BF2S Forums Which large cabin airliner is better?

I fly for Air Canada and I enjoy flying the Airbus.

colonelioan wrote:

I definetly go for Airbus, here are the reasons

1. this company is european

2. I'd wont like to be in the aircrats that crashed in the wtc, especially that im sure they were remote controlled by the pentagon

3. Boeing has sabotaged many aibus flights, 3 at count, were the US had refused an emergency landing request to an sabotaged airbus, here is the proof http://www.vialls.net/airbus/transatflight961.html

4. airbus flights are confortable.

5.Compare the crash rates from boeing and airbus, well thanks to American Airlines boeing leads all these crash rates ( For AA they are 250+ crashes and Lufthansa, has less than 5 crashes, being composed of airbus planes mostly, funny the first crash of Lufthansa was when they tryed out this flying shit called 747 )

Final, dont flame me, i know much more than u guys know on planes

Even though i support airbus your link fails Air Transat Flight 263 lost fuel because of a faulty Hydraulics pump which had vibrated too much and cause a rupture in the fuel pump. The pilots were getting a reading of High Oil Pressure low Oil Temp which is very confusing and an alarm went off for fuel inbalance it was only one pump that had failed and caused the rupture even though Captain Piche did make an extraordinary glide landing but he also made a mistake which could have cost the lives of all on board. If he did not pump fuel from the operating tank to the damaged tank to try and fix the fuel inbalance he would have still had one engine running. Noticing that the fuel inbalance problem isnt getting fixed is a large problem. The co pilot would have then also failed in checking the fuel weights and seeing that the problem was only getting worse. Given that link id highly challenge you to where you said you know more about aircraft then all of us. And if the fuel inbalance was so large the aircrafts Rudder and Ailerons could have been trimmed.

Last edited by spray_and_pray (2006-12-10 09:46:46)

colonelioan wrote:

I definetly go for Airbus, here are the reasons

1. this company is european

2. I'd wont like to be in the aircrats that crashed in the wtc, especially that im sure they were remote controlled by the pentagon

3. Boeing has sabotaged many aibus flights, 3 at count, were the US had refused an emergency landing request to an sabotaged airbus, here is the proof http://www.vialls.net/airbus/transatflight961.html

4. airbus flights are confortable.

5.Compare the crash rates from boeing and airbus, well thanks to American Airlines boeing leads all these crash rates ( For AA they are 250+ crashes and Lufthansa, has less than 5 crashes, being composed of airbus planes mostly, funny the first crash of Lufthansa was when they tryed out this flying shit called 747 )

Final, dont flame me, i know much more than u guys know on planes

Not from what I read...........Did it ever occur to you that Boeing was building and flying airplanes about 80 years before AIRBUS and hense more crashes... If you know about planes how??.........what do you do??

usmarine2007 wrote:

spray_and_pray wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

Not sure I understand this one.

The A340 is one of the most quietest and luxurious modern day airliners...

Being quiet is mainly dependent on the engine manufacturer.  Being luxurious is completely up to the airline, not Airbus.  I could pack max capacity of seats in there and it would not be comfortable or luxurious.

And A340's only use 1 or 2 types of engine and both are quiet you cannot mod aircrafts engines because the airline wants to so you would take a guess all A340's are quiet since the engine is made that way also what the aircraft is built of will change the amount of sound that gets through and you can only pack an aircraft so full of seats until it becomes illegal. All aircrafts have max seating capacities which would be the 1 class arrangement and believe me the A340 would still be comfortable. Have you ever flown on an A340? Ive flown in an A340 through various companies all flights were nice comfortable (seats) and had very low sound input so low at times i couldn't hear the engines.

Oh and to colonelioan i read the whole page and Air Transat 263 was one of the crashes reported in there i have studied the Air Transat 263 flight for quite a while now hence thats the only one i commented i do not have enough knowledge on the other crashes to comment on them so i didn't. But I will still stick to the point you are posting links with false information at least and you are yet claiming to know a lot more on aircraft then anyone else who has posted. I bet you wouldn't even know of some of the elements that could have contributed to the other crash even though the 1st one seems spot.

Edit* Concorde wasn't sabotaged the landing gear struck a piece of metal on takeoff which punctured it even though a Concorde is supposed to survive all of its tires on the landing gear being popped a piece of rubber flew up and hit the wing this cause a shock wave which burst the fuel tanks in the wing setting the wing on fire. This is why the Concorde design was re done but it still couldn't save the airliner.

The Pan Am Concorde the guy accuses the US of blowing up the aircraft yeah wtf it seems like any aircraft that was European made that blew up in mid air was because of the US he is biased way too much against the US to even be able to put proper facts about airline crashes and instead he tries to make some political propaganda and pretends to know what he is talking about.

Flight:961 He says the rudder is a part of the aircraft which lets the plane turn left and right wrong it lets it yaw left and right thus there would be no problem with rolling the aircraft to 25 degrees to be able to perform a 180 turn. And even if the tail of the aircraft snapped off it would be able to still fly as long as the hydraulics cables stayed intact and the elevator too. The rudder is not totally necessary in an aircraft unless you are a fighter pilot and get into a high speed stall this is pretty hard to do in a commercial airliner but it will be able to assist in cross wind landings if you use a crab angle although the pilot could also just dip his wings to compensate for any wind blowing the aircraft off the glide slope. But the tail falling off would be unrealistic for one if there was a large crack in the tail probably the hydraulics cables would be ripped now i say that its highly likely that the hydraulics would be broken if there was a large tear in the tail. But maybe the hydraulics runs differently in the A310 that i know of but I'm pretty sure the pipe runs through the wings and the tail which means it would be very likely if the pilot though the tail was going to snap he wouldn't even be able to control the aircraft cause he would have no hydraulic fluid. Also the cause of the rudder coming off the aircraft was because the acuators cause a large hole in the area where the rudder snapped off this was the cause not sabotage. This is in the FAA report that was done on the crash the FAA aren't politicians they just want to save lives. This crash was the fault of air traffic control you never let a large aircraft take off before a smaller one.

Flight 587: Flight 587 crashed because it took off after a 747 which left jet blast turbulence in order to try control the aircraft the pilot used an excessive amount of rudder which caused that and the elevators to snap off this was pilot and air traffic control error. Eg if there was a Cessna and a 747 waiting of clearance ATC would have to give the Cessna priority and it would have to take off first then the 747 would have to wait 2 minutes until it could be cleared to takeoff.

That is every one of the things posted on the website debunked and deemed false. Dude research your facts before you send people off to read a page full of bullshit.

Last edited by spray_and_pray (2006-12-10 21:32:51)

spray_and_pray wrote:

mcminty wrote:

---- First of all, go to www.airliners.net, read up and get some education about aviation ----

--- Then try www.boeing.com. and www.airbus.com ---

spray_and_pray wrote:

The 787-800 is small fry Boeing are coming out with the 747-800 THIS IS THE FUTURE as well as Airbus manufacturing its A350. The 747-800 has the same wing design as the 787 as well as some pretty neat lookin engines. Its nice n streamlined.

The new 747 aircraft is the 747-8I and 747-8F. The I stands for Intercontinental and the F stands for Freighter.

While the allure of 550 odd seats may be great, you must look at the future of tourism. In general, the workds population is getting older. Intra-regional travel will increase, resulting in a need for more short haul aircraft such as the 737NG family. A testiment to this aircraft families success is how well Southwest Airlines uses them.

Also, why would Boeing put so much effort into it's 777 family if it were to make the 747-8I "THE FUTURE!", as you put it.


Also, it's the 787-8, not -800...



@Usmarine - Australia doesn't make aircraft because it wouldn't be a profitable venture. Boeing does have offices in Melbourne, and I'm not sure about Airbus.





As for my favorite commercial aircraft (fav mil aircraft is the C-17), it would have to be an Embraer E-jet:

http://eu.airliners.net/photos/middle/9/4/3/0257349.jpg


Mcminty.

Because the 777-200 LR and the 747-800 are two totally different aircraft. One can travel a excessively large amount of kilometres before refueling but only carries close to 350 people. The other travels shorter distances but still long range and carries 550 people thats why. I don't think you are aware of the Asian market which is looking for more seating spaces in aircraft and some are going to the extremes and strapping people to the back wall of the aircraft this actually is not illegal. I'm not sure that you are also aware that aircraft such as the 747 are used on shorter flights as well as older flights and operate kind of like a bus service eg. A Qantas 747 departs Perth to Sydney then Sydney to Los Angeles or Honolulu this is actually done. So instead of moving an empty aircraft which will be in the negative profit they move it with passengers and sometimes short distances to get to an area where they want to operate. As well as the 747-800 being as fuel efficient as it is and seeing how much passengers it can carry it will be able to increase airline profits such that ticket prices can go down. Now if i had 500 people i wanted to get from Perth to Dubai and i was using a 777 id have to do two flights to be able to transport all of them. With a 748 id be able to transport them all in 1 flight proving more money efficient.

And no it is the 787-800 don't believe me google it. So before you attempt to flame me again get your facts straight and use more then one source. Ive been through airliners.net before and the only thing that they are good at is pictures their information is old and outdated (most) as well as the fact that I took an aviation course through to year 12 in high school and am a Cessna 152 flight instructor at the Royal Aero Club of Western Australia-Jandakot.

Only when you tell me your credentials i will even bother to reply to another post because of the rudeness of the last. Telling me to get an education in aviation is way out of what you should even attempt to say to me. Maybe if i have some free time ill write you up a guide on how an aircraft works until then you can google Bernoulli's Theory and Newtons 3rd law that will give you the basics on how a airfoil works then you can pick to look up different wing and empennage types then different landing gear types and the basics on how a 4 stroke engine works (GA prop aircraft) Then you can jump into Turbofan engines (Jetliners) While you are looking all this up you might also want to go over brief history on the Jet engine it goes back to 1944 with the Me262 and do not mistake it with the B1 as that is a rocket propelled aircraft. You will be able to compare the speeds of prop and jet aircraft now as well as have an understanding on how an aircraft fully works. You will then have re graduated year 8. Now you just got 9,10,11,12 and you might have the same possible understanding as me. Good luck.

http://www.planespotters.net/Production … index.html list of the 787-800 orders proof its the -800 not the -8 so please dont attempt to lecture me on learning about aviation when apparently your source was wrong Boeing orders list>Airliners.net

Fuck it. I'll do this because I can:

1. As the instructions for learning about aviation were BEFORE your quote, it was A GENERAL STATEMENT TO ALL THE PEOPLE IN THIS THREAD!!!



2. My 'credentials' regarding aviation while rather short, are above what most people here would have.
     
     If I derect your attention to the BF2s STAFF PAGE.

mcminty
Hi, my name is Andrew, 17 years old. I live in Sydney, Australia, and as such, am the second Aussie Mod . After getting to 1st Sgt, my growing boredom of the game and my crappy internet connection have resulted in me spending more time on BF2s. My main interests would be aviation and photography, with playing music on the side. My interests in aviation have lead me to join the Australian Air Force Cadets. Recently I spent 2 weeks at a RAAF Base to get promoted to CCPL (Cadet Corporal) . When I finish school in a year (...only a year ), I am looking to become an engineer, or to enter the RAAF through the Australian Defense Force Academy (a degree and officer entry).

Here is the subject page from Hector, the cadet online administration system:



Note the subjects I highlighted. These all begin with AR or AV, they stand for Aircraft Recognition and Aviation. The last letter stands for Induction, Basic and Proficiency.

I have been studying aviation for two and a half years. Thanks for the lesson in aviation, but I think am covered . If you want more, I can send you the sillibii. What are your credentials?



3. You tell me not to go to airliners.net, but YOU YOURSELF WOULD TRUST PLANESPOTTERS.NET??? How fucking hypocritical.

To end this arguement, lets look at BOEING'S ACTUAL WEBPAGE ON THE 747-8



4. Yes, I actually understand the need for more jets in the Asian market. In my study of geography, for the New South Wales HSC (leaving school exam), one of the core modules was TOURISM. And god dam, I think I posted this earlier too.

While the allure of 550 odd seats may be great, you must look at the future of tourism. In general, the workds population is getting older. Intra-regional travel will increase, resulting in a need for more short haul aircraft such as the 737NG family. A testiment to this aircraft families success is how well Southwest Airlines uses them.

Lets also add to that:
As the middle class in china increases in wealth, they too will want to travel outside their local area. In a large country such as china, most of tourism generated would be national or within the local region. As a result, there will be an increased demand for more aircraft that can take higher numbers of landings/takeoffs. The 747 family was not designed for this purpose. It's original role was for intercontinental flights. It was designed to land/take off a few times a day. That is why I said the 737NG was better siauted to the role. It is designed, as a shault haul aircraft, to have more cycles. It will be better at serving the new asian market.


I'm waiting for round two.

Mcminty.

spray_and_pray wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

spray_and_pray wrote:

The A340 is one of the most quietest and luxurious modern day airliners...

Being quiet is mainly dependent on the engine manufacturer.  Being luxurious is completely up to the airline, not Airbus.  I could pack max capacity of seats in there and it would not be comfortable or luxurious.

And A340's only use 1 or 2 types of engine and both are quiet you cannot mod aircrafts engines because the airline wants to so you would take a guess all A340's are quiet since the engine is made that way also what the aircraft is built of will change the amount of sound that gets through and you can only pack an aircraft so full of seats until it becomes illegal. All aircrafts have max seating capacities which would be the 1 class arrangement and believe me the A340 would still be comfortable. Have you ever flown on an A340? Ive flown in an A340 through various companies all flights were nice comfortable (seats) and had very low sound input so low at times i couldn't hear the engines.

I have been on a couple A340's, and it is no quieter than a 777.  And saying the seats are comfortable has nothing to do with Airbus.

spray_and_pray wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

spray_and_pray wrote:

And A340's only use 1 or 2 types of engine and both are quiet you cannot mod aircrafts engines because the airline wants to so you would take a guess all A340's are quiet since the engine is made that way also what the aircraft is built of will change the amount of sound that gets through and you can only pack an aircraft so full of seats until it becomes illegal. All aircrafts have max seating capacities which would be the 1 class arrangement and believe me the A340 would still be comfortable. Have you ever flown on an A340? Ive flown in an A340 through various companies all flights were nice comfortable (seats) and had very low sound input so low at times i couldn't hear the engines.

I have been on a couple A340's, and it is no quieter than a 777.  And saying the seats are comfortable has nothing to do with Airbus.

Course it does all aircraft have default seats the airlines just put on covers and change the positioning for classes hehehe airbus seats the ones which are best for your ass (sounds like a good add campaign). And i will stick by the fact that the A340 is one of the most comfortable jetliners available it has been said by a large quantity of people and i wont even argue about it. As well as the fact the aircraft is a money cow on international flights.

Wrong.  We purchased a plane from Virgin, took out their seats and put it our own, from our choice of vendor.  Not new covers, new seats.

spray_and_pray wrote:

lowing wrote:

colonelioan wrote:

I definetly go for Airbus, here are the reasons

1. this company is european

2. I'd wont like to be in the aircrats that crashed in the wtc, especially that im sure they were remote controlled by the pentagon

3. Boeing has sabotaged many aibus flights, 3 at count, were the US had refused an emergency landing request to an sabotaged airbus, here is the proof http://www.vialls.net/airbus/transatflight961.html

4. airbus flights are confortable.

5.Compare the crash rates from boeing and airbus, well thanks to American Airlines boeing leads all these crash rates ( For AA they are 250+ crashes and Lufthansa, has less than 5 crashes, being composed of airbus planes mostly, funny the first crash of Lufthansa was when they tryed out this flying shit called 747 )

Final, dont flame me, i know much more than u guys know on planes

Not from what I read...........Did it ever occur to you that Boeing was building and flying airplanes about 80 years before AIRBUS and hense more crashes... If you know about planes how??.........what do you do??

Airbus has a smaller crash to how long its been running record. You also do you understand that the A300 flew its maiden flight in 1972 boeing started 1916 to 1934 thats 56 years difference if you count from 1916 heres some info on the guy who started it all http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/boeing.html . Even though while 56 years is quite a difference the jetliner age only started in the 50's and normally the crash records from companies and airliners stay from when the jet age started. You can use Qantas for example not one crash from the start of the jet age and one of the longest lasting airlines ever. Which means theres only a 22 year difference between the companies jet ages. That is not that big a difference at all and even if we are counting from 1916 that is still 30 years off from what you guessed. Im off im starting to get worried about how much time i spend on these forums one hour has already passed on just this thread.

If you are going to get this deep, you can not go by "time periods" you need to go by seat miles compared to deaths of the products. Since  Boeing has enjoyed the lions share of the market since Airbus's conception it only stands to reason they would have had more crashes.

and really for me, this irrelevent anyway, I am an aircraft mechanic I worked on these aircraft everyday from engine changes, landing gear changes, flight control rigging, line maintenance, overhauls, letter checks, sheetmetal, etc...... Boeing has proved its salt. Airbus has tails fall off their airplanes brecause it is a structural piece of shit.

Last edited by lowing (2006-12-11 15:34:52)

i dont see "your moms" in this list.

spray_and_pray wrote:

lowing wrote:

spray_and_pray wrote:

Airbus has a smaller crash to how long its been running record. You also do you understand that the A300 flew its maiden flight in 1972 boeing started 1916 to 1934 thats 56 years difference if you count from 1916 heres some info on the guy who started it all http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/boeing.html . Even though while 56 years is quite a difference the jetliner age only started in the 50's and normally the crash records from companies and airliners stay from when the jet age started. You can use Qantas for example not one crash from the start of the jet age and one of the longest lasting airlines ever. Which means theres only a 22 year difference between the companies jet ages. That is not that big a difference at all and even if we are counting from 1916 that is still 30 years off from what you guessed. Im off im starting to get worried about how much time i spend on these forums one hour has already passed on just this thread.

If you are going to get this deep, you can not go by "time periods" you need to go by seat miles compared to deaths of the products. Since  Boeing has enjoyed the lions share of the market since Airbus's conception it only stands to reason they would have had more crashes.

and really for me, this irrelevent anyway, I am an aircraft mechanic I worked on these aircraft everyday from engine changes, landing gear changes, flight control rigging, line maintenance, overhauls, letter checks, sheetmetal, etc...... Boeing has proved its salt. Airbus has tails fall off their airplanes brecause it is a structural piece of shit.

Maybe there was a design flaw in the A310 which caused structural tail weakness but its better then a bulkhead blowing of the back of an aircraft causing it to crash into a mountain and ripping all its controls (747). Or the top of it did'nt rip off (737-200). I dont know what your argument is you think only airbus aircraft malfunction? Airbus is technologically more advanced then boeing it used fly by wire before Boeing and composite materials before Boeing. Airbus did'nt even profit off WW2 and for that case any war they dont make military aircraft this will lead to financing of it's products. Now over this topic I have fought on both sides of the line Boeing and Airbus and I know much about both of their current commercial aircraft to fight on both sides. If someone wants to make a stupid or a false statement on either side I will of course object to it.

Just give up on colonelioan I think I went too harsh on him when I debunked the whole entire site he gave us he has probably been embarassed and is possibly not coming back. Especially after I debunked it after he said he knows more about aircraft then all of us. This really made me laugh after I visited his link.

And next time you see me write hehehehe and attempt to make a lame joke figure it as sarchasm before taking me seriously .

The structural failure of that 747 was due to an improperly engineered repair on that aft "P" dome. It was not a failure of the design of the aircraft. The 737 in question also was one of the oldest 737's flying and maintenance was over looked at inspection. Again NOT a design flaw.

No but the 747 had just had a maintenance check on it and the 737-200 was a few hours over. But even if it is a few hours over its maintenance check it should'nt cause the top of the fueselage to rip off. You being a mechanic should know that an aircrafts fueselage expands in and out as it goes higher and lower. This 737-200 had been so overworked it was flying close to 35 flights a day island hopping in Hawai even though if i might contradict myself here the fueslage should have been able to stay intact even if it was a few hours over its next maint. Everything in aviation is made on safety standards. Lets say the top speed of the A310 is Mach 0.82 (which it is at FL 350) I could probably push it to mach 0.84 if i shut off the warnings and somehow broke the fly by wire. And i could hold it at mach 0.84 for a few minutes probably if not longer. The aircraft would suffer little or no damage even though its max speed is 0.84. But if i took it to Mach 0.86 I could blow up in mid air. All aircraft have a safety range I-----I then they have a what it can actually do range I--------I and being a few more hours then reccomended flying causing an aircraft to suffer a hull failure i would'nt find it acceptable. But if you want hull design flaws ill hand em out. And are you also claiming that the 732 doesnt have design flaws? This has to be the world record holder for a civilian jetliner in crashes.

The aircraft has had 114 hull loss accidents (737 series overall)

And the A300, A310, A320, A330, A340 have only had 45 hull loss incidents all together thats 5 totally different aircraft with different variants compared to one and they cant even make up half of the losses the maiden flight of the 737-200 was 1967 only 5 years before the A300. I also am aware of the 737 being the most used aircraft in the world and i am going to have to search flight hour statistics when I get back home. Unless you would like to do the honours. See ya when i get home from work im off to fly real airplanes instead of talking about them .

Last edited by spray_and_pray (2006-12-11 19:56:39)

lowing wrote:

spray_and_pray wrote:

No but the 747 had just had a maintenance check on it and the 737-200 was a few hours over. But even if it is a few hours over its maintenance check it should'nt cause the top of the fueselage to rip off. You being a mechanic should know that an aircrafts fueselage expands in and out as it goes higher and lower. This 737-200 had been so overworked it was flying close to 35 flights a day island hopping in Hawai even though if i might contradict myself here the fueslage should have been able to stay intact even if it was a few hours over its next maint. Everything in aviation is made on safety standards. Lets say the top speed of the A310 is Mach 0.82 (which it is at FL 350) I could probably push it to mach 0.84 if i shut off the warnings and somehow broke the fly by wire. And i could hold it at mach 0.84 for a few minutes probably if not longer. The aircraft would suffer little or no damage even though its max speed is 0.84. But if i took it to Mach 0.86 I could blow up in mid air. All aircraft have a safety range I-----I then they have a what it can actually do range I--------I and being a few more hours then reccomended flying causing an aircraft to suffer a hull failure i would'nt find it acceptable. But if you want hull design flaws ill hand em out. And are you also claiming that the 732 doesnt have design flaws? This has to be the world record holder for a civilian jetliner in crashes.

Compared to its flight hours and seat miles flawn the 737 is one of the safest aircraft flying. The top of the fuselage ripping off was not a design flaw but an inspection interval flaw. Since this accedent all aircraft that reach a certain amount of cycles (a  cycle is 1 take off and 1 landing ) it then is entered into an what is called an aging airvraft inspection program. Again NOT a design flaw, but an inspection/maintenance flaw. Please let us not forget that the aircraft stayed intact, and landed safely with only 1 death. ( A flight attendant that was blown out.) That fact alone should impress the hell out of you wit hregard to the soundness of the design.

As far as you "pushing the limits " on your precious Airbus, the A300 that crashed in NYC had just taken off, therefore not going very fast and due to rudder inputs from the first dummy, the fuckin tail ripped off. SO I wouldn't "push the limits too far if I were you.

The rudder ripped off because the A300 was caught in jet blast this causes a high level of turbulence as for you to know the majority of accidents happen on takeoff or landing these are the two most dangerous moments in flying. Cruise being the safest. Yes i agree the pilot was a retard what can you do. But will you then remember the A310 i think it was that was shot at by a AA missle all of its control cables were destroyed but it managed to land using engines only. Oh and as for the 747 I havent seen a comment there. Sorry i was away editing my other post.

You guys know that airbus is better