still prefer boeing though!

Why?

The Europeans have proved once again as with the TGV & the Concorde & now the A380 - that this program is too big to fail - regardless of economics. However, in defense of the Europeans - I wouldnt mind a month off of vacation either !!

Concerning fiting into airports - AIRBUS has developed an interesting winf with minimal span increase - they are doing tricky things with their "tabbed" flaps - flaperon-ailerons to keep the wing span within 747 dimensions - while retaining low speed performance.


Dont know how they are going to kep the weight out of this bird - nor control the noise.

Based on the experiance with the LaGuardia A300 vertical stabilizer - I will stick with stodgy old Boeing - Boeing engineers are rediculously conservative ( and smart ) - not a bad trait for an airplane desiger ..

Concerning SU27's comment - I agree - the A340-100;200;300 were/are awful airplanes - they are underpowered & missed the payload range guarantee's since the get go ( poor aerodynamics, aero-elastics - you woun't find any weights bolted to Boeing spars to dampen aeroelastics - like the A340 has out board the outboard engines -) -

Concerning Oblaaspop's coment - The 747 has about a 74Kt speed advantage over the A340 due to its superior flutter suppression - SCREWW your climb performance babbay ! Ill park the barber poles @ .91 to make time - lets see the bus do that & stay together..

Concerning 747FOCAL's comment - a 747 tail DID "dishonorably" come off over Japan - killing all aboard ..

Concerning Burger THings' comment - The future AIRBUS crew will comprise a dog and a captain - the captain will be there to feed the dog & the dog will be there to bite the captain if he musses with the controls..


Concerning Zeke's comment - the 737NG STILL FLYS HIGHER, FASTER & LONGER than the A320 - its IS a fine old airplane.. The 777 has THE WORLDS MOST SUPERIOR Fly-by-WIRE system form a design standpoint - this is why Embraer copied it on the ERJ170 & Ive heard it will be in the next Bombardier aircraft. ..The 777 fbw has had a fraction of the ADs against it compared to AIRBUS.. I will grant you the 777 control column backdrive system is a bit hokey .. seems light alot of weight, cost & complexity - just to say they weren't following AIRBUS's sidestick lead ..

used2flyboeing,

The tail did not come off it was partially blown off when the pressure bulkhead let go right beneath it. :(

NOW ADD ANOTHER TEN FEET
 

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!! You will hit light speed before the bottom on an A380 with another 10 ft in Altitude. :E


http://www.airliners.net/open.file/433275/L/

747FOCAL

Skip the whinging, start planning the same sort of crap Concorde suffered because the USA could not make a supersonic airliner.
Only this time it will not work, the A380 is taking orders from major airlines and will be a success. I hear the same rubbish from Boeing people visiting the UK about why Airbus is no good, there are plenty of Seattle workers losing their jobs while Airbus recruit. Stop knocking the opposition and compete, if you can.

I am not knocking the A380 or Airbus. In fact I like Airbus's way of doing things. The A380 will make a great freighter. It will also eventually set the record for the most deaths ever recorded post crash because people will die going down that slide from the upper deck. :(

Maybe if the airline execs see the seat-mile costs of the 380 compared to the 747 when it comes into service, they will change their tune. (Supposedly, the bigger the better.)

If that is the case, they wouldn't care if two or three A380's arrive at about the same time, and up to about 1600 are waiting for their baggage, in addition to all the other flights.

You guys keep me greatly amused during my down times!

I have to play devil's advocate on this one;

aviate1138,
Boeing is not reinventing the wheel, nor copying Airbus by shipping 7E7 subassemblies by air. In fact, this was pioneered by Aero-Spacelines on Boeing aircraft in 1962.Boeing contributed to the engineering effort. Airbus procured some of the Super Guppys for A300 production in the 70's. Wonder where they got the idea for the Beluga?

747FOCAL,
you are correct in stating that the JAL 74 crash in which the tail was damaged as a result of the aft pressure bulkhead failure. Do you know the events that led to that? It was a faulty repair by BOEING that did not conform to the structural repair manual guidelines, AC4313, or any standard, accepted repair criteria.

Thanks Ferrydude. I knew it was a faulty repair. I was only 5 when it happened. ;)

Ferrydude said....

"Boeing is not reinventing the wheel, nor copying Airbus by shipping 7E7 subassemblies by air. In fact, this was pioneered by Aero-Spacelines on Boeing aircraft in 1962. Boeing contributed to the engineering effort."

Aviate 1138 replied....

Yes, of course you are right historically, but wasn't it for NASA rockets on internal flights? It was Boeing lately who are claiming the principal as a new way of assembling aircraft[7E7] from worldwide sources. Not splitting hairs, just interested how Aerospace giants like Boeing and Airbus ladle out the media hype and bull****.
Historic note - Aero-Spacelines? Wasn't Clay Lacy the Chief Test Pilot? Boeing presumably supplied info on the Stratocruisers that formed the basis for the first machines.
Anyway the Beluga is almost a beautiful aircraft, not so the 747-400 bulged variant which looks plug ugly.

Aviate 1138

Captain Stable,

I don't see how my posts here have been a personal attack nor why you saw fit to edit them. :confused: Even after I was personally attacked I did not decend to a level which I know is against the rules. What I posted was the truth. The regulators are giving Airbus a huge headache over upper deck PAX evac. Any fool can look at that and know even a full scale drill is going to maim or kill a bunch of people. :uhoh:

Did anybody else enjoy watching the LIVE TV documentary programme broadcast August last year, from the College of Aeronautics at Cranfield University who are researching the general issue of cabin emergency evacuation?

During the programme there was a very successful mass evacuation of members of the public from the top deck of their A380 class simulator.

As anybody who has studied the airliner emergency evacuation business knows, there are two issues

1 How you get people from their seats and out of the exits.

2 How you get people who have gone through an exit down to the ground.

The first issue can be a real problem if people are in fear of their lives and from an engineering point of view is much harder to guarantee (or even provide a high chance of success) than the second.

I heard when Airbus did it themselves that out of 200, 50 went to the hospital with severe injury.:uhoh:

747FOCAL says....
" I heard when Airbus did it themselves that out of 200, 50 went to the hospital with severe injury "

Aviate 1138 says.....

I would be prepared to believe the statement at face value IF it was backed up with facts that could be verified. Trouble is, it has that 747FOCAL obsessive slant to it.
Wonder how Cranfield Institute managed it live on TV and didn't hurt anyone?

Aviate 1138

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"

aviate1138,

Do you know PAX evac certification requirements? Since there was no A380 for Cranfield to use to test, their results can only be speculative at best. How many 55+ women were involved in the test? How many small children and babies? Was there baggage spilled in the aisleways? I bet they planned and coached the people who did the test, your not allowed to do that when it is for real.

How quick do you think you would be to jump off a 4-5 story building onto a slide knowing that the big heffa with heals is right behind you? :\

Ask somebody you know at Airbus in France, I heard it was quite the story. :E

Even Airbus knows people are going to be scared because they are putting a "horizon" barrier so people can't see how high up they are. Since nobody runs 30 MPH and that is the speed you will be coming off at pretty much everybody will face plant. One after the other on top of the people in front of them.

Many factory evacuation demonstrations for the authorities in the past consisted of airline or manufacturer employees and their well-briefed family members. They practiced the drill a number of times in order for the aircraft to pass the certification test within so many seconds.

This is certainly a contrast to any real-world situation.

How about in an A-380 with a collapsed nose gear? I would not want to evacuate from a rear door of any widebody in that situation. If a main gear collapses and there is a wing fire, the folks should go out the other side or choose a very distant exit-if there is time to get to it in deadly smoke, at least if seated near the wings. Although on a much smaller 737 or DC-9, just ONE burning passenger seat creates such a thick, deadly smoke that there is not much time to escape, how about on an upper deck? One breath of these cyanide, CO gases etc might incapacitate you. Let's all be thankful for the polyester seats and their much lower costs....

What are the slides like on that other (non-burning) side of a widebody which had a main gear knocked off, just a bit steep? Do the slides dry out a bit after being stored for two to three years?

:ouch:

Just think what it will be like if there is a decent wind....... You could be airborne again at the end of the slide......:ooh: