The War has begun for the skies...

**Biff** · 29th April 2005, 10:59

Originally Posted by TwoSeven

They have EADS..

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

**TwoSeven** · 29th April 2005, 11:02

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** · 29th April 2005, 11:09

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

**Ramius** · 29th April 2005, 16:12

Originally Posted by TwoSeven

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** · 29th April 2005, 16:23

Originally Posted by Ramius

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** · 29th April 2005, 16:29

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** · 29th April 2005, 16:42

Originally Posted by Jim2

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

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** · 29th April 2005, 17:05

Originally Posted by alarumba

Damn right, can't go much further for simplicity, and of corse they are damned fast

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** · 29th April 2005, 17:09

Originally Posted by marty

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** · 29th April 2005, 17:29

Originally Posted by Jim2

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** · 29th April 2005, 19:53

Originally Posted by Jim2

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** · 29th April 2005, 20:03

Originally Posted by Ramius

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** · 29th April 2005, 21:41

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** · 29th April 2005, 22:18

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** · 29th April 2005, 22:23

Originally Posted by MikeL

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.