Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Tupac on January 19, 2012, 11:45:27 PM
-
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/more-cracks-found-airbus-a380-041211946.html;_ylt=AtCBVByJvJ3.bWQGi0.q34yiuYdG;_ylu=X3oDMTNyZ2gzMmIyBG1pdANGUCBUb3AgU3RvcnkgTGVmdARwa2cDNzg3Yzc4NTktM2VkZC0zNWQ1LWE3OWEtODUxYTg5N2RmMTYyBHBvcwMxBHNlYwN0b3Bfc3RvcnkEdmVyAzM5ZjNkODIwLTQzMWQtMTFlMS1hZGY2LWYyOTk4OWM3MGMzZg--;_ylg=X3oDMTFvdnRqYzJoBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25zBHRlc3QD;_ylv=3
If it aint boeing I aint going
-
It is the titanic of the skies IMO
-
Your patriotism seems to exceed your critical objectivity by some considerable measure young man :old:
-
Your patriotism seems to exceed your critical objectivity by some considerable measure young man :old:
Did you read the entire article? One of the Aussies said he wouldn't put his family on one. My patriotism has nothing to do with it. As a pilot and someone with a little bit of common sense I wouldn't fly in one. The immense loads that wing is bearing boggle my mind, and I wouldn't want one weakened by cracks. I like my airplanes aluminum, thank you.
-
I agree with Tupac but I'm still impressed by the British Aerospace industry and it's ability to pull off impressive planes like the 380. They also put the 1st jetliner into service as well as the SST to ever be successful.
I have no doubt that they'll either make it right or get it right next time.
-
That's okay, they'll fix it. A lot of airplanes had problems that made them dangerous, it does not mean that they will never be safe. I'm sure you know about the problem the 172 had when the seats would slide back on take off causing a crash, yet you still fly one. That's because FAA issued an AD for it (as far as I remember) and now the seats attach differently.
-
Oh I'm sorry, I mistook your statement: 'If it ain't Boeing I ain't going', and your using the word: 'scarebus' in your thread title to imply you were subjectively deriding the efforts of other nations while simultaneously enhancing those of your own.
The article says cracks were found in "non-critical" brackets.
Why would you want your aircraft only made of 'Aluminum' when there are now stronger and lighter materials available?
-
That's okay, they'll fix it. A lot of airplanes had problems that made them dangerous, it does not mean that they will never be safe. I'm sure you know about the problem the 172 had when the seats would slide back on take off causing a crash, yet you still fly one. That's because FAA issued an AD for it (as far as I remember) and now the seats attach differently.
Latches are still designed the same way. We just need to have it inspected every 100 hours.
-
Why would you want your aircraft only made of 'Aluminum' when there are now stronger and lighter materials available?
Because repeatedly the composite materials have proven to be less than ideal? Remember when the tail snapped off of the airbus? The pilot was below maneuvering speed and should have been able to move any control in any direction he wanted.
How many composite airplanes will be flying around in 40 years?
-
My ALUMINUM airplane is 46 years old showing no signs of its age.
-
Latches are still designed the same way. We just need to have it inspected every 100 hours.
Okay I'm not that familiar with the Cessna. But still, something did change. A380 will be fine after they take care of the fleet.
-
If it aint boeing I aint going
I like my airplanes aluminum, thank you.
Ummmm... yea... hey, what's the 787 made out of again? :rolleyes: Not to mention many of the control surfaces of the 757, 767 and 777.
Wood, steel, aluminum, or Composite... it's all sixes really, if properly manufactured and maintained they are all perfectly safe. If they are not then they all can fail. Composite construction is the future however, you either need to get over your irrational fear of it, or be consigned to never fly in a modern aircraft.
-
Because repeatedly the composite materials have proven to be less than ideal?
Well now I am confused as to the role you are adopting with this comment. Are you speaking as a pilot, an engineer or a consumer?
How many composite airplanes will be flying around in 40 years?
In 40 years composites will likely comprise the majority of the construction material (unless something better comes along).
Citing specific examples of this failure or that does not generalise to anything useful. Many many aircraft, including those constructed by Boing go through these kinds of issues when they enter service. You should perhaps take it as an indication of how difficult it is to design and produce aircraft and realise how demanding it is of present technology.
If you are a pilot then you already do in fact already trust aerospace engineering and those institutions which monitor them implicitly with your life and the life of your passengers every time you take off. So please stop with the insinuations that European engineers can't be trusted.
-
Because repeatedly the composite materials have proven to be less than ideal? Remember when the tail snapped off of the airbus? The pilot was below maneuvering speed and should have been able to move any control in any direction he wanted.
How many composite airplanes will be flying around in 40 years?
Composite aircraft have not had the chance to prove their life expectancy yet but I think it should be fine. You mentioned that you like Boeing's reliable airplanes, 787 is made of composites. USAF is buying composite aircraft these days, I doubt they would do that if they would have a low life expectancy. And another thing, almost every aircraft manufacturer is using composite materials, there has got to be a reason why.
-
Now not to knock Cirrus or Diamond they both make an incredibly fine product and I have no doubt some of them will be flying a long ways down the road, but they aren't subject to the incredible weights that the A380 incurs. I just hope the 787 doesn't run into problems.
I've never flown in a Boeing that sounds like it had someone's bowling ball collection rolling around under the floor. I shouldn't have said "If it ain't Boeing I ain't going" because I will gladly fly any Beech, Cessna, Cirrus, Diamond, Fairchild, Aeronca, American Champion, Piper, Rockwell, Bellanca, Flight Design, Grumman, Jabiru, Lancair, etc
-
How many composite airplanes will be flying around in 40 years?
A lot. What do you want to bet?
There are a couple of Starships (all composite, and early composite technology at that) still flying going on 28 years now, no problems. (well, what I mean is the Starships problems have nothing to do with composite construction) There are a lot of Vikings with wood wings still going strong after 40+ years too.
All the things you're saying about composites Tupac, are the same thing some folks said many decades ago when most went from wood or steel tube and fabric to aluminum construction.
-
So please stop with the insinuations that European engineers can't be trusted.
Where did I say European engineers can't be trusted? I said nothing of the sort.
-
A lot. What do you want to bet?
There are a couple of Starships (all composite, and early composite technology at that) still flying going on 28 years now, no problems. (well, what I mean is the Starships problems have nothing to do with composite construction) There are a lot of Vikings with wood wings still going strong after 40+ years too.
All the things you're saying about composites Tupac, are the same thing some folks said many decades ago when most went from wood or steel tube and fabric to aluminum construction.
I've had the pleasure of flying in a super viking. Bellanca makes a great product.
-
I've had the pleasure of flying in a super viking. Bellanca makes a great product.
Parts really do grow on trees for that plane :D
-
I work with composites for some of my projects, just off the top of my head, so don't nitpick or quote me on this, if the composite part is carefully designed to suit the attributes of that material (and not as a substitution for another material without redesign) then it can be up to sixteen times stronger for the same mass as a steel part, or the same strength and up to the same magnitude lighter. It is impervious to corrosion, absorbs vibration much better than aluminium alloy and Titanium alloy parts, is more docile to thermal cycling and so on. There is also the potential to use less seams and joints such as in the wing for the Boeing X-32 for example. As a designer you want to do this as much as possible.
It is hardly objective to compare a new material technology with one which has been employed for far longer. Obviously it takes time to understand how to use it effectively and reliably. The advantages offered cannot be ignored. Follow the development of the version of the Harrier used by the US Marines for an example. Compare the payload and dry weight figures against the GR.1.
-
Now not to knock Cirrus or Diamond they both make an incredibly fine product and I have no doubt some of them will be flying a long ways down the road, but they aren't subject to the incredible weights that the A380 incurs. I just hope the 787 doesn't run into problems.
F-22 has a large amount of composite parts, yes it's not that heavy but when it pulls Gs it becomes a lot heavier. MXS is completely made out of composites and is rated for 14Gs. Composite materials work fine under a lot of weight. I think if A380 was made out of metal it would still have problems, just different ones.
-
A lot. What do you want to bet?
:headscratch: There are fully composite aircraft that are over 40 years old? Which ones?
-
How about the Mosquito?
-
post deleted
(should have originally made it more specific)
-
No it's a composite of wood and glue, the grain of the wood changing direction in layers. If you ever have the opportunity to work with CFRP you see how similar the principal is. The astounding thing about composites is that you get the advantages of both of the materials being used.
-
I will gladly fly any Beech, Cessna, Cirrus, Diamond, Fairchild, Aeronca, American Champion, Piper, Rockwell, Bellanca, Flight Design, Grumman, Jabiru, Lancair, etc
You see Tupac, this is where you go wrong. From the mechanics viewpoint that I have, I can tell you that there are some 1960 172s I wouldn't hesitate to fly, and other 1960 172s I wouldn't dream of flying in. You know this... it's all about how well maintained they are.
The same thing holds true with the big boys on the commercial side. There are some CRJs operated by carrier "A" I fly in all the time. However there is another carrier "B" which also operates CRJs and I don't think I'd ever fly with them because I've seen firsthand how sloppy their maintenance/repair work is.
In almost every case of catastrophic failure caused by mechanical or structural failure, it is not the fault of the design, or original manufacture of the aircraft. It is almost always a maintenance issue. The biggest one in my mind is the Alaska Air MD-80 that augered into the pacific because they decided lubing the HS jackscrew was to time consuming and they only did it 1/3 as often as the manufacturer recommended. Does that mean MD-80s are unsafe??? It wasn't MDs fault, it was the fault of Alaska Air's poor maintenance program.
There isn't a single commercially operated plane out there that I think is an unsafe design, but there are probably a few unsafe planes. It all comes down to maintenance, and in this case Airbus, EASA, and the FAA seem to be on it.
-
Remember this composite Beauty?
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_5K8BIaLvHho/TSEsKK8wLCI/AAAAAAAAASc/3KbFC7LW-O4/s1600/starship+1.jpg)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vSiiE2cyuc
-
:headscratch: There are fully composite aircraft that are over 40 years old? Which ones?
You misunderstand, Tupac said "How many would be flying 40 yrs from now?" I answered a lot.
That's wood, composite is basically plastic.
Nope, technically plywood is a composite. Though in modern jargon "composite" is usually taken to mean, carbon fiber, fiberglass, kevlar etc..
The term composite refers to anything that is made up of 2 or more different materials, in such a manner as to take advantage of the strengths of both creating a product that is much stronger then the 2 separately. These 2 different materials are usually referred to as the matrix and the reinforcement. In the case of plywood, the glue is the matrix, and the thin sheets of wood are the reinforcement. In the case of more modern composites like fiberglass or carbon fiber the cloth is the reinforcement and the resin is the matrix and in planes they usually throw some aluminum or nomex honeycomb in the middle too. Technically dope and fabric is a composite as well.
-
No it's a composite of wood and glue, the grain of the wood changing direction in layers. If you ever have the opportunity to work with CFRP you see how similar the principal is. The astounding thing about composites is that you get the advantages of both of the materials being used.
Nope, technically plywood is a composite. Though in modern jargon "composite" is usually taken to mean, carbon fiber, fiberglass, kevlar etc..
The term composite refers to anything that is made up of 2 or more different materials, in such a manner as to take advantage of the strengths of both creating a product that is much stronger then the 2 separately. These 2 different materials are usually referred to as the matrix and the reinforcement. In the case of plywood, the glue is the matrix, and the thin sheets of wood are the reinforcement. In the case of more modern composites like fiberglass or carbon fiber the cloth is the reinforcement and the resin is the matrix. Technically dope and fabric is a composite as well.
Right. Composite is a rather broad description. My point was that wooden aircraft don't really count, as modern aircraft that are build out of composites do not involve wood.
-
Remember this composite Beauty?
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_5K8BIaLvHho/TSEsKK8wLCI/AAAAAAAAASc/3KbFC7LW-O4/s1600/starship+1.jpg)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vSiiE2cyuc
Yep, I took a nap in one last week. :D (sadly it hasn't flown for many years and never will again :cry )
-
Polymers. You can technically call plywood composite, but then you'd ahve to call riveted aluminum something similar too.
-
You misunderstand, Tupac said "How many would be flying 40 yrs from now?" I answered a lot.
Roger, in that case I agree.
-
Right. Composite is a rather broad description. I don't know what is included in the composite that modern aircraft are build out of but I'm pretty sure it's not wood.
He he yup, plywood is a composite too, so is the concrete in buildings :lol
The modern usage of composite implies one of the thousands of varieties of resins suspending one or a combination of aramids such as carbon fibre, Kevlar, Nomex etcetera. Some of those are trade names with slightly different attributes. It's not uncommon for airliners to have composite jackets around their engines to contain blades and so on. This wasn't feasible in the past because of the weight and has caused some fairly nasty disasters.
Usually the fibres are woven into matting which is layered at varying angles to give specific strengths.
Raw carbon fibre tow is very very flexible. It's almost miraculous when you inspect the finished part. This material is a gift for those who like to make strong light parts in small numbers.
-
so is the concrete in buildings :lol
:rofl
Yeah that word is misused a lot.
-
I opened a big can of worms. My point in the OP is that I wouldnt fly in a plane with cracks in its wing.....but I like to be more preventative rather than reactive in my maintenance. Did they inspect the spar and carrythrough?
-
Well if you fly 'aluminum' riveted aircraft you already are flying something more full of cracks than you realise, if you look closely enough. That's just the nature of working with certain materials. Perhaps I shouldn't mention that, I don't want to make you paranoid :lol
The point you should be focussing on is the likelihood of structural failure and I'm sure the inspectors and manufacturers are too. The Airbus cracks are naturally unwanted and seem to be part of the manufacturing process. I'm sure it will be resolved in short order.
-
Man if you watched half the episodes of Air Crash Investigation and applied the same train of though you'd never set foot in a 737 again.
-
I realize that my plane has cracks in it, but I dare you to find an NTSB report of an in-flight breakup of a Cessna 172 operating within normal limits. As far as I know a Cessna 170 hasn't suffered one either. That's 64 years.
My 2,300 pound plane isn't exactly subject to the same forces as a 1.2 MILLION pound airplane. (or about 520x the weight)
-
It sounds like they are going to keep letting these flawed airplanes fly until 2 year inspection. If it was a normal wear item that was known to be benign I would have no issue with what they are doing, but they are in new territory and THINK they know what will happen.
-
I realize that my plane has cracks in it, but I dare you to find an NTSB report of an in-flight breakup of a Cessna 172 operating within normal limits. As far as I know a Cessna 170 hasn't suffered one either. That's 64 years.
My 2,300 pound plane isn't exactly subject to the same forces as a 1.2 MILLION pound airplane. (or about 520x the weight)
Nor was it subjected to the same magnitude of development programme.
I see you intend to proceed without being able to set aside your own subjective preferences and discrimination so I believe further discussion is pointless.
I bid you a good day.
-
Flawed ? Is that a personal opinion ? Or have you got something official from an aviation authority ?
-
Your patriotism seems to exceed your critical objectivity by some considerable measure young man :old:
Airbuses keep talking, Boeings keep flying (and pointing to the log books. if you believe Boeing has been around and in use in aviation longer than log books, and Airbus' claims that they've reinvented the only way log books in aviation should be done, then you rightfuly should not care about which one you trust your family aboard and let them handle all of it.).
Kettle, meet pot.
-
Yes you are right. No Boeing has ever crashed due to design flaws or maintenance issues resulting in mechanical failure. (http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/8443/crazy6.gif)
-
I opened a big can of worms.
"Oh golly gee whiz!"
You also compared a A380 to a 172 :lol
what a troll
-
Worldwide aircraft commercial passenger service as of 2009:
Percent of all aircraft:
Boeing 24.6%
Airbus 9.6%
Percent of seats:
Boeing 49.1%
Airbus 30.5%
Aircraft with 75 seats or more:
Percent of aircraft:
Boeing 49.9%
Airbus 32.4%
Percent of seats:
Boeing 54.1%
Airbus 33.6%
Accidents involving scheduled passenger operations:
1945 through 2008:
Boeing: 21.9%
Airbus: 4.3%
Last 5 years:
Boeing 25.0%
Airbus 13.8%
DeHaviland 10.5%
McDonnell-Douglas 8.9%
Last 5 years, aircraft with 75 seats or more:
Boeing 45.2%
Airbus 25.0%
McDonnell-Douglas 16.1%
Tupolev 4.8%
Fokker 4.8%
Avro 3.0%
Ilyushin 0.6%
Embraer 0.6%
Embraer has 2.7% of aircraft (1.4% of seats), and 2.6% of accidents in the last 5 years.
Boeing percentages exclude McDonnell-Douglas aircraft.
Accident counts exclude war risk claims (hijacking, shot down and sabotage).
Total accidents since 1945: 2,994 (891 with one or more pax fatality)
Total last 5 years: 304 (49 with one or more pax fatality)
Total last 5 yrs, > 75 seats: 168 (26 with one or more pax fatality)
Source: Aircraft insurance industry database 1/4/09
Little known fact: Airbus is actually older than Boeing. Boeing has just kept the same name since 1916.
-
Whats your source?
Nothing can diminish the fact that the last thing Airbus needs right now, in a weak world economy and a super weak Jumbo Jumbo market, is for cracks to be showing up on A380 wings. Try telling passenger they are non-important cracks in non-critical places.
-
Read second to last line in my previous post.
-
99.9% of airline passengers don't read air safety bulletins, and of those who do (like me) most don't care one bit if it's a Boeing or Airbus logo on their next ride. I really don't have a preference. All the Boeing vs Airbus rhetoric is just bigotry, hot air and bulltoejam, on both sides.
If you really care about traveling safely you'll be better served by being choosy about the make of the taxi you take to the airport rather than the aircraft you fly out on. If it ain't Toyota I ain't going! Wait... that doesn't rime. Never mind.
-
They downplay it by saying it is non critical.... well why did you put that part there then. lol
Something stressed that part to fracture. Saying something on an airliner is not critical just sounds funny.
-
Are there non-critical parts on your car?.... well why did they put those parts there then?
-
Are there non-critical parts on your car?.... well why did they put those parts there then?
They are not talking about a cup holder. :)
-
No they're talking about a bracket.
-
If you really care about traveling safely you'll be better served by being choosy about the make of the taxi you take to the airport rather than the aircraft you fly out on. If it ain't Toyota I ain't going! Wait... that doesn't rime. Never mind.
PR3D4TOR's right, you are in far more danger driving to the airport than getting on a plane. If it's not a Suzuki GSXR750K, I'll stay away.
-
No they're talking about a bracket.
...in the wing. If it is not critical why is there enough load on it to crack it?
-
As a pilot and...
How do you know there's a pilot in a party you are in?
Answer: He'll tell you.
-
It's worth pointing out that 50% of the Airbus A380's components are US made. Although the wings are built by the British. Boeing on the other hand uses components made in China, Korea, Japan and Ireland among others.
Such is the world of international aerospace companies. Nothing is truly American or European or wherever anymore.
-
Subscribed. This is fun.
-
How do you know there's a pilot in a party you are in?
Answer: He'll tell you.
It's true. :lol
-
They downplay it by saying it is non critical.... well why did you put that part there then. lol
Something stressed that part to fracture. Saying something on an airliner is not critical just sounds funny.
That's what I'm saying.....it's very silly.
-
That's what I'm saying.....it's very silly.
Ok, you go up to 30k feet and start traveling at 500mph carrying nothing and then you tell us how you experienced no stress from the temp/pressure/speed change.
-
Ok, you go up to 30k feet and start traveling at 500mph carrying nothing and then you tell us how you experienced no stress from the temp/pressure/speed change.
I'm saying that any part of the wing is critical. I think what you just said would support that.
-
Pretty snazzy now that the Jeppesen private pilot kit books talk about heavy aircraft aeronautical engineering.
I just did some Wiki-Math and the A380s wing loading at Max Takeoff Weight is actually less than but very close to the 747-400. It's about twice as much as a Lear 45 and roughly 10x as a 172. It's not just the weight that matters, it's how it's distributed and how it's attached.
-
FWIW my favorite line in one of these articles came from an Airbus engineer:
"these cracks were unexpected, but they happened exactly as expected."
That's just a synopsis but it's worthy of a WTF.
-
Pretty snazzy now that the Jeppesen private pilot kit books talk about heavy aircraft aeronautical engineering.
I just did some Wiki-Math and the A380s wing loading at Max Takeoff Weight is actually less than but very close to the 747-400. It's about twice as much as a Lear 45 and roughly 10x as a 172. It's not just the weight that matters, it's how it's distributed and how it's attached.
I'm studying for the commercial ;)
This is the reaction that makes me very happy http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL6E8CK11P20120120?irpc=932
-
How do you remove a thread from your "Show new replies to your posts" listing?
-
How do you remove a thread from your "Show new replies to your posts" listing?
It will Peter out shortly - I don't know if there is a way to remove it
-
Now not to knock Cirrus or Diamond they both make an incredibly fine product and I have no doubt some of them will be flying a long ways down the road, but they aren't subject to the incredible weights that the A380 incurs. I just hope the 787 doesn't run into problems.
I've never flown in a Boeing that sounds like it had someone's bowling ball collection rolling around under the floor. I shouldn't have said "If it ain't Boeing I ain't going" because I will gladly fly any Beech, Cessna, Cirrus, Diamond, Fairchild, Aeronca, American Champion, Piper, Rockwell, Bellanca, Flight Design, Grumman, Jabiru, Lancair, etc
What about the ones with wooden spars?
-
What about the ones with wooden spars?
I think I covered that in an earlier post - I am a big fan of Bellanca. When I'm around at boerne I help my friend build a starduster 2 which has an aluminum fueselage and wood wings.
-
(http://www.purpleboard.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=23479&d=1327088580)
:Potstir:
-
Did you read the entire article? One of the Aussies said he wouldn't put his family on one. My patriotism has nothing to do with it. As a pilot and someone with a little bit of common sense I wouldn't fly in one. The immense loads that wing is bearing boggle my mind, and I wouldn't want one weakened by cracks. I like my airplanes aluminum, thank you.
Crawl around through your airplane. You WILL find cracks. In the 172 the horizontal will probably have the most cracks. You're not one of those guys that sits on the stab to swing the nose around are you? If so, check even closer. The very last bulkhead at the bottom where the tiedown ring is - - another likely spot for cracks. Wing skins around the flap hinge attachments, and ribs where the flap hinges attach. Skin on the flaps, especially along trailing edge, is another likely spot. You have manual flaps? Check around the brackets attaching the flap cable pullets to the bulkheads, especially the one forward of the flap handle (particular favorite of mine, really nice when it fails on a go around giving you jammed asymmetric flaps). Engine cowling always has cracks around attachment points.
-
I actually have cracks in the trailing edge that I am fixing next week at annual with one of those trailing edge cuffs
-
...in the wing. If it is not critical why is there enough load on it to crack it?
“Critical” has a different meaning in engineering terms. Engineers design redundancies in structures for this exact reason. There’s a whole list of parts on an airplane that the FAA will let you take off without, or at least without them being functional. Airliners are massively over-engineered. Twin jets have to be able to take off, land, and if they’re ETOPS fly for a hell of a long time on one engine. So arguably the second engine isn't even “critical”… although I’m not seriously suggesting that. ;)
The Aviation Week article says: “Each wing has around 2,000 L-shaped brackets (30-40 per rib, with 60 ribs per wing), so the failure of one bracket is not seen as a safety issue.” These are the parts that distribute the aerodynamic loads from the wing skin to the rib/spar assembly. Essentially they’re secondary load bearing structure. If you have enough of them fail, you could potentially lose a wing skin section but the probability of that is exceedingly low owing to the shear number of brackets. I wouldn't start worrying till you hear stories of cracked wing spars or other primary structure.
-
FWIW my favorite line in one of these articles came from an Airbus engineer:
"these cracks were unexpected, but they happened exactly as expected."
That's just a synopsis but it's worthy of a WTF.
Engineers design parts to fail in a predictable manner. They didn't expect the part to fail, but when it did it did so in the way they predicted.
-
That's okay, they'll fix it. A lot of airplanes had problems that made them dangerous, it does not mean that they will never be safe. I'm sure you know about the problem the 172 had when the seats would slide back on take off causing a crash, yet you still fly one. That's because FAA issued an AD for it (as far as I remember) and now the seats attach differently.
That actually happened to me down low and pulling a few g's in a 152. Luckily I am 6ft tall so it was just an inconvenience. And, we were briefed that it could happen. In the 172 it would have been a bit more serious but still recoverable. I think more folks have wrecked 172's on takeoff due to an open door than the seats sliding back though.
As far as the 380 goes, they almost lost one already. Not interested in flying on them.
-
What's the B-52 made of? They are flying strong, and should be for another 20 years.
Boo
-
What's the B-52 made of? They are flying strong, and should be for another 20 years.
Boo
B52 are supposed to be around until 2050. They are made of aluminum.
-
They don't fly nearly as often as commercial airliners do though so they don't have that many cycles on them. It's not the age. It's the mileage.
-
Ironically for those of you who decry the use of composites in aircraft, the brackets in question on the A380 are made of metal.
-
Ironically for those of you who decry the use of composites in aircraft, the brackets in question on the A380 are made of metal.
But is the metal they were made of a composite?
-
Lol. It's an alloy, yes.
-
See Rule #4
-
What's the B-52 made of? They are flying strong, and should be for another 20 years.
Boo
The B-52's flying today have little to nothing left from the original plane due to updates and parts being replaced as they reach end of service life. None of them have original thier original wing structures.
-
The 172 seat rails die because they collect all the sand that people never vacuum out of the plane.
They usually perform well for 27 years before experiencing the failure so we just added checking critical dimensions and making our own determination of maximum allowable wear.
Some planes have zero wear (and clean carpets) and others had mucho wear (and very dirty carpets).
Trend?
-
99.9% of airline passengers don't read air safety bulletins, and of those who do (like me) most don't care one bit if it's a Boeing or Airbus logo on their next ride. I really don't have a preference. All the Boeing vs Airbus rhetoric is just bigotry, hot air and bulltoejam, on both sides.
If you really care about traveling safely you'll be better served by being choosy about the make of the taxi you take to the airport rather than the aircraft you fly out on. If it ain't Toyota I ain't going! Wait... that doesn't rime. Never mind.
No but they will read the newspaper. And I bet that 999.9% of those going on the 380 KNOW they are flying the 380.
-
The B-52's flying today have little to nothing left from the original plane due to updates and parts being replaced as they reach end of service life. None of them have original thier original wing structures.
I very much doubt that is a true statement. It is no simple task to replace the wing structure. True, the aircraft have been modified but you'll find the original base structure is still there I'm thinking.
-
I very much doubt that is a true statement. It is no simple task to replace the wing structure. True, the aircraft have been modified but you'll find the original base structure is still there I'm thinking.
I can't speak for B-52s per se. But what Skuzzy said doesn't surprise me.
I only say that because I have a friend who worked on a civilian contract for 14 months replacing A-10 wing spars.
-
Like said before, this whole argument about composites is silly. They are as safe or safer then any other structural material used on aircraft. I'm sure the type of people scared of change said the same types of things when aircraft manufacturers started using aluminum instead of wood, or steel.
Of all the dozens airline crashes I've read about I can only think of one example (Swissair 111) where a modern airliner crash was blamed on poor design or material. The designs are safe, when an airliner crashes due to mechanical, electrical or structural failure 99% of the time it is the fault of maintenance.
-
I very much doubt that is a true statement. It is no simple task to replace the wing structure. True, the aircraft have been modified but you'll find the original base structure is still there I'm thinking.
I know for a fact all the currently flying B52's have had their entire wings replaced, at least once. It was a long and expensive project.
-
No but they will read the newspaper. And I bet that 999.9% of those going on the 380 KNOW they are flying the 380.
I seriously doubt it will have any lasting impact on passenger traffic. When the 737's were falling out of the sky for unknown reasons (the infamous servo valve problem) people still flew on them. When Air France 447 disappeared in the south Atlantic for unknown reasons and the media were speculating wildly if it was the composite tail "again", people still flew on Airbus A330's. They even continued to fly on that very same Air France route.
I wouldn't worry.
-
I seriously doubt it will have any lasting impact on passenger traffic. When the 737's were falling out of the sky for unknown reasons (the infamous servo valve problem) people still flew on them. When Air France 447 disappeared in the south Atlantic for unknown reasons and the media were speculating wildly if it was the composite tail "again", people still flew on Airbus A330's. They even continued to fly on that very same Air France route.
I wouldn't worry.
And sheep will continue to follow sheep right off the cliff....most people have no clue as to the events or technology associated with air travel. It's just like a bus ride to them. They just get in line, get on, and go. Not much thinking involved.
-
And sheep will continue to follow sheep right off the cliff....most people have no clue as to the events or technology associated with air travel. It's just like a bus ride to them. They just get in line, get on, and go. Not much thinking involved.
...and then there are others that prefer to build their own :)
-
It is just like a bus ride. Little or no thinking should be, or indeed is, necessary. People who only travel in one make or the other are just being silly. Statistically there is little to choose between Boeing and Airbus both in safety and economy. Most airline purchasing decisions today are decided by other factors like fleet commonality and maintenance availability.
-
Pretty snazzy now that the Jeppesen private pilot kit books talk about heavy aircraft aeronautical engineering.
I just did some Wiki-Math and the A380s wing loading at Max Takeoff Weight is actually less than but very close to the 747-400. It's about twice as much as a Lear 45 and roughly 10x as a 172. It's not just the weight that matters, it's how it's distributed and how it's attached.
Indeed.
Awesome Private Pilot book. A very kind member of this community sent me one last year. It is the best I have seen so far.
-
“Critical” has a different meaning in engineering terms. Engineers design redundancies in structures for this exact reason. There’s a whole list of parts on an airplane that the FAA will let you take off without, or at least without them being functional. Airliners are massively over-engineered. Twin jets have to be able to take off, land, and if they’re ETOPS fly for a hell of a long time on one engine. So arguably the second engine isn't even “critical”… although I’m not seriously suggesting that. ;)
The Aviation Week article says: “Each wing has around 2,000 L-shaped brackets (30-40 per rib, with 60 ribs per wing), so the failure of one bracket is not seen as a safety issue.” These are the parts that distribute the aerodynamic loads from the wing skin to the rib/spar assembly. Essentially they’re secondary load bearing structure. If you have enough of them fail, you could potentially lose a wing skin section but the probability of that is exceedingly low owing to the shear number of brackets. I wouldn't start worrying till you hear stories of cracked wing spars or other primary structure.
Oh Lord... don't talk about Engineers. :)
If people saw some of the "engineered" drawing sent to us marked "Approved For Construction", they would be afraid to drive across a bridge. lol
-
Oh Lord... don't talk about Engineers. :)
If people saw some of the "engineered" drawing sent to us marked "Approved For Construction", tehy would be afraid to drive across a bridge. lol
I guess that is the reason for having "as built" drawings as well?
:D
-
I guess that is the reason for having "as built" drawings as well?
:D
..
Whole different requirement. I've seen many so called engineered drawings that were improper builds.
As built drawings are to cover expansion/contraction of metals when welded. We just recently shipped a tool table for an offshore floating rig. Sixty-eight(68) tons.... with plate from 1.5 inches to 4 inches thick. Nothing varied over 3/32. That was not because of engineering. That was because of forethought put into the build. The engineers didn't even consider joint design.
Lucky for those of us around that not all engineers are so poor. There are a few good ones, many bad ones. Really about the same can be said for fab and machine shops too. lol
-
..
Whole different requirement. I've seen many so called engineered drawings that were improper builds.
As built drawings are to cover expansion/contraction of metals when welded. We just recently shipped a tool table for an offshore floating rig. Sixty-eight(68) tons.... with plate from 1.5 inches to 4 inches thick. Nothing varied over 3/32. That was not because of engineering. That was because of forethought put into the build. The engineers didn't even consider joint design.
Lucky for those of us around that not all engineers are so poor. There are a few good ones, many bad ones. Really about the same can be said for fab and machine shops too. lol
Since when?
As-built drawings are made either after or during construction. When it's after construction, accurate data is collocted to reconstruct the drawings. When it's during construction, the design drawings are redmarked for editing. Hence the name "as built", because it documents the structures dimensions, etc, AS they were built, as opposed to how they were drawn to take into account anything the construction crew runs across that prevents them from building "as drawn" such as buried conduit, etc that the engineers never took into account or could not have know about.
Joint design is usually drawn and engineered by steel detailers.
-
Since when?
As-built drawings are made either after or during construction. When it's after construction, accurate data is collocted to reconstruct the drawings. When it's during construction, the design drawings are redmarked for editing. Hence the name "as built", because it documents the structures dimensions, etc, AS they were built, as opposed to how they were drawn to take into account anything the construction crew runs across that prevents them from building "as drawn" such as buried conduit, etc that the engineers never took into account or could not have know about.
Joint design is usually drawn and engineered by steel detailers.
We go over the drawings and usually point out issues before the build even starts. Years past, in our business, you'd have people in the shop who have experience go into engineering... that is usually not the case anymore. You get kids going to college who never built anything. They get a stamp and call themselves engineers. :)
Definitely not the only professional group to suffer from the same issue.
-
We go over the drawings and usually point out issues before the build even starts. Years past, in our business, you'd have people in the shop who have experience go into engineering... that is usually not the case anymore. You get kids going to college who never built anything. They get a stamp and call themselves engineers. :)
Definitely not the only professional group to suffer from the same issue.
This is not new :D
-
It is the titanic of the skies IMO
Just say it was not made in the US and get it over with :aok
-
Just say it was not made in the US and get it over with :aok
The ship laying on it's side over there is larger than the titanic. :D
-
My ALUMINUM airplane is 46 years old showing no signs of its age.
Not that you can see, anyways. ;)
When you have an advanced aeronautical engineering degree then perhaps you can comment further. Until then, all you say regarding the matter is an opinion. Remember that.
-
Not that you can see, anyways. ;)
When you have an advanced aeronautical engineering degree then perhaps you can comment further. Until then, all you say regarding the matter is an opinion. Remember that.
When you have an advanced aeronautical engineering degree then you can say you have an advanced aeronautical engineering degree. Are you any more knowledgeable than an individual that works on planes all the time. Sadly chances are no.
-
It is just like a bus ride. Little or no thinking should be, or indeed is, necessary. People who only travel in one make or the other are just being silly. Statistically there is little to choose between Boeing and Airbus both in safety and economy. Most airline purchasing decisions today are decided by other factors like fleet commonality and maintenance availability.
I could argue the point about the bus ride all day.
As far as little or no thinking necessary, I disagree as well. People don't care because they don't know any better. Doesn't mean it doesn't matter.
As far as airline safety statistics go, if you look at it on a PER-TRIP basis, it is more safe than driving. Granted. I will concede that.
However, if you look at it on a PASSENGER-MILE basis, it is many times more dangerous than driving. It's all in how you look at the numbers. And since I am only one passenger, I go with the latter statistics.
The airlines' decisions are based on money. If you think it's based on something else, have another glass of cool-aid.
-
... and here I thought it was more dangerous driving because a plane could fall on your head. :neener:
-
Not that you can see, anyways. ;)
When you have an advanced aeronautical engineering degree then perhaps you can comment further. Until then, all you say regarding the matter is an opinion. Remember that.
Actually, he can see. They are called inspection plates for a reason. There are also long-reach cameras with flexible heads that can be used for inspection.
In addition, one does not need an engineering degree to assess the airworthiness of an aircraft, just an A & P license or in my case as a homebuilder, a repairman's certificate for that individual aircraft. :aok
-
I could argue the point about the bus ride all day.
As far as little or no thinking necessary, I disagree as well. People don't care because they don't know any better. Doesn't mean it doesn't matter.
As far as airline safety statistics go, if you look at it on a PER-TRIP basis, it is more safe than driving. Granted. I will concede that.
However, if you look at it on a PASSENGER-MILE basis, it is many times more dangerous than driving. It's all in how you look at the numbers. And since I am only one passenger, I go with the latter statistics.
The airlines' decisions are based on money. If you think it's based on something else, have another glass of cool-aid.
Obviously you don't consider fleet commonality and maintenance to be money issues. :rolleyes:
-
Bring back the Ford tri-motor.
-
Yes you are right. No Boeing has ever crashed due to design flaws or maintenance issues resulting in mechanical failure. (http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/8443/crazy6.gif)
What'd I say? Just keep talking. How many ABs have fallen outa the sky, and during that same timespance Boeings? Fail.
-
Actually, he can see. They are called inspection plates for a reason. There are also long-reach cameras with flexible heads that can be used for inspection.
In addition, one does not need an engineering degree to assess the airworthiness of an aircraft, just an A & P license or in my case as a homebuilder, a repairman's certificate for that individual aircraft. :aok
[/quote
I assess the airworthiness of an airplane everytime I fly it. It doesn't need to be declared unairworthy to actually be unairworthy. My rotating beacon quit rotating one day and that was an airworthiness issue. My red light on my left wingtip wasnt working one day and I was about to go on a night flight - airworthiness issue (for night flying)
There are alot of things that can make an airplane unairworthy, most of them trivial, but if someone from the FSDO catches you flying an obviously unairworthy airplane you got some 'splainin to do.
-
What'd I say? Just keep talking. How many ABs have fallen outa the sky, and during that same timespance Boeings? Fail.
...
Worldwide aircraft commercial passenger service as of 2009:
Percent of all aircraft:
Boeing 24.6%
Airbus 9.6%
Percent of seats:
Boeing 49.1%
Airbus 30.5%
Aircraft with 75 seats or more:
Percent of aircraft:
Boeing 49.9%
Airbus 32.4%
Percent of seats:
Boeing 54.1%
Airbus 33.6%
Accidents involving scheduled passenger operations:
1945 through 2008:
Boeing: 21.9%
Airbus: 4.3%
Last 5 years:
Boeing 25.0%
Airbus 13.8%
DeHaviland 10.5%
McDonnell-Douglas 8.9%
Last 5 years, aircraft with 75 seats or more:
Boeing 45.2%
Airbus 25.0%
McDonnell-Douglas 16.1%
Tupolev 4.8%
Fokker 4.8%
Avro 3.0%
Ilyushin 0.6%
Embraer 0.6%
Embraer has 2.7% of aircraft (1.4% of seats), and 2.6% of accidents in the last 5 years.
Boeing percentages exclude McDonnell-Douglas aircraft.
Accident counts exclude war risk claims (hijacking, shot down and sabotage).
Total accidents since 1945: 2,994 (891 with one or more pax fatality)
Total last 5 years: 304 (49 with one or more pax fatality)
Total last 5 yrs, > 75 seats: 168 (26 with one or more pax fatality)
Source: Aircraft insurance industry database 1/4/09
Little known fact: Airbus is actually older than Boeing. Boeing has just kept the same name since 1916.
-
...
and how many ABs were flying around in 1945?
-
I know attention spans are short these days, but read on til you reach the "Last 5 years" section.
-
and how many ABs were flying around in 1945?
And that means what today?
-
And that means what today?
absolutely nothing, that is my point.
-
Did you read the "Last 5 years" section this time? I know it must be a chore for you since you failed to read it the first time I posted it in this thread.
-
Did you read the "Last 5 years" section this time? I know it must be a chore for you since you failed to read it the first time I posted it in this thread.
I read them, and I still don't see your point.
-
Babalonian asked.
What'd I say? Just keep talking. How many ABs have fallen outa the sky, and during that same timespance Boeings? Fail.
Fail indeed! :aok
-
More boeings are falling out of the sky because more of them are flying around. I bet if you excluded all of the airlines operated in 3rd world countries the differences between the 2 would be absolutely negligable. I dont think there are very many 40 year old ABs flying around but there are plenty of 40 year old 737s flying around being operated in 3rd world countries. You can buy one for next to nothing. That's also about how much mx they do on them - next to nothing.
-
Oh there are plenty of old A300 series from the '70s still flying.
-
And how many of those are operated by third world countries with a cavalier attitude towards maintenance?
-
Let's single out the two most popular and produced airliners in the world today: The A320 and B737. Following is a list of accidents involving these two types for 10 years from 2000 to 2010. I've marked the airlines that are of suspect quality with italics.
Boeing 737 accidents - 34 in total.
05/03/2000 Boeing 737 Southwest Airlines N668SW (MSN 23060) Burbank, USA
19/04/2000 Boeing 737 Air Philippines RP-C3010 (MSN 21447) Davao, Philippines
17/07/2000 Boeing 737 Alliance Air VT-EGD (MSN 22280) Patna, India
03/03/2001 Boeing 737 Thai Airways HS-TDC (MSN 25321) Bangkok airport, Thailand
04/04/2001 Boeing 737 Royal Aviation C-GDCC (MSN 20681) St. John, Canada
22/05/2001 Boeing 737 First Air C-GNWI (MSN 21066) Yellowknife, Canada
16/09/2001 Boeing 737 Varig PP-CJN (MSN 21012) Goiânia airport, Brazil
14/01/2002 Boeing 737 Lionair PK-LID (MSN 20363) Pekanbaru airport, Indonesia
16/01/2002 Boeing 737 Garuda PK-GWA (MSN 24403) Yokyakarta, Indonesia
07/05/2002 Boeing 737 Egyptair SU-GBI (MSN 25307) Tunis, Tunisia
26/01/2003 Boeing 737 VASP PP-SPJ (MSN 21236) Rio Branco airport, Brazil
06/03/2003 Boeing 737 Air Algerie 7T-VEZ (MSN 22700) Tamanrasset airport, Algeria
08/07/2003 Boeing 737 Sudan Airways ST-AFK (MSN 21169) Port Sudan, Sudan
13/12/2003 Boeing 737 Aero Continente OB-1544-P (MSN 20956) Lima airport, Peru
19/12/2003 Boeing 737 Air Gabon TR-LFZ (MSN 23750) Libreville Airport, Gabon
03/01/2004 Boeing 737 Flash Airlines SU-ZCF (MSN 26283) Sharm el Sheikh, Egypt
11/08/2004 Boeing 737 Air Guinee 3X-GCM (MSN 23469) Freetown, Sierra Leone
28/11/2004 Boeing 737 KLM PH-BTC (MSN 25424) Barcelona Airport, Spain
08/03/2005 Boeing 737 Kam Air EX-037 (MSN 22075) Kabul, Afghanistan
14/08/2005 Boeing 737 Helios Airways 5B-DBY (MSN 29099) Grammatikos, Greece
23/08/2005 Boeing 737 TANS OB-1809-P (MSN 22580) Pucallpa airport, Peru
05/09/2005 Boeing 737 Mandala Airlines PK-RIM (MSN 22136) Medan, Indonesia
29/10/2006 Boeing 737 ADC Airlines 5N-BFK (MSN 22891) Abuja, Nigeria
01/01/2007 Boeing 737 AdamAir PK-KKW (MSN 24070) Sulawezi, Indonesia
13/01/2007 Boeing 737 RPX Airlines PK-RPX (MSN 20256) Kuching Airport, Malaysia
21/02/2007 Boeing 737 AdamAir PK-KKV (MSN 27284) Surabaya-Juanda Airport, Indonesia
07/03/2007 Boeing 737 Garuda PK-GZC (MSN 25664) Yogyakarta-Adisutjipto, Indonesia
28/06/2007 Boeing 737 TAAG Angola Airlines D2-TBP (MSN 23220) M Banza Congo Airport, Angola
30/12/2007 Boeing 737 TAROM YR-BGC (MSN 27181) Bucharest, Romania
24/08/2008 Boeing 737 Itek Air EX-009 (MSN 22088) Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan
30/08/2008 Boeing 737 Conviasa YV102T (MSN 21545) Toacaso, Ecuador
14/09/2008 Boeing 737 Aeroflot-Nord VP-BKO (MSN 25795) Perm, Russia
20/12/2008 Boeing 737 Continental Airlines N18611 (MSN 27324) Denver, USA
29/04/2009 Boeing 737 BAko Air TL-ADM (MSN 22264) Massamba, Congo Democratic Republic
13/04/2010 Boeing 737 Merpati PK-MDE (MSN 24660) Manokwari-Rendani Airport, Indonesia
Airbus A320 - 13 in total.
11/04/2000 Airbus A320 Mexicana F-OHMD (MSN 433) Minatitlan airport, Mexico
23/08/2000 Airbus A320 Gulf Air A4O-EK (MSN 481) Bahrain, Bahrain
07/02/2001 Airbus A320 Iberia EC-HKJ (MSN 1278) Bilbao airport, Spain
24/07/2001 Airbus A320 Air Lanka 4R-ABA (MSN 374) Colombo airport, Sri Lanka
28/08/2002 Airbus A320 America West Airlines N635AW (MSN 91) Phoenix airport, USA
03/05/2006 Airbus A320 Armavia EK-32009 (MSN 547) Adler/Sochi Airport, Russia
06/05/2006 Airbus A320 Armavia EK-32010 (MSN 632) Brussel-Zaventem Airport, Belgium
06/05/2006 Airbus A320 Armenian International Airways EK-32001 (MSN 397) Brussel-Zaventem Airport, Belgium
06/05/2006 Airbus A320 Volare Airlines SX-BVB (MSN 1992) Brussel-Zaventem Airport, Belgium
17/07/2007 Airbus A320 TAM PR-MBK (MSN 789) Sao Paulo-Congonhas Airport, Brazil
30/05/2008 Airbus A320 TACA EI-TAF (MSN 1374) Tegucigalpa, Honduras
27/11/2008 Airbus A320 XL Airways Germany D-AXLA (MSN 2500) Saint-Cyprien, France
15/01/2009 Airbus A320 US Airways N106US (MSN 1044) Hudson River, USA
Let's add the A321 also to be fair:
22/03/2003 Airbus A321 Transasia Airlines B-22603 (MSN 602) Tainan airport, Taiwan
28/07/2010 Airbus A321 AirBlue AP-BJB (MSN 1218) Near Islamabad, Pakistan
Sourse: http://www.airfleets.net/crash/stat_plane.htm
-
and what are the hours flown of the different types?
-
Why don't you look that up?
Even if you add the A330 and A340 series, that's just 10 more accidents in the same 10 years for Airbus.
-
I know attention spans are short these days, but read on til you reach the "Last 5 years" section.
Well, when you boil down to it, I've long admitted I'm a shameless boeing fan. And I tollerate if not admire in some ways AB's products.... however AB also has a tendancy of poking my shameless pride for Boeing right in my arse when, oh say, their PR department comes out making statements along the lines of their products being unquestionabley the best or equal to the best on all levels. From then on, it's as predictable as water rolling downhill with me, and when those statements then get proven wrong but people forget they were ever made... well, anywho.
Lastly, you are right, you have to make the comparisons between the two companies on equal grounds as you're pointing out - and even then both have very acceptable records compared to our societies other means of modern transportation.
But still.... *evil shameless side emerges* you know Boeing's always 1-degree better, right?
-
One degree either way is ok by me ;)
-
Let's single out the two most popular and produced airliners in the world today: The A320 and B737. Following is a list of accidents involving these two types for 10 years from 2000 to 2010. I've marked the airlines that are of suspect quality with italics.
Boeing 737 accidents - 34 in total.
05/03/2000 Boeing 737 Southwest Airlines N668SW (MSN 23060) Burbank, USA
19/04/2000 Boeing 737 Air Philippines RP-C3010 (MSN 21447) Davao, Philippines
17/07/2000 Boeing 737 Alliance Air VT-EGD (MSN 22280) Patna, India
03/03/2001 Boeing 737 Thai Airways HS-TDC (MSN 25321) Bangkok airport, Thailand
04/04/2001 Boeing 737 Royal Aviation C-GDCC (MSN 20681) St. John, Canada
22/05/2001 Boeing 737 First Air C-GNWI (MSN 21066) Yellowknife, Canada
16/09/2001 Boeing 737 Varig PP-CJN (MSN 21012) Goiânia airport, Brazil
14/01/2002 Boeing 737 Lionair PK-LID (MSN 20363) Pekanbaru airport, Indonesia
16/01/2002 Boeing 737 Garuda PK-GWA (MSN 24403) Yokyakarta, Indonesia
07/05/2002 Boeing 737 Egyptair SU-GBI (MSN 25307) Tunis, Tunisia
26/01/2003 Boeing 737 VASP PP-SPJ (MSN 21236) Rio Branco airport, Brazil
06/03/2003 Boeing 737 Air Algerie 7T-VEZ (MSN 22700) Tamanrasset airport, Algeria
08/07/2003 Boeing 737 Sudan Airways ST-AFK (MSN 21169) Port Sudan, Sudan
13/12/2003 Boeing 737 Aero Continente OB-1544-P (MSN 20956) Lima airport, Peru
19/12/2003 Boeing 737 Air Gabon TR-LFZ (MSN 23750) Libreville Airport, Gabon
03/01/2004 Boeing 737 Flash Airlines SU-ZCF (MSN 26283) Sharm el Sheikh, Egypt
11/08/2004 Boeing 737 Air Guinee 3X-GCM (MSN 23469) Freetown, Sierra Leone
28/11/2004 Boeing 737 KLM PH-BTC (MSN 25424) Barcelona Airport, Spain
08/03/2005 Boeing 737 Kam Air EX-037 (MSN 22075) Kabul, Afghanistan
14/08/2005 Boeing 737 Helios Airways 5B-DBY (MSN 29099) Grammatikos, Greece
23/08/2005 Boeing 737 TANS OB-1809-P (MSN 22580) Pucallpa airport, Peru
05/09/2005 Boeing 737 Mandala Airlines PK-RIM (MSN 22136) Medan, Indonesia
29/10/2006 Boeing 737 ADC Airlines 5N-BFK (MSN 22891) Abuja, Nigeria
01/01/2007 Boeing 737 AdamAir PK-KKW (MSN 24070) Sulawezi, Indonesia
13/01/2007 Boeing 737 RPX Airlines PK-RPX (MSN 20256) Kuching Airport, Malaysia
21/02/2007 Boeing 737 AdamAir PK-KKV (MSN 27284) Surabaya-Juanda Airport, Indonesia
07/03/2007 Boeing 737 Garuda PK-GZC (MSN 25664) Yogyakarta-Adisutjipto, Indonesia
28/06/2007 Boeing 737 TAAG Angola Airlines D2-TBP (MSN 23220) M Banza Congo Airport, Angola
30/12/2007 Boeing 737 TAROM YR-BGC (MSN 27181) Bucharest, Romania
24/08/2008 Boeing 737 Itek Air EX-009 (MSN 22088) Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan
30/08/2008 Boeing 737 Conviasa YV102T (MSN 21545) Toacaso, Ecuador
14/09/2008 Boeing 737 Aeroflot-Nord VP-BKO (MSN 25795) Perm, Russia
20/12/2008 Boeing 737 Continental Airlines N18611 (MSN 27324) Denver, USA
29/04/2009 Boeing 737 BAko Air TL-ADM (MSN 22264) Massamba, Congo Democratic Republic
13/04/2010 Boeing 737 Merpati PK-MDE (MSN 24660) Manokwari-Rendani Airport, Indonesia
Airbus A320 - 13 in total.
11/04/2000 Airbus A320 Mexicana F-OHMD (MSN 433) Minatitlan airport, Mexico
23/08/2000 Airbus A320 Gulf Air A4O-EK (MSN 481) Bahrain, Bahrain
07/02/2001 Airbus A320 Iberia EC-HKJ (MSN 1278) Bilbao airport, Spain
24/07/2001 Airbus A320 Air Lanka 4R-ABA (MSN 374) Colombo airport, Sri Lanka
28/08/2002 Airbus A320 America West Airlines N635AW (MSN 91) Phoenix airport, USA
03/05/2006 Airbus A320 Armavia EK-32009 (MSN 547) Adler/Sochi Airport, Russia
06/05/2006 Airbus A320 Armavia EK-32010 (MSN 632) Brussel-Zaventem Airport, Belgium
06/05/2006 Airbus A320 Armenian International Airways EK-32001 (MSN 397) Brussel-Zaventem Airport, Belgium
06/05/2006 Airbus A320 Volare Airlines SX-BVB (MSN 1992) Brussel-Zaventem Airport, Belgium
17/07/2007 Airbus A320 TAM PR-MBK (MSN 789) Sao Paulo-Congonhas Airport, Brazil
30/05/2008 Airbus A320 TACA EI-TAF (MSN 1374) Tegucigalpa, Honduras
27/11/2008 Airbus A320 XL Airways Germany D-AXLA (MSN 2500) Saint-Cyprien, France
15/01/2009 Airbus A320 US Airways N106US (MSN 1044) Hudson River, USA
Let's add the A321 also to be fair:
22/03/2003 Airbus A321 Transasia Airlines B-22603 (MSN 602) Tainan airport, Taiwan
28/07/2010 Airbus A321 AirBlue AP-BJB (MSN 1218) Near Islamabad, Pakistan
Sourse: http://www.airfleets.net/crash/stat_plane.htm
And total airframe hours on each, please?....
-
Well, when you boil down to it, I've long admitted I'm a shameless boeing fan. And I tollerate if not admire in some ways AB's products.... however AB also has a tendancy of poking my shameless pride for Boeing right in my arse when, oh say, their PR department comes out making statements along the lines of their products being unquestionabley the best or equal to the best on all levels. From then on, it's as predictable as water rolling downhill with me, and when those statements then get proven wrong but people forget they were ever made... well, anywho.
Lastly, you are right, you have to make the comparisons between the two companies on equal grounds as you're pointing out - and even then both have very acceptable records compared to our societies other means of modern transportation.
But still.... *evil shameless side emerges* you know Boeing's always 1-degree better, right?
yeah I suppose I am a shameless boeing fan too.
+1
-
One final nugget: With over 2,100 Airbus aircraft delivered to airlines in the United States since the handover of the first A300 to Eastern Airlines in 1978... How many accidents in the US with fatalities?
One.
ONE!
Yes, it's the infamous "tail fell off" accident.
-
And total airframe hours on each, please?....
Why don't you look that up and share it with the rest of us?
-
http://www.fearofflying.com/resources/safest-airliners-and-airline-safety.shtml
Too much load on the A380. Just too much load..........cracks in the wing ribs this early in its life cycle spells serious trouble.
-
Too much load on the A380. Just too much load..........cracks in the wing ribs this early in its life cycle spells serious trouble.
:aok
-
http://www.fearofflying.com/resources/safest-airliners-and-airline-safety.shtml
Too much load on the A380. Just too much load..........cracks in the wing ribs this early in its life cycle spells serious trouble.
Cracks in the wing ribs?
-
Cracks in the wing ribs?
Use your imagination willis.
"Following an unscheduled internal inspection of an A380 wing, some rib feet have been found with cracks originating from the rib to skin panel attachment holes (Type 1 cracks according to Airbus All Operator Telex (AOT) terminology).
Further to this finding, inspections were carried out on a number of other aeroplanes where further cracks have been found. During one of those inspections, a new form of rib foot cracking originating from the forward and aft edges of the vertical web of the rib feet has been identified (Type 2 cracks according to Airbus AOT terminology). The new form of cracking is more significant than the original rib foot hole cracking. It has been determined that the Type 2 cracks may develop on other aeroplanes after a period of time in service.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could potentially affect the structural integrity of the aeroplane."
-
Use your imagination willis.
"Following an unscheduled internal inspection of an A380 wing, some rib feet have been found with cracks originating from the rib to skin panel attachment holes (Type 1 cracks according to Airbus All Operator Telex (AOT) terminology).
Further to this finding, inspections were carried out on a number of other aeroplanes where further cracks have been found. During one of those inspections, a new form of rib foot cracking originating from the forward and aft edges of the vertical web of the rib feet has been identified (Type 2 cracks according to Airbus AOT terminology). The new form of cracking is more significant than the original rib foot hole cracking. It has been determined that the Type 2 cracks may develop on other aeroplanes after a period of time in service.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could potentially affect the structural integrity of the aeroplane."
I know that, when I am forming wing ribs and spars, they cannon have any surface scratches that I can detect with my fingernail. This would be the most likely place for cracks to start.
-
Use your imagination willis.
"Following an unscheduled internal inspection of an A380 wing, some rib feet have been found with cracks originating from the rib to skin panel attachment holes (Type 1 cracks according to Airbus All Operator Telex (AOT) terminology).
Further to this finding, inspections were carried out on a number of other aeroplanes where further cracks have been found. During one of those inspections, a new form of rib foot cracking originating from the forward and aft edges of the vertical web of the rib feet has been identified (Type 2 cracks according to Airbus AOT terminology). The new form of cracking is more significant than the original rib foot hole cracking. It has been determined that the Type 2 cracks may develop on other aeroplanes after a period of time in service.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could potentially affect the structural integrity of the aeroplane."
It's the rib feet brackets that have been discussed at length earlier in this thread.
“Critical” has a different meaning in engineering terms. Engineers design redundancies in structures for this exact reason. There’s a whole list of parts on an airplane that the FAA will let you take off without, or at least without them being functional. Airliners are massively over-engineered. Twin jets have to be able to take off, land, and if they’re ETOPS fly for a hell of a long time on one engine. So arguably the second engine isn't even “critical”… although I’m not seriously suggesting that. ;)
The Aviation Week article says: “Each wing has around 2,000 L-shaped brackets (30-40 per rib, with 60 ribs per wing), so the failure of one bracket is not seen as a safety issue.” These are the parts that distribute the aerodynamic loads from the wing skin to the rib/spar assembly. Essentially they’re secondary load bearing structure. If you have enough of them fail, you could potentially lose a wing skin section but the probability of that is exceedingly low owing to the shear number of brackets. I wouldn't start worrying till you hear stories of cracked wing spars or other primary structure.
-
From the Aviation Week article:
"The inspection is relatively simple, the wing expert says, requiring drainage of the relevant tanks for a visual inspection. However, the time to drain the tanks likely means an aircraft is out of service at least 24 hours, depending on local safety rules. If a bracket is found to have cracked, it needs immediate replacement, which could take a few days.
As part of the root cause analysis, Airbus instrumented one of its own aircraft to assess whether it had erroneously estimated the loads the wing would see, leading to the cracks. But the aircraft maker determined that was not the case. Instead, it found that the likely culprit is the assembly process, which imparts too much stress on the bracket when the wing skin is attached to the rib. The part itself is not being redesigned, but the assembly process is being changed for the long-term solution."
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=mro&id=news/awx/2012/01/19/awx_01_19_2012_p0-415962.xml&headline=EASA%20Demands%20A380%20Wing%20Crack%20Inspections
-
Instead, it found that the likely culprit is the assembly process, which imparts too much stress on the bracket when the wing skin is attached to the rib. The part itself is not being redesigned, but the assembly process is being changed for the long-term solution."
Reminds me of the engine attach bolts on the DC-10. Companies were stressing the assembly during engine changes -- engine feel off a DC-10 after takeoff leading to crash.
-
hmm so those accident reports include things like airstrikes of birds and such. Not just failures of some sort.
Maybe I missed it... was the french flight in there too? I believe that one was pilot error so if it is then they include that also.
Seems it would require more indepth analysis to dig out the actual failures of the aircraft involved.
-
Almost all, if not all, accidents with modern airliners are human error, either in the cockpit or in the workshop. The very few that isn't is probably weather related. There is little to chose between Boeing and Airbus in terms of safety, procurement cost or direct operating cost these days... Which is why this whole thread is silly.
-
Almost all, if not all, accidents with modern airliners are human error, either in the cockpit or in the workshop. The very few that isn't is probably weather related. There is little to chose between Boeing and Airbus in terms of safety, procurement cost or direct operating cost these days... Which is why this whole thread is silly.
Airbus employee? :noid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuhtiFYMxrc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuhtiFYMxrc)
-
Go here and get the opinions of the guys who have thousands of hours in each.
http://www.pprune.org/
-
Clerks! Love that movie! :rofl
If this thread had been titled "More cracks in [insert derogatory nickname for Boeing] wings" I would be here slugging for Boeing. I guess I'm just adverse to blind fanboiism and scare tactics. I don't know why Airbus doesn't have its own fanboi club. Maybe it's because Airbus is more of an international company and the euros don't identify with it as much as Americans do with Boeing.
-
Clerks! Love that movie! :rofl
If this thread had been titled "More cracks in [insert derogatory nickname for Boeing] wings" I would be here slugging for Boeing. I guess I'm just adverse to blind fanboiism and scare tactics. I don't know why Airbus doesn't have its own fanboi club. Maybe it's because Airbus is more of an international company and the euros don't identify with it as much as Americans do with Boeing.
They ALL scare me when I'm not the one doing the inspection...
Hence the reason for building my own
-
What are you building? A kit job or home brew?
-
What are you building? A kit job or home brew?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrows_Bearhawk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrows_Bearhawk)
Scratch build, nowhere near completed. May buy individual kit parts (spars, etc) unless I stumble across an 8' break.
-
Always wanted to build my own plane ever since I saw that english dude build a Europa on Discovery. Need to find the time, money and space. ;)
-
Always wanted to build my own plane ever since I saw that english dude build a Europa on Discovery. Need to find the time, money and space. ;)
Honestly, it takes more time than anything...
I visited the designer of this plane back in May of 2011.
He has a modest farm (runway in valley between mountains), and a shop that is just as modest (perhaps 30' x 30')
No fancy tools, machines, etc. Just the basic hammers, form blocks, gas welder, 8' brake and fabric covering tools. Spartan to say the least.
Not even a fully enclosed hanger
-
Not even a fancy crapper (except for the obligatory moon, of course)
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/Road%20Trip/DSC00465.jpg)
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/Road%20Trip/DSC00462.jpg)
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/Road%20Trip/DSC00466.jpg)
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/Road%20Trip/DSC00469.jpg)
-
Lol! That looks wonderful. The perfect place to build a plane and fly it! :)
Here's that show I mentioned. Love all those exotic experimentals...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUN9z7w8gwg
-
Looks like a beautiful place, Von. Are all those hangars his for keeping planes in?
-
Lol! That looks wonderful. The perfect place to build a plane and fly it! :)
Here's that show I mentioned. Love all those exotic experimentals...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUN9z7w8gwg
wow thanks for sharing that!
-
Looks like a beautiful place, Von. Are all those hangars his for keeping planes in?
It is. He is in Fincastle, VA
He only has two planes that I know of. The original Bearhawk (4-place) and the Bearhawk Patrol (2-place tandem)
The other hangers are for his buddies planes. He is also an engine builder and has a fly-in/BBQ once a year for all the folks that have, or are building, one of his planes.
-
Cool stuff
-
They might be down playing it like every other aircraft manufacturer would, but I for one am glad Airbus is taking action before their aircraft is shown on Discovery Channel's Aircrash Investigation.
-
I don't need to proove to you what I've already bothered to proove to myself. For starters, you could at the least dispose of enough of your precious time to invest in learning what a wing rib is, like most of us have.
-
hmm so those accident reports include things like airstrikes of birds and such. Not just failures of some sort.
Maybe I missed it... was the french flight in there too? I believe that one was pilot error so if it is then they include that also.
Seems it would require more indepth analysis to dig out the actual failures of the aircraft involved.
Here's the most recent published one from boeing's analysis team that I can find, published in 2009 on 1959-2008 statistics: http://www.boeing.com/aboutus/govt_ops/reports_white_papers/commercial_jet_airplane_accidents_statistical_summary.pdf
I figure it'll be until the middle of this year that the statistics from 2011 to be updated anywhere.
-
Thanks.
My point being that with pilot error it does not matter what aircraft they are in. Granted some recover better than others, some are overridden by poor piloting.
-
Thanks.
My point being that with pilot error it does not matter what aircraft they are in. Granted some recover better than others, some are overridden by poor piloting.
That is the biggest variable that the best and safest engineering feats cannot predict or factor into their equations :lol