No parts, maintenance headaches, yeah, they're just great.A-Unit64 wrote:
You guys know that airbus is better
Poll
Airbus or Boeing?
| Airbus | 37% | 37% - 89 | ||||
| Boeing | 62% | 62% - 146 | ||||
| Total: 235 | ||||||
I never worked the A310 but it is my understanding that it is fly by wire, not cables.spray_and_pray wrote:
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.lowing wrote:
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.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.
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.
Ok you apparently dont know about the 747 crash the whole entire bulkhead was replaced and checked by Boeing staff all 747's after this crash were grounded and inspected. Composite materials are the future look what the 787 is being made out of. And no aircraft are not made to go through wake turbulence you should know that more then others it can disrupt lift that is produced by the wing it will fuck up an airplane more then normal turbulence being maint i dont know if you are aware of this but you should be wake turbulence can effect an area for up to 2-5 minutes i know this because i am a pilot and am about to be late for work ill talk to you when i get back to my office. Now i dont know if you are getting heated about this im quite enjoying it so take a step away from the screen breathe deep and type.lowing wrote:
There are several levels of maintenance checks, not all checks look at every section or component of the aircraft. IF the check that that 747 was in did not call for a NDT ( non destructive testing) or even a visual inspection, ( which a microscopic crack would have been missed anyway) on that "P" Dome, it would not have been looked at. There are certain repairs that are done that require a re-inspection at certain flight intervals, until a permanent repair is performed. The repair on the "P"DOME apparently was a permanent repair NOT requiring re-reinspection. It was a engineer who fucked up the repair order, he also killed himself over it if I remember correctly.spray_and_pray wrote:
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 missile all of its control cables were destroyed but it managed to land using engines only. Oh and as for the 747 I haven't seen a comment there. Sorry i was away editing my other post.lowing wrote:
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 accident 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 aircraft 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 regard 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.
Back to your A300.........The rudder didn't rip off, THE WHOLE DAMN TAIL DID........also, airplanes fly through turbulence all the time, that is far more severe than wake turbulence. The damn tail shouldn't have ripped off because of it. But hey, that is composites for ya.
Fly by wire is just a computer system that corrects the pilot if he makes a mistake however all or most modern day jetliners run using hydraulics to be able to move the control panels.lowing wrote:
I never worked the A310 but it is my understanding that it is fly by wire, not cables.spray_and_pray wrote:
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.lowing wrote:
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.
yer wrong .better go look it up. Fly by wire is an electrical input from the yoke into a computer that sends a signal to a PCA (power control actuator) which moves the flight control. In a fly by wire aircraft, there is no control cables to the flight controls from the yoke.spray_and_pray wrote:
Fly by wire is just a computer system that corrects the pilot if he makes a mistake however all or most modern day jetliners run using hydraulics to be able to move the control panels.lowing wrote:
I never worked the A310 but it is my understanding that it is fly by wire, not cables.spray_and_pray wrote:
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.
not getting heated at all, not sure where ya got that onespray_and_pray wrote:
Ok you apparently dont know about the 747 crash the whole entire bulkhead was replaced and checked by Boeing staff all 747's after this crash were grounded and inspected. Composite materials are the future look what the 787 is being made out of. And no aircraft are not made to go through wake turbulence you should know that more then others it can disrupt lift that is produced by the wing it will fuck up an airplane more then normal turbulence being maint i dont know if you are aware of this but you should be wake turbulence can effect an area for up to 2-5 minutes i know this because i am a pilot and am about to be late for work ill talk to you when i get back to my office. Now i dont know if you are getting heated about this im quite enjoying it so take a step away from the screen breathe deep and type.lowing wrote:
There are several levels of maintenance checks, not all checks look at every section or component of the aircraft. IF the check that that 747 was in did not call for a NDT ( non destructive testing) or even a visual inspection, ( which a microscopic crack would have been missed anyway) on that "P" Dome, it would not have been looked at. There are certain repairs that are done that require a re-inspection at certain flight intervals, until a permanent repair is performed. The repair on the "P"DOME apparently was a permanent repair NOT requiring re-reinspection. It was a engineer who fucked up the repair order, he also killed himself over it if I remember correctly.spray_and_pray wrote:
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 missile all of its control cables were destroyed but it managed to land using engines only. Oh and as for the 747 I haven't seen a comment there. Sorry i was away editing my other post.
Back to your A300.........The rudder didn't rip off, THE WHOLE DAMN TAIL DID........also, airplanes fly through turbulence all the time, that is far more severe than wake turbulence. The damn tail shouldn't have ripped off because of it. But hey, that is composites for ya.
I did not say an airplane is SUPPOSED to go through wake turbulence, I said the tail shouldn't rip off because of it.
as far as the 747 is concerned, there was a repair on that area using a single row of rivets where it should have had a double row. the expansion and contraction of the "P"dome work hardened along that single rivet line until it finally cracked. 7 years later if memory serves me. If we are talking about the JAL 747 in Haneda Japan
For what it is worth, I am a pilot as well.
Last edited by lowing (2006-12-11 20:52:02)
The only thing is the A310 has hydraulic control cables as well as fly by wire oh noes have you been looking up wikipedia again... you should know better.
Last edited by spray_and_pray (2006-12-11 20:39:42)
22 November 2003: European Air Transport OO-DLL, operating on behalf of DHL, was hit by an SA-7 'Grail' missile after take-off from Baghdad International Airport. The aeroplane rapidly lost all hydraulic pressure and thus controls. The crew found that after extending the landing gear to create more drag, they could pilot the plane using differences in engine thrust and managed to land the plane with minimal further damage. The plane was later repaired and offered for sale
EDIT: Amazing what composite materials can do aye?
EDIT: Amazing what composite materials can do aye?
Last edited by spray_and_pray (2006-12-11 20:42:56)
I just looked it up, the A310 has fly by wire to its secondary flight controls, leading the way for full fly by wire on the A320, A330 A340 etc... So cable driven systems to its primary flight control actuatorsspray_and_pray wrote:
The only thing is the A310 has hydraulic control cables as well as fly by wire oh noes have you been looking up wikipedia again... you should know better.
I already bowed to the fact that I have never worked the A310, and was not sure about its flight controls. So yup in the case of the A310 I looked it up.........The rest is almost 20 years in aircraft maint, working Boeings and Airbus in real time in all levels of maint, from overhaul to line maint..........and you??spray_and_pray wrote:
The only thing is the A310 has hydraulic control cables as well as fly by wire oh noes have you been looking up wikipedia again... you should know better.
Hats off to the pilots for ther flying skill. Any airplane, however, can use differential thrust when the engines are mounted on the wings it is phsyics, not because it was an airbus, besides a DC-10 did it first.spray_and_pray wrote:
22 November 2003: European Air Transport OO-DLL, operating on behalf of DHL, was hit by an SA-7 'Grail' missile after take-off from Baghdad International Airport. The aeroplane rapidly lost all hydraulic pressure and thus controls. The crew found that after extending the landing gear to create more drag, they could pilot the plane using differences in engine thrust and managed to land the plane with minimal further damage. The plane was later repaired and offered for sale
EDIT: Amazing what composite materials can do aye?
Meaning i was correct... thanks I just wanted to make sure I didnt have my facts incorrect I didn't mean to sound rude if I did sorry its just that wiki is open source and thus people who dont know jack shit about anything can type in bullshit. Also the airplane in question was the A300 just found out now but it would be like the A310 because the design of the A300 was redone when the A310 came in especially with wing fencing. As for my cred's I have already posted them so I bow down to the fact you might know about some parts to the aircraft I dont know but when it comes to the actual information on flight I guess I know better then you so thats a pretty good setup and it will be easy to learn of each other that way +1 for good convo.lowing wrote:
I just looked it up, the A310 has fly by wire to its secondary flight controls, leading the way for full fly by wire on the A320, A330 A340 etc... So cable driven systems to its primary flight control actuatorsspray_and_pray wrote:
The only thing is the A310 has hydraulic control cables as well as fly by wire oh noes have you been looking up wikipedia again... you should know better.
I am aware of that but the 747 did'nt do it they maybe had stuff against them such as mountains... Are you aware of the program set up after the crash of the 747 which was supposed to be an autopilot for differntial thrust where the aircraft could do all flying operations without control surfaces then land at -300 fpm (kinda on the rough side but still good) its all good until -400/-500 fpm when you break your landing gear.lowing wrote:
Hats off to the pilots for ther flying skill. Any airplane, however, can use differential thrust when the engines are mounted on the wings it is phsyics, not because it was an airbus, besides a DC-10 did it first.spray_and_pray wrote:
22 November 2003: European Air Transport OO-DLL, operating on behalf of DHL, was hit by an SA-7 'Grail' missile after take-off from Baghdad International Airport. The aeroplane rapidly lost all hydraulic pressure and thus controls. The crew found that after extending the landing gear to create more drag, they could pilot the plane using differences in engine thrust and managed to land the plane with minimal further damage. The plane was later repaired and offered for sale
EDIT: Amazing what composite materials can do aye?
The pilot used an excessive amount of rudder to try counter the turbulence part of the rudder was faulty and it was amazing it lasted as long as it did. The stress messed it up and down plunged the Tail and elevators.lowing wrote:
not getting heated at all, not sure where ya got that onespray_and_pray wrote:
Ok you apparently dont know about the 747 crash the whole entire bulkhead was replaced and checked by Boeing staff all 747's after this crash were grounded and inspected. Composite materials are the future look what the 787 is being made out of. And no aircraft are not made to go through wake turbulence you should know that more then others it can disrupt lift that is produced by the wing it will fuck up an airplane more then normal turbulence being maint i dont know if you are aware of this but you should be wake turbulence can effect an area for up to 2-5 minutes i know this because i am a pilot and am about to be late for work ill talk to you when i get back to my office. Now i dont know if you are getting heated about this im quite enjoying it so take a step away from the screen breathe deep and type.lowing wrote:
There are several levels of maintenance checks, not all checks look at every section or component of the aircraft. IF the check that that 747 was in did not call for a NDT ( non destructive testing) or even a visual inspection, ( which a microscopic crack would have been missed anyway) on that "P" Dome, it would not have been looked at. There are certain repairs that are done that require a re-inspection at certain flight intervals, until a permanent repair is performed. The repair on the "P"DOME apparently was a permanent repair NOT requiring re-reinspection. It was a engineer who fucked up the repair order, he also killed himself over it if I remember correctly.
Back to your A300.........The rudder didn't rip off, THE WHOLE DAMN TAIL DID........also, airplanes fly through turbulence all the time, that is far more severe than wake turbulence. The damn tail shouldn't have ripped off because of it. But hey, that is composites for ya.
I did not say an airplane is SUPPOSED to go through wake turbulence, I said the tail shouldn't rip off because of it.
as far as the 747 is concerned, there was a repair on that area using a single row of rivets where it should have had a double row. the expansion and contraction of the "P"dome work hardened along that single rivet line until it finally cracked. 7 years later if memory serves me. If we are talking about the JAL 747 in Haneda Japan
For what it is worth, I am a pilot as well.
And again, this is what you get when you buy your "high tech" composite control surfaces from the country who's most notable manufacturing achievement to date is the Yugo.spray_and_pray wrote:
The pilot used an excessive amount of rudder to try counter the turbulence part of the rudder was faulty and it was amazing it lasted as long as it did. The stress messed it up and down plunged the Tail and elevators.
Retarded? The Yugo is from yugoslavia you apparently dont know much about aircraft what sounds safer re enforced aluminium or composite's. Also composite materials are part of the future as boeing is making the 787 largely out of composites something airbus has been doing for years. Im off back to work over and out.blisteringsilence wrote:
And again, this is what you get when you buy your "high tech" composite control surfaces from the country who's most notable manufacturing achievement to date is the Yugo.spray_and_pray wrote:
The pilot used an excessive amount of rudder to try counter the turbulence part of the rudder was faulty and it was amazing it lasted as long as it did. The stress messed it up and down plunged the Tail and elevators.
Ok, whatever.
I sure hope those P.R. boys at Boeing know what they are talking about.
Ok, my bad... it's the Boeing 787-8, 787-9 and 787-3. Follow the links from the sidebar on this page at Boeing's website. This one should do. And if it works, I like this page as well.spray_and_pray wrote:
READ READ READ 787-800 I never argued about the 747-8 and its name ffs.
I sure hope those P.R. boys at Boeing know what they are talking about.
OK, mate. Here's my thinking for you. I know that this is tough to follow, so I'll make it step by step:spray_and_pray wrote:
Retarded? The Yugo is from yugoslavia you apparently dont know much about aircraft what sounds safer re enforced aluminium or composite's. Also composite materials are part of the future as boeing is making the 787 largely out of composites something airbus has been doing for years. Im off back to work over and out.blisteringsilence wrote:
And again, this is what you get when you buy your "high tech" composite control surfaces from the country who's most notable manufacturing achievement to date is the Yugo.spray_and_pray wrote:
The pilot used an excessive amount of rudder to try counter the turbulence part of the rudder was faulty and it was amazing it lasted as long as it did. The stress messed it up and down plunged the Tail and elevators.
1. Yugos are made in Yugoslavia.
2. The composite rudder that failed on the Airbus was made in Yugoslavia.
3. ?????????????
4. Profit!!!
I am not saying that composites are bad. Just the opposite. They're awesome, the wave of the future. The thing is, they're tricky to manufacture, and have to have the most rigorous QC possible, especially when they're used on important airplane parts (like, say, the control surfaces).
And Yugos are pieces of shit.
My post was 60% for real, and 40% sarcasm.
Well then is it stupidity or ignorance but Nichola Tesla was born in Yugoslavia without him we wouldnt even be talking about aircraft. Now back off to your cage before you make me angry with racial slurs.blisteringsilence wrote:
OK, mate. Here's my thinking for you. I know that this is tough to follow, so I'll make it step by step:spray_and_pray wrote:
Retarded? The Yugo is from yugoslavia you apparently dont know much about aircraft what sounds safer re enforced aluminium or composite's. Also composite materials are part of the future as boeing is making the 787 largely out of composites something airbus has been doing for years. Im off back to work over and out.blisteringsilence wrote:
And again, this is what you get when you buy your "high tech" composite control surfaces from the country who's most notable manufacturing achievement to date is the Yugo.
1. Yugos are made in Yugoslavia.
2. The composite rudder that failed on the Airbus was made in Yugoslavia.
3. ?????????????
4. Profit!!!
I am not saying that composites are bad. Just the opposite. They're awesome, the wave of the future. The thing is, they're tricky to manufacture, and have to have the most rigorous QC possible, especially when they're used on important airplane parts (like, say, the control surfaces).
And Yugos are pieces of shit.
My post was 60% for real, and 40% sarcasm.
Not nice, not nice at all. Especially after you insinuated I was retarted. I would argue (successfully I might add) that I am neither ignorant nor stupid, but you are going to believe what it is you want to believe.spray_and_pray wrote:
Well then is it stupidity or ignorance but Nichola Tesla was born in Yugoslavia without him we wouldnt even be talking about aircraft. Now back off to your cage before you make me angry with racial slurs.blisteringsilence wrote:
OK, mate. Here's my thinking for you. I know that this is tough to follow, so I'll make it step by step:spray_and_pray wrote:
Retarded? The Yugo is from yugoslavia you apparently dont know much about aircraft what sounds safer re enforced aluminium or composite's. Also composite materials are part of the future as boeing is making the 787 largely out of composites something airbus has been doing for years. Im off back to work over and out.
1. Yugos are made in Yugoslavia.
2. The composite rudder that failed on the Airbus was made in Yugoslavia.
3. ?????????????
4. Profit!!!
I am not saying that composites are bad. Just the opposite. They're awesome, the wave of the future. The thing is, they're tricky to manufacture, and have to have the most rigorous QC possible, especially when they're used on important airplane parts (like, say, the control surfaces).
And Yugos are pieces of shit.
My post was 60% for real, and 40% sarcasm.
It is very nice Tesla was born in Yugoslavia. I didn't know that.
That being said, I wouldn't trust him to manufacture my composite control surfaces either.
Now, I don't know where the racial slurs came into this. Nationalistic generalization, perhaps. I don't think the Yugoslavians are any less intelligent than you or I. But, I would no more trust their industry to manufacture advanced composites than I would the industry of, say, Barbados. Or Iran. Or Greece.
Now, Italy, Germany, France, the UK, absolutely.
So, care to respond in a constructive way? Or are you just going to hope that the assualt on my intelligence and integrity will dissuage me from commenting on the thread further?
Did you also check the link I posted possibly a page ago? You will see I guess im willing to see your reply in 2008 ..mcminty wrote:
Ok, whatever.Ok, my bad... it's the Boeing 787-8, 787-9 and 787-3. Follow the links from the sidebar on this page at Boeing's website. This one should do. And if it works, I like this page as well.spray_and_pray wrote:
READ READ READ 787-800 I never argued about the 747-8 and its name ffs.
I sure hope those P.R. boys at Boeing know what they are talking about.
Well lets see how you started. Insulting a whole entire country that the most succesful thing they have done to date is invented some half assed car. Now that at all is not very nice your first responce wasn't constructive so I continued on that. If you have read the whole entire thread you might have got the jist of things instead of screaming out stupid idiotic shit like you did. You seem not to know what the heck you are talking about as your only "smart" comment was about composites. Congradulations thats what the aircraft is made of now you can move into. Maintenance, Piloting Skill, Air traffic control. These are all factors as why an aircraft crashes more highly then any other. If you look at every single aircraft that has crashed to date one of the above was the cause. So for you to go and call a country uselss was not very contructive or not very smart. And I have no intention on making you leave the thread I just wont read the stuff you write. Now hopefully your next post will actually be constructive after you accused me of writing in constructive sentences after all I have probably contributed the most to this thread and shown EQAUL bias moving slightly to backing up airbus but I will back up Boeing if needed. The big words that you are using actually do not intimidate someone they make you look like a jerk and a tryhard who is trying to write about something he doesn't know about so instead he thinks of the biggest word he can add and does it, Congradulations.blisteringsilence wrote:
Not nice, not nice at all. Especially after you insinuated I was retarted. I would argue (successfully I might add) that I am neither ignorant nor stupid, but you are going to believe what it is you want to believe.spray_and_pray wrote:
Well then is it stupidity or ignorance but Nichola Tesla was born in Yugoslavia without him we wouldnt even be talking about aircraft. Now back off to your cage before you make me angry with racial slurs.blisteringsilence wrote:
OK, mate. Here's my thinking for you. I know that this is tough to follow, so I'll make it step by step:
1. Yugos are made in Yugoslavia.
2. The composite rudder that failed on the Airbus was made in Yugoslavia.
3. ?????????????
4. Profit!!!
I am not saying that composites are bad. Just the opposite. They're awesome, the wave of the future. The thing is, they're tricky to manufacture, and have to have the most rigorous QC possible, especially when they're used on important airplane parts (like, say, the control surfaces).
And Yugos are pieces of shit.
My post was 60% for real, and 40% sarcasm.
It is very nice Tesla was born in Yugoslavia. I didn't know that.
That being said, I wouldn't trust him to manufacture my composite control surfaces either.
Now, I don't know where the racial slurs came into this. Nationalistic generalization, perhaps. I don't think the Yugoslavians are any less intelligent than you or I. But, I would no more trust their industry to manufacture advanced composites than I would the industry of, say, Barbados. Or Iran. Or Greece.
Now, Italy, Germany, France, the UK, absolutely.
So, care to respond in a constructive way? Or are you just going to hope that the assualt on my intelligence and integrity will dissuage me from commenting on the thread further?
Boeing, because my dad works there. Not to mention Boeing does more than airplanes, they also do insanely awesome missile shit (like trying to create a missile guidance chip that will be unaffected by radioactivity and will be able to withstand a nuclear explosion so it can be recovered and used again).
Plus, my dog's name is Buster, and Airbus just makes me laugh because any time someone says Airbus, my dog perks up and thinks his name is being called.
Plus, my dog's name is Buster, and Airbus just makes me laugh because any time someone says Airbus, my dog perks up and thinks his name is being called.
Can I assume you mean this? http://www.planespotters.net/Production … index.htmlspray_and_pray wrote:
Did you also check the link I posted possibly a page ago? You will see I guess im willing to see your reply in 2008 ..mcminty wrote:
Ok, whatever.Ok, my bad... it's the Boeing 787-8, 787-9 and 787-3. Follow the links from the sidebar on this page at Boeing's website. This one should do. And if it works, I like this page as well.spray_and_pray wrote:
READ READ READ 787-800 I never argued about the 747-8 and its name ffs.
I sure hope those P.R. boys at Boeing know what they are talking about.
It only lists two airlines, JAL and Air Seychelles, as having ordered the 787. That is, any 787 variation. From the Boeing 787 press release page, you will notice that many more airlines have ordered the Dreamliner. The list includes airlines such as Aeromexico, Singapore Airlines and Air New Zealand.
-----
The interesting thing to note here is the suffix for the aircraft designation. Every single JAL 787's designation is 787-X46, where X is a 3 or an 8.
All of Air Seychelles' aircraft designations are 787-8Q8.
Strange, huh? Well, Boeing gives every customer a code that goes after the model designation. ie. it will be the 787-XAA, where X is the model number and AA is the customer code. It will not be the 787-800.
A comprehensive customer code list can be found here.
But remember this is not to be confused with the Airbus Engine code system. For example:
To use an A320-200 with IAE V2500-A1 engines as an example, the code is A320-2ev (ev = engine, version) for the model. The series number takes the first place. The second is the engine manufacturer (for codes, see below), this makes the code now A320-23v. The version is 1, taking the code to A320-231.
Engine codes:
0 General Electric (GE)
1 CFM (SNECMA & GE)
2 Pratt & Whitney (PW)
3 International Aero Engines (RR & PW)
4 Rolls-Royce (RR)
6 Engine Alliance (GE & PW)
Just if you didn't know.
Mcminty.
OK, I'm going to break up your quote so that it's more readable.
1. I started posting on this thread back on page 3, post #60. With reference to my most previous 2 posts, I did not *intentionally* mean to demean an entire country based on their manufacturing prowess. It was a sarcastic attempt to be funny. By no means should a country or society as a whole be judged on the basis of said prowess.
That being said, one must consider the ramifications of using what the international community considers to be a second world country to manufacture goods that are without a doubt a technologically advanced and require excellent quality control. Here is where the sarcasm came in (as the QC on the Yugo was, well, not all that great). I'm not saying that they won't one day be capable of creating these items.
However, the acquisition of manufacturing skill is not the work of a 30 day course at an Airbus plant in Toulouse. It takes decades. Ask the Japanese.
2. I have indeed read the thread in its entirety. I have commented on it often.
3. Onto my skills with regards to airplanes. I'll be totally honest with you, I don't know much about airframe maintnence. I can discuss the benefits of the different methods of doping fabric wings at length with you, but Lowing would be the expert on the tidbits that keep a plane in the air. I know what I have to check at preflight, and thats it.
With regards to piloting skill, I would say that mine is really quite high. I am not rated on IFR, but would be capable of it in a pinch, in that I understand the basics. I seem to do just fine VFR though. Now, admittedly, the plane I fly on a regular basis is no model of modern engineering, but I can fly it better than most. And for a pile of lumber with aluminum skin and fabric wings, she flys pretty sweet. Enclosed cockpits are for pussies.
I know ATC pretty well. My favorite controller's name is Jeff. He's a pilot too, see him at the field sometimes. Works weekends. Always takes good care of me. One of these days though (most likely right before my down-check flight physical), I'm going to fly through the Arch. I don't think Jeff and I will be able to be friends anymore after that.
4. I am an articulate person. I apologize. I was blessed with an excellent education, and since our language is the way in which we convey ideas and beliefs from one to another, I work very, very hard at it. My business would be considerably more difficult were I not well spoken and well written. If you have a problem with that, well, get over it.
Now, I don't hold grudges. Hell, you ever make it up here on a weekend when I can get up to the field, I'll even take you up, let you see what real flying is supposed to be like. I guarantee that you've never cranked and banked in your life what my baby will let you do.
Alrighty, here we go.spray_and_pray wrote:
Well lets see how you started. Insulting a whole entire country that the most succesful thing they have done to date is invented some half assed car. Now that at all is not very nice your first responce wasn't constructive so I continued on that.
If you have read the whole entire thread you might have got the jist of things instead of screaming out stupid idiotic shit like you did.
You seem not to know what the heck you are talking about as your only "smart" comment was about composites. Congradulations thats what the aircraft is made of now you can move into. Maintenance, Piloting Skill, Air traffic control.
These are all factors as why an aircraft crashes more highly then any other. If you look at every single aircraft that has crashed to date one of the above was the cause.
So for you to go and call a country uselss was not very contructive or not very smart.
And I have no intention on making you leave the thread I just wont read the stuff you write.
Now hopefully your next post will actually be constructive after you accused me of writing in constructive sentences after all I have probably contributed the most to this thread and shown EQAUL bias moving slightly to backing up airbus but I will back up Boeing if needed.
The big words that you are using actually do not intimidate someone they make you look like a jerk and a tryhard who is trying to write about something he doesn't know about so instead he thinks of the biggest word he can add and does it, Congradulations.
1. I started posting on this thread back on page 3, post #60. With reference to my most previous 2 posts, I did not *intentionally* mean to demean an entire country based on their manufacturing prowess. It was a sarcastic attempt to be funny. By no means should a country or society as a whole be judged on the basis of said prowess.
That being said, one must consider the ramifications of using what the international community considers to be a second world country to manufacture goods that are without a doubt a technologically advanced and require excellent quality control. Here is where the sarcasm came in (as the QC on the Yugo was, well, not all that great). I'm not saying that they won't one day be capable of creating these items.
However, the acquisition of manufacturing skill is not the work of a 30 day course at an Airbus plant in Toulouse. It takes decades. Ask the Japanese.
2. I have indeed read the thread in its entirety. I have commented on it often.
3. Onto my skills with regards to airplanes. I'll be totally honest with you, I don't know much about airframe maintnence. I can discuss the benefits of the different methods of doping fabric wings at length with you, but Lowing would be the expert on the tidbits that keep a plane in the air. I know what I have to check at preflight, and thats it.
With regards to piloting skill, I would say that mine is really quite high. I am not rated on IFR, but would be capable of it in a pinch, in that I understand the basics. I seem to do just fine VFR though. Now, admittedly, the plane I fly on a regular basis is no model of modern engineering, but I can fly it better than most. And for a pile of lumber with aluminum skin and fabric wings, she flys pretty sweet. Enclosed cockpits are for pussies.
I know ATC pretty well. My favorite controller's name is Jeff. He's a pilot too, see him at the field sometimes. Works weekends. Always takes good care of me. One of these days though (most likely right before my down-check flight physical), I'm going to fly through the Arch. I don't think Jeff and I will be able to be friends anymore after that.
4. I am an articulate person. I apologize. I was blessed with an excellent education, and since our language is the way in which we convey ideas and beliefs from one to another, I work very, very hard at it. My business would be considerably more difficult were I not well spoken and well written. If you have a problem with that, well, get over it.
Now, I don't hold grudges. Hell, you ever make it up here on a weekend when I can get up to the field, I'll even take you up, let you see what real flying is supposed to be like. I guarantee that you've never cranked and banked in your life what my baby will let you do.