sekantQantas introduced the 747 a long, long time ago. More than 30 years? The state of the art has advanced considerably in the meantime, therefore the 747 or Concorde comparisons are hardly appropriate.
A much more valid comparison might be the 777. I don’t seem to recall similar problems when 777 entered service in 1995. As a matter of fact, it went right into 180 minute ETOPS as “the most thoroughly tested airliner in history” or some such, according to the Boeing hype.
One would expect a more flawless entry for a modern product, especially one that had sevice entry delayed for two years. Any way you cut it, it is an embarrassment for Qantas and for Airbus.
The usual bull to be expected.
All newly induced planes have glitches. That applies to the 380 as to the 777. United, the firts 777 operator, had to deal with more than 100 snags. It even stooke the unusual step of sending a letter to Boeing to complain about the unusual number of glitches, listing the following problems:
— Electrical malfunctions
— Frozen cables
— Computer software bugs
— Faulty landing gear door
— Unusual oil loss
— Damaged circuit breaker
— Fluid leaking into auxiliary power generator
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/archives/1996/9603070108.asp
http://books.google.ch/books?id=CILNWqZskckC&pg=PA92&lpg=PA92&dq=b777+snags&source=web&ots=iSnB_ocXRs&sig=n1PfeXDX133tk5tIuvXYPDiQVxM&hl=de#PPA90,M1 (p. 90 – more than 100 snags identified)
I am not even speaking of the fact that this even applies to new versions of the 777. See the issues that Air France has had with newly introduce -300ER
sekantDon’t need to hit it at the apogee. You could just as easily shoot at it on it’s way up or on it’s way down. And if you look at some of the MDA powerpoints that’s exactly what they have in mind.
Ideally, yes, you should shot down an ICBM during its ascending phase while it is slow, leaves a large IR track and before it releases decoys. Depending on where the ICBM is fired from in Russia that is simply not possible.
I am a bit sceptical concerning the interception of an ICBM during a descending phase, with its speed and decoys deployed.
But I stand to be corrected.
sekantWe shall see how far up the Block IIa version can reach up. Apogee of an ICBM might be 600-700nm. The Block Ia back last summer reached up 150nm.
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL33745_20081121.pdf
Speaks about certain capabilities against ICBMs.
Thanks for the link.
The 150 nm you mention refer (if I am not mistaken) to the shooting down of the ailing US satellite. The SM-3 was at the very end of its capability, if I recall well. Could the US come up with an evolution of the SM-3 that goes 3 to 4 times as far?? Seems a bit doubtful to me, but I admit I am not a scientist.
sekantBut we haven’t heard them say one word about the AEGIS BMD as far as I know. Given that it could be a far more threatening system to Russian ICBMs, that pretty much demonstrates that thrashing about over 10 ABMs in Poland is purely political.
As far as I can recall, the SM-3 does not have the capacity to engage an ICBM – a short to medium-range ballistic missile, yes, but an ICBM no except potentially in its boost or final stage. Or has the SM-3 markedly involved since the MDA was making this point clear only 18 months ago??
sekantdiscounted ticket – you get everything normal in terms of luggage and food, but don’t get as many airmiles (if any) credited as you would for a regular economy ticket.
sekantIf I recall well, the crew of the SR111 that crashed off Halifax was criticized because it never used the word mayday, and that traffic control did not catch right away the gravity of the situation and clear a direct path to Halifax (although, if I recall well, it would not have made any difference because they could not have reached Halifax no matter what).
sekantCut and paste from Wikipedia:
[edit] Airbus A380-900
In November 2007, Airbus top sales executive and COO John Leahy confirmed plans for an enlarged variant, the A380-900, which would be slightly longer than the A380-800 (79.4–73 m or 260–240 ft).[101] This version would have a seating capacity of 650 passengers in standard configuration, and around 900 passengers in economy-only configuration. The development of the A380-900 is planned to start once production of the A380-800 variant reaches 40 planes per year, expected to be in 2010. Given this timeline, the first A380-900s could be delivered to customers around 2015, about the same time as the A380-800F (freighter variant). Airlines that have expressed interest in the model include Emirates,[102] Virgin Atlantic,[103] Cathay Pacific,[104] Air France/KLM,[105] Lufthansa,[106] Kingfisher Airlines,[107] as well as the leasing company ILFC.[108] According to an interview in Airliner World magazine’s December issue, Singapore Airlines CEO Chew Choon Seng revealed at the delivery of their first A380-800 that the airline is keeping their options open with their order, by only defining their first ten A380s as -800s; the remaining nine aircraft could be switched to -900s.
sekantTook AA transatlantic recently. 767, no PTV, interior pretty old, although not as old as the cabin crew which is surprising for a European (and not very smiling). However, if I compare AA 767 cattle class to Swiss or Lufthansa more recent plane, you have more legroom. And I’ll take more legroom over PTV anyday on long haul (I am over 6’1).
sekantYou probably came accross code shares. You have one single flight, but several flight numbers come up on the arrival info system because tickets are sold by different companies owing to the fact they belong to the same alliane. For instance, for any Swiss flight, you will have a LX number (Swiss), a LH number (Lufthansa), a OS number (Austrian) and sometimes a UA (United) number.
sekanthttp://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/397548_dreamliner27.html
[First 787s will fly without all proper fasteners
By JAMES WALLACE
P-I AEROSPACE REPORTER
(Editor’s Note: This story has been changed since its original publication. A typographical error has been removed from a quote by Yvonne Leach.)
When The Boeing Co.’s 787 Dreamliner finally takes flight for the first time, now expected in the second quarter this year, it will do so even though some pieces of the composite jet will be held together with temporary or improperly installed fasteners.
Boeing acknowledged Monday that it will not take the extra time that would be needed to hunt down and replace all the nonconforming fasteners in the six flight test planes. Fastener issues have been among many that have already delayed the program by about two years, and Boeing can’t afford to further push back the flight test program.
All temporary and improperly installed fasteners will be replaced, however, before the six planes are eventually refurbished and turned over to customers to carry passengers, Boeing said.
“The small number of fasteners that won’t be replaced are not easy to reach and don’t represent a safety of flight issue,” Yvonne Leach, Boeing 787 chief spokeswoman, told the Seattle P-I in an e-mailed statement Monday. “They have the ability to withstand the loads and number of cycles (takeoffs and landings) during the flight test program. They must be repaired before long-term operations begin so they will be replaced during the refurbishment program after flight test.”
Boeing is expected to update the status of its 787 program Wednesday, when it releases fourth-quarter financial results and Chairman and Chief Executive Jim McNerney holds a conference call with analysts and media.
The 787 was originally supposed to have made its maiden flight in August or September 2007, with first deliveries in May 2008.
Boeing has not publicly discussed what’s happening with the 787 since December, when it announced that first flight would not take place until the second quarter, and that first deliveries had been delayed until the first quarter of 2010. It was the fifth major delay to hit the program.
Fasteners have been one of the root causes.
Scott Hamilton of Leeham.net first reported Monday that Boeing will not replace all the temporary or improperly installed fasteners in the flight test planes.
Boeing’s Leach would not reveal how many of the temporary or incorrectly installed fasteners will remain on the six flight test planes. Four of those planes are now in production in Everett. Final assembly should begin this week on the fifth plane.
Once the flight test program is over in about a year, Boeing will fly the six planes to its facility in San Antonio, where they will be refurbished and turned over to customers that have ordered them.
“Their replacement (fasteners) can wait until the refurbishment process,” Leach said. “Refurbishment of flight test airplanes is extensive and provides a better opportunity to access these areas” where the remaining nonconforming fasteners are.
She said Boeing is confident the nonconforming fasteners will not be a safety problem during flight tests.
“Analysis has been performed to validate the safety of the airplane for the flight test program. These assessments have been made in accordance with all Boeing and FAA requirements and procedures,” she said.
Fasteners are essentially the nuts and bolts that hold an airplane together. They can range from rivets that are small enough to fit between the thumb and forefinger to footlong titanium bolts 4 inches in diameter. The materials they are made of also vary, depending on the load the fasteners must carry and how they are designed.
The 787, because it is the first large commercial jetliner with a composite rather than metal airframe, requires thousands of unique fasteners.
Early on, a critical shortage of fasteners throughout the aerospace industry contributed to some of the 787 delays. The first 787 structures arrived in Everett for final assembly in early summer of 2007 with tens of thousands of temporary fasteners because suppliers could not get permanent ones due to the industry shortage. It took many months for Boeing mechanics to replace most of those temporary fasteners.
But late last year, during a key pressurization test on one of the first 787s in Everett, Boeing engineers discovered that some of the permanent fasteners had been installed improperly by Boeing’s partners. Those partners were working with drawings from Boeing engineers, and Boeing has acknowledged the mistake was the result of ambiguous instructions.
The improperly installed fasteners were also found on the other flight test planes in final assembly, as well as on the large 787 structures in production by Boeing’s global partners but not yet shipped to Everett. Boeing mechanics have been replacing them, but they are running out of time to make first flight deadline in the second quarter, and keep the flight test program on the revised schedule.
The first of the flight test planes will probably have more of the nonconforming fasteners than the later flight test planes, Leach said. That’s because work was much further along on those planes when the fastener problem was discovered.
sekantI’m saying some of these posts are well and truly embellished…and if you think they’re not …you live in fantasy land
Why is that?? I travel by air for work regularly and then visit family during my vacation which is a bit all over (Canada, west indies, …).
Even if you only take the planes 8 to 10 times a year, over 15 years the number of airlines accumulates very rapidly. There is no fantasy whatsoever there.
sekantAir Lib
Helvetic
Easyjet
Fly baboo
Air berlin
Malev
Aeroflot
Austrian
Tyrolean
Swissair
Swiss
Alitalia
Air France
Lufthansa
British Airways
Iberia
Spanair
Gol
Aeromexico
Mexicana
Egyptair
Royal Air Maroc
Air Asia
Icelandair
Tarom
JAL
KLM
American Airlines
Air Canada
LIAT
Edelweissair
LOT
Belair
Crossair
Brussels airlines
Corsair
sekantAnd USA won the War in Iraq. Secured strategic victory and vital natural resources. Now they are going back to Afghanistan to clean up the mess. Meanwhile the rest of the NATO forces have not contributed proportionally and there have been complaints from Americans and British that the other NATO nations contributing less.
I hope with more American soldiers going to Afghanistan that will be the end of British defeatism and ‘lets negotiate with Taliban’ thiniking.
Tell me if I get you right:
1) The US launches wars not to promote democracy or retrieve WMDS as it officially declares but to achieve geo-strategic aims.
2) The US is right in chiding allies if they do not sufficiently support the US in its endeavour to secure these narrow (in the sense they benefit only the US) american aims.
sekantAnd USA won the War in Iraq. Secured strategic victory and vital natural resources. Now they are going back to Afghanistan to clean up the mess. Meanwhile the rest of the NATO forces have not contributed proportionally and there have been complaints from Americans and British that the other NATO nations contributing less.
I hope with more American soldiers going to Afghanistan that will be the end of British defeatism and ‘lets negotiate with Taliban’ thiniking.
Tell me if I get you right:
1) The US launches wars not to promote democracy or retrieve WMDS as it officially declares but to achieve geo-strategic aims.
2) The US is right in chiding allies if they do not sufficiently support the US in its endeavour to secure these narrow (in the sense they benefit only the US) american aims.
sekantThe article sounds more a way to put pressure on the Brits to get more deeply involved in Afghanistan than anything else. This has been going for quite some time, and you find similar articles/pressure in Canada and other countries.
And frankly, the Times is so accustomed to posting articles on a supposedly imminent and deep crack in the special relationship with the US (i.e. every time that the UK dares not do exactly what is expected of her by the US) that their credibility on this subject is lower than zero.
Sign In
