Isn't it great that we don't have to listen to John leahy anymore. Three cheers.

Wino - how many of those 747s are freighters and how many are passenger aircraft?

punkalouver - why, has he left Airbus then?

Ummm, who says?!? He's still in the building, only Elvis has left...

Cheers, y'all.

In the 90's when the whole Very Large Aircraft project was just kicking off, I thought (as did many others) that the only sensible way ahead was for Boeing and Airbus to collaborate on it.

Failing that, they both agree what they will be building i.e. Airbus do the A380, Boeing do the 787 and there's no time or money wasted on the A350 or 747-X.

Ten years on, I'm still wondering why they didn't do it that way:rolleyes:

Strewth-can you imagine the Americans (Boeing) and the French, Germans & Brits (Airbus)co-operating on something? It will never happen-if it did they would still be arguing on the shape of the bloody aircraft never mind designing it! It just would not happen.

Question:

Do people feel that after recent developments with CEO stepping down, their delay with A380 along with the massive commercial investment/pressure to get the aircraft flying, has this put AIRBUS as a whole in a precarious situation in terms of survival?



HighLow

(Just about to commence an A320 rating, and now thinking otherwise, maybe Boeing not a bad option after all) I can live without a table in the cockpit(Airbus) if it means that Im flying in an aircraft that will still be flying in 10-15 years time.

Get real, it's too big, too many jobs, for the consortium of governments involved in Airbus to let it go down the pan.

I wouldn't worry.
The chances of the various governments who have an interest, whether direct or indirect, allowing Airbus to fail are close to zero.
Even if, hypothetically, they did, then there would be a queue of interested parties ready to cherry pick the attractive parts of Airbus such as A320 production.
And even then, there's no reason why a properly maintained 320 shouldn't be flying in 10-15 years, with or without Airbus.

There are three things that will probably stop Airbus from folding up ..

1. They have a good range of smaller aircraft, that are still selling well .. and are well accepted by customers. Operating costs of the Airbus appear to be lower than the equivalent Boeing. Whether this can continue, is a matter of conjecture, of course.

2. Many European Govts have a very large financial and pride investment in Airbus. They aren't going to back away from that, anytime soon .. even if it does mean tipping another few billion in, to get Airbus settled, and back on track.

3. The 380 is flying .. potential customers can see that it's a goer. The problems with wiring are bound to be settled in due course. It's not like the 380 is a pie-in-the-sky dream, that billions are disappearing into, like a black hole, with nothing to show for the $$ spent.

Boeing are quite convinced that Airbus are still a major threat, and will pose a major threat in the foreseeable future.
This point has been made by one of Boeings chiefs in the last couple of weeks. They do not see Airbus going under, anytime soon.

The biggest threat to Airbus .. is customers getting tetchy over delays and more delays, and cancelling orders.
If a major airline cancels a big order, it will possibly send Airbus into a serious tailspin.
You can bet your bottom $, that Airbus senior execs will .. right this very minute, and for many months to come .. be applying soothing words, and comforting moves .. such as major $$ compensation to those airlines that are most at risk of cancelling .. to keep the orders in the pipeline.

If it doesnt work, is too complicated, over budget, over priced and over sized - just sell it to the military, thats what happened to all the similar problematic projects of history. :ugh: [Should we start a thread to list them? I'll start it with Nimrod, Osprey and Merlin]

...So until the military version is announced I think we can assume Airbus still think they will get a civvy version online eventually:ok:

In the meantime we can all enjoy the shinnanagins and media manoeuvres but in any event dont forget the French are world famous for French
Government support for French projects.:D [and good on 'em for it!] I know its Pan-European but its still theirs according to them!

Airbus A319 - General Airbus Question
 

This question probably answers itself and I think I know the answer just want to know for sure.

I recently flew with Easyjet, on an A319 and I was privaliged enough to be allowed to visit the flight deck after touch down.

I was able to get a couple of pictures, including one of me in first officers seat :p was thrilled and also had a chat with the captain and first officer.

From looking at my pictures, I suddenly realised there is NO (I don't know how to describe...I know the word but won't come to me, apologies, the lever, to turn, like steering wheel, pull back to take off etc.)

That is not present in an A319 or any airbuses as far as I am aware and my guess is that the joysticks on the sides of the flight deck in the A319 are used instead of the central column of controlling the aircraft?

Sorry for the complicated post hopefully you will understand my question and assumed answer.

I have included a photo off !!!!!!!!!!!!!! of what I mean by no central column and the side joysticks.

http://www.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!/open.file/0549814/M/

Hi EGKK931,

You're right. The sidestick replaces the control column and, due to the fly-by-wire systems and flight control philosophy found on Airbuses, works in a slightly different way. If you're interested in the details, I've seen quite a few threads on Proon about the differences - a search will bring them up.

One point to note is that Airbus aircraft have 'hard' flight envelope protection which prevents the pilot from, for example, stalling, over-banking, and overstressing the aircraft. At least in normal operation anyway...

Best regards,

V1R

Hi EGKK,

Yes you're quite right, Airbus use the side 'joystick' instead of a Boeing style central control coloumn, one on each side.

You'd be quite surprised at the limited range of movement, it doesn't move any more than the joystick you might use to play computer games on your PC!

All part of the marvel of fly by wire...

K931
Donks ago, I was lucky enuff to fly with an A320 skipper [on the jumpseat], The "piece de resistance", was when he pulled a "tray" out of rhe Instrument Panel to do his Paperwork.......:ok:
watp,iktch

Cheers for the replies :p

It surprised me, was only last night when got back home and before getting off plane asked to see flight deck and was let in.
So when got my photos home and uploaded them suddenly realised there was no central column and was astonished I didn't realise when I was sitting there admiring the view!

Thanks for your replies never knew before its quite interesting, must be quite different also, pulling up on the side of the flight deck when taking off and landing!

It is different to other many transport aircraft, but otherwise the side mounted "control wheel" is quite common. Also worth nothing is the fact that even if your A319 was quite new out of the production line, side stick airbus cockpits have been around for about 20 years already.

FD
(the un-real)

I recall some years ago, that Saab built a car without steering column or wheel using 'steer-by-wire' technology and a joystick mounted on the transmission tunnel by the drivers thigh. 'Car' magazine tested it on private roads and found that although requiring quite different techniques learning to control it was quite easy. What they could not do, ever, under any circumstances, was let go of the joystick unless the vehicle was stationary.
Now, I quite understand that while a car needs to be driven all the time that it is moving and an aircraft does not, could there ever be a time when the Pilot is actually flying the a/c, that he feels it imperative to move his hand from the stick? If so, what happens next?
You will probably have realised that I am not a pilot, and if I have missed the bl**ding obvious, then I apologise and will return to my burrow immediately.

Airbus reveals A400M final assembly delay
 

According to Flightglobal, Airbus is reporting a 3 month delay to the final assembly of the A400M;

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/04/05/213106/airbus-reveals-a400m-final-assembly-delay.html

First flight of the TP400-D6 power plant is also delayed.

It got me wondering how the A400M compares to the Shorts Belfast of 40 odd years ago to see how much technology has advanced in the intervening period.
They both have a similar max payload (37 tonnes for A400M, 36.3 tonnes for Belfast).
The A400M has 4 x 11,000hp and the Belfast has 4 x 5730hp.
Range at full payload is 1,782nmi for the A400M and 970 miles for the Belfast.
Empty weight is 70 tonnes for the A400M and 59 tonnes for the Belfast.
Ferry range is 5,022 miles for the A400M and 5,200 miles for the Belfast.
MTOW is 130 Tonnes for the A400M and 104.3 tonnes for the Belfast; 11 tonnes of the difference is the empty weight so the rest is presumably fuel which seems to explain the difference in range.
Belfast could accommodate 150 fully equipped troops and the A400M will be able to accommodate 116.
A400M cruises faster and higher than the Belfast which presumably gives a better productivity but that's not surprising given that it has almost twice the installed power.

Sources;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Belfast
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A400M

With modern technology engines and propellers, composite materials, FBW, computers, advanced aerodynamics etc I had expected to see a far greater advance with the A400M. Maybe the Belfast was a much better platform than it was given credit for? A hypothetical question, but I wonder what the performance figures would be for a Belfast with TP400-D6 engines?

Porrohman

I would imagine that the A400M will stand a slightly better chance of making it more than 1 mile across the border in the next conflict on the list :rolleyes: