A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Flt 587-Airbus vs American Airlines



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 25th 04, 11:16 PM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Robey Price" wrote in message
...
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
Engineering" confessed the following:

A DC-9 like audable bandwidth starvation was what I was refering to.
(tailcone) The whine is just normal machine noise caused by the way AI
implements airplane systems.


JT you got me there, I have no idea what audible bandwith starvation
is. I've been back in the tail cone of a DC-9/MD-80 with the APU
running...


One of the main deficiencies of the corrected in the DC-9 in the -80 amended
type certificate was to fix the tail cone. AI had an undersampling problem
in the feedback control system of the A-320, but it was corrected some time
ago.

The A-320 is a better ride to begin with, so the bumps are noticed.

Speaking as a 757 pilot, I can see no basis for your conclusion that
the ride is better on the A-320. With a shorter fuselage there is a
smaller distance from the CG to the nose or tail, so there's less
movement about the CG (thinking teeter-totter) when disturbed. In that
regard the ass end of a 757-300 is pretty darn uncomfortable in lumpy
air while up in the cockpit we think it's not so bad.


There are pitch stability issues related to cabin comfort with either type,
but I find the A-320's wet tail to be the more pleasant solution. The 757
uses feedback compensation to get similar fuel savings, except the
newer -320 design is quiter and more comfortable, IMO.

But like the DC-9/MD-80, the A319/320 has a lower service ceiling than
the 757, so both often do more deviating for TRWs.


From a machine standpoint the 757 is probably the superior bird.

The A319/320 has a wider aisle which Pax and FAs like, but it has
Drift Down issues that 757-200s don't have even with the less powerful
P&W motors vice the Rolls Royce option.


The pitch stability issues related to the 757 make my joints hurt.

Go-arounds (rejected landings) are much more sporting in the A319/320
in terms of switchology vice the 757. The PNF (pilot not flying) is
just like a one-legged man in an asskicking contest. But as in all
things, pilots can screw the pooch regardless of airplane.


As has been demonstrated in both types.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
THOMAS MOORER, EX-JOINT CHIEFS CHAIR DIES Ewe n0 who Military Aviation 2 February 12th 04 12:52 AM
Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements me Military Aviation 146 January 15th 04 10:13 PM
FAA Investigates American Flyers SFM Instrument Flight Rules 57 November 7th 03 09:33 PM
Airbus Aiming at U.S. Military Market Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 September 21st 03 08:55 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.