A380: Hurt American pride?

What do you mean that the Dash-80 (i skip 1 zero, sorry ) flew 30 years away the Comet?

Call me crazy, but from 1949 to 1954 there are only 5 years...

OK crazy, nobody mentioned the dash-80 until just now. You said, and I replied to, the Dash 8
Dash 8

Yes, the dash 80 cum 707 was more advanced than the Comet, naturally, as it followed it chronologically and technology moved on quickly in the 1950's, when the 707 was in development the UK industry was developing the VC-7, its direct equivalent. If you are interested in learning more about this little known project, have a look at this link

www.abovetopsecret.com...



edit; quite a lengthy reply from me can be found at the bottom of the previous page too, folks.



[edit on 5-10-2006 by waynos]

You know, I like visiting Manchester Airport in the UK, and watching the planes. Not the Boeings. Not the Airbuses. Not the Dash 8/80/8000 or whatever accidentally slips off the tongue. Just the planes.

I like seeing different varieties of Boeing 737 (some with winglets, and some without). I like being impressed at how quickly an empty 747 freighter can take off. I like watching lots of different A330s with wonderful colour schemes float effortlessly towards a soft touchdown. And it's always a pleasure to see some older jets like the Tupolev 154, DC10, TriStar, and even the odd military plane (like the majestic RAF VC10 tankers).

Simply put, I couldn't care less what company or country or skin colour of employees has put these planes together. I just enjoy watching them. All of them.

Let's put this ridiculous argument behind us, eh guys ?

originally posted by waynos
Danwild - you tease! the frustration here is killing me

I....must.....stay.....on.....topic grrr

Sorry m8 I couldn't help myself(as experience has shown you most yanks can't). Glad you possess a greater degree of self control.

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Let's talk about cutting edge:

1st powered flight: Wright Flyer
1st supersonic flight in human history: Bell X-1
1st spaceplane: North American X-15
1st mass production supersonic fighter; North American F-100 Super Sabre
1st stealth technolgy aircraft in mass production: Lockeheed F-117
1st stealth technology bomber; Northrup Grumman B-2

I wont even get into spaceflight.
[edit on 10/4/2006 by darkbluesky]

I understand your argument, and yes we wont go into space flight, but we could go into where the majority of lead scientists/engineers came from that led, in particular the 747 project amongst many others. My point is, look around the globe at recent breakthroughs (particularly in the field of astronomy and medicine) and you will find that the building it happened in may well reside in the US, but then have a look at the nationalities of the teams that worked on them.

As far as the A380 goes, it's rediculous to start talking about claims to fame - the thing isn't in service yet! When it is make a serious comparison.


[edit on 5-10-2006 by Quackmaster]

[edit on 5-10-2006 by Quackmaster]

Curious waynos, did your argument for the a 380 come out of the blue? Or do you feel the need to reassure yourself.

[edit on 5-10-2006 by noyhcat]

Originally posted by noyhcat
Curious waynos, did your argument for the a 380 come out of the blue? Or do you feel the need to reassure yourself.

Out of the blue? I guess you haven't been following the board very closely Also, this thread is not an argument for the A380, but in opposition to knee jerk 'againstism'
How many times have I explained this

"Well this could be the last time,
this could be the last time
may-be the last time, I don't know, Woh woh "

why would I find a news article about EADS personally reassuring, they're nothin to do with me


[edit on 5-10-2006 by waynos]

Well, first I will mention the Olympic standard of 'missing the point' that has been demonstrated in so many replies. When it comes to this aspect I would like to proclaim PisTonZOR the gold medallist.

AWWWWW, thanks 'MAAAAAAYYYYYYYTE'

*the first post is very specific, it is not saying that the A380 hurts American pride generally or universally, or than anyone is 'better' than anyone else, at anything.

It is specifically aimed at a particular mindset that just bashes with no bearing on reality and takes no account of real fact* (you could extend this to posts with mindless bashing of anything, F-22 maybe, thats had quite a bit too, but the A380 has seen by far the biggest proportion of it, hence why I chose that as the subject). In this particular case (and certainly not generally) the only reason that makes sense is the one spelled out in the first post.

The title of the thread was A380: Hurt American pride, not A380: Hurts fanboys who just happen to live in Americas pride.

The 'I'm an Auzzie' thing was so you didn't think I was some stupid stereotype fat kid from the USA, because I took your post as: the new largest plane in the world hurts Americas pride. I did not want to be portraid as one of them, because I want to be unbiased, which I am.

Your post is correct except that it's directed at only America. Or is that 'cause you're from the UK?

You should not be so harsh on your self, any way, america is still a Europian colony, you might not notice it, but all the people behind the scenes are Europians,
such as roial blood lines, europe owns the federal reserve bank
The big shoots are pulled from here, frome europe, from people that no one knows, I'm not exactly proud by that, being an europian, but thats how things are.

Harsh on myself, what are you talking about? I am not at all American but I'm Australian.
Also since when was President Bush born in EU?



[edit on 5-10-2006 by PisTonZOR]

[edit on 5-10-2006 by PisTonZOR]

The title of the thread was A380: Hurt American pride, not A380: Hurts fanboys who just happen to live in Americas pride.

No, because thats too long. the title needed to be snappy and get attention (this is what titles are for) and then the body of the text makes its point plainly.

The flaw in my plan was that it was aimed for people who would read beyond the title, not Aussies. (cheap joke, but I liked it)

The 'I'm an Auzzie' thing was so you didn't think I was some stupid stereotype fat kid from the USA,

Yeah I know, but it was too good to miss.

is this because you are from the UK

Yes.

Well, not really, it just it tends to be Americans who react in that way on this subject. Not exclusively, but mainly. Again I didn't want the title to be "A380; does it get a bad reaction from people who are mainly American, but can include other demographics purely from a sense of misplaced 'loyalty and hurt pride in someway, or not?"

As I'm sure you understand

Also (someone else said this but it fits here too) The title is not a statement or an assumption, its a question - with a smiley by the side of the post to show that its not entirely to be taken seriously even if the basic point is a true one

[edit on 5-10-2006 by waynos]

Originally posted by waynos

The title of the thread was A380: Hurt American pride, not A380: Hurts fanboys who just happen to live in Americas pride.

No, because thats too long. the title needed to be snappy and get attention (this is what titles are for) and then the body of the text makes its point plainly.

The flaw in my plan was that it was aimed for people who would read beyond the title, not Aussies. (cheap joke, but I liked it)

The 'I'm an Auzzie' thing was so you didn't think I was some stupid stereotype fat kid from the USA,

Yeah I know, but it was too good to miss.

is this because you are from the UK

Yes.

Well, not really, it just it tends to be Americans who react in that way on this subject. Not exclusively, but mainly. Again I didn't want the title to be "A380; does it get a bad reaction from people who are mainly American, but can include other demographics purely from a sense of misplaced 'loyalty and hurt pride in someway, or not?"

As I'm sure you understand

Also (someone else said this but it fits here too) The title is not a statement or an assumption, its a question - with a smiley by the side of the post to show that its not entirely to be taken seriously even if the basic point is a true one

[edit on 5-10-2006 by waynos]

Oh ok, I understand

The flaw in my plan was that it was aimed for people who would read beyond the title, not Aussies. (cheap joke, but I liked it)

Lol. Wtf.
On some other sites, A.net and FL350, there is LOTS and LOTS and LOTs of A vs B

Anyway I gtg bye.

sorry west point23 for not explianing Ike's point,he claims in order for france and the uk to continue with their controle of the US was to stage the war of independance make the US think it was free,his problem reaction solution argument.



and i think anything that can take 100s of people to the other side of the world is something to be proud of.god help us if a 380 ever crashed,im glad i saw the horizon program this week on how to survive a plane crash,

personaly i think boeing is far more advanced than airbus,they only problem i have with these plane companies is the sound and fumes they polute us all with,

I just hope Richard branson gets his bio fuel up and running soon,and other to follow suit,

Well I am glueing a 747 to A380 - I will dominate, no one can stop my mighty:

73 : 48 : 70 (see what I did there! and no its not my girlfriends measurements)

In all seriousness, big is sometimes best and other times not, boeing are sometimes best and other times not, the US is sometimes best and other times not.

The point is, if you are going to bash something - do it because it deserves bashing, not just because it doesn't fit in with your own ideals.

Personally I think the way forward is huge catapaults that can fire a person from one side of the globe to the other - dangerous I hear you say, not if you have giant pillows. In fact if everything was giant - life would be great (and my girlfriend would be a lot more satisfied)

It's been observed before, but a lot of A380 parts will come from the U.S., and a lot of Boeing componant structures are coming from Asia, so the national antagonism perspective is a little misleading. It's a global economy.

Maybe this is the wrong thread to post this in, but here's how Airbus' chairman sizes things up:

www.afp.com...

Fascinating link, thanks for that;

For Streiff to saying he hopes Airbus can be in front of Boeing again in 15 years time (when they were in front of Boeing 5 years ago) just shows the spectacular extent to which the previous management cocked it up, remarkable. Having forged ahead with the brilliant 787 (its amazing how the best ideas emerge under the highest pressure) it wont get any easier for Airbus as Boeing seeks to take this lead forward into the other commercial aircraft sectors and build on it. In terms of who is leading and who is following, in a general technology sense rather than specific aircraft pro's and cons, its 1970 all over again.

I don't know a lot about this subject, but the 380 seems to have been plagued with production problems, which might have more to do with the perception of the aircraft than national pride.

Airlines shudder at new delay for Airbus superjumbo

Kinda of topic, but the 787 doors come from Toulouse

I think the real source of pride, concerning the A380, here in Europe is not because

"ohh its a gigantic plane! It so cool! "

I think the main reason is because a number of EU states worked together and achieved something quite nice at the end. ( Rather than fighting, thinking about fighting, thinking about how we could possibly think about fighting each other )

Oh, and there is one little thing that the press have failed dismally to report, and its probably more important than all the delays.



The aerodynamic performance is better than expected

It's exactly a year since the A380, designed to carry up to 853 passengers, took to the skies for the first time. Since its maiden flight on April 27, the aircraft has undergone 110 test flights, clocking 380 flying hours, said Tore Prang, a spokesman of Airbus.

"The test results are excellent. The performance is much better than expected," he said, adding that it also held true for the craft's fuel-consumption -- at 2.9 liters of kerosene for 100 kilometers per passenger.

From here

Aerodynamic configuration : results
- Lift coefficient better than expected
- Approach speed lower than expected by ~4 kt : 138kt at MLW
- Take-off performance on target

From here

Mod Edit - senseless rant



[edit on 6-10-2006 by masqua]

Originally posted by DEATHKNELL
complete quote of senseless rant deleted by moderator...sorry PisTonZOR, to sully your post.

Passive my ass. BTW, the code in your post clearly sais F off. Reported. How immature.

[edit on 6-10-2006 by PisTonZOR]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
mod edit - removed quote

[edit on 6-10-2006 by masqua]

Kilcoo; does that mean the earlier doubts over fuel consumption were groundless?

Deathknell - you need psychiatric help. Hope you get some.