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: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 01:21 PM
link   
I feel I should point out that I missed the word 'some' out of my post above (ie "why is it that some non Europeans".....etc). The way I worded it reads like I think everyone else in the world wants Airbus' to crash and burn, clearly that would be a ludicrous assertion.

My apologies to all the level headed people here like engineer etc, obviously I didn't mean you lot.




posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice

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).


[edit on 10/4/2005 by RichardPrice]


Well we both agree on the fact that an investigation is good




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


Why are you affraid, I might make some good points that counter yours??

Sounds like it to me



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots



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


Why are you affraid, I might make some good points that counter yours??

Sounds like it to me


You havent ever yet, but I guess theres always a first time.



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 02:31 PM
link   
I heard that this airliner will have its first flight this month, but I couldn't imagine that it didn't fly at all!

It seemed to me that they already made test flights, but they will introduce its flight to the public.

Well, I never thought that it didn't fly at all. This actually means that unexpected problems may occur, and it is likely at the size of this jetliner.

We'll see.



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bombardier
I heard that this airliner will have its first flight this month, but I couldn't imagine that it didn't fly at all!

It seemed to me that they already made test flights, but they will introduce its flight to the public.

Well, I never thought that it didn't fly at all. This actually means that unexpected problems may occur, and it is likely at the size of this jetliner.

We'll see.


Nah, 'first flight' really means 'first flight'. These days you cant have test flights and then a reveal flight - there would be hundreds of photos across the internet by the end of the first flight. Back in the day, they still did the same - a very public first flight, and then launch into the test program. The 747 had a public first flight, so did the 777 and the A340.

Problems may occur, but you can be 99% sure that the A380 wont crash and burn on its first flight - you think they would let it fly if there was even a 1% chance of that?



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice
Problems may occur, but you can be 99% sure that the A380 wont crash and burn on its first flight - you think they would let it fly if there was even a 1% chance of that?


But compared to other jets, the a380 has no similar competitor. The Boeing 747 was a very uncertain craft, many people said that it will not fly.

The 777 and similar sized crafts are well developed, it is easy to build such a craft and calculate that 1%.

But the A380 is way different. Not only the largest one, but has no reference past, only on the desks or in the computers. How could they do such an advertisement ( I see that over 200 orders were done on it), if they don't even know its parameters? It may rise, but it could be slow, or the parameters wouldn't be that good. Who knows. Anyway, lets see that takeoff!



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bombardier
But the A380 is way different. Not only the largest one, but has no reference past, only on the desks or in the computers. How could they do such an advertisement ( I see that over 200 orders were done on it), if they don't even know its parameters? It may rise, but it could be slow, or the parameters wouldn't be that good. Who knows. Anyway, lets see that takeoff!


But thats jsut it, thats the reason theres a lengthy testing process to certify the aircraft. Yes, some things done by physical test in the 1960s are now done by cmputer, but a lot of hte aircrafts capabilities are still required to be tested by physical means.

You could say with a lot of certainty how an aircraft will fly in the 1960s (they knew the precise length of runway the 747 needed to take off on the first flight, the pilot put his family at that exact distance down the runway and the plane did indeed take off at that point) due to wind tunnel tests etc, and today you can do it with more accuracy.

Computer simulation has yet to really show up a serious flaw, we know how all the components and the laws of physics work, so its a simple case of putting them all together. Yes, theres a small possibility that what comes out is not an acccurate representation, but you can be more than 99% sure that the envelope perameters you get from the computer simulations are infact the true flight perameters - theres more chance of the materials being incorrectly fabricated at construction time.

[edit on 10/4/2005 by RichardPrice]



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Bombardier, you seem to be forgetting that the An-225 flies perfectly well and is much bigger than the A380, sort of knocks your argument into a cocked hat.

The difference of course is that the A380 is to be a mass produced passenger plane rather than an experimental one off but as for wondering whether it will actually fly at all because of its size, well, get a grip lad



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 04:55 PM
link   
The AN-225


Surely IS bigger than the A380. But personally I doubt that the Airbus copied anything from this russian wonder.
So we already have a larger jet cruising the skies, and works just fine.

How about the A380? The AN-225 had complications previously, new engines, better airframe, avionics solved the problem. Certainly a great skyliner. But: they don't plan its mass production at all. They simply want to benefit from this single plane. Interesting.



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 04:59 PM
link   
I just couldn't imagine that THIS plane can fly at all. I mean, look at the aerodynamics!!!




posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 04:06 AM
link   
But the aerodynamics are fine. It may be ugly as hell but it is the most aerodynamic solution there is to the problem of transporting outsize loads between factories.

On the other hand how aerodynamic does the proposed 747 equivalent look? It just looks like it has a large rectangle plonked on where the passenger cabin used to be, rectangles are distinctly un-aerodynamic by their very nature



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 04:47 AM
link   

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


I'm sorry, but I cant imagine the kind of person you are to actually give a thumbs up to something like that, and I would certainly like to see you say that to the faces of the families of the three innocent people killed in this incident. I will refrain from insulting you directly, as this is against forum rules, but you should seriously take a good look at yourself if you think that its a subject of levity to encourage or enjoy other peoples misery !



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
But the aerodynamics are fine. It may be ugly as hell but it is the most aerodynamic solution there is to the problem of transporting outsize loads between factories.


I guess so. But still, this is the worst plane I've ever seen. Well, that Boeing 747 transporter is no different, we'll see when they'll build one!



posted on Apr, 20 2005 @ 05:08 PM
link   
looks like its getting close take a look at the link.


story.news.yahoo.com.../050420/481/ena10504201921



posted on Apr, 20 2005 @ 11:42 PM
link   
while its getting closer to fly, and anticipation is building, it all comes back to the first questions.....Is it needed, and would it be economical?

maybe.

aviation weekly reports that its cost are going up. and the predictions arn't lookin to good.

*since some of you dont have a subscription, I'll post the whole article*
Cost On The Rise



Airbus A380 Production Cost On The Rise, Study Shows
04/20/2005 09:22:51 AM
By Lori Ranson

The use by Airbus of lighter materials to combat weight problems of its A380, along with reluctance by risk-sharing partners to assume a higher financial burden for the program, appears to be pushing production costs up, according to a recent study headed by a professor at Northwestern University.

Three other industry consultants joined Aaron Gellman in the study funded by Boeing, completed in 2002 and updated again last summer. Team members said Boeing wasn't consulted about the study's approach, or asked for non-public data. Boeing didn't state its reasons for opting to wait and release the study April 16.

The study's authors estimate a 3.2% rise during the last two years in airframe production costs to $156 million in 2001 dollars. Authors used dollar value estimates from that year to correspond with the official program launch.

Measures Airbus had to adopt to ward off a higher-than-anticipated airframe weight, including using GLARE in the leading edges of the horizontal and vertical stabilizers, and using composites in 24 of the 61 largest ribs in each wing. New production methods were necessary to use composites in the wing ribs. Airbus also asked suppliers of buyer-furnished equipment (BFE) to slash weights by about 30%.

Total A380 development costs are well beyond the $10.7 billion originally forecasted, the study said, adding risk sharing partners "largely continue to be unwilling to shoulder additional development support commitments," and haven't been eager to supply the $4.1 billion they were expected to invest in the plane's development.

If suppliers produce about $3.1 billion in development, allowable state aid could rise to $2.5 billion from about $2.2 billion, but that also boosts the "payback burden" on each of the first 232 planes to $9.5 million, plus interest.

Practices by Airbus of selling other aircraft models, such as the A320, at "below-cost prices" for delivery during the early years of A380 production will hamper the airframer's ability to use profits from those sales to cover repayments of A380 launch aid, Airbus said.

Overall, the study's original analysis in 2002 predicts a negative cash flow of about $8 billion in 2006-2025. After the 2004 update was completed, "the prospects were not better," the authors noted, "since the number of A380s sold below cost has more than doubled," from about 60 in 2002 to more than 120.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 02:52 AM
link   
it never crashed into a forest, it auto landed into the forest , and it was also pilot error. The pilot didnt know how the fly by wire works proply.
The pilot flew to low, When the plane goes below 20feet the fly by wre assumes it wants to auto land. When the pilot was 200metres from the trees he wen toh crap and put the throttle to max. but auto land made it land in the trees.
its a bit sad

but all but 3 people survived.




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join