The War has begun for the skies...

**Ghost Lemur** · 28th April 2005, 22:49

Originally Posted by 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??

hehe

*wonders how many will fall for it*

**N4CR** · 28th April 2005, 23:02

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

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

**Ramius** · 28th April 2005, 23:32

Originally Posted by StoneChucker

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!

So.... gone SOLO yet?????

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** · 28th April 2005, 23:35

Originally Posted by 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??

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** · 29th April 2005, 05:14

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** · 29th April 2005, 07:02

Originally Posted by Gremlin

...
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** · 29th April 2005, 07:26

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** · 29th April 2005, 08:24

Originally Posted by 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??

You forgot cheese-eating surrender monkeys.

**Eurodave** · 29th April 2005, 08:34

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** · 29th April 2005, 08:56

Originally Posted by Jim2

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** · 29th April 2005, 09:32

Originally Posted by MikeL

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** · 29th April 2005, 10:49

Originally Posted by 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

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** · 29th April 2005, 10:52

Originally Posted by 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

I bet the chicken did tho

**TwoSeven** · 29th April 2005, 10:54

Originally Posted by Hitcher

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** · 29th April 2005, 10:58

Originally Posted by Jim2

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.