Boring airliners?

Losing the rudder is one thing, losing the vertical stab is another thing
entirely...

Boeing addressed the 737 problem by redesigning the yaw damper system and
retrofitting it in the field, so bringing this up to defend the flaw in the
A300 is a non-sequiter argument. The fact remains, the A300 has a design
flaw of some kind that needs to be fixed. If Airbus wants to try to sweep
it under the rug, they are just going to wind of killing more people. They
need to proactively investigate the design and determine what is wrong, the
come up with a real fix. Tapping on the tail doesn't cut it...

Dean

"Stefan" wrote in message
...
Jay Honeck wrote:

I wonder if they've addressed the rudder pedal boost, which was
apparently
much more sensitive than necessary?

It was necessary because the rudder must have enough authority to keep
the plane straight if flown on only two engines on the same side. The
investigation of the accident (to which you apparently refer) clearly
states that most other airliners (747 comes to mind) would also have
lost its rudder. But I would think they have enhanced the software to
limit rudder usage, although I don't know. I don't know, either, whether
the involved airline has enhanced their pilot training. Do you really
want to restart this discussion?

Stefan

Dylan,

If you followed the airline industry, you'd realize that the 787 fills a
different market segment than the 777 does. The 787 is not an
intercontinental machine, its a regional machine, and will serve as a
replacement for the 757/767 models. Once the 787 is done, Boeing will
replace the 737 with a plane that utilizes the same technology as the 787.
Its going to be all about efficiency with the cost of fuel going up.

Dean Wilkinson
Former Boeing 777 engineer, maybe soon to be back at Boeing on the 787

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
Now the A380 is surely a marvel of modern engineering, as is the Boeing
7E7 (787? Dreamliner?).

But fundamentally...it's yet another tube with wings with two or four
engines on pylons below the wings. I'm really disappointed that Boeing
dropped the Sonic Cruiser, a much more interesting proposition.

I'm also wonder what the point of the 7E7 is - surely the
midsize longhaul jet market is already adequately served by the 777?
Could they just not make incremental improvements to the 777 in the same
way they've done with the 737 for years?

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

In article akbce.54$332.39@okepread02, wr.giacona@coxDOTnet says...



"Greg Farris" wrote in message
...
In article TM6ce.30985$NU4.10589@attbi_s22,
says...



Interesting. I read somewhere that it's actually rather "light on its
feet"
because it has so many wheels...



Apparently so. Runways in france have recently required extensive
reinforcement to accommodate the B777-300 - works which were apparently
not
mandated for the A380.

G Faris


The Max Takeoff weight of the 777-300 is 660,000#s the A380 is 1,235,000.

Maybe the reason the work was not mandated for the A380 is that there is
only one flying



No - As cited above, it's the number of wheels.

wrote:

Hopefully some airlines build a smokers lounge in that tube.
It looks big enough.
Would be an improvement, a drink, a smoke and getting extremely bored
instead of just being bored and the feeling your legs are going to drop
off any minute.

-Kees

P.S. Not a lot of comments from the US about the A380 now it flies.


What comments are you looking for? I for one never dissed the A380 and
never expected that it wouldn't fly. It isn't the largest airplane to
ever fly and with today's CFD and wind tunnel capability, there is
almost zero chance of an airplane of that nature NOT flying
successfully. The real test of the A380 will be economic rather than
aerodynamic.


Matt

I'm sure they could fly it in empty if weight were the problem.

And who's going to pay for that?

Jay Honeck wrote:
P.S. Not a lot of comments from the US about the A380 now it flies.

It's an impressive bird. I'm looking forward to seeing it at OSH someday...
What else can be said?

Aw, come on Jay!
You already saw the Beluga last year.
The only difference is the A380 has seats inside.

Jay Honeck wrote:
I wonder if they've addressed the rudder pedal boost, which was apparently
much more sensitive than necessary?

That was a pilot training issue, not a design error. Remember?

ShawnD2112 wrote:
Boeing reckon people will buy more point-to-point tickets, which won't
support larger airplanes but would be commercially viable with smaller and
more cost-efficient aircraft. It could finally open up that long-ignored
Columbus OH - London route that's been languishing unexploited for so long!

FYI... here in Columbus Ohio we discussed that issue 15 year ago.
It is an ATC problem getting the aircraft up to altitude Columbus to
Europe and getting them down Europe to Columbus. The flight paths
interfer with with Clevland, New York and Detroit operations.

"john smith" wrote

FYI... here in Columbus Ohio we discussed that issue 15 year ago.
It is an ATC problem getting the aircraft up to altitude Columbus to
Europe and getting them down Europe to Columbus. The flight paths
interfer with with Clevland, New York and Detroit operations.

THAT sounds more like an excuse than a reason. Someone with the mojo
doesn't want it to happen, is more like the real problem.
--
Jim in NC

I'm sure they could fly it in empty if weight were the problem.

And who's going to pay for that?

Why, the French taxpayers, I'm sure!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"