Airbus A380 Issue

[MFAFF]

Sing

You're welcome....its great way to lose DAYS and DAYS.....

IROC,

Interesting, what little information I have found on the Boeing C-X programme shows a high wing aircraft....mainly I understand as the requirement was for a loading deck at truck bedheight...

http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Partners/C_5.html

But unlike Lockheed's entry, Boeing's seems poorly documented...


I had understood that Boeing went to a 'high' deck (ie low wing) design for the 747 as a result of fitting in with the then current view of passenger aircraft....and not wanting to look like a 'cargo airplane'. Plus pax comfort is imporved by slinging the engines below the cabin... ever been on a BAe 146/ RJ? Sure its quiet but still the engine noise is more intrusive than on a 737...

[Sweeny Todd]

Originally posted by john_cramer
MFAFF,

That was an interesting thread. It does indicate that the 380 has four main gear, two in the fuselage and two under the wings, the gear in the wings being slighty forward of the gear in the body. As such, the aircraft cannot be turned without some of the wheels scrubbing. The 747 compensates for this by steering the body gear to minimize scrub.

It goes on further to state that the maximum steering angle with a towbar will be limited to 60 degrees in operations, but has been tested as high as 72 degrees. I can't locate the spec for a 747, but I do know that the smaller jets have a much higher steering angle.

It does appear, however, that that damage was done with the aircraft well above MGTOW.

Why do you think they didn't include a steering feature? Weight? Complexity?

"Landing Check! Mix Air Trim Pump Lights Brakes Ready to Come Aboard!" Sure could use a castering gear HERE!

Nice Citabria! I love 'em!

Hal

[charleskieffner]

you will never get me on an AIRBUSSS.............never! the french italians and the germans could never historically play well with one another...............what makes you think they can play well together building a plane??????????????????????????

[450knotOffice]

35 years of Airbus jetliners proves they can get along just fine. Don't be fooled. Airbus makes a helluva jet.

I just came upon this thread and read through it with interest. It seemed to me as I read through it that this was simply the result of one more test required for certification. If you look at the time stamp you'll note that the pic was taken well over a year ago (June 25, 2005). Considering that the aircraft is still taxiing about the various airfields that are intended to receive it and that it is still actively flying, I suspect that those dramatic pictures turned out to be a non-event in terms of design issues.

[IROC]

Originally posted by 450knotOffice
35 years of Airbus jetliners proves they can get along just fine. Don't be fooled. Airbus makes a helluva jet.

I just came upon this thread and read through it with interest. It seemed to me as I read through it that this was simply the result of one more test required for certification. If you look at the time stamp you'll note that the pic was taken well over a year ago (June 25, 2005). Considering that the aircraft is still taxiing about the various airfields that are intended to receive it and that it is still actively flying, I suspect that those dramatic pictures turned out to be a non-event in terms of design issues.

Yeah, I let my typically skeptical guard down and let a fellow Boeing employee convince me that this was a real problem.

Funny story, though. We had a speaker here a couple of years ago that told us of a conversation she overheard in the airport. Evidently some highly disgruntled passenger had just gotten off of a miserable flight (on an Airbus plane) where the A/C quit working. The passenger is ranting and raving to some airline representative and finally asks what they can do to avoid these problems in the future. The airline representative said, "Make sure you're flight is on a Boeing plane - they don't have these problems."

Now obviously, Boeing planes have problems, too, but I thought it was a good story...

Mike

[swa911]

If it aint Boeing, I aint going!

Just say no to Scairbus!

[charleskieffner]

Originally posted by swa911
If it aint Boeing, I aint going!

Just say no to Scairbus!

LMFAO! the insiders know the TRUTH! i aint gonna be the lead COW nor the rear COW being led to slaughter!

[450knotOffice]

C'mon. How is somebody that probably flies a Boeing for SWA an insider who knows the "truth" that airbuses are somehow junk?

I am an "insider" if you want to call airline types that and I also happened to work at Douglas in the mid 80's. I happen to be very pro-Boeing, but I'm not naive enough to buy into the baseless American argument that Airbuses are inferior. They are not. They are very well built airplanes.

Aircon can degrade on any jetliner, btw. Every once in a while one of the air conditioning "packs" will fail and the result will be a warmer cabin. Boeing products are not immune to pack failures.

[IROC]

Originally posted by 450knotOffice
Aircon can degrade on any jetliner, btw. Every once in a while one of the air conditioning "packs" will fail and the result will be a warmer cabin. Boeing products are not immune to pack failures.

Heck, I *work* for Boeing and I am not under any delusion that Boeing aircraft are immune to failures. The interesting thing - I thought - about the conversation overheard in the airport was the *perception* by the airline representative that "Boeing planes don't have problems". Perception is everything, sometimes...

Mike

[charleskieffner]

i dont get into EXPERIMENTALS EITHER! been there done that CRASHED IN ONE.................all traced back by NTSB to the FAA CERTIFIED? mechanic who worked on plane! he is now tinkering with roller skates as his full time job! we came damn close to being a statistic.

work at an airport and you get a ENTIRE DIFFERENT VIEW OF HOW THINGS REALLY DO WORK! or dont. kinda like working in a restaurant............YOU KNOW WHAT REALLY GOES ON!

[450knotOffice]

Charles, Sorry to hear that about the experimental you were in. I'm a bit leery of those myself.

As for me and my ability to make intelligent observations concerning airliners, I do work at an airport, and have for almost twenty years - Mega airports and country airports. I'm also an A&P (but don't work as one any more), so I do have an insider's view on what really goes on. I also know plenty of guys who have thousands of hours of flight time in both Boeings and Airbuses and most of these guys have good things to say about both types.

Nothing personal, btw. I just disagree with you on this issue.

[swa911]

Originally posted by 450knotOffice
C'mon. How is somebody that probably flies a Boeing for SWA an insider who knows the "truth" that airbuses are somehow junk?

I am an "insider" if you want to call airline types that and I also happened to work at Douglas in the mid 80's. I happen to be very pro-Boeing, but I'm not naive enough to buy into the baseless American argument that Airbuses are inferior. They are not. They are very well built airplanes.

Aircon can degrade on any jetliner, btw. Every once in a while one of the air conditioning "packs" will fail and the result will be a warmer cabin. Boeing products are not immune to pack failures.

I am an "insider", but I am not a pilot, I am a mechanic. I have never personally worked on an Airbus but I know many who have. The nightmare stories are endless.

Pilot induced or not, the vertical stabilizer should not break off and the airplane should not "fly itself" into trees.

[beepbeep]

Originally posted by swa911

Pilot induced or not, the vertical stabilizer should not break off and the airplane should not "fly itself" into trees.

Neither should rudder reverse, cargo doors blow off or fuel tanks explode w/o warning.

What's your point?

Nearly half of widebody airliners are made by Airbus. Do you really believe airlines would buy them if they were so badly made?

There are millions of people swearing that pushrod SB V8:s are better than that "jap crap" but Toyota is bigger than GM nowadays.

[charleskieffner]

hey i have all the respect in the world for a pilot that does fly an airbus. it tells me that he will put his A$$ on the line, and has taken the time to understand and study them. i just have a problem with a consortium of 3 countries, multi-vendors etc. worked at garrett many years here in phx. and on flightline LAX. remember how long it took europe just to approve the euro-dollar as currency?

i also have a very skewed angle working where i do. ultra wealthy people who can afford mega(million $ + pilatus) planes,pilots on standby(owners babysitter), attempt to certify themselves in planes and then dont make the effort to be proficient. nor do they work on them nor understand mechanicals. and on the other side of the coin elderly pilots who will lie steal cheat to keep their lic. despite medical issues(one who we heard who was on PROZAC!). and further pilots that fly twice a year and wonder why things dont work. have witnessed numerous times elderly pilots flying that have no biz driving a car let alone a plane w/passengers. have been witness now to 6 crashes. one w/two fatalities, another with 4 serious injuries and the rest drycleaning bills. oh yeah 2 gear up landings. airports are very dangerous places to work! also like you have seen some very shoddy workmanship that i wouldnt allow on a honda mini trail 50!

and to further skew things.......................PILOTS WHO ARE CHEAP!
when it comes to putting ANY bucks into maint. ESPECIALLY EXPERIMENTALS! wow have we seen some tires that wouldnt pass on the aforementioned mini-trail!

last time i got in a plane, kinda like getting on the horse that kicked you off, i went with a senior SW airlines pilot. guy was cargo pilot in nam for awhile until they yanked him back to states for helo school due to so many helo pilots going down. when he got out of military he went commercial. the check list he went thru on his knee for pre-flight took us damn near 20 minutes before we lifted off. had a great flight up towards payson w/some tail draggers (6 of them) when we scrubbed payson due to high winds. plan B was sedona and we had an AWESOME FLIGHT there and back. and the $100 omelette never tasted so good. i have learned my lesson that flying is a no joke dead serious undertaking and i know what to look for in a pilot and the plane. safe flying to you.

[450knotOffice]

A B-52 lost its entire Vertical Stab, so it can happen. That airplane made it back to base though. Check one for Boeing in that case. Having eight engines spread out over the entire span of the B-52's huge wing can allow a savvy pilot to use differential power to help control yaw - if he's good (real good).

[swa911]

Originally posted by 450knotOffice
A B-52 lost its entire Vertical Stab, so it can happen. That airplane made it back to base though. Check one for Boeing in that case. Having eight engines spread out over the entire span of the B-52's huge wing can allow a savvy pilot to use differential power to help control yaw - if he's good (real good).

You got to love the BUFF. I am partial to the B-52H from my days as a Crew Chief on them at Carswell AFB, TX. 1985-1992. Since I still live near the old base (now a Joint Reserve Base) the BUFF's occasionaly make an appearance in the pattern. Just seeing those bad boys still gives me goosebumps.


BTW, I still dont like Airbus'. I personally won't fly in one but I guess I was a little over the top with my declaration of them being unsafe. Sorry if I ruffled the feathers of the Airbus community.