Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Give Airbus 380 a wink! [JPEG orgy]

Give Airbus 380 a wink! [JPEG orgy] (Page 35)
Thread Tools
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2008, 09:38 PM
 
I've always been partial to American narrowbodies, the DC-9s/MD80s, B737, B757 and I must say I've always loved the appearance of the B707, but I have never flown in one

In other news, SQ is still flying the 380. I think they have two frames delivered and two more coming soon!
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2008, 09:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by mrtew View Post
Yeah, what was is for? And why are they gone?
Airspeed instrument. All airplanes have them, but they are located in various places. Small Airbus' are on the nose for example.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2008, 11:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
How does slapping existing commercial CFM56 engines onto the 135 airframe have anything to do with selecting the KC30 over the KC767?
This program started in the early 1980s and was able to extend the useful life of the -135 family for over 25 years. The original turbojets were not only gas hogs, but were increasingly hard to maintain, while the CFMs were (and are if I am recalling correctly) in current production as well as being much more fuel efficient. So this (and a number of other projects, such as the "re-skin" project (note: NEVER polish the skin of a thin-skinned aluminum aircraft; it's not prudent)) was to illustrate that some very thoughtful and relatively inexpensive means have been used to extend the -135's life time and again. There is clearly a niche for that size tanker or they would have gotten a lot more KC-10s.
Originally Posted by mrtew View Post
Well I think that Ford is still at least 50 times more American than Toyota.
My "built in Marysville, Ohio" Civic has more US content than my classmate's "built in Flat Rock, Michigan" Mustang. By about 5%.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Powerbook
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: München, Deutschland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2008, 05:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by analogika View Post
Because some in this thread consider it an insult to the red-blooded American I-like-my-women-barefoot-and-pregnant attitude that eschews anything European as Foreign-Agent Infiltration and a chop in the penis of America NUMBER ****ING ONE RAH RAH.

Of the US Military, no less.


I think it's time for buying "Freedom Planes1!1!". Prawd Amaracans gather to destroy French steel and shoot their rifles at any Airbus that is approaching American soil.


PB.
Aut Caesar aut nihil.
     
glideslope
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2008, 07:44 PM
 
Nett. Ein anderes feines Beispiel des todays deutschen Nationalisten. Ich würde mehr besorgt sein, Wenn ich französisch wäre. Sie würden nicht mein Nachbar der Wahl sein.
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.”
Sun Tzu
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2008, 09:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
This program started in the early 1980s and was able to extend the useful life of the -135 family for over 25 years. The original turbojets were not only gas hogs, but were increasingly hard to maintain, while the CFMs were (and are if I am recalling correctly) in current production as well as being much more fuel efficient. So this (and a number of other projects, such as the "re-skin" project (note: NEVER polish the skin of a thin-skinned aluminum aircraft; it's not prudent)) was to illustrate that some very thoughtful and relatively inexpensive means have been used to extend the -135's life time and again. There is clearly a niche for that size tanker or they would have gotten a lot more KC-10s.
How does that have any relation to the recent decision?
     
Mastrap
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2008, 10:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by glideslope View Post
Nett. Ein anderes feines Beispiel des todays deutschen Nationalisten. Ich würde mehr besorgt sein, Wenn ich französisch wäre. Sie würden nicht mein Nachbar der Wahl sein.
You're confusing xenophobia, or in this case an expressed anti US sentiment, with Nationalism.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2008, 11:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
How does that have any relation to the recent decision?
That they drug things out so long. That there isn't any way to efficiently keep the -135 fleet in the air much longer, no matter what they do. That the Air Force has been going to pretty extreme measures to keep them flying for more than 25 years. Stuff like that.

Oh, and we called it the "Frankenstein Mod" when it was first introduced on ECs. They were like monsters! (I.e. they could take off in less space, using less fuel and making less noise, while at the same time they had far more reserve power.)

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
glideslope
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2008, 11:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mastrap View Post
You're confusing xenophobia, or in this case an expressed anti US sentiment, with Nationalism.
Thanks for the correction. I'll stay away next time.
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.”
Sun Tzu
     
Mastrap
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2008, 11:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by glideslope View Post
Thanks for the correction. I'll stay away next time.
I actually thought that you had a good point, I just didn't think it was well made.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2008, 06:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by glideslope View Post
Nett. Ein anderes feines Beispiel des todays deutschen Nationalisten. Ich würde mehr besorgt sein, Wenn ich französisch wäre. Sie würden nicht mein Nachbar der Wahl sein.

French and Germans have very good and relaxed relationship
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2008, 08:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post

French and Germans have very good and relaxed relationship
Last I heard, we're actually building planes together!
     
glideslope
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2008, 06:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by analogika View Post
Last I heard, we're actually building planes together!
Yes, just who builds what on who's soil.
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.”
Sun Tzu
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2008, 06:46 AM
 
Both, on both?

And together, we even build them in America and sell them to the Americans!

Everybody wins!
     
Powerbook
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: München, Deutschland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2008, 08:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mastrap View Post
You're confusing xenophobia, or in this case an expressed anti US sentiment, with Nationalism.
Bull. It wasn't even an anti U.S. sentiment, just the provoking mirroring of a 'potential' U.S. reaction to Airbus' latest success. I mean, which country developed freedom fries first?

PB.
Aut Caesar aut nihil.
     
Powerbook
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: München, Deutschland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2008, 08:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by analogika View Post
Last I heard, we're actually building planes together!
Lies! Lies and slander!!!

Aut Caesar aut nihil.
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2008, 05:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by Powerbook View Post
Bull. It wasn't even an anti U.S. sentiment, just the provoking mirroring of a 'potential' U.S. reaction to Airbus' latest success. I mean, which country developed freedom fries first?
Belgium.

And again: my "Rah Rah" comment wasn't aimed at glideslope, but at Buckaroo.
     
l008com
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Stoneham, MA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2008, 06:29 AM
 
Yeah so this thread is 4 years old. Someone should put it out of it's misery.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2008, 09:13 AM
 
How about new stuff then? Like the Air Force was finally able to award Boeing the maintenance contract for existing -135s after a protest by one of the bidders (from about 3 years ago) was finally adjudicated and dismissed. So I'm not as disappointed in the "new tanker" contract as I had been. Boeing does that maintenance work here in San Antonio (among other places), and had a hold on new hiring. With the number of A&P folks in this area just because of Kelly AFB and the historically massive aircraft maintenance mission there, there was a real worry that those who had been hired as "temporary" employees wouldn't ever get permanent jobs.

Which brings up another point I'd like to see some discussion about. These new generation aircraft are full of bells and whistles, both mechanical and electronic. What's the historical record for long term durability of large composite structures in regular airline use (like the infamous Airbus tail)? And what about downtime for "glass cockpit" problems? I mean there are a bunch of computers involved here, and computers tend to cooperate the way members of a factious committee do...

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Weyland-Yutani
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: LV-426
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2008, 02:11 PM
 
I expect more from an admin than for him to spread FUD.


“Building Better Worlds”
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2008, 10:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani View Post
I expect more from an admin than for him to spread FUD.

I'd like to know what FUD I'm spreading by asking questions about things like reliability rates. As for the computers cooperating, this has been a problem in every aerospace setting, and if it's been not just addressed but conquered, that would be a pretty good answer to my question, wouldn't it?

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Weyland-Yutani
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: LV-426
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2008, 10:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
I'd like to know what FUD I'm spreading by asking questions about things like reliability rates. As for the computers cooperating, this has been a problem in every aerospace setting, and if it's been not just addressed but conquered, that would be a pretty good answer to my question, wouldn't it?
Computers, composites and reliablility.

These new aircraft, from the 787 to the 380 and 350, are not so revolutionary or new as the aviation industry would have you and me believe.

Ever since the late 1980, from the 320s and up, every airbus has been computer controlled - or 'fly by wire'. One of the most successful Boeing airplanes, the T7, is FBW too.

Reliability of these machines has been fantastic, both dispatch reliability and operational reliability.

Composites have been used in airliners, since the 70s, and smaller craft like the Beech Starship have a fusilage and wings built completely out of composite materials. While larger airliners have not been using composites in that magnitude, Airbus has used composites in airliners since the A300 and in all other models in increasing magnitude.

Boeing has been using composites in the T7 as well, but makes a huge leap for Boeing with the 787. With increased composites, the airlines have seen increased reliability and safety.

You also mention the "the infamous Airbus tail", where I assume you are talking about the A300 that crashed in NY in 2001. I suggest you read the NTSB report. NTSB - American Airlines Flight 587

The NTSB conluded the tail structure performed above and beyond the demands of its design and safety margins. The accident was caused by pilot error.

Now you called all these things into question, as if they were at all questionable.

Compared to the planes of the 50s and 60s the latest models may appear incredibly advanced and full of 'bells and whistles', however they are all a product of gradual progress throughout the decades of aviation and don't look very foreign or futuristic when one looks at them in perspective.

“Building Better Worlds”
     
mrtew
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South Detroit
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2008, 12:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani View Post
You also mention the "the infamous Airbus tail", where I assume you are talking about the A300 that crashed in NY in 2001. I suggest you read the NTSB report. NTSB - American Airlines Flight 587 The NTSB conluded the tail structure performed above and beyond the demands of its design and safety margins. The accident was caused by pilot error.
It's hard for me to swallow that just steering the plane wrong should rip be able to rip it apart. Imagine if you swerved in your car and the wheels ripped off and they said it was driver error, not a design flaw. Especially if other cars didn't allow the wheels to be turned in such a way that the steering would separate from the car. The report you sent seemed to be saying that pilots need to be trained to appreciate how dangerous that plane can be. It's not like he steered it into the ground.... he was just trying to hold it stable in turbulence.

I love the U.S., but we need some time apart.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2008, 01:04 PM
 
Well, that's the way it is, mrtew, it's physics. And yes, you can achieve the same thing in a car: try to turn a street corner at 100 mph -- it's not possible. That's why there are (mechanical or electronic) delimiters that are supposed to prevent the pilot from doing certain maneuvers. I remember that we've had some discussion about the different philosophies of limiting maneuverability of planes earlier in this thread.

If flying planes were as easy as driving cars, I guess pilots would be little different from bus drivers.

Edit: I was wrong, it was a different incident, but addresses your question.
( Last edited by OreoCookie; Mar 8, 2008 at 01:36 PM. )
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Weyland-Yutani
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: LV-426
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2008, 01:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by mrtew View Post
It's hard for me to swallow that just steering the plane wrong should rip be able to rip it apart. Imagine if you swerved in your car and the wheels ripped off and they said it was driver error, not a design flaw. Especially if other cars didn't allow the wheels to be turned in such a way that the steering would separate from the car. The report you sent seemed to be saying that pilots need to be trained to appreciate how dangerous that plane can be. It's not like he steered it into the ground.... he was just trying to hold it stable in turbulence.
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2001/AA58...path_web01.wmv

This is a reconsturction based on the FDR. Notice how the rudder on the vertical stabilizer is applied. It's like you're driving a car at 240 knots (276 mph / 445 km/h) and then steer violently and repeatedly left and right.

The report says the pilots need to be trained *never* to do that. That's dangerous. This applies to any large airliner, not just the A300 and even if it was just the A300, it wouldn't be because of any structural problems with the vertical stabilizer.

However, the same applies to any large airliner. The NTSB concluded that it was the actions of the pilot that lead to compromising the structural integrity of the airliner.

“Building Better Worlds”
     
mrtew
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South Detroit
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2008, 01:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani View Post
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2001/AA58...path_web01.wmv
This is a reconsturction based on the FDR. Notice how the rudder on the vertical stabilizer is applied. It's like you're driving a car at 240 knots (276 mph / 445 km/h) and then steer violently and repeatedly left and right. The report says the pilots need to be trained *never* to do that. That's dangerous. This applies to any large airliner, not just the A300 and even if it was just the A300, it wouldn't be because of any structural problems with the vertical stabilizer. However, the same applies to any large airliner. The NTSB concluded that it was the actions of the pilot that lead to compromising the structural integrity of the airliner.
Oh, I thought that I read earlier that pilots could rip the tail off in an Airbus because they didn't have the same limiters as a Boeing, but if you say that all planes have the same vulnerability I can understand and I take my criticism back. But I still disagree that it's like steering a car violently and repeatedly left and right.... you cannot damage a car by doing that unless you hit something and if you do manage to flip it by doing that the car ends up on 60 minutes being exposed as dangerously designed.

I love the U.S., but we need some time apart.
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2008, 02:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by mrtew View Post
It's hard for me to swallow that just steering the plane wrong should rip be able to rip it apart. Imagine if you swerved in your car and the wheels ripped off and they said it was driver error, not a design flaw.
Try violently twisting the steering wheel right and left at 120 mph and see what it does to your car.

Chances are pretty good that it'll rip the tyres clear off the rims, resulting in a slew of further interesting mechanical consequences.
     
mrtew
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South Detroit
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2008, 03:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by analogika View Post
Try violently twisting the steering wheel right and left at 120 mph and see what it does to your car.

Chances are pretty good that it'll rip the tyres clear off the rims, resulting in a slew of further interesting mechanical consequences.
Like I said, I'm pretty sure that it won't. But seriously.... is this swerving issue a problem in a Boeing or just an Airbus.... I was sure there was agreement that Boeing limited the pilots ability to do that.

I love the U.S., but we need some time apart.
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2008, 03:08 PM
 
You're not trying hard enough.
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2008, 07:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani View Post
You also mention the "the infamous Airbus tail", where I assume you are talking about the A300 that crashed in NY in 2001. I suggest you read the NTSB report. NTSB - American Airlines Flight 587

The NTSB conluded the tail structure performed above and beyond the demands of its design and safety margins. The accident was caused by pilot error.
The immediate cause was that the pilot was too violent with the pedals (shouldn't normal or even direct law prevent this?). Looking at the bigger picture: "Contributing to these rudder pedal inputs were characteristics of the Airbus A300-600 rudder system design and elements of the American Airlines Advanced Aircraft Maneuvering Program."
Because of the system design, this aircraft model needs to be flown differently than other similar aircraft.

But it wasn't a composite materials problem, so it's not an example of ghporter's concern.
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 18, 2008, 11:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by Troll View Post
Boeing has announced a 6 month delay on the Dreamliner. Caused by "manufacturing problems". Didn't someone here predict this?

BBC NEWS | Business | Dreamliner hit by six-month delay
It's now been pushed back into 3rd quarter 2009.

Auslieferung der Boeing 787 verz�gert sich | tagesschau.de

The latest delay is supposedly due to "the usual cabling problems inherent in new aircraft releases".

Well, then...
     
mrtew
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South Detroit
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 18, 2008, 06:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by analogika View Post
It's now been pushed back into 3rd quarter 2009. Auslieferung der Boeing 787 verz�gert sich | tagesschau.de The latest delay is supposedly due to "the usual cabling problems inherent in new aircraft releases". .

They must be using different versions of Unigraphics for different parts of the plane.

I love the U.S., but we need some time apart.
     
Weyland-Yutani
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: LV-426
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 19, 2008, 03:53 AM
 
When Airbus was having difficulties in delivering the 380 on schedule and just about everyone was using the oppertunity to ridicule the company, its engineers and whatnot the Boeing company didn't comment at all on it - except for saying that they knew making airplanes is very hard and that it was absurd to criticise Airbus for missing arbitrary deadlines on the 380.

This was two years ago.

Cynics may say Boeing was just hedging their bets, but I don't think so. I think they were stating the obvious truth, which wasn't as dramatic as media and analysts wanted it to be.

It was true then, as it is true today.

“Building Better Worlds”
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 19, 2008, 09:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
The immediate cause was that the pilot was too violent with the pedals (shouldn't normal or even direct law prevent this?). Looking at the bigger picture: "Contributing to these rudder pedal inputs were characteristics of the Airbus A300-600 rudder system design and elements of the American Airlines Advanced Aircraft Maneuvering Program."
Because of the system design, this aircraft model needs to be flown differently than other similar aircraft.

But it wasn't a composite materials problem, so it's not an example of ghporter's concern.
Actually, my concern was with the overall integration of composites into systems that were developed using metals. The Airbus A300 in question came apart because of the combined effects of a hydraulic system that over performed and poor pilot inputs; the "Airbus tail" I was referring to was specifically that particular combination of materials and systems which enabled pilot error to kill so many people. With a sensitive rudder pedal and a relatively large rudder input even an aluminum tail could have been damaged, but it seems the designers didn't consider those issues when they chose an existing system to move the rudder on their new, composite tail.

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani View Post
Ever since the late 1980, from the 320s and up, every airbus has been computer controlled - or 'fly by wire'. One of the most successful Boeing airplanes, the T7, is FBW too.

Reliability of these machines has been fantastic, both dispatch reliability and operational reliability.
Most early fly by wire systems used a single computer. For example, the F4 fighter the Air Force experimented with as an early FBW platform had a very simple computer that integrated control inputs and managed actuators. This was in the VERY early 1970s. When the space shuttle was being built, similar computers were used for control systems, engine management, and so on, but those computers (early in the development process, of course) had problems communicating and thus caused some real problems. Things smoothed out with experience, but the way those computes communicated was NOT simply some network management protocol. Now we have airplanes that have FBW, navigation, engine management, and passenger Internet access computers on board, and all of these have to interact at some point. THAT is what I thought of as a potential issue.
( Last edited by ghporter; Mar 19, 2008 at 09:21 AM. )

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
glideslope
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 19, 2008, 07:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by analogika View Post
It's now been pushed back into 3rd quarter 2009.

Auslieferung der Boeing 787 verz�gert sich | tagesschau.de

The latest delay is supposedly due to "the usual cabling problems inherent in new aircraft releases".

Well, then...
.....and a Wing Box redesign. Not many details as to the extent of the design. Could be a subtle change to allow for something like a change to a center tank purging system, or changes for a HGW version, or more likely, while unbelievable, a design error. Most likely from not enough oversight at the out of country manufacturer during the Mike Bair days.

2010 EIS.
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.”
Sun Tzu
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 19, 2008, 08:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by analogika View Post
It's now been pushed back into 3rd quarter 2009.

Auslieferung der Boeing 787 verz�gert sich | tagesschau.de

The latest delay is supposedly due to "the usual cabling problems inherent in new aircraft releases".

Well, then...
I can't read German, but the English sources cite unconfirmed speculation.
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 20, 2008, 08:03 AM
 
This is the original article by Focus magazine: Boeing: Neue Verspätung beim Dreamliner - Luftfahrt - FOCUS Online

It quotes an unnamed Boeing spokesperson (FWIW) on "the usual cabling problems" and only partially completed wiring on Number One, with a large part of the wing wiring having been completed.

New delivery dates are supposedly to be announced nearer the end of this quarter.
     
Weyland-Yutani
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: LV-426
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 20, 2008, 01:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
I can't read German, but the English sources cite unconfirmed speculation.
Boeing's largest 787 customer sees deliveries by Sept, '09 - MarketWatch

Steven Udvar-Hazy confirms the delay, first deliveries in late september 2009 at the earliest.

“Building Better Worlds”
     
glideslope
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 20, 2008, 04:38 PM
 
Looks like the Wing Box issue is serious and likely related to the doors not closing properly with wheels-up.

To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.”
Sun Tzu
     
badidea
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2008, 09:22 AM
 
Brand new...here to be seen first!




***
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2008, 11:54 AM
 
Wow.. the first picture is awe-inspireing. Good thing they don't show the interior Qantas chose

I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2008, 12:52 PM
 
How long is it in Hamburg?

When's it leaving?
     
mattyb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2008, 04:24 PM
 
/blasé attitude

I live in Toulouse and see a 380 flying around at least once a week.

/blasé attitude

/scared attitude

They fly over the suburb that I live in to land.

/scared attitude

Saw the Beluga coming in to land the other day. One wierd plane !!!
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2008, 05:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by mattyb View Post
/blasé attitude

I live in Toulouse and see a 380 flying around at least once a week.

/blasé attitude
I live in Finkenwerder and I'm pretty sure I *hear* a 380 every so often, but I always seem to miss seeing it.

Is there a public schedule available somewhere?
     
mrtew
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South Detroit
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2008, 07:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
Wow.. the first picture is awe-inspireing. Good thing they don't show the interior Qantas chose


Yeah pictures like that are what this thread is all about for me! More!

I love the U.S., but we need some time apart.
     
Buckaroo
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2008, 09:02 PM
 
With fuel prices climbing it won't be long before they start ripping out all those spacious [recliner] seats and start packing them in like sardines.

Oops. My mistake.
( Last edited by Buckaroo; Jun 5, 2008 at 01:39 AM. )
     
Mastrap
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2008, 10:49 PM
 
Especially with lumber being a bit on the heavy side to start with.
     
badidea
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2008, 03:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by analogika View Post
How long is it in Hamburg?

When's it leaving?
I think it left right after those pictures were taken!

I live in Finkenwerder and I'm pretty sure I *hear* a 380 every so often, but I always seem to miss seeing it.
I don't think so...they're pretty quiet (and still rare)!

Is there a public schedule available somewhere?
Not that I would know but we have an internal schedule which doesn't help that much either because the real times get changed quite often!
***
     
badidea
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2008, 03:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by Buckaroo View Post
With fuel prices climbing it won't be long before they start ripping out all those spacious [recliner] seats and start packing them in like sardines.
Why do you think that there is any better reason to pack people like sardines in a large plane than in a small plane?
***
     
TETENAL
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2008, 05:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by badidea View Post
Why do you think that there is any better reason to pack people like sardines in a large plane than in a small plane?
Exactly. That's the "fraud" of the A380. Airbus advertised this plane with pictures of flat beds, showers and a bowling alley, but in reality the extra space will just be used to pack people just as in small planes.

The former Airbus boss Noël Forgeard has been arrested for fraud by the way. He is accused of insider trading because he sold shares before it became public the A380 was to be delayed.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:51 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,