It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

the airbus A380’s first flight delayed

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 08:48 PM
link   
I have been waiting for this first flight it will be a sight to see.
here is a link on the first crew ho will fly the plane.


www.airbus.com...


but it looks like we have to wait longer for the flight.

here is A link.

www.luchtzak.be...

and a better link with more info.


money.iwon.com.../alias/money/cm/nw

I hope thay get it all worked out I would like to take a ride on one someday.

aneybody have more news or links on this?




posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 04:15 AM
link   
This is why they never release exact dates for the first flights - people get disappointed when they are postponed for whatever reason
Id rather they get it right than rush it for the press and do something wrong.



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 11:30 AM
link   
When BAE launched the ATP in the early 1980's I remember that they announced that its first flight would be on August 6th 1986 at 10 am, which I thought had a touch of class about it. The target was met, to the minute!



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice
Id rather they get it right than rush it for the press and do something wrong.



I agree but still cant wait. I wonder how munch press it will get, the unvaling did not have as munch as I thought it would.



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by slayerfan
I agree but still cant wait. I wonder how munch press it will get, the unvaling did not have as munch as I thought it would.


Where are you? It was all over the press here in the UK, evening news, newspapers, radio etc.



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 03:03 PM
link   
in the us the day of the unvailing thair was small clips and articlse but nothing big.



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by slayerfan
in the us the day of the unvailing thair was small clips and articlse but nothing big.


hmm, here I remember that it was on the front of the paper, on the local news, as well as big ones like CNN & FOX.



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   
I'm not a big fan of Airbus but i can't wait to see that mountain of a plane take off. It will be quite a spectical indeed.



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Maybe it will crash like a previous airbus aircraft into a forest



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 10:42 AM
link   
I know it isnt possible (Because of computer models and what not have proven it can) but it would be funny if the monstrosity couldn't get off the ground.



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by TRUTH Ambassador
I know it isnt possible (Because of computer models and what not have proven it can) but it would be funny if the monstrosity couldn't get off the ground.


Interestingly enough, a lot of the 747s critics said it couldnt ever fly - and then it did...... This time around, everything has as you said, been computer modelled, so Im betting there will be no major surprises throughout the entire flight testing period.

[edit on 9/4/2005 by RichardPrice]



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jezza
Maybe it will crash like a previous airbus aircraft into a forest


You mean the 1988 Mulhouse-Habsheim Air France A320 crash that was blamed on the pilots? The following 4 reasons were attributed as the cause of the crash by the accident investigation team -

1) very low flyover height, lower than surrounding obstacles;
2) speed very slow and reducing to reach maximum possible angle of attack;
3) engine speed at flight idle (it would take any aircraft a lot of time, 5 or 6 seconds, to spool the engines back up - this was one of the things the pilot tried to blame the crash on;
4) late application of go-around power

Air France was also blamed because the pilot had not yet completed his conversion to the A320 before he was given permission to fly at the airshow.

Cockpit Voice Recorder of the accident

There was an interesting period after the investigation when the Swiss investigation team claimed that the Flight Data Recorder had probably been switched or tampered with after the crash by Air France, although this had never been proven and noone else came to the same conclusion.

The conclusions of the team also included recommendations to Airbus to make audio and visual warnings of the altitude and speed more prominent (at the time they included a cabin voice saying the warning and a visual warning on scree, these were increased to a repeated warning through the pilots earphones, stick shakes/vibrations, and increasingly more visual warnings on the displays), that the pilot was over confident because of the increased protection the A320 systems gave him and thus made mistakes because of his overconfidence, the plane being placed into a very unusual situation where the perameters of the flight exceeded the protection systems handling that the pilot was relying on.

Initially a lot of criticism was placed on the automation in the cockpit, including the elimination of the Flight Engineers position, and blame was tried to be placed on this automation. Since the A320 and further FBW aircraft have been introduced, this automation has become the standard across all the industry (pretty much no modern aircraft includes a Flight Engineers position, with all of the management of engine systems and fuel systems being done mainly by the Flight Crew and computers).



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 04:36 AM
link   
why is it that you get non Europeans almost willing the failure of Airbus and/or its products but you never get the same feeling from over here related to Boeing? Petty spite? Small mindedness? Jealousy?

I don't understand it because I have never wished a plane to fail because to me all aeroplanes are wonderful and exciting and innovative ones all the more so!



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Hey waynos i couldnt care less over Boeing v's Airbus issue.
Europe is such a small place in the scheme of things.
So many countries developing aircraft,uav,missiles its exciting to watch
developments of weapons systems and of course civilian aircraft.



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 10:24 AM
link   
computer generated fake of the 380 in testing.



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 10:42 AM
link   
I don't think anyone in his right mind -- CERTAINLY NO ONE WHERE I WORK -- wants to see ANYTHING untoward happen to the A380 or its crew on any of its flights.

I don't think that the A380 will break even, because I think (and hope) that it is the wrong plane at the wrong time. For obvious reasons, I would never fly on one. Nonetheless, it's a great technological achievement, and I think Noel Forgeard and his elves have done a fine job.



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
I don't think anyone in his right mind -- CERTAINLY NO ONE WHERE I WORK -- wants to see ANYTHING untoward happen to the A380 or its crew on any of its flights.

I don't think that the A380 will break even, because I think (and hope) that it is the wrong plane at the wrong time. For obvious reasons, I would never fly on one. Nonetheless, it's a great technological achievement, and I think Noel Forgeard and his elves have done a fine job.


he he ...boeing is my guess.

i mean the 7E7 is not that bad.

BTW : why did boeing abandon its flying wing concept to carry large number of passangers ?



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 11:52 AM
link   
stealth says:

"he he ...boeing is my guess."

Correct. I work for The Boeing Company.

"i mean the 7E7 is not that bad."

I agree. However, it is now the 787, and certainly won't compete with the A380; more likely the A350 if it's ever built.

"BTW : why did boeing abandon its flying wing concept to carry large number of passangers?"

The company considered it a bad investment, for a lot of reasons; the main one being that Boeing sees the future of air travel as point-to-point, and not hub-and-spoke; they believe long distance aircraft that can fly from just about any airport to another within 7000 miles will make more money.

Obviously, Airbus disagrees.



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice
You mean the 1988 Mulhouse-Habsheim Air France A320 crash that was blamed on the pilots? The following 4 reasons were attributed as the cause of the crash by the accident investigation team -


Snipped the blah blah blah its not airbuses fault again?


Airbus aircraft are and have been suspect of tail failure for a long time and blaming on the pilots is not right. In view of the recent failure of the tail in Cuba members of congress are now asking to reopen the invistagation of the American flight 587 in 2001, so I would not count your chickens just yet.



APRIL 06TH, 2005

Senator Charles Schumer is asking the government to reopen the investigation into what caused the 2001 crash of American Airlines Flight 587 in Queens.

The crash was originally blamed on the co-pilot’s response to turbulence. However, Schumer points out that the Federal Aviation Administration is now concerned about rudders on similar model planes.

www.ny1.com...




posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots


Airbus aircraft are and have been suspect of tail failure for a long time and blaming on the pilots is not right.



Ahh another arrogant a**hole (glad you arent all like Shots!). Read the material, investigate for yourself the crash that was mentioned, and see that the PILOTS WERE TO BLAME for that particular crash. Dont pick another crash at random and try and make my reply seem wrong, because that just reflects badly on you. Oh yes, sorry, in your eyes, all crashes are the fault of the maker of hte aircraft, especially when that manufacturer is Airbus, regardless of the actual reasons for the crash.



In view of the recent failure of the tail in Cuba members of congress are now asking to reopen the invistagation of the American flight 587 in 2001, so I would not count your chickens just yet.


And? An investigation is good! Particularly because composite materials are involved in both crashes and more and more parts of aircraft are being made from them. It maybe that composites have inherent issues which ultimately makes them unsuitable for use in aircraft (and that affects all aircraft manufacturers, some more than others).

Flight 587s crash is different than the recent tail issues, primarily because the 587 tail failed while being used outside the recommended perameters (excessive use of the rudder in a high turbulence situation), whereas the recent issue happened in normal operating situations (nonexcessive use of rudder in normal flight situations). Airbus updated the flight manuals stating that the rudder shouldnt be used to such an extent (the pilot applied full left and full right rudder alternatively - pretty much no aircraft out there can sustain a full deflection of the rudder in flight, yet this is what the pilot did) and the airlines training.

One thing you (and this politician) are totally overlooking is that in Flight 587s case, THE ENTIRE TAIL SECTION sheered off, this is totally different to the Canada A310 rudder issue, where only the rudder blade broke. The design load of the entire rear section of the aircraft was exceeded.


One single Senator is pushing for the investigation to be reopened, and that just happens to be Senator Charles Schumer, who happens to be a US airline industry shill, and has poked his nose into the industry SEVERAL times, including pandering to Boeing and selected airlines, and labelling fellow politicians as racist because of a single case they took as a lawyer.

Schumer was also a key player in having Boeing be awarded a $1.2billion USD Homeland Security contract to tighten security at airports (it jsut so happens that Boeings vice president was also on the board that elected to give Boeing this contract), and he also was against giving the US trucking industry money to tighten security at the same time.

Schumer was also recently caught charging flight costs to the US government for non political flights. He was made to pay back nearly $20,000 in flight costs for 35 flights.

This is a case of a politican reading something and reacting, when they dont have all the facts.

Im not going to get into another 'discussion' with you Shots.

[edit on 10/4/2005 by RichardPrice]




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join