Cseries wing mated with box!
Is it a test construction, or a part due to be incorporated in airworthy test frame?
Sixth prototype flown!
Sixth Nightmareliner prototype flew, 4 months later than announced back in June (that on top of the delays of whole programme of course – if May 2008 was due date for EIS, what was the due date for all 6 prototypes flying?). The cause of delay is unknown. The maiden flight ended with emergency landing due to leaking cooling:
Even if the prototypes can fly, the 6 prototypes have due to accumulation of changes and fixes so little in common with production frames that their tests cannot prove whether production frames can fly. Boeing needs to carry out flight test programme with two production frames, neither of which has yet flown.
The EIS due date of Genx 787 is unknown, as is launch customer (either Royal Air Maroc or Japan Airlines).
But surely this is highly misleading?
Does anybody have statistics over, say, all RPK-s flown in and out of a country summed over domiciled and foreign carriers serving the country?
Does anyone know why the A330 has such a pronounced nose down attitude when sitting on its gear then?
Explained it at length in a post above. Airbus did not bother stretching A300 nose gear together with main gear for A330.
The A330 converted freighters that are being discussed (or were, I do not know of the development at the moment), will need a special lift for the nose wheel for loading and unloading do to the slope of the maindeck. Such an arrangement will severely undermine the types versatility as a freighter. It will mean that ad hoc flights will hardly be viable because the required ground equipment may not be there.
Airbus talks about making a portable jack that can be stowed aboard the plane.
A300 and A310 have shorter main gear than A330 and A340.
When Airbus developed A340 and A330 and stretched the A300 fuselage, a new, taller main gear was needed, to prevent the longer tail from striking ground at takeoffs and landings. But Airbus did not bother to lengthen the main gear, and accepted that the planes sit nose down on ground.
Not a big problem on passenger planes, but proved a problem on freighters. A330 still did not have the length in nose for taller landing gear (something like avionics bay was in the way), so Airbus built a fairing bulging out of the fuselage for the landing gear.
Does a sexy stewardess deserve to replace Ryanair CEO or Embraer CEO?
No, because he’d never get the load factors he needs per flight to make his airline work.
50 seats versus 189.
Ah yes. Ryanair needs the specific mainliner size range. 122 seats of Embraer 195 are too few as well.
The sole competitor to A and B is T. It would be hilarious to see 300 Tu-204s in Ryanair colours, but I am not sure about Tupolev experience with solo pilot cockpits. Same applies to Irkut MS-21 and Comac C919, when they come. As for Bombardier, Cseries ends at 145 seats, barring new stretches. And Bombardier has no experience with solo pilot cockpits either – all Learjets require two pilots. Cseries does have remote black box:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/09/02/346880/cseries-aims-to-be-first-with-live-black-box-telemetry.html
but no remote pilot control.
And latitudinally. There are magnetic anomalies.
When the direction of runway is 235 degrees to magnetic north, is the runway name rounded up to 24 or down to 23? Or is this decided by exact heading in minutes and seconds, so 234 degrees 59 minutes is runway 23 and 235 degrees 1 minutes is runway 24?
An US buyer!
Willis bought 6 Superjets and got options for 4:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/09/02/346927/us-engine-lessor-willis-tentatively-signs-for-superjets.html
Live black box
Cseries shall be the first airplane with live black box:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/09/02/346880/cseries-aims-to-be-first-with-live-black-box-telemetry.html
Looking forward for the first Cseries to be lost with all hands AND black boxes….
The GE airplanes were always scheduled to be certficated second.
Yes, but if the two GE prototypes completed their tests and the 4 RR frames were not ready yet, additional tests might be made on GE, no?
Currently the second GEnx test frame is promised to fly on 24th of September. Which is delayed, it was expected months ago.
Chirp Chirp Chirp.
Its very quiet around here…..One can hear the crickets chirping on this forum since the explosion in the test cell……and it seems that just yesterday (actually it was a few weeks ago) on another thread nationalistic fervor ran amok with people patting themselves on the pack about how great Rolls Royce was.
On closer examination, it is not just Rolls.
The sixth prototype, the second Genx frame, is long known to be delayed. A Rolls explosion could delay entry into service of airplane type (because there are not enough Genx airframes to do the test flights left), but could not delay Genx test frame first flight (if anything, it would be hurried).
What other issues contribute to the delay?
Whilst it may not impact the overall timescales of the program,
Turns out it shall. Nightmareliner delivery is officially delayed again, to February 2011 for now:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/08/27/346722/787-first-delivery-delayed-to-mid-q1-2011.html
Tested in Italy!
A Superjet prototype flew to Caselle for noise testing:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/08/26/346594/superjet-prototype-arrives-in-italy-for-testing.html