Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Angus on November 13, 2006, 07:37:04 AM
-
It was windy here in Iceland, Keflavík airbase had some 35-45 kts crosswind. So the new Airbus hopped over and started doing crosswind landing tests. Did just fine.
Linkie:
http://www.mbl.is/mm/frettir/frett.html?nid=1234088
-
Nice landing by the best of the huge airplanes.
Aint that right "Brian"? :D
-
Cool vid!
-
Amazing how the 380 totally dwarfs the 737
-
Durning the slow motion ending you can see the wing flexing pretty cool..
-
and funnily enough, its a european built plane..............ahhhh the satisfaction :aok
-
Originally posted by Hammy
and funnily enough, its a european built plane..............ahhhh the satisfaction :aok
(http://www.classbrain.com/artteensb/uploads/earthbus_001.jpg)
-
beats that mini plane you guys call a 747 :p
-
Originally posted by Hammy
beats that mini plane you guys call a 747 :p
Ya, but 2 billion over budget and 18 months behind schedule (A380) has canceled alot of orders and created alot of orders for our "mini" 747 and 777. Thank you incompetent Airbus! :aok :rofl
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Ya, but 2 billion over budget and 18 months behind schedule (A380) has canceled alot of orders and created alot of orders for our "mini" 747 and 777. Thank you incompetent Airbus! :aok :rofl
Yeah but what do you expect?? It's a government funded project. The 747 was a private Boeing project and they came in under budget and ahead of schedual IIRC. The A380 has a LOOOOOOOOOOOONG way to go before it can replace the 747.
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
The 747 was a private Boeing project and they came in under budget and ahead of schedual
Are you sure about that? I think you need to think about that one more time before you talk using big words :D
"The massive cost of developing the 747 and building the Everett factory meant that Boeing had to borrow, and gambled its very existence on the 747's success; had the project failed, it would have taken the company along with it.[7] Initial problems with the JT9D's development forced Boeing to delay deliveries up to year, and as a result up to 30 planes at one time were left stranded at the Everett plant, with the company on the brink of bankruptcy.[8]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
gnagnagna
Originally posted by Hornet33
gnagnagna bis
Nilsen don't hijack this thread with fact !
-
Sorry straffo :p
-
Next you guys are gonna brag about the size of the Titanic. :rofl
Airbus Industries is at real risk of collapse due to the white elephant in the video.
Not something I would brag about.
-
Airbus is in no risk whatsoever ... that's the beauty of it. ;)
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
Yeah but what do you expect?? It's a government funded project. The 747 was a private Boeing project and they came in under budget and ahead of schedual IIRC. The A380 has a LOOOOOOOOOOOONG way to go before it can replace the 747.
Wasn't the 747 originally a military project?
-
If PanAm was a military then yes.
Juan Trippe wanted a big ol aeroplane and that's what he got. The first 20-30 airplanes were all to be PanAm airplanes.
-
Originally posted by Golfer
If PanAm was a military then yes.
Juan Trippe wanted a big ol aeroplane and that's what he got. The first 20-30 airplanes were all to be PanAm airplanes.
Spot on.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Airbus is in no risk whatsoever ... that's the beauty of it. ;)
If you consider burdening the already-high-taxed european taxpayer with the R&D costs, then I agree! Risk takes guts, that what Boeing had in 1969. Course, I'm very biased since I'm a company man, so...;)
-
Hehe ;)
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
Yeah but what do you expect?? It's a government funded project. The 747 was a private Boeing project and they came in under budget and ahead of schedual IIRC. The A380 has a LOOOOOOOOOOOONG way to go before it can replace the 747.
:lol
ummm.. no.
-
Monty Python invented the A380.
See:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLAamUlu-H8
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Are you sure about that? I think you need to think about that one more time before you talk using big words :D
"The massive cost of developing the 747 and building the Everett factory meant that Boeing had to borrow, and gambled its very existence on the 747's success; had the project failed, it would have taken the company along with it.[7] Initial problems with the JT9D's development forced Boeing to delay deliveries up to year, and as a result up to 30 planes at one time were left stranded at the Everett plant, with the company on the brink of bankruptcy.[8]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747
Psssst, hey Nils...you need to re-read. Boeing had the airplanes built and ready. Pratt and Whitney (makers of the JT9D's) was having difficulty with the development of the engines. Thus, Boeing hit it's mark, P&W came up short on theirs. Can't fault Boeing on that. Let's not twist facts...you to Straffo.
:furious
That being said, that is awesome video of an beautiful airplane. I hope one day I can take a ride in one. One day, maybe. Just maybe.
(http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g308/txflood77598/david_woodersonSMALL.jpg)
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
Psssst, hey Nils...you need to re-read. Boeing had the airplanes built and ready. Pratt and Whitney (makers of the JT9D's) was having difficulty with the development of the engines. Thus, Boeing hit it's mark, P&W came up short on theirs. Can't fault Boeing on that. Let's not twist facts...you to Straffo.
:furious
That being said, that is awesome video of an beautiful airplane. I hope one day I can take a ride in one. One day, maybe. Just maybe.
(http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g308/txflood77598/david_woodersonSMALL.jpg)
But still.. if we say that the engines has nothing to do with Boeing (im assuming we can then pick the delay of the A380 apart and perhaps find a sub-contractor there that is the cause of any delays or cost overruns.) it still leaves:
""The massive cost of developing the 747 and building the Everett factory meant that Boeing had to borrow, and gambled its very existence on the 747's success""
-
So Boeing had to gamble it's existence on a plane...that's capitalism. Considering they didn't expect to sell anymore airplanes after the first 4 years and wound up selling them all the way up to the year 2000 is just proof of Boeings design was robust and profitable. I don't know what that has to do with Boeing being late and over budget with it's development, they knew before hand it was going to be expensive, thus the known gamble. The focus of your quote was the JT90's being the reason for the delay for the 747. Taken in it's entirety yes that would cause the entire aircraft to be delayed. BUT, it cleary stated that 30 completed airframes were waiting for the engines, a situation Boeing had no control over.
(http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g308/txflood77598/david_woodersonSMALL.jpg)
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
So Boeing had to gamble it's existence on a plane...that's capitalism. Considering they didn't expect to sell anymore airplanes after the first 4 years and wound up selling them all the way up to the year 2000 is just proof of Boeings design was robust and profitable. I don't know what that has to do with Boeing being late and over budget with it's development, they knew before hand it was going to be expensive, thus the known gamble. The focus of your quote was the JT90's being the reason for the delay for the 747. Taken in it's entirety yes that would cause the entire aircraft to be delayed. BUT, it cleary stated that 30 completed airframes were waiting for the engines, a situation Boeing had no control over.
It just mean you should not trust Boing prospective/futures studies division :D
It just happened their design was the one expected by the market as even their own prediction was false :)
-
Originally posted by Golfer
If PanAm was a military then yes.
Juan Trippe wanted a big ol aeroplane and that's what he got. The first 20-30 airplanes were all to be PanAm airplanes.
uhhhh huh
Boeing had already developed a study for a very large fixed-wing aircraft while bidding on a US military contract for a huge cargo plane.[6] Boeing lost the contract to Lockheed's C-5 Galaxy but came under pressure from its most loyal airline customer, Pan Am, to develop a giant passenger plane that would be over twice the size of the 707
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
So Boeing had to gamble it's existence on a plane...that's capitalism. Considering they didn't expect to sell anymore airplanes after the first 4 years and wound up selling them all the way up to the year 2000 is just proof of Boeings design was robust and profitable. I don't know what that has to do with Boeing being late and over budget with it's development, they knew before hand it was going to be expensive, thus the known gamble. The focus of your quote was the JT90's being the reason for the delay for the 747. Taken in it's entirety yes that would cause the entire aircraft to be delayed. BUT, it cleary stated that 30 completed airframes were waiting for the engines, a situation Boeing had no control over.
So an airplane project is not really one project but many smaller projects? Boeing was the contractor and is therefore responsible for the entire project. They knew that new engines had to be developed and should have taken that into considederation. So is it just poor project control then?
Airbus is also following all the rules of "capitalism". The project does not get endless funds from countries that has a stake in Airbus. Its not free and risk free money they get either. Airbus has to deliver just like Boeing did.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
uhhhh huh
And that is to rebute...what?
Or were you trying to say exactly what I said? Juan Trippe (PanAm) wanted a big airplane. Boeing built it.
That's what I said...that's what you said????
If you're trying to say that Boeing started its research on large aircraft while bidding on (and losing?) a contract then say it. That airplane was not a 747. The 747 was from day one to be a pax airplane with cargo versions added later.
Ahh...wikipedia. Where those without their own knowledge go to get someone elses.
Read what you quoted.
-
Yea, but does the onboard refrigeration unit keep the ice from melting?
Sorry Angus. I just had to.
-
Golfer you mean boeing trashed/burned/destroyed all the work made for the concurent of the galaxy before studying the 747 ?
tss tss...
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Yea, but does the onboard refrigeration unit keep the ice from melting?
Sorry Angus. I just had to.
Hehe, well youo know it's cold up there ;)
Many windows on that Airbus to have a spectacular view off melting Glaciers :D
-
Originally posted by straffo
Golfer you mean boeing trashed/burned/destroyed all the work made for the concurent of the galaxy before studying the 747 ?
tss tss...
Yes indeed. None of the things the military division of Boeing figures out gets to the civilian part of Boeing. ;)
-
Pilot has skills !
-
Originally posted by straffo
Golfer you mean boeing trashed/burned/destroyed all the work made for the concurent of the galaxy before studying the 747 ?
tss tss...
Yes clearly that's exactly what I said. :rolleyes:
-
Xwind landing wiith Xwind gear isnt teh 1337 sk!11z, it is teh 3ngin33ring....
-
Originally posted by Golfer
And that is to rebute...what?
Or were you trying to say exactly what I said? Juan Trippe (PanAm) wanted a big airplane. Boeing built it.
That's what I said...that's what you said????
If you're trying to say that Boeing started its research on large aircraft while bidding on (and losing?) a contract then say it. That airplane was not a 747. The 747 was from day one to be a pax airplane with cargo versions added later.
Ahh...wikipedia. Where those without their own knowledge go to get someone elses.
Read what you quoted.
Its not hard to find more information that says the same, wikipedia or not.
The fact is saying that the 747 was a purely commercial development with no money from the US Govt or military involved in the project is somewhat of a leap in truth.
I don't think its a bad thing, I just get tired of the anti-airbus crowd who seem to think the US is some wonderful pure capatilist system, when in fact its about as protectionist as the EU if not more. Your tax dollars support many corporate ventures and businesses which cannot stand on their own, so don't get all high and mighty about airbus.
Even after 28 years, more than 40 billion flight kilometers and approximately two billion passengers, the Boeing 747 is still the undisputed leader of the world's airliner fleet. 20 versions of the Jumbo-Jet were built over the years. There is a difference of up to 200 seats and up to 75 tons of weight between the first model, the -100, and the most current and biggest version, the 747-400.
Originally, everything was planned differently: In the beginning of 1964, the US Air Force had called for tenders for the development of a new heavy military transport aircraft. The three big US aircraft manufacturers, Boeing, Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas, were competing for the contract. Pratt & Whitney and General Electric were competing for the aircraft engines. GE won in 1965, getting the contract for the development of the TF39 turbofan, the first high-bypass engine for large-capacity aircraft. Later in the same year, the C5A transporter program was won by Lockheed. Boeing and Douglas lost. It was later speculated that, although Boeing had offered the better concept, the decision for Lockheed's version was made based on the lower price.
While Boeing was certainly disappointed by the news, it had a back-up option at hand. Parallel to the military contract activities, the manufacturer had conducted an analysis of the civil market development. The aircraft manufacturer from Seattle "suspected" that, by the beginning of the seventies, the airlines would need an aircraft which could cope with the forecasted capacity problems.
On the evening of the Galaxy decision, Boeing ordered one of its most experienced engineers, Joseph F. Sutter, back from his vacation. Another 100 engineers joined the team in the next few days, working on not less than 50 design options in the following months. The final design of the 747 was chosen based on the requirement for a high capacity, both for passenger seats and for freight.
In December of 1965, Boeing President William Allen and Juan Trippe, head of Pan American World Airways, met to discuss Boeing's plans concerning the new airliner. As one of the largest airlines at this period in time, Pan Am's opinion had a major impact on the design requirements for a new long-range jet. Although details about the conversation were never revealed, the talk supposedly went like this: Trippe: "If you build it, I buy it." Allen: "If you buy it, I build it."
-
Originally posted by Golfer
Yes clearly that's exactly what I said. :rolleyes:
You believe in faery tales too ?
-
AAhhh, mon dieu.
It is Fairy, not Faery.
And it's a word with a double meaning, comprend?
Anyway, as a sidenote, the hull structure AFAIK is the one of "8" like the hulls of the first really "modern" submarines, which were the late German ones. And it is a brilliant concept, just yet not used in the aircraft industry.
Then the wings are....BigBIGBIGG. Is there any aircraft with that powerful wings and thereby spars????????
All US-EURO things set aside, I always like things that just turn out good, and I hope this one will!
-
Boeing and Douglas lost.
Apparently losing a government contract is a subsidy.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Apparently losing a government contract is a subsidy.
:lol
But....but....they got ideas for the 747 because they tried to bid on a government contract. :lol
-
Wow! I'm impressed...the rudder didn't come off. :D
-
Originally posted by Angus
AAhhh, mon dieu.
It is Fairy, not Faery.
And it's a word with a double meaning, comprend?
No , I don't see the double entendre ::)
-
Originally posted by Angus
AAhhh, mon dieu.
It is Fairy, not Faery.
...
faire (http://www.samizdata.net/blog/~pdeh/swordfish_invasion_stripes.jpg)y
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Apparently losing a government contract is a subsidy.
According to Vulcan it is!:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by Angus
It was windy here in Iceland, Keflav�k airbase had some 35-45 kts crosswind. So the new Airbus hopped over and started doing crosswind landing tests. Did just fine.
Linkie:
http://www.mbl.is/mm/frettir/frett.html?nid=1234088
Lucky you, Iceland is my favorite place outside the US.
-
Sssssssssssss ... the ad plays and the clip doesn't.
-
Id did just now :confused: :huh
-
Strange, must be just another anomaly in the internet. None of these clips play on my machine, but clips play from other sources.
The opening commercial or whatever it is plays, then the screen goes black with the red x in the upper left corner.
Thanks for posting anyway. Must be interesting clip.
-
:noid :noid :noid :noid :mad: :mad: me too, i only got the 1st few seconds of teh m00vi3
-
Heheh, the guy in the video is talking funny talk.
"Flip a flip a flue a der der moogan."
...and he sounds so serious while he's doing it.
-
i got teh video to palay today...
Xwind landings are a breeze (lol), so i've heard, when you got Xwind landing gear, the usage of which on large turbine engine aircraft was poineered by Boeing (on a military contract, zOMG):O :O :O :noid :noid :eek: :p
-
Here's another video, a not very good video of an A380 doing very much the same thing in Shannon airport. Apparently Shannon is renowned for it's crosswinds and Airbus wanted high winds and rain as well which they definitely got. A week earlier they wanted to fly in when hurricane Gordon was passing through but the aircraft went tech. Isn't it nice to know Ireland like Iceland is noted for it's c**p weather. :huh
Shannon is only an hour and half's drive away. It's a pity my plane spotter friends failed to tip me off. Next time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y20fCjzVdF4
Here's a slightly wobbly landing at Heathrow
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9216364186426086877&q=A380
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Heheh, the guy in the video is talking funny talk.
"Flip a flip a flue a der der moogan."
...and he sounds so serious while he's doing it.
It's Icelandic ;)
-
Thanks, cpxxx, those videos played fine. A380 fuselage looks somewhat like a slimnastics version of the flying guppy.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
Here's another video, a not very good video of an A380 doing very much the same thing in Shannon airport. Apparently Shannon is renowned for it's crosswinds and Airbus wanted high winds and rain as well which they definitely got. A week earlier they wanted to fly in when hurricane Gordon was passing through but the aircraft went tech. Isn't it nice to know Ireland like Iceland is noted for it's c**p weather. :huh
Shannon is only an hour and half's drive away. It's a pity my plane spotter friends failed to tip me off. Next time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y20fCjzVdF4
Here's a slightly wobbly landing at Heathrow
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9216364186426086877&q=A380
GAWD that thing is incredibly big! Very cool video (2nd one) THanks!
I love commercial aviation! :aok