User Profile Header
Sunny9850
,
CA
Message Board
Displaying 1-5 of 12
from Sunny9850
wrote 8 years 5 weeks ago
from Sunny9850
wrote 8 years 5 weeks ago
I am always amazed by these US against Airbus discussions. I believe it was the B737 that had some serious rudder problems
in the past in exactly the same circumstances.
To say that Airbus is cutting more corners and builds their airplanes to barely scrape by the regulations is unrealistic.
You want an example of an aircraft returning safely home with battle damage....how about that Airbus last year in the middle east
who was attacked with RPGs or similar weapons and had major portions of the flight controls shot off...she made a safe landing.
Quite possibly because it was an Airbus come to think of it.
Aside from the fact that even the nasty Europeans don't lightheartedly risk killing hundreds of people is that fact that in this
day and age two other things are very important. Reputation and unfortunately lawsuits especially here.
in the past in exactly the same circumstances.
To say that Airbus is cutting more corners and builds their airplanes to barely scrape by the regulations is unrealistic.
You want an example of an aircraft returning safely home with battle damage....how about that Airbus last year in the middle east
who was attacked with RPGs or similar weapons and had major portions of the flight controls shot off...she made a safe landing.
Quite possibly because it was an Airbus come to think of it.
Aside from the fact that even the nasty Europeans don't lightheartedly risk killing hundreds of people is that fact that in this
day and age two other things are very important. Reputation and unfortunately lawsuits especially here.
from Sunny9850
wrote 8 years 5 weeks ago
Hi Ted_Stryker
maybe I was jumping the proverbial gun a little there...it just is an ever revolving issue and often fueled more by patriotism than actual hard facts...not acusing you of that mind you.
If I remember right the F15 was an israeli airforce airplane and the pilot kept his head in a situation that was in no training text book.
The 737 rudder issue was initally blamed by Boeing on pilot error in the first two accidents if I remember correctly and only after another incident where the plane was recovered by the crew and the real problem was discovered did the company fix the problems...all this is based on what an outsider can put together via WWW and media.
You may very well be right in your description of the cause for the Airbus rudder issue. I don't have any knowledge of which changes they have made to their design. Sometimes a new design while better in many respects can cause an unforseen negative effect.
Of course as a 100% german national I am a little more partial to the Airbus product...
maybe I was jumping the proverbial gun a little there...it just is an ever revolving issue and often fueled more by patriotism than actual hard facts...not acusing you of that mind you.
If I remember right the F15 was an israeli airforce airplane and the pilot kept his head in a situation that was in no training text book.
The 737 rudder issue was initally blamed by Boeing on pilot error in the first two accidents if I remember correctly and only after another incident where the plane was recovered by the crew and the real problem was discovered did the company fix the problems...all this is based on what an outsider can put together via WWW and media.
You may very well be right in your description of the cause for the Airbus rudder issue. I don't have any knowledge of which changes they have made to their design. Sometimes a new design while better in many respects can cause an unforseen negative effect.
Of course as a 100% german national I am a little more partial to the Airbus product...
from Sunny9850
wrote 8 years 5 weeks ago
Hi All,
not to pour oil on the flames or anything but when you look at the subsidizing picture on either side of the pond you have
to include at least part of the research moneys spend out of the tax payers pockets for NASA research wich very often is then
shared with US manufacturers for their airplanes both military and commercial. Fly by wire, autopilots, ABS systems engine development, airfoil design and last but not least material research.
Then there are entire designs built for a military requirement which such as the 747 did not make the cut for one reason or the other and then at cost of Boeing transformed into the civilian Queen of the Flightlevels. Now I don't remember exactly if the
company had planned on a civilian airliner from the get go or if it was a means to make use of the design.
Another example goes back a little further in the Dash 80...the need for a faster Tanker aircraft with jet power had quite alot to do with the Boeing gamble of the company fortunes on the new design.
As far as Airbus or Boeing taking a loss in order to gain market share.....not unnusal on either side. And not limited to Airplanes either....Cars are a favorite example here where a company will subsidize the initial break in the market in hopes of
getting a strong enough piece of the cake to allow them to reclaim those "losses" later.
In Airbus case there is an explicit requirement to repay all government loans from the participating countries at a certain date after production start.
Boeing giving away the manufacturing of major components for certain types to communist China in order to get that countries orders and not loose another major contract to Airbus defintely falls into that category....some of these chinese Wings may also end up on US aircraft in order to stay competitive.
I am not too crazy about the Airbus production set-up with parts travelling hundreds of miles to go from plant to plant. But some of the plans for the 787 are now at least discussing building a barge terminal in Seattle for the parts arriving from overseas.
My personal favorite ride across the big pond to visit Germany and back to SoCal is still Lufthansas 747-400. I am not sure yet the A380 will have the same effect but we'll have to wait and see. Twin engines in medium range I prefer Airbus over Boeing usually, depending on the Airline. Speaking of that most of what the flying customer considers benefits of one design over the other has absolutely nothing to do with the green airplane of either company...the seats can be just as comfy in a Boeing as in an Airbus...it just depends on whether or not the Airline is willing or able to call Recaro for their seats.
Airbus quieter cabin than Boeing....depends on the airline and how much of their MTOW they are willing to give up for creature comfort.
not to pour oil on the flames or anything but when you look at the subsidizing picture on either side of the pond you have
to include at least part of the research moneys spend out of the tax payers pockets for NASA research wich very often is then
shared with US manufacturers for their airplanes both military and commercial. Fly by wire, autopilots, ABS systems engine development, airfoil design and last but not least material research.
Then there are entire designs built for a military requirement which such as the 747 did not make the cut for one reason or the other and then at cost of Boeing transformed into the civilian Queen of the Flightlevels. Now I don't remember exactly if the
company had planned on a civilian airliner from the get go or if it was a means to make use of the design.
Another example goes back a little further in the Dash 80...the need for a faster Tanker aircraft with jet power had quite alot to do with the Boeing gamble of the company fortunes on the new design.
As far as Airbus or Boeing taking a loss in order to gain market share.....not unnusal on either side. And not limited to Airplanes either....Cars are a favorite example here where a company will subsidize the initial break in the market in hopes of
getting a strong enough piece of the cake to allow them to reclaim those "losses" later.
In Airbus case there is an explicit requirement to repay all government loans from the participating countries at a certain date after production start.
Boeing giving away the manufacturing of major components for certain types to communist China in order to get that countries orders and not loose another major contract to Airbus defintely falls into that category....some of these chinese Wings may also end up on US aircraft in order to stay competitive.
I am not too crazy about the Airbus production set-up with parts travelling hundreds of miles to go from plant to plant. But some of the plans for the 787 are now at least discussing building a barge terminal in Seattle for the parts arriving from overseas.
My personal favorite ride across the big pond to visit Germany and back to SoCal is still Lufthansas 747-400. I am not sure yet the A380 will have the same effect but we'll have to wait and see. Twin engines in medium range I prefer Airbus over Boeing usually, depending on the Airline. Speaking of that most of what the flying customer considers benefits of one design over the other has absolutely nothing to do with the green airplane of either company...the seats can be just as comfy in a Boeing as in an Airbus...it just depends on whether or not the Airline is willing or able to call Recaro for their seats.
Airbus quieter cabin than Boeing....depends on the airline and how much of their MTOW they are willing to give up for creature comfort.
from Sunny9850
wrote 8 years 5 weeks ago
That could be one way to build those hours everyone wants to see in the logbooks.
- 1 of 3
- ››
Newsletter Signup
Marketplace
Find great Products & Services!
Partner Pages
I whish I had as many real world hours as I have in the various versions of FlightSim, Xplane, FlightUnlimited ...you name
the sim I have it and plenty of logged hours.
I landed the P28-161 on my first lesson...not because I am some kind of natural talent but because the real thing came after
many hours flying a very good sim version on FS2004. Once I finally had the right combination of available time and money
and decided to start real world flight training I did nothing more on the sim than to fly around the pattern to get used to
the sightpicture. Once in the real airplane the feel was certainly different but the basic look of things was very close.
Now I am not saying you could replace real flight training with time spent flying on a PC based game. But if used in conjunction
with the real world the sim will save you a lot of time, frustration and money.
Certain aspects of flight can obviously not be reproduced in a home pc system. No matter how much one invests in peripheral gizzmos such as Flight Controls, 3D goggles with head tracking and on and on...flying even on a PC can get quite expensive ;-)
But the feel of g-forces in a steep bank, the suptle change of windnoise over the aircraft as speed is bled off and many other
sensory inputs seemingly too insignificant to simulate are not going to be there.
But especially in the last MS version everything else is right there...."real as it gets" to use their slogan. The airports, the navaids, the terrain features....even ATC has been improved to the point where it can be helpful for future real world aviators
by getting used to the "new" language.
Getting used to flying VOR radials and NDB bearings on the sim is probably the easiest way save some time and money using the
sim. The best part is that the sim will allow a couple of things that you just can't do in the real world.
For one you can control the weather, especially the winds so that you can truely understand the reasons and how-to of compensating. You can save a position and immediately go back to that starting location without having to waste 20 minutes of CFI time in circling back.
Currently I am working on my IFR ticket and again the sim proves very valuable in addition to working with my CFI. I can practice approaches to minimums when ever I want..and since there are no foggles...just simulated weather there is no cheating.
After an approach is completed I can look at the flight review and compare my track to the perfect one on the Jepp Chart.
And again I can save the flight right at the IAF and do it over as often as I like without driving those poor folks in SoCal ATC
into a different line of work...Thanks ladies and gentlemen at this time for your help during those actual flying days. You are the best.
Tired of flying the ILS or VOR approach into CNO or CCB....no problem reset to what ever region strikes my fancy...if needed get the appropriate plates from AOPA.org or Http://www.airnav.com and I can try my hand at new challenges. If I run into something I don't get quite right or don't understand....I make notes and take them to my CFI and we'll talk about it or recreate it in a lesson.
Some other approaches are just not very efficient use of CFI time...like a 13 nm DME arch into VCV...why waste a whole hour of flying time on that when it can be done for free and with better review on the sim.
Again the sim can not replace the real world feel of the airplane and the first hour in actual IFR was still an eye-opener even with literally hundreds of hours of simulator actual. Surprisingly the only time I felt a slight disorientation was while my CFI was flying an approach from the right seat and I just sat there as an observer...as soon as I concentrated on the instruments again i was fine.
I have a networked second PC that runs a simulated version of FlightMax and either a G430 or G530 GPS. After some time flying the G430 on the sim, my partner and I installed one in our real world Archer and again the simulator hours are paying off nicely.
Lastly when real world Santa Ana winds make real flying either unproductive or unsafe ...the PC is right there to keep the scan up and the skills sharp.
OH yes ....one other benefit is that almost any dream airplane can be added to my hangar. Some for a few dollars thanks to a worldwide community of entuthiasts most for free...Flightsim.com is my favorite airport on the WWW.