|
Post by Dichio on Dec 21, 2010 20:47:17 GMT
Do you aircraft guys know this website www.radarvirtuel.com/You'll love it! If you get a message about installing a plug-in just do it. If you need any help doing that let me know. Nice one ! thanks for posting that.
|
|
|
Post by Gavin Archery on Dec 22, 2010 11:38:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Paul Cannell on Dec 22, 2010 16:48:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Lone Gunman on Dec 23, 2010 15:16:20 GMT
Doubt it, haven't they had a load of orders cancelled because the thing has been delayed in development so long. That and the A380 hasn't bombed like they hoped it would.
|
|
|
Post by Gavin Archery on Dec 27, 2010 10:12:24 GMT
It's supposed to be the most technologically advanced and eco friendly aircraft ever built.
|
|
|
Post by cookie7oufc on Dec 28, 2010 10:57:59 GMT
Hello Dichio, Sorry for the delay in answering, drove back to the UK hoping to watch the Oxford Shrewsbury game and got caught with all the snow. I work for Airbus UK who supply the A380 wings to Airbus France in Toulouse to which they are then assembled to the aircraft. I work as a Quality Engineer with liaison between the customer airline Inspectors and Airbus France, Spain and Germany. Toulouse is a nice city, has its rough areas as all big cities do. My sons go to watch Toulouse play now and again, they get some strange looks as they ware their Oxford scarfs. They have a system of prices for the games whereby the lower league teams the admission is sometimes as low as 5.00€. To watch for the Marseille game it was 35.00€ !! The French life style is so laid back and can be frustrating at times, been here for six and a half years now so am use to it. Have a Happy New Year.
|
|
|
Post by Lone Gunman on Dec 28, 2010 18:09:32 GMT
It's supposed to be the most technologically advanced and eco friendly aircraft ever built. That's great but it means nothing if you can't get the thing to fly! I'm happy boeing have got egg on ther faces with this one anyway. Stole all the data which resulted in the 707 from us to get their foot in the door of the commercial aircraft market, and have a seriously poor record of dodgy dealings to get contracts and handicap their competition. Their entry for the JSF blew up in their faces too not that long ago.
|
|
|
Post by HKYellow on Dec 29, 2010 3:23:40 GMT
It's supposed to be the most technologically advanced and eco friendly aircraft ever built. That's great but it means nothing if you can't get the thing to fly! I'm happy boeing have got egg on ther faces with this one anyway. Stole all the data which resulted in the 707 from us to get their foot in the door of the commercial aircraft market, and have a seriously poor record of dodgy dealings to get contracts and handicap their competition. Their entry for the JSF blew up in their faces too not that long ago. Yeah agree. I didnt like how other companies won the tender to supply the US with C130 replacement, then all of a sudden, decision was reversed then I believe Boeing won the contract. Talk about protectionism
|
|
|
Post by Lone Gunman on Dec 30, 2010 17:54:58 GMT
That's great but it means nothing if you can't get the thing to fly! I'm happy boeing have got egg on ther faces with this one anyway. Stole all the data which resulted in the 707 from us to get their foot in the door of the commercial aircraft market, and have a seriously poor record of dodgy dealings to get contracts and handicap their competition. Their entry for the JSF blew up in their faces too not that long ago. Yeah agree. I didnt like how other companies won the tender to supply the US with C130 replacement, then all of a sudden, decision was reversed then I believe Boeing won the contract. Talk about protectionism Dunno about the c130 replacement but the US was going to buy their next gen tanker aircraft from Airbus only for boing to come in with some kind of wizardry and get the decision reversed in their favour.
|
|
|
Post by Gavin Archery on Dec 31, 2010 15:54:22 GMT
Any thoughts re the Phantom? Saw that at Mildenhall once, and was quite impressed.
|
|
|
Post by Lone Gunman on Jan 1, 2011 17:58:34 GMT
Any thoughts re the Phantom? Saw that at Mildenhall once, and was quite impressed. Great aircraft by all acounts very versatile with a long service life, there was very little you couldn't get it to do for the type. I notice yet anoter Tu-154 fatal accident today. That makes 5 accidents in the last 12 months, 3 fatal including the Polish write-off. And people still fly in them. It'd be interestimg to compare it with other types in terms of the number of accidents correlated to the number of airframes in service. I know the thing has a poor record but maybe its not as poor as it looks - there are just so many of the things about that there are always going to be lots of accidents, but in relation to the total it is comparable to other types. EDIT: Went away and crunched some numbers (that's how sad i am) and in terms of hull losses the Tu-154 stands up well enough compared to 'A.N. Other' trijet airliner (Lockheed TriStar) with 1 hull loss for every 27 aircraft built for the Tupolev and 1 in every 25 for the Lockheed.
|
|
|
Post by Gavin Archery on Jan 2, 2011 11:28:25 GMT
Any thoughts re the Phantom? Saw that at Mildenhall once, and was quite impressed. Great aircraft by all acounts very versatile with a long service life, there was very little you couldn't get it to do for the type. I notice yet anoter Tu-154 fatal accident today. That makes 5 accidents in the last 12 months, 3 fatal including the Polish write-off. And people still fly in them. It'd be interestimg to compare it with other types in terms of the number of accidents correlated to the number of airframes in service. I know the thing has a poor record but maybe its not as poor as it looks - there are just so many of the things about that there are always going to be lots of accidents, but in relation to the total it is comparable to other types. EDIT: Went away and crunched some numbers (that's how sad i am) and in terms of hull losses the Tu-154 stands up well enough compared to 'A.N. Other' trijet airliner (Lockheed TriStar) with 1 hull loss for every 27 aircraft built for the Tupolev and 1 in every 25 for the Lockheed. Poor engineering or just bad luck?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Cannell on Jan 5, 2011 18:38:55 GMT
Tristar was a bloody horrible thing; Saudia used to fly the things internally.
For the TU, being operated in the ex-USSR a lot, maintenance is a possible suspect as well. I can't corroborate this, mind.
|
|
|
Post by Gavin Archery on Jan 6, 2011 12:49:37 GMT
The TU144 crash at the Paris Air show was down to too tight a manouvre being attempted, though suspect maintenance to have played some part it in it......
|
|
|
Post by Lone Gunman on Jan 6, 2011 16:18:34 GMT
The TU144 crash at the Paris Air show was down to too tight a manouvre being attempted, though suspect maintenance to have played some part it in it...... It could be dodgy maintainance or just bad construction. The Soviets never were very good at complex engineering projects. Concordski was a cheap rip-off of Concorde built using plans the soviets nicked without understanding the principles behind them. It was thus unsurprising the thing didn't work all that well when they finally got it to work at all. I remember when the full details of the soviet moonshot came out. They built the rockets where the factories were, in western russia, but had to ship the finished assemblies to Baikonur in Kazakhstan to launch the rockets by train. Result: the rocket stages were literally shaken to bits on the journey such that huge amounts of time had to be spent repairing the damage done to the stages in transit. When they finally tried to launch one of these things it caused one of the the biggest non-nuclear explosion in history...
|
|
|
Post by Gavin Archery on Jan 6, 2011 16:30:30 GMT
The TU144 crash at the Paris Air show was down to too tight a manouvre being attempted, though suspect maintenance to have played some part it in it...... It could be dodgy maintainance or just bad construction. The Soviets never were very good at complex engineering projects. Concordski was a cheap rip-off of Concorde built using plans the soviets nicked without understanding the principles behind them. It was thus unsurprising the thing didn't work all that well when they finally got it to work at all. I remember when the full details of the soviet moonshot came out. They built the rockets where the factories were, in western russia, but had to ship the finished assemblies to Baikonur in Kazakhstan to launch the rockets by train. Result: the rocket stages were literally shaken to bits on the journey such that huge amounts of time had to be spent repairing the damage done to the stages in transit. When they finally tried to launch one of these things it caused one of the the biggest non-nuclear explosion in history... Are you an engineer?
|
|
|
Post by Lone Gunman on Jan 6, 2011 16:59:13 GMT
It could be dodgy maintainance or just bad construction. The Soviets never were very good at complex engineering projects. Concordski was a cheap rip-off of Concorde built using plans the soviets nicked without understanding the principles behind them. It was thus unsurprising the thing didn't work all that well when they finally got it to work at all. I remember when the full details of the soviet moonshot came out. They built the rockets where the factories were, in western russia, but had to ship the finished assemblies to Baikonur in Kazakhstan to launch the rockets by train. Result: the rocket stages were literally shaken to bits on the journey such that huge amounts of time had to be spent repairing the damage done to the stages in transit. When they finally tried to launch one of these things it caused one of the the biggest non-nuclear explosion in history... Are you an engineer? Why?
|
|
|
Post by Gavin Archery on Jan 6, 2011 17:02:53 GMT
You post with a degree of knowledge in that area, so just asking? Nothing sinister. This isn't the N&I section, we can chat without fear of hijack.
|
|
|
Post by Lone Gunman on Jan 6, 2011 17:27:35 GMT
You post with a degree of knowledge in that area, so just asking? Nothing sinister. This isn't the N&I section, we can chat without fear of hijack. Sorry, you can never be too careful on here! In answer to your query i'm not an engineer. I have always had an interest in the aerospace and defence industries and so try to keep myself abreast of developments and the science and technology behind them, as far as I can understand them. I'm studying international politics and military history at University, and the modules have scope for security and defcne studies and contemporary strategy and thus technology, so it does tie in with my day 'job.'
|
|
|
Post by Gavin Archery on Jan 7, 2011 9:11:54 GMT
You post with a degree of knowledge in that area, so just asking? Nothing sinister. This isn't the N&I section, we can chat without fear of hijack. Sorry, you can never be too careful on here! In answer to your query i'm not an engineer. I have always had an interest in the aerospace and defence industries and so try to keep myself abreast of developments and the science and technology behind them, as far as I can understand them. I'm studying international politics and military history at University, and the modules have scope for security and defcne studies and contemporary strategy and thus technology, so it does tie in with my day 'job.' Always interesting to chat with you LG.
|
|