FlailingJohn 0 #1 January 16, 2005 For me just looking at this plane makes me quesey. I just dont like fact of 555 people being on one airplane and besides that. Just think of what it would be like going through customs after a full flight. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050116/ap_on_bi_ge/airbus_a380_s_debut im bored John Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #2 January 16, 2005 Besides, what if you're after the first 100ppl, do you know how long of a spot you're gonna have? Jesus, and I bet the pilot won't do a go around since it'll burn a shitload of fuel...--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 94 #3 January 16, 2005 747s in an all tourist class configuration can hold 550, I believe. Some Japanese airlines use them like this for short domestic flights. They can't be used in the states like this because they don't meet the evacuation rule for getting out in 90 sec, if my memory serves me right. I suggested to the organizers of the Boeing evacuation tests to try to get a few hundred skydivers to be the passengers during the tests (we know how to get out fast), but they thought the FAA would take a dim view of that (Boeing uses employee volunteers for the tests). The JAL flight that crashed into the mountain many years ago when the whole tail fell off (after a bad repair following tail strike damage on an aggressive take-off, the many layers of metal and rivets weren't actually all riveted together right) had about 550 on board. He had just a little bit of control, actually, even without any tail behind the aft pressure bulkhead. In hindsight, the pilot probably should have tried to do an intentional water landing, instead of thinking that he could actually put it down on a runway. I have a few issues with the Airbus cockpit (this applies to all of their fly-by-wire planes A320/A330/A340 series also, things that I think are a bad idea for a commercial airliner. 1) The sidestick controllers They give no feedback when the autopilot is flying - no movement. I think that seeing the control column/wheel move is a great way for the pilot to know what the autopilot is trying to do. There is also no force feedback as you try to make the plane do more severe maneuvers. When a pilot moves from right to left seat, they have to 'train' their other arm/hand to use the sidestick controller (it is on the outboard side). I think this is inherently a bad idea, for a commercial airliner. The sidestick controllers are not linked, so when one pilot is flying, the other stick does not move. So what happens if both are trying to fly? There is software logic that decides this, and it is indicated which side is in control with an indicator light, and the pilots can override/take command on their side with the push of a switch. The thought of the logic not working and the pilots pushing buttons to take command is not comforting to me. 2) The autothrottle They do not move in the normal mode, meaning that as the autopilot adjusts power, the handles stay in one position. You can see by instruments what it is trying to do, but not by movement of the big handles. In the normal mode, it is just a big rotary switch. Again, I think seeing the throttles move is a great way for the pilot to know what the autopilot/autothrottle system is trying to do. 3) Envelope protection/limiting (fancy term for the computer doesn't let you do stupid maneuvers or overstress the plane) I don't think it is a good idea to have the fly-by-wire system prevent the pilot from putting too much stress on the plane. We are talking about a airliner, not a fighter. The pilots will never overstress it just for practice. If they need to go beyond the design structural limits to try to get out of a dive, for instance, then I say they should be allowed to try. Airbus was so confident of their 'envelope protection' that it caused a crash of an A330 many years ago. An airline CEO and top pilot were being treated to a demonstration flight. Airbus decided to impress them with how the plane could not be made to stall, so they planned to take off very aggressively and immediately idle one engine and turn off one of the hydraulic systems. However the flight control engineers had never figured on such an aggressive, very high pitch rate climb being combined with the other 'failures', and the plane could not stop the stall. They ran out of altitude. The investigation found fault in how the Airbus pilots decided to create their own scenario during the pre flight briefing that would impress the customer, completely confident that the plane could not be stalled (as they had been claiming). This incident received much less attention than the crash of the A320 at the Paris air show because no normal passengers were on board. The Boeing fly by wire system on the 777 still uses a traditional control column/wheel. There is some distinct advantages to the sidesticks, such as reduced weight, and much more room in front of the pilot for a worktable to use maps/manuals/etc, It was tempting, however Boeing decided that it was a bad tradeoff overall. Boeing also decided that strict envelope protection was a bad idea, and that increasing force feedback (it is 'artificial') was a better way of preventing pilots from doing stupid things while not limiting their ability to fly the plane how they see fit. Both Boeing and Airbus have a switch on the overhead console that puts them into a 'direct' mode that cuts out the complex flight control logic and uses separate/simpler software that results in a less 'refined' feeling for the pilot. This requires time to activate it, and I would rather the pilots have complete control to try what they want without having to look up and back to activate a switch first. It probably will not surprise you to learn that I used to be an engineer for Boeing in their flight deck group during the development of the 777, hence the 777 in my username. Of couse Boeing has had problems, such as 737 rudder reversals, 747 cargo door latches, and uncommanded 767 thrust reversals. However, I think their choice on the column over the sidestick controller, and the flight control logic are examples of interesting, and important points of discussion.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MC208B 0 #4 January 16, 2005 I remember that accident in Japan. I don't think that tail of the A/C came off. The pressure bulkhead blew out and wiped out the controls to the empenage. No airplane will fly any distance without a vertical stabliizer. And the horizontal stabilizer balances out the A/C in pitch, so that wouldn't work either if it were missing. Then again, maybe I'm full of shit, I don't design airplanes, I just fly them jump out of them and maintain them Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FlailingJohn 0 #5 January 16, 2005 ***747s in an all tourist class configuration can hold 550*** so basically if an a380 had only all coach class then how many over the 555(3 class configuration) would the passanger manifest go over? imo-If it could be more economical. Air travel should move towards sub sonic travel and not how many people an airline can sardine the most into a behemoth of an airplane. I am bored John Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 94 #6 January 16, 2005 QuoteI remember that accident in Japan. I don't think that tail of the A/C came off. The pressure bulkhead blew out and wiped out the controls to the empenage. No airplane will fly any distance without a vertical stabliizer. And the horizontal stabilizer balances out the A/C in pitch, so that wouldn't work either if it were missing. Then again, maybe I'm full of shit, I don't design airplanes, I just fly them jump out of them and maintain them Yup, you're right. Thanks for the correction. I don't know how I got that wrong.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 94 #7 January 17, 2005 Quoteimo-If it could be economical air travel should move towards sub sonic travel and not how many people an airline can sardine the most into a behemoth of an airplane. I think you mean to say 'supersonic', right? Speed is definitely good, everything else being equal, but flying at well over 50,000 feet like supersonic jets would/did do is not a good idea if you have a depressurization. The Concorde never had one, thankfully. I think many people would die from the 'bends'.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piisfish 135 #8 January 17, 2005 up to around 840 in a single economy class configuration check nice stuff herescissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydiver30960 0 #9 January 17, 2005 BUT, with multiple exit points on the aircraft, you could launch a world record RW attempt out of just this one aircraft... no more tricky formation flying necessary. Elvisio "tandem instructors would ride first class, of course" Rodriguez Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #10 January 17, 2005 QuoteNo airplane will fly any distance without a vertical stabliizer. There are several aircraft flying today w/o vertical stabilzers, the B-2bomber for one. Now if they are supposed to have one and it falls off, that's different. It may or may not crash. With some airplanes, differential thrust could compensate for lack of a vertical stab. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FlailingJohn 0 #11 January 17, 2005 QuoteI think you mean to say 'supersonic', right? Nope I meant subsonic. A few years ago boeing had models and artist rendetions of a sonic airliner. Supposedly the idea is to build an aircraft the can travel faster than a traditional airliner but keep its speed just under the speed of sound. This so it can travel over land or transcontinetal areas and not be limited to just only over water flight when flying at high rates of speed. im bored JohnI threw my confidence out the airplane door years ago......... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lostinspace 0 #12 January 17, 2005 QuoteQuoteimo-If it could be economical air travel should move towards sub sonic travel and not how many people an airline can sardine the most into a behemoth of an airplane. I think you mean to say 'supersonic', right? I think he means subsonic; but I may be wrong. It would be cheaper. And why a jet? Zeppelin? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piisfish 135 #13 January 17, 2005 this plane would be even better if it had a rear ramp...scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piisfish 135 #14 January 17, 2005 QuoteQuoteI think you mean to say 'supersonic', right? Nope I meant subsonic. actually all airliners are subsonic... As the Concorde is dead Just a question of words... You mean sonic ?? as close to the speed of sound ??scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 94 #15 January 17, 2005 Right, the slightly faster, but still subsonic airliner (all airliners now are subsonic). It would have cut down travel time a bit, especially for the really long flights of course. They thought it would be a hit, but not enough advantage from the airlines pespective of extra operating cost. The new generation of 737s (737-600/700/800 I believe) are faster than the old version. The couple of 'tenths slower mach number was a hassle when trying to get clearance for higher altitudes populated by planes with more normal cruising speeds. They were slowed by some aerodynamic things like the main landing gear wheel wells were not fully covered with the gear up.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FlailingJohn 0 #16 January 17, 2005 http://www.gizmohighway.com/transport/boeing_sonic_crusier.htm http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/Fotos/boeing/Sonicc1.JPG im bored and now doubtful john Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FlailingJohn 0 #17 January 17, 2005 ***You mean sonic ?? as close to the speed of sound ?? *** Yes that is what i really meant. Im bored and doubtful JohnI threw my confidence out the airplane door years ago......... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FlailingJohn 0 #18 January 17, 2005 QuoteIt would have cut down travel time a bit, especially for the really long flights of course. They thought it would be a hit, but not enough advantage from the airlines pespective of extra operating cost. I dont think they should give up on it just yet. the idea of a sonic cruiser imo is better than a double decker jumbo jet. Also enginers could make it allot more economical than the concord ever was. but then again what do i know............. I am bored JohnI threw my confidence out the airplane door years ago......... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 94 #19 January 17, 2005 QuoteI dont think they should give up on it just yet. the idea of a sonic cruiser imo is better than a double decker jumbo jet. Also enginers could make it allot more economical than the concord ever was. The Concorde flew at over mach 2. The sonic cruiser would have been subsonic, most airliners cruise at around 0.84-0.87 mach I think, so not nearly so much of an advantage.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FlailingJohn 0 #20 January 17, 2005 QuoteThe sonic cruiser would have been subsonic, most airliners cruise at around 0.84-0.87 mach I think, so not nearly so much of an advantage. ah okay... So the 20 percent increase in speed would not have made much of a difference. Even so, I would like to see it happen but i know it isnt ever going to happen. doubtfully sure, johnI threw my confidence out the airplane door years ago......... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumpwally 0 #21 January 17, 2005 Hey ,.,whatever was the final verdict on the 737 rudder issue's? My Boss went in on the Pittsburg flight.smile, be nice, enjoy life FB # - 1083 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,400 #22 January 18, 2005 I agree with your opinion about the left/right sidestick controllers. I initially got my pilots license in aero-tow gliders. Due to the tow plane flying a lot faster than the glider liked to fly, the stick pressure was very high until tow-release. On high tows I would get cramps in my right arm. The first time this happened, I thought "No problem, I'll use the left arm.". Bzzzt! Wrong. I immediately learned I had no coordination with that arm. So I had to fly with the right arm, but grab my right wrist with the left arm to "assist" the right arm. I'm sure I could eventually learn to fly with the left arm, but it would definitely take time. I did my engineering co-op work at the General Dynamics F-16 plant. (Now part of Lockheed.) While there I was told that the original plans were for the F-16 sidestick to have no motion, but after the initial loud protests from the pilots who tried out the simulators, it was decided to put motion into the stick."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
misskriss 0 #23 January 18, 2005 QuoteHey ,.,whatever was the final verdict on the 737 rudder issue's? My Boss went in on the Pittsburg flight Hey Wally.. I am no expert but I found this a few months back. I always like to read about the aircraft I'm going to fly in... Yes I'm paranoid. http://airlinesafety.com/faq/B-737Rudder.htm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 94 #24 January 18, 2005 That looks like a pretty good source for general info, the Seattle Times is better than most rags on aviation issues. Even better is the Aviation Week & Space Tech site, try a search there: http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
