It happened!

The test took place:
http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/05/10/Navigation/177/206552/Pictures+First+images+of+Airbus+A380+safety+briefing+and+evacuation.html

See the lower image, with first class…

What’s “unreal” about the Brabazon and the Armagnac? :confused:

Neither of them ever had an order fulfilled.

But yes, both had some frames completed… Brabazon had test flights, but no Entry into Service, Armagnac was refused by Air France, but did see second-line service. What were they like?

Also, what were the principal differences between Convair XC-99 (which did fly) and Model 37? One was nominally a military transporter and the other a civilian plane, but were there supposed to be any real differences?

This is one apsect that makes things like capacity available, catering, etc. difficult for an airline.

Standby on earlier flight sounds a relatively cheap way of providing flexibility. At the point of transaction, everyone wins. The passenger gets transported; the airline gets rid of a seat about to fly empty by exchanging it for a seat on a later flight, whereby they gain some time to try and sell the seat, or else decrease catering or crew needed for the later flight. And if the earlier flight is sold out, or so many people want to standby on earlier flight that not all can be accommodated, they can fly as booked and neither the passenger nor the airline is any worse off than if the airline had declined to allow standby.

But I presume that flexibility should always cost to provide and there would be a catch somewhere. Or not? One thing I see is that there would be high demand to book the later flights, as they provide the flexibility…

Landing gear – This is located where it is on low wing, wing mounted engine type aircraft because the landing gear has to be mounted on something solid, with plenty of strong structural members. On civil airliners, the strongest part of a wing is the point where the main spars meet with the structure for mounting the engines. Here, there will be some hefty structure… so, landing gear is mounted there.

There are also guidelines as to where landing gear should be mounted. Aircraft can not have landing gear with too narrow track, as the aircraft would tip over on turns on the ground. Also, landing gear has to be placed somewhere where the angle between the ground under the centre of the main landing gear wheel (rear wheel if on a bogey) and the swept up rear fuselage is 15 degrees. The ideal point for these criteria to be met is somewhere under the wings.

Another factor is centre of gravity, the main wheels need to be behind the CoG to ensure the aircraft doesnt tip back on its tail. And, main landing gear units typicallty take 85% of the weight of the aircraft, so it makes sense to have them under the wings as then, you dont need extra structure to pass the weight to the landing gear… as the spars are already doing that for you!

Indeed. The gear needs to be just the right distance behind the centre of lift and gravity – too close and the plane can tip back on tail, too far and the plane is hard to rotate. That leaves the rear part of wing.

But I observe that the aircraft with low wing and rear engines also often have the usual tricycle landing gear. They won´t have engine mounting hardpoints on wing… how do they support the landing gear?

Downfalls of this position of engine are that engineers need a cherry picker to carry out maintenance,

Which central engine is harder to access for maintenance or replacement – the DC-10 one (higher up) or Tristar (a bit lower, but a widebody tail is still high, and buried deep in fuselage)?

The Citation is, in my opinion, a relatively easy aircraft to fly. However, in the opinion of the FAA the C550 is sufficiently complex to require 2 crew under most commercial operations. In order to expand their market, Cessna set about addressing the individual difficulties that the regulator had pointed out, and in producing the 550SP managed to achieve Single Pilot certification.

Neither aircraft is particularly difficult to fly, but the regulators are necessarily tough when it comes to passenger safety and apply a high hurdle.

Yes. But once C550SP had been designed and certified for a Single Pilot, was there any point for a potential customer, even a customer who normally would use two pilots, to buy two-pilot-only 550 rather than the 550SP?

The VLJs, from what we see of them so far, look like straight-wing simple-enough jets. This means that by-and-large they will achieve single-crew certification.

Well, Phenom 300 is swept-wing, but it has EIS of 2009.

However, all will be subject to type-rating courses, and the insurers are expected to place significant obstacles in the way of inexperienced owner-pilots getting into the left-hand seat.

This thought is one of the few rays of sunshine illuminating the lives of people like Socata with their TBM700 Turboprop. These old turborprop birds are starting to look very expensive compared to the projected prices of the VLJs, and without hurdles preventing their clients migrating to VLJs, people like Socata would be in real trouble.

All IMHO of course.

What do you feel is the safest plane to fly in as a solo inexperienced pilot: a single turboprop like Socata (one engine out, and you glide), a twin turboprop (two engines to manage in normal flight – but when one quits you have asymmetric thrust rather than unpowered flight… could be sustained for a long time), a twin very light turbofan (same considerations) or a single turbofan… cannot remember very many of them in service… fighters and Global Flyer. Both have a solo pilot and Global Flyer was flown solo for 80 hours or so.

Well, of the Citations that fall into that category. I’ve flown the 550 and the 550SP, and the modifications do make the SP (Single Pilot) considerably easier to operate. The nature of these changes is very basic; essentially buttons, selectors and switches that have been placed in a better position.

Is the 550SP also easier to operate by two pilots than the 550 requiring two pilots?

It is noteworthy that none of the sweptwing Citations are approved for single-crew ops.

And Embraer Phenom 100 has roughly straight wing. Phenom 300 has swept wing, though – and is supposed to be suitable for single pilot flying.