bigchap

i don't know about that but i made 10,000 switch cases and had to tap 8 threads in each one!it took a while!i did it as a 1st year engineering apprentice in 1979 and i still see the things in my sleep now!

Strykaas

Really ? If that's true, that's too funny !

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

Boeing does indeed get US Government money, but only when the US Government buys a Boeing airplane.

Just as our AmTrak rail system is soon to be a memory with government subsidies cut off, Airbus would never make it without the constant support of the European governments.

With the Airbus tendency to make things just good enough to last until the next inspection, I'm afraid that pig is going to kill a lot of people before it's in service too long. Remember the deHavilland Comet I? World's first jetliner, and the world's first mass people killer without the use of any bombs.

The omet's problem was found, and it became a very good airplane. But its reputation was ruined. The British still fly the Comet, but it's now called the Nimrod.

Further on the A-380. The maintenance/inspection cost will probably pay for a couple 737s brand new every year of operation.

It's just too big, I'll be surprised if any operators manage much more than 40% average occupancy. Loser.

Bill.

Strykaas

How harsh your words are, bill ! I usually tend to agree with most of your posts, but I feel you've gone a bit too far.

The fact that really amazes me is that some guys here and there believe they are smarter than those people at the marketing dept. of Airbus...[sm=bananahead.gif] Why don't you all try to get hired by this company, just to help them doing things the right way ? It makes me laugh, seriously. A bit of respect, please ! Serious surveys with airlines have been carried out, and all these issues have already been addressed ! Come on !

GRANT ED

I agree 100%. The people at Airbus are not stupid however comparing the A-380 to the comet is.
Face it the A-380 will fly and it will be a success. If it were as bad as the people here seam to think it is then no airline would buy it.

Pilotsmoe

boeing 777-200lr is better[8D] it can fly any citypair, nonstop. wouldn't want to be stuck on a plane for 22 hours though

Pilotsmoe

They won't have any problem filling this up in china, though. They already cram 600 seats in their 747's
boeing does receive government loans, too

rcav8er

My Feedback: (19)

The only thing I've got to say about the new Bus is: What Airport is going to let this thing sit on the gate for three weeks while everybody gets though Security.

It's going to take a Lav Truck to size of a fuel tanker to dump this thing.

Strykaas

Man, I'm sorry to say this is a stupid question. Why shall the big bus be there on the gate while passengers get through security ? It is dead easy to imagine a boarding room after the security, and when everybody has passed the security, or just say 15 mins before, the big bus can come to the gate. Boarding then starts. Don't worry, all these scenarios have already been discussed, no hurdle in front of them.

Regarding fuel consumption, do you know the actual difference between the quantity of fuel required by 747-400s vs. a380s ? I don't know it, but I'm pretty sure difference is not 50%, nor 25%... Similar, but slightly more for a380s.

Rotorwrench

That's a huge airplane and Airbus did a great job to get it built. The biggest problem I see is, What airport has the terminal big enough to hold the pax waiting to board? It's going to be very limited to where it can be put into service.

v-snap

My Feedback: (18)

I don't think the interior is the problem for the airports. The runways, taxiways, ramps, and gates all need to be resized for this airplane. That is where the cost will be for operations. You most likly will only see this take place at the larger US markets that might be able to load enough of them to make it worth wild for the cities.

As for the engines, I think they will be part P&W, GE and RR..Definitly a cross breed of the manufacturers...

robert

My god you guys are so jealous! Get a life!! Its only a plane. Airbus and boeing are the same, they are in it for the $$$ and both of them have had their ugly moments (Stab along with most of the tailplane blew off a JAL 747 FYI, rear bulkhead failed due to some guy forgetting to assemble it properly. Poor guy killed himself I think [] ) You say that Airbus gets grants, well look at boeing, its corruption scandle after scandle, some of which have included money from the government. Everyone says its naive and insulting to say that it kicks the American manufacturers ass, and yet you insult every single French Person, and then call them arrogant when they don't like you for it.
All of this because one manufacturer is replacing the 747 as largest commercial?

And yes, the worst thing is when one of those goes down! [] Which is just as terrible as the worst aviation disaster and the worst single aviation disaster, can you guess which plane was sadly in them?


Oh and funny thing, I can swear that Boeing are saying that the Dreamliner is the 'next greatest thing'.......Funny how both the companies are so alike huh? I guess your opinion comes down to what you choose to believe.

Fact is, both companies are just in it to make as much money as they can, they are both the same. One is not golden while the other isn't.

Oh and the engines, there are two. One is the RR Trent 900 the other is an Alliance between P&W and GE.

Johng

My Feedback: (4)

Uh, yeah - like the rest of us. Nothing wrong with $$, earned honestly.

Ha, this is so ignorant it's funny. You are making the American argument for us.

Whereas the Euro's lie and call subsidy a "loan", the US government busted Boeing for illegal dealings, banned them from billions in space launch contracts, killed the KC-767 tanker deal, and is investigating other contracts (to cancel) which were assigned by a dishonest bureaucrat, who is serving time in prison, btw. Yeah, that really sounds like the US goverment is unfairly supporting Boeing...

One is competing in the free market while one is hiding behind momma's apron. I used to post that I hope the A380 succeeds. After reading the press about the one-sided trade situation, I hope the US slaps a tarriff on that subsidized whale. That would be a fair(er) playing field.

MarkNovack

My Feedback: (3)

I say, what incredible BS is written all around here. Subsidy this, rudder problem that, never sell, needs new runways. I'm ashamed of you fellows. Here comes a magnificent airplane, indeed a 1st world combined effort (is Airbus a vacuum?) and you writing about one country being behind in technology or having a crash etc., etc., etc. folks, at least do your research before jaw-jacking away and sounding ignorant.

Pay-off?
Currently, AB is 1/3 commited for number sold for pay-off. Not bad for an airplane that has yet to fly. Does anyone here really think it won't fly? Duh! When Beoing launched the 747, it gambled the existence of the entire company and won. Capacity sells. Plus, with the amount of lives (real families with children and spouses living happily like you and I) depending on this for economic futures, I think this has been well thought through.

Only for the longest routes?
Japan wants a dozen yesterday for their short business routes. They predict capacity runs all day long 7 days per week. Low luggage carriage also because of the business travel nature. Real profit potential.

Runways?
Nope, most runways that this airplane would serve are already big enough and the wheel base places less weight per wheel than already accomadated heavies. Some will need taxiways widened and ramps, gates, and services will need expansion. Hey, the 747 was accomodated when it was a lot bigger jump in capacity...the first couple of years were difficult, but the industry accomodated it quickly. Airport expansion...lots of jobs. All it takes is the will and belief of the people.

Body Count?
It could be horrible. For now, 555 is the max planned load. The world did'nt stop flying the 747 after Tennerif. The world numbs with 150,000 body counts from tsunamis and earthquakes. I don't think the world will quit the AB. Plus, with reliability being what it is today, thats a long shot off. Why look for the accident? Think safety first. Or is it just habit to see the negative?

Could'nt even use their own motors?
Does that even need answering? That just childish writing. Volatile technolgy has advantage in being supported around the world. So does expanding the receding brain trust.

Government subsidy?
Sure. Why not. Its a social democracy, not pure capitalism. The US industry gets plenty of government support in many ways too. One is simply through paying full to double price on government travel options. Research grants and supremely high purchase prices on standard line items painted olive drab help also. Some is just plain creative accounting as scandals that riddled the industry 5-10 years ago showed. Unfortunately, this I know after several years in budgetary operations. It does'nt really matter, in the end the result is still an economic boost to all. The industry supports millions of people and nobody is going to let it go bankrupt. Entire economic sections of industry would drop dead. The airplane industry is a bit like a nuclear reactor. You can't just shut it off because it loses money sometimes. The US has purchased airplanes just to keep certain companies in operation because they can't afford to lose the expertise...the brain trust is so priceless. Should a particular need arise tomorrow, a dufunct industry is not just going to turn on like a lamp and start churning out airplanes. This is a continuous casting process where turning it off could mean losing it. It has become so vital to our way of life that it funded directly or indirectly, spoken or unspoken. Economic impact from the aviation industry is somewhat greater than so many horrendously pork barrelled money drain projects that receive funding directly and publicly. Frankly, I'd love to divert about 90% of NASA's exploration budget into our aviation industry because I don't give a hoot-n-hell if there is water on Mars or not. Want water, I have water right here. 3.2 billion dollars to read about what MIGHT be there. Uhh, duhh, it MIGHT be water, uh, it MIGHT have been a river, duh, look, a rock (want rocks, my house is made of stone), there might be little green creatures crawling all over Ur@nus, or what do they call it now, Urektum?

Cargo is the key!
Commercial shippers are champing at the bit already. This one is easy to see why. Load that sucker full to capacity. Cargo does not care if other cargo sits too close. Leg room does not apply. FedEx, UPS, traitors, all they care about is profit.


Why gripe? Love Boeing? Show your loyalty. Buy stock and their T-shirt! I get the magazine. The next big bet flies out in 2008, a medium sized jet for shorter hops. Lots can happen between now and then. Airbus stock is available for immediate gain...or loss. Hopefully, the two aircraft will each compliment one another in a market when and where a huge number of airframes are going to come of age requiring replacement.
Lastly, thinking that a grand failure for Airbus would mean a boon for Boeing might be a bit narrow minded unless you really believe that we function in an economic vacuum. World confidence in aviation is very important also.

I guess there are two final ways to handle to pressure from the A380. Gripe and complain to the union, twist your employers until the company squeeks to a halt while halfsteping on the job sulking in depression, or rise the the challange, stand together, give 110% and show the world who can still build the worlds finest aircraft. It may be a shot now to our national industrial pride, but that's no reason to go off showing the world how we can debate the issue like children. Go look at the airplane, see how it does, and then if its feasible, build a bigger and better one or find that SST technology that is efficeint for mass transit. Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door.

BUT IT SURE IS ONE BIG UGLY WHALE...NO BEAUTY CONTESTS BEING WON WITH THE A380 TODAY!!! Give it a nice cellulite paint job, it reminds me of my Aunt who worked for NASA. She was the size of a piano...physicist and optical specialist (not glasses, telescopes), not an astronaut...LOL!!! She was so big she had her own sattelites. And the undercarriage...looks like a centipede. However, the wings are beautiful. That I must say. Wonderful shape on the wings. Like a big ugly humpbacked whale with pretty flippers.

Mark

Enola Gay, i just love how thats starred out!!!

robert

JohnG I am not making an argument for anything. In my opinion they are both crooks and I couldn't care less about either company and their aircraft. There are so many 'interests' being catered for with so many people getting their fingers in the pie its not funny. If they really were trying to build the best aircraft cheaply do you really think they would have the parts touring the world four times over before arriving in Toulouse? Common sense would dictate that its cheaper and more effective at producing a quality product if they were to build it from start to finish in the one place. So much money is wasted that could be used for things that are of much greater benifit to humanity. Where is te business sense of having 6 tons of wing sail from the states to Wales at a HUGE cost?!?!?! You may argue that it creates jobs bt you might aswell spend it on improving schooling around the world which could potentially educate and develop the rest of the world in a matter of decades.
And the irony is, that Boeing is the same.

So yeah i like the A380 and I think it will do well and I look foward to flying in it some time, just like I looked foward to flying on a 747 or 777. But thats as far as my attachment goes. You see every other day in the news the truth behind the companies that design these aircraft and its shamefull!

So you see I don't really care. As i said I only hope that one of them never crashes, becuase that is one loss that can never be replaced........

FLYBOY

My Feedback: (11)

Guys! Keep it on track and quit the bickering about whos best and whos not. Keep that up and the whole thread is going to dissapear! [X(]

If you want to talk like kids, go to the car forum. It happens there all the time. Its not going to go on here.

David2004

GRANT ED

I cannot believe that we cant even talk about a plane without this turning into a slanging match.
People are getting so fired up over nothing.

First lets get a few facts here.

Every aircraft manuafacture has had problems with their design.
David mentioned the tail on the A300. Well actually the failure was due to the pilots overloading the tail due to repeated rudder inputs. The tail did not fail because of a design error. It was made to be as strong as required by the regulations.

Even so there are a nember of boeing design errors (767 thrust reverser, 737 rudder reversals, 747 fuel tank expslosions etc)
SO Boeing is not immune. Not trying to bag boeing just stating the FACTS.

David would you like to take a bet that Airbus won't sell 250 A-380's? They are almost up to 100 and the plane has not even flown yet.

That A320 that flew into the trees was pilot error, not the plane design.

Why is it that some people just can't accept that someone other than boeing can make an airliner.

I personnally prefer boeing aircraft but Airbus are taking over, they sold more airliners than boeing last year.

The A-380 will fly, it will be a success and the average passenger does not care or even know what plane they are on. Deal with it.

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

Grant:

For the most part I can't disagree, but
is so much bull.

If a control surface can be broken or destroyed in normal flight regimes it is faulty.

"Repeated rudder inouts?" Are they supposed to count, and only kick the rudder pedals 15 times in a flight? Maybe 20? The FAA would never allow such a limitation,

I have no idea who put the pressure on who in this investigation to call it pilot error, but was it really pilot error? No. Not when the vertical fin breaks off in the climb out.

Bill.

tommy s

My Feedback: (55)

I don't care if it flies or not , I don't want to be on an airplane with
799 other people.

tommy s

FLYBOY

My Feedback: (11)

Its always pilot error. Least they try to make it that. Saves the insurance company. Blame it on the pilot. I can't see a rudder hard over taking the vertical stab off the plane at climb speeds either.

As for the 747, do you really think they would still be flying 747s if the fuel tanks just exploded? I don't think so. There is no way that tank just exploded. I don't care what they say. Fuel tanks don't just explode. If there was a real problem, they would have grounded every 747 out there. Just my take on it.

Johng

My Feedback: (4)

Sorry Bill, I think you a quite wrong. Apply the same thinking to elevator, on any plane. You say "normal flight regimes" , well get that puppy in cruise flight and pull yoke full back, and assuming you are still conscious, push it full forward as fast as you can. Get out the abbacus , cause you will be counting the parts that fall off. The guy that broke that plane was stomping pedals like there were roaches under them, without good reason. He was going from left stop to right stop at a speed such that the plane was swinging to full yaw one way, just when he was applying full rudder the opposite way, creating higher forces than anyone anticipated. And it wasn't at all necessary. And while it wasn't in cruise flight, it was doing around 200 kts, in much thicker air than typical cruise, so the dynamic pressure (equivalent airspeed) was in the same league.

No plane, no part of any plane is beyond over-stressing, from Cessna to Lockheed, without having a FBW to take control away from the pilot. Your comment "If a control surface can be broken or destroyed in normal flight regimes it is faulty." cannot be lived up to by any manufacturer. That's like the old - make the planes out of the stuff they make the black box out of. You could, but you wouldn't have a very good plane. Same with this issue.

As I said before in this thread, 3 parties share responsibilities for that crash. The pilot for doing the mambo on the pedals, the airline for incomplete upset training, and Airbus for making the rudder much easier to move with a smaller travel than other models of the A300. But mostly the pilot for doing things to the airplane that made other pilots wonder what he was thinking. What wasn't a problem is the strength of the vertical surface. It withstood force equivalent to hanging two max gross semi trucks from the side of it.

But that Airbus that flew into the trees was a poor flight control design. If the airplane can get into a mode where it won't obey the pilot, it needs to have a little robot that taps the pilot on the shoulder and tells him what the plane it doing.

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

John:

I was not there, so I can't comment from direct observation. If the FDR recorded full excursions on the rudder, then it was probably doing it. But no ATR is going to "Do the mambo" on the rudder pedals without some other fault.

I am far more inclined to think a servo valve in the rudder actuator might have gotten a small bit of trash in it making it stick, then a slight rudder input by the pilot would cause the rudder to go to full lock. The when the pilot tried to correct it, the same sticking valve gave him full opposite.

If the pilot in command had a total of 20-30 hours total time, and zero time in type,.. But that does not happen.

Pilot error? NEVER.

Bill.

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

All:

Looks like the A3xx has a nasty habit of rudders falling off. And poor maintenance inspection procedure to go along with it.

Also note the FAA person's comment on the intense lobbying by Airbus.

Follow it all from [link=http://shortfinal.blogspot.com/2005/03/americas-worst-airline-flying-worlds.html]here[/link].

Bill.

FLYBOY

My Feedback: (11)

John, refer back to the airspeed Va in the manual. Above that speed, you can not use full flight control of any flight control in the aircraft without causeing structural damage. The word in the definition is "abrupt" control movement. If you are above that speed and you move the controls fast and full, you will cause damage. I think that may be the problem more than anything. If he went full rudder deflection at a high speed, the rudder stands a very good chance of failing, as do other parts of the plane, Any plane.