Airbus vs Boeing
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: united arab emirates
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just landed the 777 in 32 kts across. Loved it !!!!!!. However my back is still going to need 2 hours of rubbing every time I get to BKK because of the torchure device we have to sit on. Hell I hate the seats !!!!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Dream Land - We have lots of Boeing to Airbus and Cadet to Airbus pilots in our fleet - trust me, lots and lots do it. If they think its loosing energy close to the ground, nat instinct is to push them forward..
Lots of power, however... (Go around, Flaps!)
Lots of power, however... (Go around, Flaps!)
Sun worshipper
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GE,
Quote ;"So what about all the other things I commented on?
1/ Fuel system and wings iced up
2/ ECAM bs
3/ RMI faults and not being able to do VOR approaches
Cat got your tongue with those ones? How's about you try and refute them."
1/- That happened as well to a 777 in a medical emergency...Cold soak and a quick descent...Result was the same.
2/-Read the first pages of this thread and see that quite a few pilots prefer the A ECAM to the B EICAS. As in my airline just about 2/3 of the young pilots transfer from the 320 to the 777, it's pretty general that they miss the Airbus when working on the "dumb" philosophy of the Boeing. Not really an argument as it is a matter of preference.
3/-The RDDMI is just another instrument -part of the standby flight instruments- and has two selections VOR/ADFs. I agree that its integration has been a problem BUT, contrarily to what you write, the ND displays correct course/radial informations. Therefore, one can perform VOR, VOR/D, ADF approaches without any trouble. If anything, I prefer the Airbus set-up to the one you are using.
Another uninformed myth shot down... ( not surprising, you guys usually go for the hype without any prior background check).
Quote ;"So what about all the other things I commented on?
1/ Fuel system and wings iced up
2/ ECAM bs
3/ RMI faults and not being able to do VOR approaches
Cat got your tongue with those ones? How's about you try and refute them."
1/- That happened as well to a 777 in a medical emergency...Cold soak and a quick descent...Result was the same.
2/-Read the first pages of this thread and see that quite a few pilots prefer the A ECAM to the B EICAS. As in my airline just about 2/3 of the young pilots transfer from the 320 to the 777, it's pretty general that they miss the Airbus when working on the "dumb" philosophy of the Boeing. Not really an argument as it is a matter of preference.
3/-The RDDMI is just another instrument -part of the standby flight instruments- and has two selections VOR/ADFs. I agree that its integration has been a problem BUT, contrarily to what you write, the ND displays correct course/radial informations. Therefore, one can perform VOR, VOR/D, ADF approaches without any trouble. If anything, I prefer the Airbus set-up to the one you are using.
Another uninformed myth shot down... ( not surprising, you guys usually go for the hype without any prior background check).
Last edited by Lemurian; 14th May 2008 at 08:01. Reason: spelling, of course !
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus: built by a dummy to be flown by a genious
Boeing: built by a genious to be flown by dummies.
Boeing: built by a genious to be flown by dummies.
I know Lufthansa and SQ were pushing for a side stick in the 787, but Boeing didn't surrender.
Looking at the 787 I think new Boeing designs have become more common with Airbus designs, not the other way around..
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another uninformed myth shot down... ( not surprising, you guys usually go for the hype without any prior background check).
not a myth mate, real.
AIRBUS: VOR APPROACHES WITH A FINAL APPROACH TRACK BETWEEN
THE RADIALS 006 AND 016 MUST NOT BE USED ON A340-300 AIRCRAFT
THE RADIALS 006 AND 016 MUST NOT BE USED ON A340-300 AIRCRAFT
WHICH DO NOT HAVE MODIFIED VOR RECEIVERS.
I just spoke to an Airbus skipper mate and he confirmed this, most of our 330's are fixed ( after 3 + years ) but none of the 340's.
This means they cannot do any VOR type approaches ( even using the needles ) between the 006 and 016 radials. This also includes Utapho in Thailand.
Not only that the Airbus fleet cannot do managed Approaches in Rnav at the moment due to a software problem with the approach coding.
The outer wing on your Bus is quite thin, and it has a fuel tank close to the surface? When you land in a warm moist place with maybe 3 or 4 tonnes of nice COLD fuel in the tank it quickly forms Frost/ice on the surface. If you're quick you should have transferred fuel to the inners before you landed ( if you could )
Remember this was an unplanned landing en-rte to Aussie, they didn't have time to transfer the fuel and didn't know it would cause ice.
I've seen Philippine Airlines 330 on the ground in Narita at 0900 with ice/frost on the outboard sections of both wings in +5 c.
( I saw it from the terminal walking to my gate, I was checking the wings of other aircraft on the way to see if we too might have to de-ice. )
( I saw it from the terminal walking to my gate, I was checking the wings of other aircraft on the way to see if we too might have to de-ice. )
To my knowledge it cannot happen on the 777, our wing skin is thicker and I've never seen a Boeing grounded in Darwin because cold fuel caused ice on the wing. The only Boeing that seems to suffer from this is the 737-800 series, happens a lot in Melbourne to Aussie operators in Winter.
I spoke to the Air France 777-300ER crew in NRT about 1 year ago. ( they happily showed me through their brand spanking new ER ) They said it was the best Aircraft AF had ever introduced and was a fantastic machine to fly, better than the Airbus they all said. They loved the performance, the ease of reading the simple Boeing Fcoms, the CCD, the EICAS and they especially loved the overhead crew rest area.
New Airbus Pilot: "what's it doing"?
Old Airbus Pilot: "I don't know but it's doing it again"
back to you...
Last edited by GE90115BL2; 14th May 2008 at 10:33.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Somewhere in the Tropics UTC+7 to 9
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(lets face it; it's a good accountants airplane but a poor pilot's plane compared to the Bus)
My best of:
cockpit space: MD11 / 777 / AB
view: MD11 / AB+777
seat: MD11 / AB / 777
noise: MD11 / AB+777
yoke/sidestick: AB / 777+MD11 (best would be ss with feedback)
ride: 777 / MD11 / AB
RAs: MD11 / AB+777
Em descents: MD11 / 777 / AB
gen Emergencies: 777 / AB / MD11
Checklist work: 777 / MD11 / AB
FCP: MD11 / 777 / AB
Throttle concept: MD11 / 777 / (AB go back to the drawing board, the fix stinks!)
Brakes: AB+777 / MD11
Landing performance : 777 / AB / MD11's weak spot!
X-wind: 777 / MD11 / AB
Hard landing danger: 777 / AB / MD11
Taxiing: neither (go back to the drawing board, all of you!)
FMC: neither (just include the goodies of the competitor and yours will finally be fine)
cockpit space: MD11 / 777 / AB
view: MD11 / AB+777
seat: MD11 / AB / 777
noise: MD11 / AB+777
yoke/sidestick: AB / 777+MD11 (best would be ss with feedback)
ride: 777 / MD11 / AB
RAs: MD11 / AB+777
Em descents: MD11 / 777 / AB
gen Emergencies: 777 / AB / MD11
Checklist work: 777 / MD11 / AB
FCP: MD11 / 777 / AB
Throttle concept: MD11 / 777 / (AB go back to the drawing board, the fix stinks!)
Brakes: AB+777 / MD11
Landing performance : 777 / AB / MD11's weak spot!
X-wind: 777 / MD11 / AB
Hard landing danger: 777 / AB / MD11
Taxiing: neither (go back to the drawing board, all of you!)
FMC: neither (just include the goodies of the competitor and yours will finally be fine)
For me it would be the MD11 cockpit/FCP/AT, with AB sidestick (moving feedback please), including the electronic checklist of the 777, on a 777 airframe.
15.I find it bizarre that on a 4-eng aeroplane (A340), a 2-eng failure can result in a dual Hydraulic loss, resulting in a manual gear extension and loss of Nose-wheel steering with a landing commit point whenever the gear is extended! I would have thought that with a 2 eng failure, Airbus would have designed the systems to support the pilots’ workload rather than loading them up.
Why on earth would anyone buy an A340?
Let's wait and see what happens, if one day 35 year old A320s will be operated in - let's say - Indonesia or Africa.... Should be rather interesting
PK-YVE (Batavia 320 ex Transasia)... It's gotta be the worst dispatch reliability in the classic & 320 fleet country wide.
PK-RMA & RMC (Mandala 320 wCFMs... the ex Irish 320s they leased when the lessor went bust), well, even Mandala's now phased out 732s had better dispatch reliability. To this day, Mandala's current fleet of 2 734s and 2 new 319s and 2 new 320s and 2 old 320s... U can guess the dispatch reliability order... the 734s tend to have extra nights flights picking up where the 2 old 320s left off at noon a few days a week... when one of the new buses has something wrong, all hell breaks loose. Got some dual rated 320 & 734 pilots there, and guess what, they're now spending more hours on the 734 than the old 320s... coz it's more reliable (same age-ish)... despite the shortage of crew on both fleets.
Sidestick? handflying?
3.8G landings on 320s anyone?
If there's one thing I really like from the bus is the double blink strobes... I can see it from miles away it's an airbus!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Votre Nintendo detruit les habiles traditionels du pilote.Reflechissez bien
An Airbus described as a nintendo, that's maybe why the youngsters are so much better with it.
You got a point though.
EDIT to include translation.
Lemurian,
Ecoutez bien Mr GE90115BL2 et peut-etre vous apprendrez quelque-chose.Votre Nintendo detruit les habiles traditionels du pilote.Reflechissez bien
monsieur
LEMURIAN,
Listen to mr GE90.... and maybe you'll learn something, your nintendo destroys good piloting skills.
You got a point though.
EDIT to include translation.
Lemurian,
Ecoutez bien Mr GE90115BL2 et peut-etre vous apprendrez quelque-chose.Votre Nintendo detruit les habiles traditionels du pilote.Reflechissez bien
monsieur
LEMURIAN,
Listen to mr GE90.... and maybe you'll learn something, your nintendo destroys good piloting skills.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Middle East
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't know if anyone mentioned it but which aeroplane has a nice big tray table to put your food on/ sleep on, whatever! -AIRBUS 
Comfort comes first!
does the 777 have a tray table? I don't know?
Oh and one other thing, I recently walked past a framed picture in a simulator building and had to look twice at what I saw, I picture of a DOUGLAS DC-3 with the caption below it saying BOEING DC-3 !!!!! How on EARTH can they take credit from something they did not put one ounce into designing!
And don't tell me "but Boeing merged with Douglas Blah blah blah!"
There was also a whole lot of other Aircraft they seemed to have claimed in other photos.
B717= another Douglas Design (a third generation version of the Douglas DC-9)
They also redesigned the F-18 Hornet, bigger better ect.. and called it the Super Hornet, so well done, but it came from a Douglas Design!
And I wont start me on the B737, from a pilot point of view....... what a major f^$% up!
But yes, like someone said, from a business point of view they are of course doing well.
Comfort comes first!
does the 777 have a tray table? I don't know?
Oh and one other thing, I recently walked past a framed picture in a simulator building and had to look twice at what I saw, I picture of a DOUGLAS DC-3 with the caption below it saying BOEING DC-3 !!!!! How on EARTH can they take credit from something they did not put one ounce into designing!
And don't tell me "but Boeing merged with Douglas Blah blah blah!" There was also a whole lot of other Aircraft they seemed to have claimed in other photos.
B717= another Douglas Design (a third generation version of the Douglas DC-9)
They also redesigned the F-18 Hornet, bigger better ect.. and called it the Super Hornet, so well done, but it came from a Douglas Design!
And I wont start me on the B737, from a pilot point of view....... what a major f^$% up!
But yes, like someone said, from a business point of view they are of course doing well.
Last edited by Wings Of Fury; 14th May 2008 at 13:14.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes in an ideal world I'd like a sidestick WITH backdrive on the 777. And then we could have a nice pull out table as well
That would make it truely the bees knees
Actually we have quite a few F/O's on the 777 that came from the Bus. Their biggest complaint is the lack of table, that's it. Oh and maybe a few features of the Airbus FM would be good.
They like the big Cockpit, nice big uncluttered LCD's, simple systems and best of all they really LOVE the ECL. ( it actually works on the 777 )
Overall they say the 777 beats the Bus hands down.........And they don't regret coming over to the "other side"
That would make it truely the bees knees
Actually we have quite a few F/O's on the 777 that came from the Bus. Their biggest complaint is the lack of table, that's it. Oh and maybe a few features of the Airbus FM would be good.
They like the big Cockpit, nice big uncluttered LCD's, simple systems and best of all they really LOVE the ECL. ( it actually works on the 777 )
Overall they say the 777 beats the Bus hands down.........And they don't regret coming over to the "other side"
Last edited by GE90115BL2; 14th May 2008 at 13:30.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some of you guys really have strong feelings about your favorite aircraft don't you!
"Boeings are better because Airbusses can't do VOR approaches..." etc. etc.
They can do VOR approaches. And please don't show us your NOTAM again - it refers to one aircraft type at an airfield that obviously has some sort of anomaly. Airbus should have fixed it by now, but its still not a very good anti-airbus argument is it?
I can't get excited about the rest of the arguments, though. They're all very good aircraft. Just very different. In the same way that the French and the Americans are very different. Nobody is going to try and argue which race is better are they?
And pushing the thrust levers out of the CLB detent and back into it on an approach (at any altitude) is just crazy. Well, it is to me as the Airbus is the only type I've flown. I guess ex-Boeing pilots are used to having to adjust the levers themselves. This shouldn't be seen as an Airbus design fault - just poor training?
"Boeings are better because Airbusses can't do VOR approaches..." etc. etc.
They can do VOR approaches. And please don't show us your NOTAM again - it refers to one aircraft type at an airfield that obviously has some sort of anomaly. Airbus should have fixed it by now, but its still not a very good anti-airbus argument is it?
I can't get excited about the rest of the arguments, though. They're all very good aircraft. Just very different. In the same way that the French and the Americans are very different. Nobody is going to try and argue which race is better are they?
And pushing the thrust levers out of the CLB detent and back into it on an approach (at any altitude) is just crazy. Well, it is to me as the Airbus is the only type I've flown. I guess ex-Boeing pilots are used to having to adjust the levers themselves. This shouldn't be seen as an Airbus design fault - just poor training?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The VOR problem effects UN-modified Airbus VOR receivers for ALL VOR approaches at ALL airports that require the redials 006 to 016.
Until modified the AIRBUS cannot do ANY type of VOR app at the airport using THOSE radials above.
Naha and Utapo are only 2 that I come accoss in SE Asia near HKG, any Airport that uses those radials is out.
My point is that this has been a software problem on Airbus aircraft for well over 3 years, WHY does it take soooo long to write a fix? It should be done quickly.
Not to mention the managed RNAV ban still in effect since an Airbus came close to a sea wall on approach. This happened over a year back.
Did I tell you about the Nose Wheel steering problem on the 330? Yep they couldn't use full nose wheel deflection for some bizaar reason. That was fixed after about 3 years finally.
The list goes on a bit longer with the problems my buddies tell me about. That's right the Airbus guys/girls I know love to tell all about their wonder jet. When drunk they wish they were flying the 777 again.
One day I probably will have to transfer to the Airbus, escpecially If I want a Base in OZ. I hope you'll welcome me into the Airbus family?
Who knows, maybe after the Airbus frontal Labotomy I'll like it too
Until modified the AIRBUS cannot do ANY type of VOR app at the airport using THOSE radials above.
Naha and Utapo are only 2 that I come accoss in SE Asia near HKG, any Airport that uses those radials is out.
My point is that this has been a software problem on Airbus aircraft for well over 3 years, WHY does it take soooo long to write a fix? It should be done quickly.
Not to mention the managed RNAV ban still in effect since an Airbus came close to a sea wall on approach. This happened over a year back.
Did I tell you about the Nose Wheel steering problem on the 330? Yep they couldn't use full nose wheel deflection for some bizaar reason. That was fixed after about 3 years finally.
The list goes on a bit longer with the problems my buddies tell me about. That's right the Airbus guys/girls I know love to tell all about their wonder jet. When drunk they wish they were flying the 777 again.
One day I probably will have to transfer to the Airbus, escpecially If I want a Base in OZ. I hope you'll welcome me into the Airbus family?
Who knows, maybe after the Airbus frontal Labotomy I'll like it too
Sun worshipper
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GE,
Quote : "I just spoke to an Airbus skipper mate and he confirmed this, most of our 330's are fixed ( after 3 + years ) but none of the 340's."
As I have no knowledge of this situation here, seems to me CX isn't too keen on getting the fix (just a VOR receiver modification). Maybe they're getting rid of them soon ?
So your argument is moot.
Quote : "Not to mention the managed RNAV ban still in effect since an Airbus came close to a sea wall on approach. This happened over a year back.
"
Same answer. there is no managed RNAV approach ban here. You need to see your flight safety people to give an explanation on that one.
Quote : "When drunk they wish they were flying the 777 again."
Only when they are drunk ? And does it happen often with your colleagues ?
What I find very intersting is that you could find a lot of faults with the @Bus products and never say anything about your airplane. For the sake of fairness, yoiu could have told us about ADIRUs, AD (is that one corrected ?), landing gears going upwards through the wing, double engine failure on final, a number of single engine diversions...
Here, we know were the hangar queens are...their names don't start with a A or a 3...What does that prove ? Type of operation and maintenance qualities are very probably one answer...At AF, with a fleet of about 150 320/21/19/18s, they achieve so good a dispatch reliability that most of the time there is no reserve aircraft and most of the QRH items we talked about exist because of time to retrofit new boxes for old ones so fleet standardisation is an endless chore ( it will never be achieved in my lifetime ), and I am not even talking about the compatibility of new *boxes* with the old software. If anything, my main gripe with Airbus Industrie is the speed at which they incorporate improvements to their products. Not the contrary.
Quote :"... maybe you'll learn something, your nintendo destroys good piloting skills..."
I tell you what : pilot cadets join the airline with about 150 hours, of which some 40 on the KingAir...they transform into the medium haul fleet (all 'Buses now )...they fly for another three to four years ( some 2000 to 2500 hrs ) and then move into the long haul fleet,let's say 1/2 to 2/3 of them, depending on the slot availability, will go to the T7...funny enough we haven't heard of any problem getting that qualification and flying on the line ( I also have to say that the T7 is very popular with the pilots : Main reason is that it pays more than the 330/340 ). Flying skills ? Hey, they pass their sim and base checks without any problems...
Now it's time for me to say that I have no gripe with the other brand at all, having flown all types of 737s (including the -100 out of Denver ! and bar the NGs) in all kinds of countries and weather, all types of 747 with all types of engines, and I have thoroughly enjoyed them - except the 300 into Kai Tak -...but I certainly do not miss them when I sit on an Airbus flight deck.
As someone said, it's just a matter of beauty in the eyes of a beholder...
Or is it ?
Quote : "I just spoke to an Airbus skipper mate and he confirmed this, most of our 330's are fixed ( after 3 + years ) but none of the 340's."
As I have no knowledge of this situation here, seems to me CX isn't too keen on getting the fix (just a VOR receiver modification). Maybe they're getting rid of them soon ?
So your argument is moot.
Quote : "Not to mention the managed RNAV ban still in effect since an Airbus came close to a sea wall on approach. This happened over a year back.
"
Same answer. there is no managed RNAV approach ban here. You need to see your flight safety people to give an explanation on that one.
Quote : "When drunk they wish they were flying the 777 again."
Only when they are drunk ? And does it happen often with your colleagues ?
What I find very intersting is that you could find a lot of faults with the @Bus products and never say anything about your airplane. For the sake of fairness, yoiu could have told us about ADIRUs, AD (is that one corrected ?), landing gears going upwards through the wing, double engine failure on final, a number of single engine diversions...
Here, we know were the hangar queens are...their names don't start with a A or a 3...What does that prove ? Type of operation and maintenance qualities are very probably one answer...At AF, with a fleet of about 150 320/21/19/18s, they achieve so good a dispatch reliability that most of the time there is no reserve aircraft and most of the QRH items we talked about exist because of time to retrofit new boxes for old ones so fleet standardisation is an endless chore ( it will never be achieved in my lifetime ), and I am not even talking about the compatibility of new *boxes* with the old software. If anything, my main gripe with Airbus Industrie is the speed at which they incorporate improvements to their products. Not the contrary.
Quote :"... maybe you'll learn something, your nintendo destroys good piloting skills..."
I tell you what : pilot cadets join the airline with about 150 hours, of which some 40 on the KingAir...they transform into the medium haul fleet (all 'Buses now )...they fly for another three to four years ( some 2000 to 2500 hrs ) and then move into the long haul fleet,let's say 1/2 to 2/3 of them, depending on the slot availability, will go to the T7...funny enough we haven't heard of any problem getting that qualification and flying on the line ( I also have to say that the T7 is very popular with the pilots : Main reason is that it pays more than the 330/340 ). Flying skills ? Hey, they pass their sim and base checks without any problems...
Now it's time for me to say that I have no gripe with the other brand at all, having flown all types of 737s (including the -100 out of Denver ! and bar the NGs) in all kinds of countries and weather, all types of 747 with all types of engines, and I have thoroughly enjoyed them - except the 300 into Kai Tak -...but I certainly do not miss them when I sit on an Airbus flight deck.
As someone said, it's just a matter of beauty in the eyes of a beholder...
Or is it ?
Last edited by Lemurian; 14th May 2008 at 18:40.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My point was that Airbus take too long to fix problems.
I wasn't meaning my Airbus friends get drunk all of the time, overnights at the Bangkok bar can be fun, a little Beer opens up a lot!!
The Rnav managed approach ban might only be a CX software issue? Don't know if it effects all Airbus aircraft worldwide BUT it certainly effects ours.
Point is, it's been over 12 months and still no fix.
The Adiru software problem was fixed a long time ago, initially they reverted back to older software codes then they fixed a new one.
Landing gear up through wing? You mean the BA 38?
I would have Loved to see how an Airbus would have looked after that landing in LHR!! Did you notice that the fuselage and wings were not even rippled on the aircraft?
Every time an Airbus does a heavy landing it costs 5 or 6 million USD to replace the whole gear
Double Engine failure on final, yep that is a mystery for sure.
Single engine diversions, seems that GE has the minor problem there, not Boeing. But it is being sorted as we speak.
How long does Airbus take to fix proeblems? too long.
I wasn't meaning my Airbus friends get drunk all of the time, overnights at the Bangkok bar can be fun, a little Beer opens up a lot!!
The Rnav managed approach ban might only be a CX software issue? Don't know if it effects all Airbus aircraft worldwide BUT it certainly effects ours.
Point is, it's been over 12 months and still no fix.
The Adiru software problem was fixed a long time ago, initially they reverted back to older software codes then they fixed a new one.
Landing gear up through wing? You mean the BA 38?
I would have Loved to see how an Airbus would have looked after that landing in LHR!! Did you notice that the fuselage and wings were not even rippled on the aircraft?
Every time an Airbus does a heavy landing it costs 5 or 6 million USD to replace the whole gear
Double Engine failure on final, yep that is a mystery for sure.
Single engine diversions, seems that GE has the minor problem there, not Boeing. But it is being sorted as we speak.
How long does Airbus take to fix proeblems? too long.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quoting GE90:
Landing gear up through wing? You mean the BA 38?
Just a wild guess but I think he was referring to the SAUDI incident.
Quoting GE90:
Every time an Airbus does a heavy landing it costs 5 or 6 million USD to replace the whole gear
Sorry but that's just an unfair statement, any type of plane doing a hard landing can be expensive to repair, it has nothing to do with who or where it was manufactured.
Quoting GE90:
I would have Loved to see how an Airbus would have looked after that landing in LHR!! Did you notice that the fuselage and wings were not even rippled on the aircraft?
Again a non issue imho, the IB346 at Quito also looked fairly well intact after being used as a plough.
No conclusion can be made as to regards of overall strength of any of these 2
frames.
The way everything is designed nowadays ,with little or non overengineering, it is fair to say that the newest birds probably all fall a bit short in this category compared with older designs.
Landing gear up through wing? You mean the BA 38?
Just a wild guess but I think he was referring to the SAUDI incident.
Quoting GE90:
Every time an Airbus does a heavy landing it costs 5 or 6 million USD to replace the whole gear
Sorry but that's just an unfair statement, any type of plane doing a hard landing can be expensive to repair, it has nothing to do with who or where it was manufactured.
Quoting GE90:
I would have Loved to see how an Airbus would have looked after that landing in LHR!! Did you notice that the fuselage and wings were not even rippled on the aircraft?
Again a non issue imho, the IB346 at Quito also looked fairly well intact after being used as a plough.
No conclusion can be made as to regards of overall strength of any of these 2
frames.
The way everything is designed nowadays ,with little or non overengineering, it is fair to say that the newest birds probably all fall a bit short in this category compared with older designs.