There are two engine choices for A380, RR Trent 900 which flew last week and the GP7000 a P & W/GE joint project.
OH MY GOSH , AIrbus A380 makes first flight!!
- Thread starter Korean_redneck
- Start date
- Status
Sprint, respectfully;
Separation of the vert stab , JFK ,NY 2001 AB300. Is much different than a boeing rudder hardover.
My good friend the Co-pilot was flying and was blamed for what was a p-poor design. So I am biased but have flown long enough to know what I am talking about. Never have flown heavy AB and prefer not to at this point.
Recent separation of another AB rudder from the vert stab, supports my theory that AB still has QC/QA issues with composites and flight controls.
Inflight reverser deployment is different issue and can be flown out of like rudder hardover.
Catastrophic separation of major control surfaces is a whole nuther can of beer.....
Separation of the vert stab , JFK ,NY 2001 AB300. Is much different than a boeing rudder hardover.
My good friend the Co-pilot was flying and was blamed for what was a p-poor design. So I am biased but have flown long enough to know what I am talking about. Never have flown heavy AB and prefer not to at this point.
Recent separation of another AB rudder from the vert stab, supports my theory that AB still has QC/QA issues with composites and flight controls.
Inflight reverser deployment is different issue and can be flown out of like rudder hardover.
Catastrophic separation of major control surfaces is a whole nuther can of beer.....
I dunno about that....
The flights I took acouple of weeks ago made me ponder wether "Beautiful" and "Flight attendant" really should be shareing space in the same sentence.
Really reminded me of Larry the Cable guy's speel about flight attendants in the 2nd Blue Collar Comedy Tour DVD.
I won't get into the details....
Rev440,
That's pretty condeming and negative language, about the U.S. Senate,.... coming from a Canadian. Airbus HAS been receiving huge amounts of government subsidies. Without that assistance, Airbus wouldn't have had a chance against Boeing.
That's pretty condeming and negative language, about the U.S. Senate,.... coming from a Canadian. Airbus HAS been receiving huge amounts of government subsidies. Without that assistance, Airbus wouldn't have had a chance against Boeing.
I agree with SuperCrew. It seems that the attendants with the most seniority get the cush trans-atlantic routes.
I've flown to Japan several times, always had "Mrs. Brady" and "Alice the Housekeeper" types of flight attendants.
Terry, you and others may find this interesting but it is slightly off topic. In my prior career, I actually spent time looking into primary aerospace composite structures and technologies. I remember one aerospace engineer shaking his head about the Airbus vertical stabilizer design on the A300/310. It's an interesting design in that there are very few fasteners. Up to this point, most commercial aerospace composite structures looked very much like their metallic counterparts. Engineers would make comments about "black" aluminum when talking about graphite composite assemblies because they still used rivets and traditional fasteners. And, the parts themselves looked about the same as the metallic ones. There is a very good reason for this. Aerospace engineers have a good database and working knowledge of how those fasteners and structural parts behave and fail. Those engineers are very conservative in their designs and how fast they push the technology.
However, Airbus engineers really wanted to showcase composite automation. Rather than traditional ribs and stringers for the internal structure of the stabilizer, they used an automated process to wind composite material around bricks. These bricks are then laid next to each other before curing in the autoclave. When the bricks are popped out afterwards, you have a composite matrix ready to attach to the skins (actually, I'm not sure but the skins may be co-cured with the internal structure). Anyway, this one engineer explained that for strength and durability you need continuous fiber in a load bearing member. And, you can have confidence that you can model how that member will behave in service. On the Airbus design, it seemed that there was no way to ensure continuous fiber in any direction of the internal structure--simply because the fibers do not traverse across bricks. Rather, Airbus was looking for the epoxy material to provide strength and fatigue resistance.
Airbus' ultimate strength tests and cycle tests probably provided them with sufficient confidence that the vertical stabilizer design was sound. However, that was really a leap in technology in the eyes of more conservative engineers.
In contrast, you can see how slowly Boeing has introduced composite structures--first on non-structural members such as fairings, then on secondary structures such as elevators, rudders. Finally, they produced their first primary composite structure on the 777 with its vertical and horizontal stabilizers. BTW, the horizontal stabilizer of the 777 has about the same span as the wing of a 737.
However, Airbus engineers really wanted to showcase composite automation. Rather than traditional ribs and stringers for the internal structure of the stabilizer, they used an automated process to wind composite material around bricks. These bricks are then laid next to each other before curing in the autoclave. When the bricks are popped out afterwards, you have a composite matrix ready to attach to the skins (actually, I'm not sure but the skins may be co-cured with the internal structure). Anyway, this one engineer explained that for strength and durability you need continuous fiber in a load bearing member. And, you can have confidence that you can model how that member will behave in service. On the Airbus design, it seemed that there was no way to ensure continuous fiber in any direction of the internal structure--simply because the fibers do not traverse across bricks. Rather, Airbus was looking for the epoxy material to provide strength and fatigue resistance.
Airbus' ultimate strength tests and cycle tests probably provided them with sufficient confidence that the vertical stabilizer design was sound. However, that was really a leap in technology in the eyes of more conservative engineers.
In contrast, you can see how slowly Boeing has introduced composite structures--first on non-structural members such as fairings, then on secondary structures such as elevators, rudders. Finally, they produced their first primary composite structure on the 777 with its vertical and horizontal stabilizers. BTW, the horizontal stabilizer of the 777 has about the same span as the wing of a 737.
Nel, I did not know of the aero engineering background. Amazing how many end up in automotive engineering..
Thanks you are not the first to share that info, including the accident board about that flight.
I can't speak too much about what I know but Airbus has lots of political power to silence what was a known but forgotten issue.
I could care less about national issues but when I am flying jet and the whole vert stab seperates you and the passengers you are entrusted to care for are toast.
Blaming a really sharp experienced pilot was the last straw for me and my opinion of engineering at airbus industrie.
Thanks you are not the first to share that info, including the accident board about that flight.
I can't speak too much about what I know but Airbus has lots of political power to silence what was a known but forgotten issue.
I could care less about national issues but when I am flying jet and the whole vert stab seperates you and the passengers you are entrusted to care for are toast.
Blaming a really sharp experienced pilot was the last straw for me and my opinion of engineering at airbus industrie.
Airbus is a collective company owned by the Brit/German/French government; just a major base in France.
Fr/Gdr/Sp aerospace firm EADS [European Aeronautic Defence and Space] and Brit's BAE Systems
Open up the market for more competitive nature and drive lower prices.
Airports will change to accept the plane size from incentive of less than 2 yr return on investment. Airports will adapt because of increase revenues.
UPS, Fedex is only the beginning for US customers, there will be more.
Virgin is being aggressive to get overseas Euro/N.Am [Atlantic] share.
Lufthansa are going to take the Overseas Euro/N.Am. [Atlantic]
Quantas are going to take the Over seas of N.Am/south pacific and China[N.pacific] to Ausalz[S.pacific].
The US senate is scared s4itle$$ with concern about Airbus market share because of 2 year release before dreamliner.
The senate unanimously passed a non-binding resolution urging the EU not to provide any more launch aid loans for Airbus.
Their thing is they know the The bush admin is increasing $ for defence and less for loans to Boeing. The senate says the govt will give out less but what they don't say is the Japanese govt is dumping $ into Boeing.
Its just more "WAH!!!" from one-way-street senate always waiving their "subsidy done by non-US govt is a crime" flag.
Give this plane 2 years and the incentive for potential customers from economical prices will surely rise in leaps n bounds.
That $1800 flight from Vancouver to Sydney will eventually cost $1400.
$300~400 bucks in my pocket is better than theirs.
Someone asked about L1011 size, the Lockheed was maximum 400 seats and there are only about 20 units left in existence. Its seating for Atlantic was 2, 5 and 2. Pacific was 3, 4 and 3. = cattle truck.
Fr/Gdr/Sp aerospace firm EADS [European Aeronautic Defence and Space] and Brit's BAE Systems
Open up the market for more competitive nature and drive lower prices.
Airports will change to accept the plane size from incentive of less than 2 yr return on investment. Airports will adapt because of increase revenues.
UPS, Fedex is only the beginning for US customers, there will be more.
Virgin is being aggressive to get overseas Euro/N.Am [Atlantic] share.
Lufthansa are going to take the Overseas Euro/N.Am. [Atlantic]
Quantas are going to take the Over seas of N.Am/south pacific and China[N.pacific] to Ausalz[S.pacific].
The US senate is scared s4itle$$ with concern about Airbus market share because of 2 year release before dreamliner.
The senate unanimously passed a non-binding resolution urging the EU not to provide any more launch aid loans for Airbus.
Their thing is they know the The bush admin is increasing $ for defence and less for loans to Boeing. The senate says the govt will give out less but what they don't say is the Japanese govt is dumping $ into Boeing.
Its just more "WAH!!!" from one-way-street senate always waiving their "subsidy done by non-US govt is a crime" flag.
Give this plane 2 years and the incentive for potential customers from economical prices will surely rise in leaps n bounds.
That $1800 flight from Vancouver to Sydney will eventually cost $1400.
$300~400 bucks in my pocket is better than theirs.
Someone asked about L1011 size, the Lockheed was maximum 400 seats and there are only about 20 units left in existence. Its seating for Atlantic was 2, 5 and 2. Pacific was 3, 4 and 3. = cattle truck.
**** straight it is.
I used to study political science and now just do it for a hobby, some of the stuff the u.s. senate tries to pull off is outright poor sportsmanship. Good for them but not good for anyone else. When the u.s. govt does it, it's called another name, when some other country does it the senate waves their flag of "unfair subsidy"
I'm not going to get started, this subject is as bad as talking of religion.
Anyone know if the A380 has cockpit commonality with the A320? Or just what exactly is involved in the conversion process?
Of course my 6 hours of flight time and 4 cycles in the cockpit of an A320 wouldn't count towards that, lol, but I am interested in knowing how bad the conversion is/will be.
Of course my 6 hours of flight time and 4 cycles in the cockpit of an A320 wouldn't count towards that, lol, but I am interested in knowing how bad the conversion is/will be.
Wait and see European Muslims will be flying A380's on Microsofts Flight Simulator getting ready for their next round of AirCraft Suicide Bombings in America (9/11)! This way they can use an aircraft with more fuel and one that has 0% USA content to hurt us.
Pitzel, good question, if pilot training cost economics are any measure the only cockpit difference will be 4 banks of vert readout engine instruments and associated systems panels.
Oh and a pool water test kit readout for the indoor pool and jacuzzi .
EN SHALLAH...
Oh and a pool water test kit readout for the indoor pool and jacuzzi .
EN SHALLAH...
I read a newspaper article a few months ago regarding the A380 delay. Apparently Qantas were considering legal action/compensation against Airbus for the delay in deliveries.
MolaKule
Staff member
- Status
