airbus A380 being grounded

True. Altitude, cant' use parachutes at high altitude without O2.

Speed- When paratroopers jump from a C-141 Starlifter, the plane is almost at stall speed, and still the opening shock is, well, a shock. A commercial airplane would also have to be slowed to that speed.

Rigging- when paratroopers do in-flight rigging for a jump, say a long flight from Ft Bragg to the Sinai or Alaska, it's a long process, and these are trained men. Multiple safety checks are done by jumpmasters.

You think the average flying retard, who can't even board a plane in an orderly manner, could quickly and correctly put on a parachute?? Not happening.

Paratroopers use a static line for for the chute to open automatically upon exiting the aircraft. You think grandma can effectively use a rip-cord exiting at 3,000 feet?

The engines- with wing mounted engines, everyone would have to jump from the rear of the aircraft, otherwise you risk the chute and/or yourself being sucked into an engine.

With rear mounted engines, you really can't jump without this risk.

Some things to think about. It's an impossiblity to use parachutes on commercial aircraft for these reasons. Unless you are like DB Cooper.

Just sayin.

I'm not worried about Boeing or Airbus.

These are the new kids on the block, third largest aircraft manufacturer. Worry about them.

Some people refere to these things as "Jungle Jets" LOL.

[link to www.embraercommercialjets.com]

Best Wishes

Lots of high speed delta's were on the drawing board from just after WWII, both British and American, but as the American effort never got further that a chipboard mock up, lets not go there eh.

Boeing and its engine makers General Electric could not resolve the engine air intake issues that plauged supersonic engines. British aerospace together with their French partners however did, and the rest is history.

As to the SR-71. Yes a nice plane, which would have been a lot nicer if it did not leak fuel all over the floor before take off and not have an enormouse radar signature that the Russians could see coming just after take off.

Also the fact that at full speed it could take up to 80 miles to do a 180 degree turn, really meant it was nothing more than a powered cruise missile useful for reconosance missions only.

On the dangerous front motorbikes and cars are leaders


I realise i overstated the doom on this but what was the worst that could happen is it a plank or two wont make it to the destination

Embraer makes excellent aircraft.

Actually the Concord leaked fuel like the SR-71 as well. It's due to expansion joints, the planes actually get longer in flight (concord up to 10") due heat expansion.

It's too bad we don't have supersonic planes anymore but they turned out to be fuel hogs of course.

Sub orbital planes didn't get off the drawing board either but imagine going from NY to Tokyo in 2 hours!

Frater

That is what they (TPTB) want you to believe. All that euro crap is a product of hollywood. Those planes are really built in china.

Or, the A380 never happened. It was all a product of hollywood. The A380 doesn't reallly exist.

I mean I think we has a right to kind of don't we? After all, we invented the airplane, as well as the computer your typing on, and the Internet you enjoy using.

Unless YOU invented it, your ego shouldn't be involved in any of this.

It's a schoolyard pissing match, anyhow.

Stupid nonsensical corporate patriotism. The Airbus are built in a much safer way than the shitty Boeing, who have a countless record of crashes due to technical problems.

As an example, they were to first to have these fins on the wing tips of all their models to reduce turbulence, which is the main cause of large plane crashes (the bigger the wingspan, the stronger the turbulence).

This link has some great pictures of A380s and B747's

[link to www.rocketryforum.com]

It's good to see Boeing getting the new planes off the production line and into the air.

Best Wishes

Yea parachutes are unrealistic, what could be done is a remake of the seats. One way a lot of people die in an airline crash is the force of the crash breaks their legs and they can't get out of the plane. Suffer smoke inhalation and die. If some kind of shock absorber could be fitted to the seats...but the floor is right there. I don't know, we will be asking the same questions when the first space liner jettisons its passengers into space.

Airbus will never make its money back, but that is okay, it was government money to begin with. Every 747 that rolls out is all profit now. 787 is another story. What a stupid idea to have sub contractors making the parts all around the world, the person that sold that idea should be tarred and feathered. I don't trust composites yet, they have not been tested, and I don't care to be the guinea pig.

Boeing would have gone bust ages ago, if it had not been for "bottomless pit" subsidies paid by way of military contract, where every fighter jet and helicopter cost twice as much as it should.

Its common knowledge in the aviation industry, I’m amazed the American public doesn’t know about it.

Any country that want a state of the art aircraft manufacturer just has to pay the costs to keep it running.

Crazy, but there it is.

[link to www.bbc.co.uk]

[link to www.hindustantimes.com]

[link to www.economist.com]

I remember reading about a dream someone had years ago, many years before this type of plane existed. In the dream they saw one of them going down and crash.

More details please,

Aircraft livery, (color)
Place of Crash
Time of crash
How many injured,
Structural damage or pilot error.

Link to story.


You cant just say this shit and then not back it up with recolections.

link or stinky.

This is what happens when you try to use plastic in high stress areas of an airplane i been expecting this.

this is just another ploy to get as many people as possible to stop flying

It's a vague recollection at best, I don't have a link. Also, people say stuff like this on GLP all the time lol. There's no credibility on this forum.

1000 landings makes about 1 year, if the plane travels to 2 destinations each day.

but its not plastic.

I'd like a good payware product of the a-380 for FSX.

May be no to the fsx a380 after a hard lañdding it wont let you use it for
a day juzt for realsim

^^^THIS^^^

The A380 wings are manufactured in the UK as far as I know. They'll find a solution.



BTW, Boeing's Dreamliner gonna have carbon fiber wings - have fun!
There are security related concerns. It exists little experience how the new aircraft material behaves at permanent everyday use. In addition, repair procedures of the so called composite structures aren't standardized and too little. Some technical issues are still open, such as finding damage to the material and how they are classified.

The sr71 is outstanding in the fact it was made out of titanium
which the rumor is a bugger to weld

We are soon going to háve impressive materials to patch old cars up

From the report the wing are from he UK fully skinned but suspect its the last few plàtes glued on after they are joined to the tube

Lovely statistic - until your one of the poor fuckers in a crash!!!!

hahahaha

YEP!

got to love the way tards on here take offence, as if it is THEM personally who are affected

I see that Boeing was working on a radical design aka Burnelli numbered 754.

Take a look at the comparison chart between 754 and 767.


Impressive... but Burnelli owns that patent and Boeing refused to work out with Burnelli so here we are now ... [link to www.aircrash.org]