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.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!/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:

From another site:

"Airbus is planning to introduce the world’s largest passenger plane, the A380 carrying up to 1,000 passengers, without conducting a full evacuation test.

The company says that it is afraid that people could be permanently injured in the exercise.

At least 200 passengers will sit 30ft above ground on the highest deck on a full Airbus A380. They would have to jump down an inflatable slide in an emergency.

Airbus fears that any injuries in a full evacuation test would be exploited by Boeing, its rival, and could undermine the whole project.

Instead, it is planning to conduct tests involving only a fraction of the total number of passengers.

Scientists will then use mathematical models in an attempt to demonstrate to the safety authorities — Britain’s Civil Aviation Authority and America’s Federal Aviation Administration — that the plane is safe.

The A380 marketing director, said: “If you subject more than 800 people to an evacuation test and someone comes off the bottom of the slide and someone else hits them from behind, you have to ask why we have maimed somebody. There will be questions asked if someone is left a paraplegic.”

A spokesman for the CAA said it was hoped that an evacuation simulator at Cranfield University would reduce the need for live tests. While at present a full evacuation test was required for all new aircraft, the simulator could be used by Airbus “to do a lot of the research on the safety of extremely large aircraft”. He added: “Obviously if you do full evacuations, you do run the risk of injuring people. In future there could well be a lot of work done with computer scenarios.”

Computerize this.
 

To: 747FOCAL

Do you think they can quantify human nature and what one person would do to another to survive and what effect it would have on the evacuation process.

Also while they are at it have them quantify the loss in human lives when an A-380 is lost. I figure it would be around 4 Billion dollars US. There are not too many airline insurance companies that can take a hit like that. The 4 Billion figure is based on 5 Million per passenger and in the States it can go a lot higher. If blame can be assessed against one company it would bankrupt them.

Just a thought.

:E :E

747FOCAL
 

Is it just me or are you actually looking to stir !!!! in every single topic that comes up when you search for "Airbus"? :suspect:

Ontopic: Airbus is already experimenting with other systems to evacuate passengers from the upper decks that are safer than the traditional inflatable slide, like the ones used on oil rigs and some high buildings to get people off safely from much greater heights. :O

I saw it on ZDF the other day on a docu about the A380... see if you can find it, it's bound to be in their mediathek on www.zdf.de somewhere. Pity if you can't read/understand German :sad: :ok:

A-FLOOR,

It is in my nature to stir things up. I like to throw things out to see how people react. I do it to both Airbus and Boeing.

Is there a problem with pointing out the truth? :confused:

I thought this was a place of aviation discussion. PAX evac is something everybody on this forum is or should be concerned with.

It makes no difference, I was already told by the head of the SACO office that the FAA is not going for the simulation. They are going to make them do it just like everybody else regardless of the risk of injury. I say good. :ok:

You don't want the first actual test being done under actual emergency conditions.

Lu, regarding the insurance aspect. The passenger legal liability insurance of most airlines will be thinly spread around the world insurance markets you can be sure of that! Those operating the A380 will be no exception. The premium payable is calculated on Revenue Passenger Kilometres, (RPK), travelled per annum for the airline concerned. The original placing of the insurance will be shared among many, many underwriters and then re-insured out a few times as well, this is so designed that when a disaster comes no one goes bust. Airlines with USA exposure have to pay a higher premium based on the extent of that exposure which has to be declared to underwriters when the policy is placed or renewed.

I have no doubt that the rules will be manipulated to get A380 certified evac wise. Beancounters and Pollies can be relied on for few things but this is one of them.

Airlines who have a need will buy A380 in sufficient numbers, I believe, to make the aircraft a commercial success...certainly when you take frieghters into consideration.

Beancounters will just not be able to resist puting twice as many/as much behind the same numbers of pilots. Once again Airbus are building a beancounters aeroplane..

HOWEVER!!!

I still think there will be a MASSIVE market for 'off piste' direct flights with 200-250 seaters....more than enough for boeing and sparebus to make a good living from.

And as the thought of crewing an A380 leaves me completely cold I'll happily see out my career 'off piste'...hopefully in a Boeing..I really like the 767-300er and the 777s/7e7s look the ducks nuts as well.

Chuck.

Here are some links on the A380 and PAX evac:

Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF)

ICAO Paper

Airbus in fear of a full scale evac test

The real doozy..... This link is of the simulation software in action. Look how many people they expect to be on a slide at one time. Fat chance of that happening.

Panic

VLTA paper


:} :ooh:

ps. Chimbu chuckles - Unless the head of the Seattle FAA office is missinformed they have already decided. If Airbus wants the A380 to fly in the USA they must complete a full evac test per the FARs. Once you start down the path of cutting corners the dam bursts. They aren't going to go there with safety. :ok:

Here is the current FAR:

Sec. 25.803 Emergency evacuation.

(a) Each crew and passenger area must have emergency means to allow
rapid evacuation in crash landings, with the landing gear extended as
well as with the landing gear retracted, considering the possibility of
the airplane being on fire.
(b) [Reserved]
(c) For airplanes having a seating capacity of more than 44
passengers, it must be shown that the maximum seating capacity,
including the number of crewmembers required by the operating rules for
which certification is requested, can be evacuated from the airplane to
the ground under simulated emergency conditions within 90 seconds.
Compliance with this requirement must be shown by actual demonstration
using the test criteria outlined in appendix J of this part unless the
Administrator finds that a combination of analysis and testing will
provide data equivalent to that which would be obtained by actual
demonstration.
(d)-(e) [Reserved]

Appendix J to Part 25--Emergency Evacuation

The following test criteria and procedures must be used for showing
compliance with Sec. 25.803:
(a) The emergency evacuation must be conducted either during the
dark of the night or during daylight with the dark of night simulated.
If the demonstration is conducted indoors during daylight hours, it must
be conducted with each window covered and each door closed to minimize
the daylight effect. Illumination on the floor or ground may be used,
but it must be kept low and shielded against shining into the airplane's
windows or doors.
(b) The airplane must be in a normal attitude with landing gear
extended.
(c) Unless the airplane is equipped with an off-wing descent means,
stands or ramps may be used for descent from the wing to the ground.
Safety equipment such as mats or inverted life rafts may be placed on
the floor or ground to protect participants. No other equipment that is
not part of the emergency evacuation equipment of the airplane may be
used to aid the participants in reaching the ground.
(d) Except as provided in paragraph (a) of this appendix, only the
airplane's emergency lighting system may provide illumination.
(e) All emergency equipment required for the planned operation of
the airplane must be installed.
(f) Each external door and exit, and each internal door or curtain,
must be in the takeoff configuration.
(g) Each crewmember must be seated in the normally assigned seat for
takeoff and must remain in the seat until receiving the signal for
commencement of the demonstration. Each crewmember must be a person
having knowledge of the operation of exits and emergency equipment and,
if compliance with Sec. 121.291 is also being demonstrated,

[[Page 556]]

each flight attendant must be a member of a regularly scheduled line
crew.
(h) A representative passenger load of persons in normal health must
be used as follows:
(1) At least 40 percent of the passenger load must be female.
(2) At least 35 percent of the passenger load must be over 50 years
of age.
(3) At least 15 percent of the passenger load must be female and
over 50 years of age.
(4) Three life-size dolls, not included as part of the total
passenger load, must be carried by passengers to simulate live infants 2
years old or younger.
(5) Crewmembers, mechanics, and training personnel, who maintain or
operate the airplane in the normal course of their duties, may not be
used as passengers.
(i) No passenger may be assigned a specific seat except as the
Administrator may require. Except as required by subparagraph (g) of
this paragraph, no employee of the applicant may be seated next to an
emergency exit.
(j) Seat belts and shoulder harnesses (as required) must be
fastened.
(k) Before the start of the demonstration, approximately one-half of
the total average amount of carry-on baggage, blankets, pillows, and
other similar articles must be distributed at several locations in
aisles and emergency exit access ways to create minor obstructions.
(l) No prior indication may be given to any crewmember or passenger
of the particular exits to be used in the demonstration.
(m) The applicant may not practice, rehearse, or describe the
demonstration for the participants nor may any participant have taken
part in this type of demonstration within the preceding 6 months.
(n) The pretakeoff passenger briefing required by Sec. 121.571 may
be given. The passengers may also be advised to follow directions of
crewmembers but not be instructed on the procedures to be followed in
the demonstration.
(o) If safety equipment as allowed by paragraph (c) of this appendix
is provided, either all passenger and cockpit windows must be blacked
out or all of the emergency exits must have safety equipment in order to
prevent disclosure of the available emergency exits.
(p) Not more than 50 percent of the emergency exits in the sides of
the fuselage of an airplane that meets all of the requirements
applicable to the required emergency exits for that airplane may be used
for the demonstration. Exits that are not to be used in the
demonstration must have the exit handle deactivated or must be indicated
by red lights, red tape, or other acceptable means placed outside the
exits to indicate fire or other reason why they are unusable. The exits
to be used must be representative of all of the emergency exits on the
airplane and must be designated by the applicant, subject to approval by
the Administrator. At least one floor level exit must be used.
(q) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, all
evacuees must leave the airplane by a means provided as part of the
airplane's equipment.
(r) The applicant's approved procedures must be fully utilized,
except the flightcrew must take no active role in assisting others
inside the cabin during the demonstration.
(s) The evacuation time period is completed when the last occupant
has evacuated the airplane and is on the ground. Provided that the
acceptance rate of the stand or ramp is no greater than the acceptance
rate of the means available on the airplane for descent from the wing
during an actual crash situation, evacuees using stands or ramps allowed
by paragraph (c) of this appendix are considered to be on the ground
when they are on the stand or ramp.

[Amdt. 25-72, 55 FR 29788, July 20, 1990, as amended by Amdt. 25-79,
Aug. 26, 1993]


If my info is correct there will be only 3 usable doors on the upper deck during the test. Without taking time to open the doors and deploy the slides 200 people through 3 doors will require each person to be up from their seat to the door and down the slide in 1.3 seconds. :uhoh:

Christ. Let get real here.

I don't care how long/steep/deflated the slide is. If it's a choice between burning to death in an alloy tube, and breaking both my legs/pelvis/back/skull, well, I'll die trying to get out thankyou. Hell, I'd step out of that thing even if there were NO SLIDE. I suspect put in a real evac situation, most people would do the same.

I'm sure airbus will keep trying until they get it certified.

BigHitDH,

I think they will run out of trial people since none of the test participants can have been involved in any practice or test for the prior 6 months. If they have a lot of injuries during the first test or heaven forbid somebody dies, they will have a real hard time finding participants. :{

Going by the math, it can't be done. Especially if they want to sell it in Japan where they won't have a three class setup it will be all cattle class and that means doing a test with 800 people on board. That probably means at least 300 will be up top. That makes the math even worse. :ooh:

ps. The test won't be conducted with an airplane that is on fire so the participants that are being asked to jump, in pitch black or very little light, into a black hole they can't see the bottom of, but they know they are almost 40 ft in the air. RRRRRRIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGHHHHHHHTTTTTTTT!!!!!!! :E

747Focal,

I note you haven't answered a non-technical question (on 747 sales before first flight) on another forum, so I'll try a different one here.

Care to tell us all about the exceptions through grandfather rights on the 744 and the 737NG?

Each time I ask a Boeing guy (with whom I'm in daily contact) about these things, the issue just gets skirted around.

It really starts to look a bit like glass houses and stones after a while, doesn't it?

panda-k-bear- Not sure I understand what your asking? :confused:

Well there are those (and you have to admit it, 747Focal, you are one of the number) who hammer the A380 - and are perhaps justified in being a little sceptical. What's not justified is knocking it at every turn, really.

Especially when some Seattle products have been exempted from later legislation due to grandfather rights (or perhaps great-grandfather rights if we go back through the mid-life updates). That would mean that they aren't so perfect either and perhaps couldn't be certificated in today's environment.

I'm asking just what exemptions have been granted due to grandfather rights that would pose a challenge if the certification were to be done afresh today. The relevance? Well, Boeing has challenges to and would face more challenges with older designs today. Not so perfect....

Don't get me wrong - both Seattle and Toulouse churn out fantastic aircraft. Evac. on the A380 will be a challenge, I'm sure, but come on, let's not over-dramatise with guff about people being killed during the tests and therefore stopping anyone else from wanting to take part in further tests. This is the worst kind of journo. type scaremongering. Maybe you're biased, but it's in everyone's interest that there are 2 manufacturers out there (and preferably more), or Airbus wouldn't bother with the A380 and Boeing wouldn't bother with the 7E7 - everything would just stagnate.

And if we're talking about certification challenges, how about a TiGr composite fuse and wing in service by 2008?!

I seem to recall Boeing getting a special exemption not to have to install a 3rd overwing exit on the 737-900.

Airbus on the other hand built a prototype A340-600 with no overwing exit but was forced to reinstate it on the production model by regulatory pressure.

As always, it cuts both ways.

How is it different evacuating a 747 upper deck configured for economy compared to the A380? Apart from 4'.

In both cases there's a large number of people sliding a long way. If it's do-able for the 747 then it's just as do-able for the A380. There's a limit in both cases for ratio of exits vs pax.

What about NG birdstrike protection? What about a fatigue tested wing? What about sudden decompression protection? What about cabin direct view rules? All, of course, to the mid-90s standards, and not those of the mid-60s.

Should I go on? These are all questions that I'd love to have an answer to.... and answers are not forthcoming from Seattle.

Now, let's talk again about the A380. It will HAVE to pass an evac test if it is to ever be sold to a U.S. airline. As there's really only 1 making use of 747s today in any decent numbers an who doesn't have most of it's fleet parked in the desert, maybe that's no big thing. However, I'm sure the EASA will insist as well, won't they? As BahrainLad sasy, the forerunner of the EASA demanded that the 346 be reworked, so they are tight about that sort of thing. If it has to be done, I'm sure it will be done.

I note with interest that the stones from the glasshouse have stopped (temporarily).

panda-k-bear,

Your right, in todays environment, several of the older Boeing designs would have trouble certificating today. But, Boeing does not make those airplanes anymore. All of the newer models meet the latest standards.

Tinstaafl,

How different is the 747 passenger evac from the A380?

Try 180 more souls. If you do the math. Following the FARs for passenger evac certification. You will have:

3 of the six doors blocked. 3 working doors.
Half the baggage from the bins blocking half the aisles.
That means, and this is not taking into account that somebody has to get the doors open(maybe finding that the door they have opened is blocked), deploy the slides, and then 200 people have to make it to the ground. Broken down into numbers:

200 / 3(doors) = 66.67 people per door 66.67 / 90(seconds) = 0.7 people per door a second.

All the while this is in almost complete dark and you can't practice.


Regarding the composites of the 7E7. I think making the whole airplane out of composite is insanity. Everyone that has tried to do that has failed. A composite fuselage, yes. But the wings and nacelles, no. To many dispatch related problems everytime somebody has made a composite nacelle.

I believe you recall incorrectly.

IIRC, Boeing asked for an exemption so they could keep the single overwing exits on the -900. However, the JAA (or whoever made the call in Europe at the time) refused, supposedly due to Airbus lobbying. Therefore, Boeing spent a huge amount of $$ re-engineering the -900 for the dual overwing exits. The structural aspect was NOT straightforward...

AFAIK, there was never a requirement for a 3rd overwing exit on the -900.

Nonsense....the -400 and -800 have two overwing exits (on each side) so Boeing never proposed only having one each side for the 900. What redesign!?

Despite the fact that the 737-900 has over 9% more cabin space than the -800, it's still limited to the -800 maximum of 189 pax for evac purposes, because of only having the 2 exits.

If Boeing want to stuff 220 pax into the 900X, they'll have to add another (3rd) overwing exit. But they've recognised this....

But as far as I know, the -900X isn't proposed with a 3rd overwing, but rather an additional type I door aft of the wing deratable to type III with lower seating densities (i.e. true 2 class), is it not? Even with the additional door, surely the airplane isn't long enough to get 220 seats in, but more around 205-210, I'd have thought (and that in a European charter type configuration).

747Focal - I still maintain that the 737NG has exceptions due to grandfather rights in the areas that I mentioned - can you tell me with 100% certainty that that is not true? If so, then I fail to understand why the Seattle engineers have been cagey about answering exactly those points - i.e. what those exceptions actually are.

panda-k-bear,

Not to be evasive, but if you read the FARs, aircraft that share the same Type Certificate, do not have to meat the latest ammendments in some cases. The rules were designed that way to help the manufacturers save money as well as the FAA on bookkeeping.

I say lets just wait and see though I think the mark is on the door. Anyone can build a great airplane that meets everything but one criteria and that criteria sinks the boat. :)