The War has begun for the skies...

[Ramius]

Now, as we may all know, I can't ride a motorcycle. So, I have to now pursue my next favourite thing, well actually, don't tell anyone, but it is actually my favourite thing, and that is flying. I figure this, if I can't ride a motorcycle and some foolish bastard gave me a licence to fly an aeroplane, then why not.

Anyway, with great intent, I have been following the footsteps of Airbus' new A380 model. What an impressive display, and she got to fly for the first time yesterday after several days of ground tests.
With this model now having over 140 orders with still a year to go before commercial operations, Boeing are trying to rush through their new Mid range Carrier, the 7E7, or as it has now been dubbed the 787 Dreamliner. The A380 has several key advantages over this, for one, its only competitor is the Boeing 747-400ER model, however, Airbus claims that it has a 13% better fuel efficiency over the Boeing, and as it can hold more people it will be more attractive on the long haul trips. Comfort is another thing which is getting aimed for. It has been rumoured that Virgin Atlantic are looking to set theirs up with double bed/Chair things.
Boeing are quick to dispel the claims by Airbus that this is going to lead Aviation into a new direction. Boeing claim that there is no longer a need for such large long range craft. However, looking at the airports resizing for the new Airbus, I, myself would say they were wrong. The last figure I saw was that about 2 dozen airports were getting fitted to handle the new craft, and that Auckland was looking to do it in the short term future.
Moving along from all that, and for those that give a toss to answer, who do you think is going to win this battle, Airbus or Boeing?
And I know there will be some of you out there thinking...

:whocares:

[Hitcher]

Yup. You could get a few bikes in one of those, for sure.

[John]

I was watching the coverage on BBC last night, pretty interesting - just like they say, noise, and airport conditions and stuff might cause a problem...

And since they banked everything on this it may be a problem?..

[Ramius]

Yup. You could get a few bikes in one of those, for sure.

Allegedly according to one source, you can fit 7 English double decker buses in it. That is certainly a lot of motorcycles then...

Enough room to have your seat and your bike next to you. Even better, have a flying motorcycle workshop!

[Ramius]

I was watching the coverage on BBC last night, pretty interesting - just like they say, noise, and airport conditions and stuff might cause a problem...

And since they banked everything on this it may be a problem?..

You might be able to tell I am an advocate for Airbus, I just think their Fly-by-wire systems are great, and their planes look damn sexxxy. Anyway, as for being a problem? I don't really think so, the noise would probably be comparable to a 747 as both have 4 engines, it just so happens the A380 one's are bigger. Airport conditions, well, that is gonna be 100's of millions of dollars to get the airports up to standard as each skybridge is at a cost of 1 Million NZD.
The whole project has been about 13Billion and 1.4 Billion over budget with several countries pitching in. But with orders for 149 planes at a list price of 200 - 218 million each, I don't see it being to much of a problem. One source at Airbus said they had already made their money back on it.

[sAsLEX]

from a drunken discussion held in shads.......

I am pretty sure that they are already upgrading the runways for the new aircraft at auckland, one of the main things they needed to do was widen everything like the taxi ways so the jet wash would catch the grass on fire or somethng like that, maybe turning circle related

[Ramius]

from a drunken discussion held in shads.......

I am pretty sure that they are already upgrading the runways for the new aircraft at auckland, one of the main things they needed to do was widen everything like the taxi ways so the jet wash would catch the grass on fire or somethng like that, maybe turning circle related

Apart from the taxi way/runway the biggest thing they need to do is increase the size of the terminal, as this is a two story plane they need to add more sky bridges to cope with getting everybody off. And alter the inside to deal with the increase in passenger per plane numbers. Its a huge undertaking, and is at considerable cost to whomever pays the bills for the airports.

From the Auckland Airport website:

Runway work to commence at Auckland Airport
As part of Auckland International Airport's ongoing programme to maintain the runway and taxiway system, the airport company will shortly replace a significant section of the main runway.

This civil engineering project involves replacement of a segment of the mid-section of the main runway. Taking advantage of the opportunity, Auckland Airport will also widen a section of the main runway by 7.5 metres down either side as part of the airport's preparations for the Airbus A380. This runway shoulder is not load-bearing, but is to accommodate the large aircraft's wider engine overhang. The widening work will be completed during the next (and final) runway rehabilitation project in 2006.
\

[GNR]

im learin to fly, ive got 16 hours, and payin $75 an hour :D

[Hitcher]

im learin to fly, ive got 16 hours, and payin $75 an hour
Pah! I could teach you to fly for half that, AND throw in spelling, punctuation and grammar tuition as well...

[WINJA]

AMAZING STUFF, DID YOU SEE THE FOOTAGE OF THE ENGINE TEST WHEN THEY THREW FROZEN CHICKENS THRU TO SIMULATE BIRD STRIKE , THE JET DIDNT EVEN MISS A BEAT

[GSVR]

All I can say is imagine being the last person of the plane and having 799 people ahead of you waiting to go through customs and find their baggage.

Flying first class on it might be good. Sitting in the spa bath drinking champagne. But who flys first class?

[StoneChucker]

im learin to fly, ive got 16 hours, and payin $75 an hour
Same, but I've taken a short respite while I gather funds for the last half of my licence. If memory serves I have 25 hrs, although my hourly rate is a fair amount more than yours! :no:

So.... gone SOLO yet????? :msn-wink:

[Coyote]

I wonder how the 'Aurora' Black project is going

http://www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/12/aurora.gif

http://www.fas.org/irp/mystery/myst05.gif

Awesome site this: http://wave.prohosting.com/aurora85/

[TwoSeven]

Europe will beat everyone... They have EADS.. and they make all the US mil. equip.

[MikeL]

Airbus?? Can't be any good... Most of it is French, isn't it? How can croissant-munching, garlic-reeking, wine-besotted cowardly defeatists produce anything worthwhile??

[Ghost Lemur]

Airbus?? Can't be any good... Most of it is French, isn't it? How can croissant-munching, garlic-reeking, wine-besotted cowardly defeatists produce anything worthwhile??

hehe :killingme

*wonders how many will fall for it*

[N4CR]

Ahh... the aurora.. the non existant plane that was around for many many years with its distinctive dohnut shaped contrails etc... denied of course by the US millitary. Video's galore of it.

Then: oh my goodness.... NASA invented it and it suddenly exists.

Really fooled us Mr US Army :devil2:

Bastards... bet they have some lazer powered one now

[Ramius]

Same, but I've taken a short respite while I gather funds for the last half of my licence. If memory serves I have 25 hrs, although my hourly rate is a fair amount more than yours! :no:

So.... gone SOLO yet????? :msn-wink:

Love solo flight! However, I haven't had much time, or money to do it since I have been back in New Zealand. Have to find out if my licence is transferrable from Australia to here as well...

[Ramius]

Airbus?? Can't be any good... Most of it is French, isn't it? How can croissant-munching, garlic-reeking, wine-besotted cowardly defeatists produce anything worthwhile??

Appears to be safer than Boeing's record, however, this could be attributed to there being more Boeing aircraft and longer service.

But on the contrare, they are by far the sexxxiest, most gorgeous aircraft flying! Go the french for that!

[Gremlin]

I gotta say that boeing is better in my opinion. I believe their direction for the future is smaller and faster.

With airbus, when one of those flying tanks crashes, the record for number of deaths has just been doubled...

Ultimately, I'll fly on the cheapest airline.

[Jantar]

...
Ultimately, I'll fly on the cheapest airline.


And that comment will just about sum up the entire battle in the boardroom.

However just look at the two concepts to see how totally different they are. The airbus is simply a giant cattle mover while the dreamliner is a powered glider.

The airbus is for mass transport between main hubs, then passengers must transfer to smaller aircraft to continue on to their destinations. The Dreamliner is for direct point to point travel without the need to change aircraft.

In practice the two different types of aircraft will work like this: Assuming the same departure time from your house.

From Wellington to Oshkosh (real pilots will know where Oshkosh is):

Choice 1:
Taxi to airport - 20 mins, check in time 40 minutes prior to departure.
Fly to Auckland (B737 or similar) - 50 mins to arrive 3 hours before intl depature.
Fly to LA by Airbus - 12 hours (allow 4 hours for immigration and transfer to Domestic)
Fly to Oshkosh (B757 or similar) - 4 hours
Total time at least 25 hours.

Choice 2:
Taxi to airport - 20 mins, check in time 3 hours prior to departure.
Fly Seattle by Dreamliner - 13 hours (allow 2 hours for immigration and transfer to Domestic).
Fly to Oshkosh (B737 or similar) - 2 hours
Total time at least 21 hours.

Now, which choice would you prefer?

[James Deuce]

I really loathe flying transcontinental or transoceanic flights in 2 engined aircraft.I flew in a 777 from London to LA despite telling my travel agent I wanted a 747 or A340 please, irrespective of cost. She ignored me and I got my ticket price refunded because I whinged to her boss until I did.

I don't care how safe Boeing say 777s and 767s are, or the new 7E7s are. It's still 50/50 if one engine fails.

Plus, and this is a HUGE point in my book, I can fit in economy class seats on an A340 without my knees cramping up, because of that really clever staggered herringbone seat layout. The new A380 is going to be launched in the medium density seating layout, which is only 2/3rds its maximum capacity! It'll be luxury! Meanwhile the 7E7 will have me with my knees pressed into the seat in front, the "entertainment" systems will breakdown every 5 seconds, and I'll get booked next to a guy (or gal) whose spare tyre will ooze over the seat arm and rest in my lap when they fall asleep.

I think Boeing's comments about the "future" of air transport show them to be the surrender monkeys, not the French.

[Devil]

Airbus?? Can't be any good... Most of it is French, isn't it? How can croissant-munching, garlic-reeking, wine-besotted cowardly defeatists produce anything worthwhile??
You forgot cheese-eating surrender monkeys. ;)

[Eurodave]

These things are MASSIVE carnage just waiting to happen, imagine the survival rate when you are pitted against 799 other hysterical passengers all trying to get out the nearest exit en masse .I dont fancy your chances mate

[MikeL]

I really loathe flying transcontinental or transoceanic flights in 2 engined aircraft.
I don't care how safe Boeing say 777s and 767s are, or the new 7E7s are. It's still 50/50 if one engine fails.


In the old days of piston-engined planes (DC6/7, Lockheed Constellation), engine failures were relatively frequent and a double engine failure not unknown. 4 engines was the minimum for safety, and aviation regulations put severe restrictions on over-water flights by twin or tri-engined planes. This created a psychological expectation in the flying public that lingered long after the need was removed by the advent of hugely more reliable jet engines.

How many lives have been lost due to engine failure in 757/767/777 or twin-engined Airbus planes?

The lower airfares you now enjoy are partly due to the lower operating costs of twins.

Now comfort is another matter...

[James Deuce]

In the old days of piston-engined planes (DC6/7, Lockheed Constellation), engine failures were relatively frequent and a double engine failure not unknown. 4 engines was the minimum for safety, and aviation regulations put severe restrictions on over-water flights by twin or tri-engined planes. This created a psychological expectation in the flying public that lingered long after the need was removed by the advent of hugely more reliable jet engines.

How many lives have been lost due to engine failure in 757/767/777 or twin-engined Airbus planes?

The lower airfares you now enjoy are partly due to the lower operating costs of twins.

Now comfort is another matter...Jet engines are no where near as reliable or efficient as manufacturer propaganda would have us believe. The scope for failure manifests itself quite differently in a turbofan, a turbojet, a turboprop (gas turbine driven propellor via a gearbox and reduction gear), or a piston engine. I would seriously prefer a ramjet as it is as simple as you can get, but horribly inefficient. Turbofans, quite frankly, give me the heebie jeebies. If I have to fly in one, I want four of them. If you've wallowed around dumping fuel in a 747-100 running on two engines you'd know what I was saying. If I'd been in any of the twins I'd be dead.

As for the lives thing, it depends entirely how accident investigation teams (many of them company employees, either directly, or indirectly) decide to interpret data, and how they present that data in their reports as to what caused an accident.

[Ramius]

These things are MASSIVE carnage just waiting to happen, imagine the survival rate when you are pitted against 799 other hysterical passengers all trying to get out the nearest exit en masse .I dont fancy your chances mate

Well, getting out of this aircraft will be just as safe, if not safer than flying in a 747, as CAA have strict rules about how far the maximum distance between doors is for safety reasons, and this has complied and bettered them.

However, realistically, in a plane this size, how many of them are going to have 'soft' crash landings to allow people out.

[TwoSeven]

AMAZING STUFF, DID YOU SEE THE FOOTAGE OF THE ENGINE TEST WHEN THEY THREW FROZEN CHICKENS THRU TO SIMULATE BIRD STRIKE , THE JET DIDNT EVEN MISS A BEAT

I bet the chicken did tho :)

[TwoSeven]

Pah! I could teach you to fly for half that, AND throw in spelling, punctuation and grammar tuition as well...

What is the all up cost (on average) of getting a pilots license these days.

[Ramius]

Jet engines are no where near as reliable or efficient as manufacturer propaganda would have us believe. The scope for failure manifests itself quite differently in a turbofan, a turbojet, a turboprop (gas turbine driven propellor via a gearbox and reduction gear), or a piston engine. I would seriously prefer a ramjet as it is as simple as you can get, but horribly inefficient. Turbofans, quite frankly, give me the heebie jeebies. If I have to fly in one, I want four of them. If you've wallowed around dumping fuel in a 747-100 running on two engines you'd know what I was saying. If I'd been in any of the twins I'd be dead.

As for the lives thing, it depends entirely how accident investigation teams (many of them company employees, either directly, or indirectly) decide to interpret data, and how they present that data in their reports as to what caused an accident.

Well, I have to agree with Jim here, even for just piece of mind it feels much smoother and nicer in a jet with more than two engines. As for seating comfort, all you need to do is fly with a carrier that doesn't have much patronage. Flew Lauda from Sydney to KL in a 777, and each way I had nobody near me. For a plane that holds 301 people, there was only 106 on board, and similarily the same going back.

Anyway, moving along, here is a list of crash rates per million flights that is quite intriguing
http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm

However, bare in mind that these are not just pure crashes. For example, the A300 has been shot down once and taken into a hostage situation 3 times. This adds to the fatal crash rate.

[Biff]

They have EADS..

Ahhh - my former employer. Nothing worse than a Franco - German board of directors to create wine guzzling knockwurst munchers.

[TwoSeven]

One thing folks forgot to point out is that the biggest airplane buyers in the world are all buying airbus for their long distance routes. Fedex have brought 10 380s with options for another 10.

One thing airbus did was involve the freight companies in the design process.

Anyway, boing (as I call em) are american, they'll have made a design mistake somewhere. After all, only the yanks would design a high tech fighter aircraft (F15) that requires a 2km long runway.

[Sniper]

I want to see one crash and then we can hear where the blame lies

[Ramius]

What is the all up cost (on average) of getting a pilots license these days.

Depends what licence you want and what ratings you want to go along with it.

Its like going to McDonalds and getting asked if you want fries with that.

[marty]

Depends what licence you want and what ratings you want to go along with it.

Its like going to McDonalds and getting asked if you want fries with that.

about $10k for a PPL. another 20 for a CPL. another 10 for an MEIR, 10 for a C Cat, then the costs really start....

[marty]

having worked on both airbus and boeing, i would say that the boeing is the engineers plane, whereas airbus is the pilot's plane. the 737 eats the a320 on both though.

ETOPS aircraft are just as safe as the A340/B747/MD11/A380 - they will fly all day on one engine.

and seat pitch has nothing to do with the aircraft type - it's all to do with the carrier. JAL will fit 950 pax in an A380, virgin will only take 580-odd. the Air NZ B747 has good seat pitch (390ish pax), the same aircraft at JAL/Thai has 2 inches less (500ish pax)

[Coyote]

I would seriously prefer a ramjet as it is as simple as you can get, but horribly inefficient.
Damn right, can't go much further for simplicity, and of corse they are damned fast
http://www.aardvark.co.nz/pjet/images/sr71.jpg

www.aardvark.co.nz/pjet

Awesome site,finally been updated, but don't buy the CD, I brought it last year, PayPal took the money, and I never got the CD. Wait untill you can download the content

[sAsLEX]

Damn right, can't go much further for simplicity, and of corse they are damned fast
http://www.aardvark.co.nz/pjet/images/sr71.jpg

www.aardvark.co.nz/pjet

Awesome site,finally been updated, but don't buy the CD, I brought it last year, PayPal took the money, and I never got the CD. Wait untill you can download the content

yeah was going to build one over summer but got sidetracked, lucky i didn loose my money though

[James Deuce]

and seat pitch has nothing to do with the aircraft type - it's all to do with the carrier. JAL will fit 950 pax in an A380, virgin will only take 580-odd. the Air NZ B747 has good seat pitch (390ish pax), the same aircraft at JAL/Thai has 2 inches less (500ish pax)

Good point. I found Air NZ crippled me, United were mildly but increasingly uncomfortable, but Cathay were lovely and roomy.

[Ramius]

Good point. I found Air NZ crippled me, United were mildly but increasingly uncomfortable, but Cathay were lovely and roomy.

Lauda were roomy, but yeah, I can sympathise with the Air NZ woes. They were a nightmare! Especially getting up to go to the little boys room. Virgin Atlantic I found very comfortable, but once again, because I believe service is also important, Lauda wins out. Couldn't complain with drinks every twenty minutes and some sort of food every 50.

[MikeL]

If you've wallowed around dumping fuel in a 747-100 running on two engines you'd know what I was saying. If I'd been in any of the twins I'd be dead.


So your phobia is based on personal experience? Tell us more...

[MikeL]

Well, I have to agree with Jim here, even for just piece of mind it feels much smoother and nicer in a jet with more than two engines.

Anyway, moving along, here is a list of crash rates per million flights that is quite intriguing
http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm



See, I told you it was just psychological...

And those statistics have nothing to do with the debate on engine reliability.
According to the table, you're better off in a 737 with its 2 engines than a 747 with 4.

[TwoSeven]

How can you have an 11% crash rate with 1 crash out of 900,000 flights.

I dont think those stats are very accurate.

[k14]

Its not a percentage, its event rate per million flights. I would say they are very accurate.

Man the A380 looks awesome, its just so big, so amazing it can even get off the ground. Don't know who will prevail don't really care much. Just so long as i get to my destination in comfort.

[Ramius]

See, I told you it was just psychological...

And those statistics have nothing to do with the debate on engine reliability.
According to the table, you're better off in a 737 with its 2 engines than a 747 with 4.

However by far you would be safer in a 777 than any other Boeing. No fatal accidents.

[Ramius]

Two engines are more attractive from a reliability angle than a single one, regardless of the fact that the additional systems decrease the statistical reliability. Many twin-engined aircraft are designed to be capable of at least a marginal climb on one engine, even carrying the maximum load at take-off. But by doubling the number of engines, the chance of one failing is at least doubled. However, the chance of both failing at the same time becomes very small. Frequently, the greater economy and simplicity of a single-engine aircraft is deemed preferable to the added reliability of a twin, especially for non-commercial use.

Here is something that I grabbed online about statistics of air crashes:

An accident survey [1] (http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm) of 2,147 airplane accidents from 1950 through 2004 determined the causes to be as follows:

* 37%: Pilot error
* 33%: Undetermined or missing in the record
* 13%: Mechanical failure
* 7%: Weather
* 5%: Sabotage (bombs, hijackings, shoot-downs)
* 4%: Other human error (air traffic controller error, improper loading of aircraft, improper maintenance, fuel contamination, etc.)
* 1%: Other cause

The survey excluded military, private, and charter aircraft.

---

When talking of engine reliability, there is not really any way to tell what is more reliable, whether it be GE, Pratt & Whittney etc.

[Ramius]

See, I told you it was just psychological...

And those statistics have nothing to do with the debate on engine reliability.
According to the table, you're better off in a 737 with its 2 engines than a 747 with 4.

When it comes to comparing these two, the 747 is the safer of the two aircraft. The 747 with 27 fatal incidents includes 9 hijackings/bombings, so it is the plane of choice for that particular incident. Also, several of the fatalities did not actually require the aircraft to crash. 1 involved severe turbulance and an in flight system killed someone, Mum always said TV was a bad thing. Another case was when smoking was allowed on flights a person had a reaction to the ambient smoke and died.

I would be so bold to say that aircraft safety is increased by having multiple engines, but the real cause of air incidents don't have anything to do with engine malfunction.

Oh, and lastly, your more likely to survive an incident in a 747 that a 737, the FLE (full loss equivalents) of the 747 is 13.73 whereas the 737 is 39.28.

[marty]

can't really compare the 747-100 to a 744 though, or 763, or any of the new generation widebody a/c. the engine technology on new high bypass fans outstrips the old jt9 etc by leaps and bounds. they are twice as powerful, and use 1/2 the fuel. a JT9 on a 742 will use about 10 litres of oil over a 9 hour flight (that's per engine). an rb211/cf6 hanging on a 744/763 will use a couple at the most.

you know why 747 pilots won't fly anything else though?

cause there's no pax jets with 5 engines....

AND did you know that the dreamliner 7E7 can be spec'd with a thrust(about 5000lbs i think) capable APU?

[Ramius]

can't really compare the 747-100 to a 744 though, or 763, or any of the new generation widebody a/c. the engine technology on new high bypass fans outstrips the old jt9 etc by leaps and bounds. they are twice as powerful, and use 1/2 the fuel. a JT9 on a 742 will use about 10 litres of oil over a 9 hour flight (that's per engine). an rb211/cf6 hanging on a 744/763 will use a couple at the most.

you know why 747 pilots won't fly anything else though?

cause there's no pax jets with 5 engines....

AND did you know that the dreamliner 7E7 can be spec'd with a thrust(about 5000lbs i think) capable APU?

Dare I ask, what is a 5000lbs thrust going to do for an aircraft that has each engine provinding between 55,000 - 70,000lb of thrust depending on which engine is chosen (Two models have been chosen for the 787, GENX & Roll-Royce Trent 1000)? And as an APU, I guess you are referring to an Auxillary Power Unit, which the FAA had this to say:
An Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) is any gas turbine-powered unit delivering rotating shaft power or compressed air, or both, that is not intended for direct propulsion of an aircraft. APU's often drive aircraft generators, air-conditioning packs and in some cases can be used as an additional source of energy to start the primary propulsive engines.

And as for oil consumption, what really matters I would think is Fuel consumption.

[250learna]

BRING BACK CONCORDE!!! :Punk:

[Ramius]

BRING BACK CONCORDE!!! :Punk:

Or you could go for the Spruce Goose, what a wonderful piece of machinery :puke:

[Ixion]

Or you could go for the Spruce Goose, what a wonderful piece of machinery :puke:

I always like the Sunderlands. Flying boats are cool. And extremely safe

[MikeL]

I always like the Sunderlands. Flying boats are cool. And extremely safe

No they're not. Some models had an unfortunate tendency to explode in mid-air...

The reason flying boats enjoyed brief popularity had little to do with inherent safety and a lot to do with the lack of suitable runways for conventional aircraft.

[ben444]

im learin to fly, ive got 16 hours, and payin $75 an hour :D

$75 an hour??!!.. what you flyin and who with... I'll be there Monday.

[Coyote]

Isn't the Antonov An-225 still the largest plane in the world, or has it been beaten?

http://members.lycos.co.uk/aerospace21/antonov/an-225.jpg

http://members.lycos.co.uk/aerospace21/antonov/an-225.html

[Coyote]

The Russians sure know how to make awesome aircraft :yes:
http://mm.iit.uni-miskolc.hu/Data/Winx/gallery/mig-29.gif

[Ixion]

No they're not. Some models had an unfortunate tendency to explode in mid-air...


Well, apart from exploding in mid air, they're safe. Nothings perfect after all

[Jantar]

$75 an hour??!!.. what you flyin and who with... I'll be there Monday.

I'll teach you to fly for $48 per hour plus $15 per flight. As long as you are happy to learn how to fly without an engine. But if you are one of those poor demented soles who insist on having a propeller whirling around in front, then the price goes up to $150 per hour. :yes:

[Ixion]

Isn't the Antonov An-225 still the largest plane in the world, or has it been beaten?





I like all the littel wheels. Reminds me of the Luggage

[ben444]

I'll teach you to fly for $48 per hour plus $15 per flight. As long as you are happy to learn how to fly without an engine. But if you are one of those poor demented soles who insist on having a propeller whirling around in front, then the price goes up to $150 per hour. :yes:

You won't need to teach me... bit of paper says I already know... common sense says I got a lot more to learn. Have you got anything aerobatic in Alex

[Jantar]

You won't need to teach me... bit of paper says I already know... common sense says I got a lot more to learn. Have you got anything aerobatic in Alex

Not really; The PW5 is not too bad at basic aerobatics; The Twin Astir can do most manouvers (except maintain a decent spin), but has had an AD restricting its capability.

Taieri have a nice 152 aerobat though.

[marty]

Dare I ask, what is a 5000lbs thrust going to do for an aircraft that has each engine provinding between 55,000 - 70,000lb of thrust depending on which engine is chosen (Two models have been chosen for the 787, GENX & Roll-Royce Trent 1000)? And as an APU, I guess you are referring to an Auxillary Power Unit, which the FAA had this to say:
An Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) is any gas turbine-powered unit delivering rotating shaft power or compressed air, or both, that is not intended for direct propulsion of an aircraft. APU's often drive aircraft generators, air-conditioning packs and in some cases can be used as an additional source of energy to start the primary propulsive engines.

And as for oil consumption, what really matters I would think is Fuel consumption.

actually the trent can go up to 90 000lbs on the freighter. and is that what the apu is for? i just thought it was like the machine that goes BING!

the oil consumption note was just to show how engines had improved in their efficiency - i think i commented on fuel burn also - twice the thrust for 1/2 the fuel or something like that

and i wish this cloud would go away go i can finish my aero rating!

[Ramius]

Isn't the Antonov An-225 still the largest plane in the world, or has it been beaten?

http://members.lycos.co.uk/aerospace21/antonov/an-225.jpg

http://members.lycos.co.uk/aerospace21/antonov/an-225.html

Most certainly is. Only 2 have been built.

[Ramius]

actually the trent can go up to 90 000lbs on the freighter. and is that what the apu is for? i just thought it was like the machine that goes BING!

the oil consumption note was just to show how engines had improved in their efficiency - i think i commented on fuel burn also - twice the thrust for 1/2 the fuel or something like that

and i wish this cloud would go away go i can finish my aero rating!

Oh, I love sarcasm, I eat it for breakfast, and drink coffee.

I must ask though, you say the Trent can go up to 90k on the freighter, however, I have read that the max is 70k and that the engine is still in final development, attached is the associated document released by Rolls-Royce.

As for the weather, a lovely day here to clock up the hours.

[Gremlin]

Whats this issue with leg room??

I flew with the family to Melbourne for a holiday, and we requested door seats in economy. Heaps of room! Stretched the legs out all the way.

Except that my 15 year old brother, at 6 foot couldn't sit there because of adult rules etc.

The really puzzling thing tho was that because there were no seats in front of us, they had to mount the tables in the arm of the chair. Just because you are 6 foot plus doesn't mean you are still as skinny as a 5 foot minus person. I mean, the normal seats are skinny enough, and these seats were ridiculous.

The middle of the three had to eat sitting forward, so that the other two had some for their elbows... silly emirates tsk tsk

But I s'pose its cattle class...

[Ramius]

Whats this issue with leg room??

I flew with the family to Melbourne for a holiday, and we requested door seats in economy. Heaps of room! Stretched the legs out all the way.

Except that my 15 year old brother, at 6 foot couldn't sit there because of adult rules etc.

The really puzzling thing tho was that because there were no seats in front of us, they had to mount the tables in the arm of the chair. Just because you are 6 foot plus doesn't mean you are still as skinny as a 5 foot minus person. I mean, the normal seats are skinny enough, and these seats were ridiculous.

The middle of the three had to eat sitting forward, so that the other two had some for their elbows... silly emirates tsk tsk

But I s'pose its cattle class...


Hmmm...all this talk makes me want to book my next flight, and with another 2 months off, where should I go...Christchurch, here I come...
:drinknsin

[sAsLEX]

Most certainly is. Only 2 have been built.

and the funny bumps you can see above the wing are for piggy backing a space shuttle around!!

[Biff]

Most certainly is. Only 2 have been built.

Don't forget the behemoth Airbus Beluga : http://www.airbustransport.com/. An airplane that's a cross between an A300 and a dose of genital warts.

[Ramius]

Don't forget the behemoth Airbus Beluga : http://www.airbustransport.com/. An airplane that's a cross between an A300 and a dose of genital warts.

Yeah, they are as funny as hell when their front landing gear fails. Looks like a slug then. Nice and roomy, being able to fit the main fuselage of the 737 in it.

But butt ugly.