Easyjet reveals environmental plane concept (photo)

That is QUITE enough gents. black_star and Agent K check your private messages.

Black Star, I would suggest that irrespective of anything else, your inability to comprehend the English language, and thus inability to spell even simple aeronautical terms such as “engines”.

You don’t know me at all, but for my benefit, not to make me look like a total dumb ass, i suffer from Dyslexia, so my spelling is not that good. Would that stop me form becmoing a pilot? I can read and understand fine.

in addition to your fundamental lack of knowledge of aeroplane design and certification, would preclude you of ever being able to become a pilot.

Again, you don’t know how old i am etc. If you must know, i am not yet at University education, and i havn’t looked into aircraft certification in a great detail, which i assume you have.

So give me a break.

In my opion, global warmin is not man-made. It is a natual proces, like a bigger version of our yearly seasons.

That is a statement founded upon considerable ignorance.

I will not expand at length here, for it is somewhat off topic, however I will inform you that I have been debating this issue for over a decade now and am aware of most of the disinformation and myths that have been spread by those with interests in fossil fuel and related industries. As more scientific data accumulates then the more certain is it that the biggest contributions to current climate change are of human origin.

For more information visit:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/index.html

and also have a look at this timely new book by Tim Flannery:
The Weather Makers : How Man Is Changing the Climate and What It Means for Life on Earth

which can be found at:

http://www.amazon.com/Weather-Makers-Changing-Climate-Means/dp/0871139359/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-7555691-8786262?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182167534&sr=1-1

I have just picked up a paper back edition in the UK and it is very good indeed.

If you can still hold to your stated opinion after consulting the above sources I would be very surprised.

I do not intend to debate this further on this thread.

Black Star, I would suggest that irrespective of anything else, your inability to comprehend the English language, and thus inability to spell even simple aeronautical terms such as “engines”, in addition to your fundamental lack of knowledge of aeroplane design and certification, would preclude you of ever being able to become a pilot.

Ok, i surpose you would be right, but if they offered me a choise between a 2 planes and thta was one of them, i’d take the other. I think my dream plane to fly would be one of the following, 737-800, 777-300, 787-900 and possibly the a340-600. Out of all of them, i think i’d want to fly the 787-900.

Most pilots would be exceptionally lucky to get into a plane with two engines at the very begining. That applies especially if you do it the cheaper way which is to do it at your own pace somewhere local.

Your only chance to get into any airline with turbofan engines is to go to somewhere like CTC or OAT but they know how much their name is worth (no differences in training) and that gets alot of new recruits into likes of bmi and ba allbeit at the lowest level.

I know what you mean but you won’t get a choice, you will be told 🙂

black_star

Trust me when I say that if these birds went into production, and you finished your training, and someone offered you a job flying one you would take it, when you come out of training you will take anything, it doesn’t matter what it is, if you think otherwise you are kidding yourself.
I have an interview next week with a major UK carrier to fly their aircraft, but it doesn’t bother me what aircraft it is because I am not in a position to be choosy, the same will apply to you.

Good luck with it

Dean

Ok, i surpose you would be right, but if they offered me a choise between a 2 planes and thta was one of them, i’d take the other. I think my dream plane to fly would be one of the following, 737-800, 777-300, 787-900 and possibly the a340-600. Out of all of them, i think i’d want to fly the 787-900.

Its a bit confusing with all these ***star usernames with Star Alliance avatars! I wouldn’t be surprised if someone wanted to copy an upstanding member of our community such as Elgan:dev2: :diablo:

This whole thing smells of easyJet fishing for a very very low price order. I mean what airline hires aircraft designers!!!!

black_star

Trust me when I say that if these birds went into production, and you finished your training, and someone offered you a job flying one you would take it, when you come out of training you will take anything, it doesn’t matter what it is, if you think otherwise you are kidding yourself.
I have an interview next week with a major UK carrier to fly their aircraft, but it doesn’t bother me what aircraft it is because I am not in a position to be choosy, the same will apply to you.

Good luck with it

Dean

Just to clarify, Elgan, it was Phixer who voiced that opinion, not me. 😉

Paul

Oh sorry Paul! Thought it was you :p I can read……believe me….!

So if you don’t care what the future holds, then I agree with PMN that you are irresponsibe and careless.

Just to clarify, Elgan, it was Phixer who voiced that opinion, not me. 😉

Paul

Forgive me black_star, but it’s hard to take any of your points seriously with or without an argument. Surely if you knew anything about aircraft design and performance, you’d know 747s do not land at London City.

I’m sorry, but i was told false information about that. I corrected that in my post. I apploigise about that. Don’t hold it against me, in the fact you won’t take my posts serioulsy.

In my opion, global warmin is not man-made. It is a natual proces, like a bigger version of our yearly seasons.

Your sort of right as i’ve just done an exam on Glaciation which notes this, but its man who is to blame for its acceleration. Planes are a major contributor to CO2 emittions and we all know that.

So if you don’t care what the future holds, then I agree with Phixer that you are irresponsibe and careless. Just look what has happened in Yorkshire and the Midlands these last two days. That will happen on a regular basis, if we do not cut down on CO2 emittions, and for one, I praise Easyjet for contibuting into the stern challenge that is to cut CO2 emittions.

Forgive me black_star, but it’s hard to take any of your points seriously with or without an argument. Surely if you knew anything about aircraft design and performance, you’d know 747s do not land at London City.

The ecojet is an idea. The model may not resemble the actual aircraft should it go ahead, but the press want something they can see with their eyes. If Airbus or Boeing announce a new jet, the first thing you’ll probably want to see is a picture. Boeing announced the 787 and showed a model, that original model isn’t what the 787 has actually turned out like/is turning out like.

It will not be built without a million and one things being invesigated before a final plan even comes close, and even when it is built it’ll go through the same tests other new aircraft do before being certified safe.

You could dream up 1001 potential circumstances that might lead to an aircraft being brought down, but ultimately the chances of that happening are minimised through analysis and design. This aircraft, were it to come into production would be no different. If the designers felt there was a risk associated with having the engines mounted above the fuselage, they’d design their way around the problem. This is simply a model and writing the whole design concept off on the basis of what you see makes no sense!

Let’s leave it at that, shall we? 🙂

Paul

Yes, you’re right. i was bassing my argument on the modle we were shown.

It may be a good idea to leave it at this.

I’m not asuming it definatly would, but it looks as if it could damage the plane as it dosn’t have much space for it to fall away cleanly. Of corse to compinsate for that they will be properly sercured, but in the event of it happerning, then the damge could be fasr worse than if it could cleanly fall away.

You could dream up 1001 potential circumstances that might lead to an aircraft being brought down, but ultimately the chances of that happening are minimised through analysis and design. This aircraft, were it to come into production would be no different. If the designers felt there was a risk associated with having the engines mounted above the fuselage, they’d design their way around the problem. This is simply a model and writing the whole design concept off on the basis of what you see makes no sense!

Let’s leave it at that, shall we? 🙂

Paul

In my opion, global warmin is not man-made. It is a natual proces, like a bigger version of our yearly seasons.

Who cares about the enviroment, i much rather get to A-B as quickly as possible.

I for one care about the environment.

Thinking such as yours is irresponsible and rather selfish.

What is the point of getting from A to B quicker when either are suffering from pollution, freak weather (you will likely get more of that in transit as the climate change shifts up a gear or two) or underwater?

Your reasoning is faulty, as others have pointed out, on technical issues. You have much to learn if you wish to become a pilot.

I’m not asuming it definatly would, but it looks as if it could damage the plane as it dosn’t have much space for it to fall away cleanly. Of corse to compinsate for that they will be properly sercured, but in the event of it happerning, then the damge could be fasr worse than if it could cleanly fall away.

Ok, now you’re being sarcastic. I know enough about plane accidents etc, to see that if the engin fell off (due to exces virbration) then it could do some serious damage. In amsterdam, a boeing 747 cargo plane’s engin fell off and took out the other engin with it. That was on a plane where the engin can fall easerly away and not do any damage. Now, take that modle plane, the engin’s are very close to the tail of the plane. If a simular accident happened when the plane was banking, it couold take out the tail ssection and the results…..well bye bye plane. If an engin fell off on a plane such as the 747, you have a better chance of landing, where as on that plane, the chance of it falling away cleanly are greatly reduced.

Of course I’m being sarcastic. It’s in my nature. 🙂

Engines don’t ‘easily’ fall from aircraft (unless fuse pins fail as was the case for flight 1862, but I’m assuming you knew that was the reason the engine separated?) Why the assumption it could take out the tail section? Don’t you think these things would be considered by those designing such an aircraft?!

Paul