Posted on 02/16/2006 2:01:08 PM PST by A.A. Cunningham
Your .380 will sell more. Boeing has enough orders for the Dreamliner to keep them busy for years. The A380 is already done. It doesn't get the mileage of the Dreamliner and it can't land at most airports due to its' weight. Airbus took a page from the U.S. automakers of the 70's - build it big with poor mileage so nobody will want one.
It surrendered as expected. Taping white flags to the wingtips did the trick.
Did anyone see the results of their ground test evacuating 600 people in 90 seconds? I have trouble believing that's possible.
It takes 89 seconds to open the belly door and 1 second to pull the lever.
Airliner manufacturers have learned from the experiences of structural fatigue (ever since the unfortunate de Havilland Comet accidents of 1953-1954) and nowadays do a lot a static structural testing to ensure the plane can last through many thousands of takeoff and landing cycles.
I read once that a typical reliability engineer was a fellow who would fly across the country on an airliner with a 1.5 safety factor to argue that a missile ought to have one of 8.0.
On an early B-707 transatlantic flight (with a load of passengers) there was some kind of autopilot malfunction, combined with the captain being back in the cabin passing out goodwill to the passengers; the ship got into a dive and they came close to losing it before it was back under control. A precautionary landing was made at Goose Bay or Gander. The wings were actually bent considerably. However, a thorough examination was made by a team of FAA and stress engineers and it was decided that the ship was safe to put back in service.
In engineering terms, this meant that "yield stress" was exceeded, but not "ultimate stress" which is typically about 1.5 times yield.
Thanks for the sources. Cheers!
He77 we don't even have tails on the A300-600's
I've fired the Bersa .380 and liked it. It's smaller and if I'm not mistaken, less expensive.
It was a landing problem, not a take off problem. The plane (E-2 Hawkeyes) could land, but it was at the edge of the deck and couldn't turn around. It had to be physically pushed back from the edge. The deck was lengthened at a cost of millions of Francs. (And then the prop fell off the ship). (And don't forget the radiation leaks from the reactor.)
Bersa, eh? That's the second recommendation I've had for that one. Thanks for the info.
Damn, I was gonna post Slim Pickens riding the bomb from Dr. Strangelove. :-)
It's France. There is something symbolic about a big disfunctional left wing on that eurobeast.
Or toutite. (Sorry, couldn't resist it).
I think it's "au'horsedouvers"
Sorry...I'll buy you a beer on our next Boeing flight. Just announce yourself when you see me.
Cheers...
Tou-che.
"The wings were actually bent considerably."
Geez, if the wings got bent in the recovery (pulling out of the dive) those poor people must have been subjected to some SERIOUS G's.
I wonder what the difference in wing shape would have done to the craft's flight/stall characteristics?
It often seems they were wonderfully unconcerned with minor details back in the day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.