David CL Francis
sednews
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 at 14:52:15 in message
, Thomas Borchert
wrote:
David,

So did the airframe meet design requirements for gust loading, yaw
deflections and angles, control movements, negative and positive 'g'
etc?


Yes.

I never thought anything else (although I cannot be absolutely certain
because I don't know) but so many times people make comments as though
the aircraft was unsafe and badly built - when how do they know?


In actual fact, the fit and finish on the structure of the early 'busses is
a ting to behold. They are exceptionally well made airplanes. In this, they
are certainly superior to just about any other airliner flying today. The
pax doors, for instance,are a thing of beauty. They work so smoothly. They
close tight as a drum. I'm certainly not saying Boeings are junk by
comparison, because they're not, but the A300 in particular is a very
nicely engineered airplane indeed. It also is a wonderful airplane to
fly.It's extremely mannerly in all aspects. There are a few funky
mechanical eccentricities. but these things were, after all, built by the
same people who built the Citroen DS, the Humber Super Snipe and Heinkel
Bubble car. You can certanly live with the bizarre speed brakes and overly
complex flight control system because it all works so well overall in
practice.
Plus it's as comfy as you can get. All it's missing is a nice log fire
inthe corner of the cockpit...

BTW, I've loved every Boeing I've flown as well, before the inevitable twit
pipes up and says the obvious...... Oh wait, Pooh's missing!


Bertie

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com