Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC-US)   Airbus wants to make future airline flights more exciting with catapult takeoffs and steep-dive landings   (bbc.com ) divider line 12
    More: Spiffy, Smarter Skies, Airbus, Airbus A380, Dreamliner  
•       •       •

10247 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Sep 2012 at 3:35 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-09-07 07:51:15 AM  
2 votes:
Steep takeoffs are the future? I guess I'm one of the few people that remembers what a full performance 757 takeoff is like.

Also, stupid Airbus... Approach angle has nothing to do with roll out distance. You can't make a plane stop more quickly by diving at the ground faster... well, unless you forget to flare. If you are flying a 3 degree glideslope or a 45 degree glideslope, eventually you have to orient the plane to the runway, at which time you damn well better be going just above stall speed or bad things happen. Since stall speed at landing attitude will always be the same given similar aircraft weights, it doesn't matter what angle you were flying at shortly beforehand. Same stall speed means same aircraft speed means same stopping distance.
2012-09-07 01:43:38 AM  
2 votes:
Sounds like flying into/out of John Wayne airport..

Big deal.
2012-09-08 08:50:56 AM  
1 vote:

maggoo: Generation_D: Airbus does some scary stuff. Like change the joystick into a little mousepad like control. Stuff that changes 50, 60 years of aviation in the name of a sales gimmick. Boeing wants the pilot to have the final say, while Airbus thinks it should be the plane's computer. I disagree fundamentally with that.

I'll stick with American built, thanks.

It appears that you are completely oblivious to the fact that Boeing's newest offering, Boeing 777, is also, just like Airbus, a fly-by-wire plane. To put it in terms that you can understand, Boeing is now copying the very same features that you are criticising Airbus for being the pioneer in implementing them.

Your unfounded criticism may lead you to "stick with american built", but that only leads you to stick with an inferior product which is catching up with what Airbus has been pumping out for a decade now.


Double posting, but I think he was referring to the fact that Boeing still uses control yokes on their FBW planes, allowing for the force feedback that wold have prevented the crash of Flight 447.

Boeing 777:
www.flightglobal.com

Airbus A380:
i.imgur.com

When the keyboard is more importantly placed than the flight controls....
2012-09-07 09:19:09 AM  
1 vote:

maggoo: There's a lot of airbus FUD in here, but I would like to call your attention to 2012's list of commercial craft incidents, where there are zero incidents involving airbus planes and two involving boeing planes. 2011's list of commercial craft incidents includes 8 incidents involving boeing planes, and zero incidents involving airbus planes. 2010's list of commercial craft incidents includes 5 for boeing and 4 for airbus.

So, I suspect that you don't piss on boeing because you can't figure out a clever word that rimes with boeing.


Thats because Airbus is still being found at fault for 2009. Give it a while til they catch up to 2012.

Airbus does some scary stuff. Like change the joystick into a little mousepad like control. Stuff that changes 50, 60 years of aviation in the name of a sales gimmick. Boeing wants the pilot to have the final say, while Airbus thinks it should be the plane's computer. I disagree fundamentally with that.

I'll stick with American built, thanks. Though those Canadian Bombardiers that are going to compete with the 737 are going to be interesting.
2012-09-07 07:44:22 AM  
1 vote:
As someone who has experienced the thrill of an assualt landing (Looks something like this) I say go for it. It would be fun to watch the "OMG I'M GONNA FARKING DIE" look on the face of all the noobs. (same look I had on my face the first time.)
2012-09-07 06:19:32 AM  
1 vote:

gweilo8888: way south: This.

Airlines could be saving fuel and making less noise within the next few years.

Sorry, but for the foreseeable future, that's guff too. Yes, NASA and Boeing have done a little preliminary work on BWBs (although that image is a PopSci rendering from the mid-1990s or before), but currently they have a raft of obstacles to production, not least of which is customer acceptance of an aircraft where you are nowhere near a window. They also have pressurization issues, stability issues, discomfort issues (the further you get from the center of the plane the more motion you'll feel in turns), evacuation issues (the less tube-shaped the plane is, the harder it is to evacuate in an orderly manner), and airport infrastructure isn't designed to accommodate BWB aircraft, among others.


The difference is that NASA hasn't given up on the idea.

dl.dropbox.com

Where Airbus is going to stop at some CGI and a press release, NASA has continued to work on the BWB (if only at a meandering pace) to try and resolve these problems. Because, if the peak oil alarmists are right, the price of fuel is never going down. Airlines will become dependent on expensive substitutes and the only way to crack a profit will be in fuel efficiency.
Once airlines come to terms with this, I doubt the man who cut three inches off your legroom and doubled your baggage fees is going to give a damn if you get a window seat. 

/Granted that the work has to continue in the name of "Reducing emissions" rather than saving fuel.
/Which is because no one currently cares about buying better aircraft even when the technology is at hand.
2012-09-07 04:56:12 AM  
1 vote:

Bomb Head Mohammed: Am I too early/late for all the Internet Aviation Experts who have given the matter all of 2 seconds of thought before writing why the engineers at airbus who make careers thinking about such things, even if some of this is speculative at this point, are full of it or whatever?


Some of the folks at Airbus also make careers out of getting feel-good, my-aren't-we-forward-thinking publicity.

This "research" came from those folks.
2012-09-07 04:54:39 AM  
1 vote:

way south: This.

Airlines could be saving fuel and making less noise within the next few years.


Sorry, but for the foreseeable future, that's guff too. Yes, NASA and Boeing have done a little preliminary work on BWBs (although that image is a PopSci rendering from the mid-1990s or before), but currently they have a raft of obstacles to production, not least of which is customer acceptance of an aircraft where you are nowhere near a window. They also have pressurization issues, stability issues, discomfort issues (the further you get from the center of the plane the more motion you'll feel in turns), evacuation issues (the less tube-shaped the plane is, the harder it is to evacuate in an orderly manner), and airport infrastructure isn't designed to accommodate BWB aircraft, among others.
2012-09-07 04:48:09 AM  
1 vote:
That sounds like a buttload of stress on the airplanes. Not sure I'd trust a discount carrier with that kind of engineering or maintenance.
2012-09-07 03:54:42 AM  
1 vote:
Sounds fun. But not on Airbus.
2012-09-07 03:51:34 AM  
1 vote:
PR guff, nothing more.
2012-09-07 03:12:32 AM  
1 vote:
I'll pass
 
Displayed 12 of 12 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report