

It's great that you spend your time studying MIL aircraft, too. You kow more than I do although I suspect part of it is you are faster at Googling.... right???

I notice you are something of an angry man around here. Maybe you should take a breather if you can’t contribute without resorting to personal attacks.

Feeling foolish? Because of your “education”??? Me??
HAHAHAHAHAAA……… :ok:


*PS SSC = Side Stick Controller

Lon More
29th Apr 2005, 13:26
Doin' me head in - way too serious for JB

Scrubbbed
29th Apr 2005, 13:32
Well that's what I thought, too.

But Krusty's petulant and over-zealous defence of airbus simply because of national pride or the fact he doesn't like someone bagging it is a little silly.

Someone's taking him or herself way too seriously.

Examples were asked for and here they are.

As for him or her rallying to the boisterous and blubbering defence of all things British, well, I think it's fairly obvious it was in jest all along. Talk about swallowing a line. I didn't realise he/she would go to extremes to defend the Buccaneer though........

Take a pill, Krusty.

Lon More
29th Apr 2005, 13:39
I said it to Orville and I said it to Wilbur; it'll never get off the ground. Sorry too late.

Send Clowns
29th Apr 2005, 15:25
Scrubbed,

I don't know about Aus, but in the UK we don't call airports where 747s operate, with daily international scheduled flights on 737s "GA airfields".

The 146 might have been a failure there. I don't know, don't really care as it doesn't affect my argument - however I doubt it as if you knew so much more than the people that operated, why are you venting your frustration on a website where you get shot down every post by people that actually know what their talking about, and they basking in wealth?

However it does not affect the quality of the design for its intended purpose. If anyone made a bad design it was whoever designed the operation for the company - presumably an Australian. The a/c design was fine. It sold in Europe, the US and Aus, making the designers money, hence a successful design. It was also very competent in its niche, even if your friends operated it in another niche.

I say again: what use is a 9L without a Harrier? What does its use have to do with whether the Harrier is a good product?

I neither said that 9L was a bad choice of missile, nor that a replacement could be designed in 2 weeks, just that without AIM-9 one would have been designed before the Falklands conflict; with Sidewinders available it there was no market, so there was no missile (do I really have to teach you elementary economics as well?). A Harrier would, I agree, have been useless without armaments. However so would an F-15, a Mirage, an SU-27 or one of those Aussie fighter aircraft, the ... oh, there are none, are there? The Harrier was the only aircraft that could fight in the theatre presented to the battle group, and it did so very competently. As it did when practising against F-15s, killing them in about 3:1 ratio I seem to recall, under Sharkey Ward's direction. That is the point, nothing to do with Sidewinders.

By the way, I haven't mentioned Airbus here. It is not a British aircraft, it is a collaboration, so I assumed it would not count. So 3/4 of one post just goes to boxing at shadows, proving you don't read what you attack, and raising your blood pressure. Your last post was based on "...petulant and over-zealous defence of airbus...", a direct lie!

Why is there a small number of Australians who take their self-image from despising the mother country? Grow up! Most of your compatriots have realised that you have a great country all of your own. You don't need to put other people down to feel good about yourselves, and it just makes you look petty.

Just relax mate. Take some time out, and think and read before you post :rolleyes:

I suggest you take yoga, or you're in for some heart disease!

panda-k-bear
29th Apr 2005, 15:31
A balanced response - a) you have a point on the jackscrews but b) what does your winglet argument say about the 737NG wing?

Sorry but IFE is an airline choice, not a manufacturer's one. The aircraft provides the power supply and a place to put the equipment - you can't hang IFE failures on the aircraft. I was on a 777 the other day (well, night actually), less than 2 months old, and it took more than 4 hours to boot the IFE system up!

SC - perhaps in Australia they throw the Sidewinders like they do boomerangs.

As for those other British aircraft in U.S. service - well there was the Jetstream with the U.S. Navy and the Sherpa with the U.S. Army.

Send Clowns
29th Apr 2005, 15:36
I must say that I didn't know about either of those! I have a friend who used to fly Jetstreams. A much underestimated aircraft, ATC often checked his type due to unexpectedly rapid climb.

fishtits
29th Apr 2005, 16:34
http://evula.org/dragoon/pics/arse.jpg

Send Clowns
29th Apr 2005, 17:09
Couple more points I noticed

Firstly - has everyone notices that old Scrubber now claims to be in the aviation business? That is hilarious!

He shows that he doesn't even realise the sort of things that, looking at my profile as he has done, I must not only have been taught but be teaching now! Scrubbed - to pass ATPL ground exams we are taught about all operations, from a C-150 to a jet transport. Don't patronise flight instructors, most know a hell of a lot more than you do.

I haven't been researching any of this, as I pointed out if you wipe the spittle off the screen and read my post - I checked one fact I was less certain of (I was correct), and found by that checking another new fact. The rest I knew, because I am in the business and I actually listen to other people rather than developing obsessions and ranting about them. I was in the Royal Navy and the RAFVR before that, and knowledge of miltary aircraft was part of our training. Nothing to do with Google, except the pictures and I was never a spotter to store my own. My father used to fly Vulcans before that, and was then in the avionics industry so I went to airshows from age 5, so have always known about aircraft, and known people who flew most of these types. I have even seen the TSR2, and met a man who flew it (it's at Duxford, before you ask).

By the way - you have failed all the knowledge challenges!
BHR has some, so the answers are:

The earlier TSR 2 was the second prototype (first was TSR1) for the Fairey Swordfish (http://avions.legendaires.free.fr/Images/imagesep03.jpg).

The TSR1 predecessor to the TSR2 jet was the Canberra (that's the one I didn't know).

The other aircraft in my list used by the US military (aparently I underestimated it - was used by the USMC and well as the USN) was the T45 Goshawk (http://www.nawcad.navy.mil/testwinglant/images/aircraft/t45.jpg), a navalised BAe Hawk.

Irish Steve
29th Apr 2005, 17:09
-grinding cargo-door and flap drive jack screws audible in the cabin to the worried pax,

Hate to rain on someone's parade, every airbus I worked on, the cargo doors were all operated by hydraulic rams, there wasn't a jack screw in sight. OK, the hydraulic pump that drives them whines like some of the people in this thread, but that's another story.

Please, if you're going to knock something, knock it with the right information.

Darth Nigel
29th Apr 2005, 17:45
OK, the hydraulic pump that drives them whines like some of the people in this thread, but that's another story.

Irish Steve, thank you for the best line in this entire damned thread!

Scrubbbed
29th Apr 2005, 17:47
Interesting. Sorry for the inacuracy, I described it the best I could. Strange, though, that ALL models seem to make that sound. They haven't bothered to design that out of the system, for passengers' sake?

Still, you're a GB so I'll take your word for it. Wonderful noise it is, too, the Sound of Progress.

You don't seem to hear it on other airplanes.

While you're at it, then, Steve, any idea what are all the noises that emanate from the AC in the cabin? Kinda sounds like possums up there f###ing and fighting. Happens EVERY time. You see people looking up at the ceiling and each other and wondering WTF is going to happen next! Have Airbus installed a chunky Ice Machine in the vents to save room? I've often wondered but never get around to asking...

As for 737NGs, fair go... the design is a few years old now. A retro-fit to an old design is a little different to a NEW design which still needs all the fairings and winglets.

And Krusty, glad to see you finally calmed down a little!!

Now have another re-read and you'll see it was all about airbus originally.Jetstreams. A much underestimated aircraft HAHAHAHAHAAAAA......!!!!

Are we talking about the BAe Sh!tstream???

Wow......!!!

Another lemon... Especially the -41, yep, they really lasted a long time in service here! About 12 months before failure to perform meant the SodaStream -41 was returned to sender.

Still... I suppose it IS something for GA drivers to look up to.Why is there a small number of Australians ... despising the mother countryI dunno, I guess it's good sport. So much material to work with..... :rolleyes:

I actually started out with a few comments on airbus and the French but everyone gave up defending them about 5 pages ago.

Glad you finally gave up on the -9L and the early JunkJet.

Grandpa
29th Apr 2005, 21:15
I flew for fourty years ( and more....) mainly Douglas aircrafts, from piston engined to DC8, then on Boeing 747/200/300/400........with the exception of last types of Caravelle on which we used reverse thrust on emergency depressurisation descent.

I apprecieted much Boeing conception for flight controls, and have some aversion for the lack of coordination of joysticks on Airbus.

Then we must acknowledge that all glass-cockpit aircraft have now same qualities and defects regarding the man-to-plane relation, digitalisation is same as tongue: best and worst thing.

Regarding the troubles you pointed on Airbus, I'm sorry I don't think your arguments are valid: if you were right, I don't see any reason why airlines would operate so many Airbus (with scheduled timetables!) and keep buying more.

Maybe the reason for your anger is you have to fly a "French" plane.

I know I can't spare you this hard suffering time telling you Airbus is now "European".

Good luck with your next plane Scubby!

Onan the Clumsy
29th Apr 2005, 21:33
Scubby :}

tart1
29th Apr 2005, 21:36
Picky!! :}

panda-k-bear
2nd May 2005, 12:47
Ah, I wondered if you'd pick up the NG thing in just the way you did. It has winglets, yes? As a bolt on or in production yes? But the 73 is a lot older than the A320, yes? So the wing is an older design, yes? Erm, no actually. The 737NG wing was redesigned in the early 90s. So it is, in fact, a newer wing than the A320s. And it still has to have winglets to make it as efficient.

So I'm afraid it's more than a fair go, my little possum. It's a newer wing AND it's less efficient. Well done - my hat goes off to Boeing :}

ExSimGuy
2nd May 2005, 19:39
sour grapes are so undignified
. . . and they make carp (sp) wine too ;)

747FOCAL
2nd May 2005, 20:15
Panda,

No manufacturer can ever get it 100% right on paper and have it turn out that way in real life. Wind tunnels and CFD are all good indicators that you are going in the right direction, but you don't know the truth until it flies. That is why the STC market is so huge in both civilian and commercial aviation. Just because the 737NG is more efficient with winglets than without does not make it a poor design.

As an aerodynamic enhancement expert I can guarantee you that even on the A340-600 and A380 there is/will be room for improvement. You just have to decide if the improvement is large enough to justify the expenditure to design and certify the enhancement.

With the way fuel prices are going now the biz case for undertaking an SFC improvement program is getting better all the time. :)

ExSimGuy
2nd May 2005, 20:15
Only fly as a pax these days (apart from the time in the 152:D ) - and most of it in GF's 'Busses, plus US's 76's and 330(?) Busses. Observations:-

IFE - Okay, not specced by the manufacturer, but pretty unreliable from my experience (about 50% of the time they (a) work immediately and (b) the sound works)

Noises - Nasty "thumps" (from the hydraulics? jacks?) prior to take-off and during roll-out. I'm sure these are totally innocuous, but could be disconcerting to white-knucklers!

Control - Any system that does not allow a qualified and experienced pilot complete control of the 'plane is, to my mind, unacceptable. Remember the 'Bus that GF dropped into The Gulf a couple of years back - the "software" did not stop a (rumour, inference, "guess", stands by for flaming) mis-informed pilot diving into the sea. And, being an "Old Busturd", I'm not sure I like the idea of a Sony Game Machine "joystick" (sidestick) ;)

Apart from that, I'd far rather be in a Bus (or even a 767) than some of the cramped, knackered old 73's that I have travelled in reently (US, BA!) Tarom's new 73's being an exception:ok:

Anyway - when are GF going to take delivery of the 380? I'm really loking forward to taking a sauna halfway between Bahrain and London:E

And four Trents sounds better to this Old Buggah than the 2 on the Triple-7 (Otherwise a nice "pax" aircraft, but I just love and trust 3- and 4-holers)

"if all else fails, trust Martin Baker"

McAero
2nd May 2005, 20:42
As long as it stays in it's flight envelope, I won't complain :E