Page 18 – Key Publishing

chornedsnorkack

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 256 through 270 (of 760 total)

← 1 2 3 … 17 18 19 … 49 50 51 →

Author

Posts
December 18, 2009 at 6:54 pm in reply to: 787 First Flight (Merged) #498968

chornedsnorkack
Participant

I bet my new hiking boots against a spit in the wind that most of the 787s will be in a similar high density configuration to the airliners in service now.

Do you lose if they will be worse?

December 18, 2009 at 4:22 pm in reply to: 787 First Flight (Merged) #499154

chornedsnorkack
Participant

An airliner that did not meet its announced specs in terms of fuel burn and range, that saw numerous cancellations as a result, that was only produced at 130 something units (passengers variant), and that resulted in the company producing it being bought up by its competitor meets a priori the definition of disaster.

Which Douglas plane brought down Douglas?

December 18, 2009 at 1:48 pm in reply to: 787 First Flight (Merged) #499344

chornedsnorkack
Participant

But calling it a disaster is premature at best.
The 2707, that was a disaster.
The MD-11, that was a disaster.
The 787? The jury is still out.

Is there any way to find out before 787 production has ended?

I do not remember huge delays with Boeing 737 initial design, testing and EIS, but I understand that Boeing 737-100 and 737-200 languished for many years. Was or was not 737 a disaster?

December 18, 2009 at 11:48 am in reply to: 787 First Flight (Merged) #499375

chornedsnorkack
Participant

AvB thread

Then please let us avoid AvB, and MvB and IvB etc, and limit ourselves to BvB and last 30 years. Time horizon in 1979 cuts out 747 and 2707, and excluding MvB means excluding Douglas and McDonnell-Douglas “Boeings”.

Out of the last four new 7x7s, precisely how did 757, 767 and 777 fare?

Hard numbers for 787:
maiden flight delayed from the date leaked out at rollout – closer to 28 months than 27
prototype frames writted off due to accumulation of fixes – 6.

Will someone supply comparable hard numbers for 757, 767 and 777?

December 12, 2009 at 9:25 am in reply to: Second 747-800 customer! #503702

chornedsnorkack
Participant

I take it you mean JAL123.
What you’re forgetting is that JAL123 did not just loose hydraulics. They physically lost almost all of the control surfaces on the tail section. The explosion left them with no rudder, hardly any vertical stabiliser and so little elevator surface that they could not have hoped to bring that ship home, with or without hydraulics.

Yes. On United 232, rudder and elevator surfaces remained attached to the tail, but there was no hydraulic control over them.

All the control cables that lead to the tail were severed. Hydraulics, IIRC were not affected.

Which means that THY 981 had throttle control over both wing engines, like United 232.

Why did THY 981 enter into an out of control dive?

December 11, 2009 at 6:19 pm in reply to: G650 rollout #425852

chornedsnorkack
Participant

G250

And so has G250:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/12/11/336090/pictures-gulfstream-g250-performs-first-flight-successfully.html

This morning, both G250 and A400 were in heaven on their maiden flights.

December 11, 2009 at 5:06 pm in reply to: Second 747-800 customer! #503904

chornedsnorkack
Participant

I suspect that it was correct, yes.

Crashes directly from draining all redundant hydraulic systems have happened to several airplane types – 747 (tail bulkhead explosion), DC-10 (tail engine fan explosion), A300 (wingtip rocket explosion). What made a difference to the outcome was handling the backup system/s. The actual number of hydraulic systems, 3 or 4, did not matter because a single point of damage would drain them all.

Which controls were directly destroyed by the Ermenonville THY DC-10 door blowout?

December 11, 2009 at 4:17 pm in reply to: Second 747-800 customer! #503906

chornedsnorkack
Participant

The A380 uses technology which is certified since 20 years, and it works quite well. The biggest problem is when people switch to Airbus aircraft and are not entirely familiar with it. Unfortunately, the quality of the flight crews differs dramatically.

With a bunch of crashes. Such as Gulf Air or Armavia A320-s. An A330 which crashed recently from reasons unknown, Qantas A330 uncommanded pitch down, some A340 overruns…

Does the control logic of A380 differ in any respect from that of A320 or A330?

Does B737 have a better crash record than A320?

The A380 is – in my point of view – currently the safest aircraft when it comes to flight controls. It can fly with all hydraulics lost, it can fly with all computers down. Basically the same as manual reversion on the old Boeing, while you can’t use such system on such large aircraft (guess why the B747 has 4 hydraulic systems).

Which did little good to the 500+ souls on JAL.

DC-10 and A300, with just 3 hydraulic systems, did rather better.

The local hydraulic systems also feature in the architecture of Vickers VC10. Did this architecture prove its worth in VC-10 crashes?

December 9, 2009 at 9:18 am in reply to: United order 25 787s and 25 A350XWBs #504179

chornedsnorkack
Participant

Well, Airbus quotes the outside length of A350-1000 as 73,9 m. Which is the exact length of B777-300, too. Airbus notably omits cabin inside length, but IIRC so does Boeing. Regarding the fuselage and cabin width, A350XWB is narrower than B777, but both will take 10 abreast coach with some squeezing. The promised range is similar, too.

B777-300ER is flying for years, while A350-1000 is very much a paper plane. Is A350-1000 able to match the whole payload-range capacity of B777-300ER?

December 8, 2009 at 10:00 pm in reply to: United order 25 787s and 25 A350XWBs #504352

chornedsnorkack
Participant

How shall the size of A350-1000 compare against B777-300?

November 29, 2009 at 11:50 am in reply to: Big aircraft just too big? #2413248

chornedsnorkack
Participant

I just saw a few video’s of the A380 and that led me to the AN-225. Are these aircraft just too big? The AN-225 looks like it just staggers in to the sky and is on the verge of freezing to halt in mid climb out.

Optical illusion, simply because of their size.

Can you have too much power in something so large?

Yes, certainly.

Would the AN-225 benefit from hanging six GE90’s or RR Trent 900’s off it?

No. Turbine engines lose their fuel efficiency when throttled back.

As for bypass ration, the D-18T is a respectable engine. 25 800 kgf thrust, bypass ratio 5,6. Trent 500 is not much better. Maybe the Genx engines of Boeing 747-800 could fit…

November 27, 2009 at 6:49 pm in reply to: 787 vs A400m #2415465

chornedsnorkack
Participant

A400 has a date now:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/11/27/335567/airbus-targets-week-50-for-first-flight-of-a400m.html

November 26, 2009 at 7:53 am in reply to: G650 rollout #426099

chornedsnorkack
Participant

When shall the maiden flight be?

It has flown:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/2009/11/first-flight-watch-gulfstream.html

November 26, 2009 at 7:52 am in reply to: First flights this year #507178

chornedsnorkack
Participant

Sorry. As you can see from my initial post, I remembered and mentioned that A400 is military, but was not quite sure how far the policy goes.

Presumably the same applies to general aviation like Gulfstream 650?

November 24, 2009 at 5:21 pm in reply to: First flights this year #507574

chornedsnorkack
Participant

A400 has been seen to run all four engines:

And now it has been seen to taxi:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/11/24/335420/picture-a400m-performs-first-taxi-trial.html
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 256 through 270 (of 760 total)

← 1 2 3 … 17 18 19 … 49 50 51 →