A380 First Flight

[Rob]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

I dont know why I like this plane so much considering its a glorified bus.

http://www.airbus.com/A380/seeing/indexminisite.aspx

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

rob wrote:
> I dont know why I like this plane so much considering its a glorified bus.
>
> http://www.airbus.com/A380/seeing/indexminisite.aspx
>
>
Yuck. Cattle class travelers of the World, unite !
Nice bit of engineering, though. Hoping that it will translate into
economic success too.

Speaking of busses, have a look at the drawing at the bottom of
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4488361.stm

Mr. Sylvestre, surprised that nobody produced statistics about how many
VW beetles or ping pong balls this thing could carry.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

In article <d4odmi$cgb$1@ikaria.belnet.be>, MrSylvestre@worldcompany.com
(Mr. Sylvestre) wrote:

> Nice bit of engineering, though.

Absolutely, looks far more elegant in motion than it did on the drawing
board.

I agree about the cattle truck thing as well. I've never had any
inclination to travel in a tube stuffed with cheap tourists. No doubt my
environmental karma is all the better for it. Which is a good thing,
because if I ever save up enough for a flight in a Russian Su-27 I'll blow
an awful lot of pollution brownie points.

Andrew McP

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

Have you been following the stories of the 300 series planes having several
design flaws that cause the Rudders to oopsy fall off? There is a story
burbling around the blogs that the NTSB is covering up what they know about the
Airbus 300 series that came down in New York a couple of months after 9/11. The
NTSB blames the pilot for moving the rudder too quickly without any mention of
possible delamination problems.

Airbus issued an order for visual inspections but sorry having worked with
Composites visual inspections dont cut it when you are worried about
delamination.

Some links

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1436374,00.html

What you dont want to see when you land.
http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/c-gpat/photo.shtml

Money quote from the observer article...
The Observer has learnt that after the 587 disaster, more than 20 American
Airlines A300 pilots asked to be transferred to Boeings, although this meant
months of retraining and loss of earnings. Some of those who contributed to
pilots' bulletin boards last week expressed anger at the European manufacturer
in vehement terms. One wrote that having attended an Airbus briefing about 587,
he had refused to let any of his family take an A300 or A310 and had paid extra
to take a circuitous route on holiday purely to avoid them: 'That is how con
vinced I am that there are significant problems associated with these aircraft.'

http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2005/03/16/a-tylenol-crisis-in-the-making-at-airbus/

Interesting stuff that caused me to wonder who is in charge over at Airbus and
exactly who is responsible if their lackadasical attitude towards composite
inspection kills 800 people in their big new bird. Call me a coward but I am not
flying on anything Airbus builds until they get serious about inspections.

PAPADOC

>I dont know why I like this plane so much considering its a glorified bus.
>
>http://www.airbus.com/A380/seeing/indexminisite.aspx
>

My Blog all about politics and the terror war.
www.papadoc.net/PinkFlamingoBar.html

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

"PAPADOC" <PAPADOC@jimbobs.drive.by> wrote in message
newsnk2711tl7ekqu7s6fsr5u83qtoind6d4r@4ax.com...
> Have you been following the stories of the 300 series planes having
> several
> design flaws that cause the Rudders to oopsy fall off? There is a story
> burbling around the blogs that the NTSB is covering up what they know
> about the
> Airbus 300 series that came down in New York a couple of months after
> 9/11. The
> NTSB blames the pilot for moving the rudder too quickly without any
> mention of
> possible delamination problems.
>
> Airbus issued an order for visual inspections but sorry having worked with
> Composites visual inspections dont cut it when you are worried about
> delamination.
>
> Some links
>
> http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1436374,00.html
>
> What you dont want to see when you land.
> http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/c-gpat/photo.shtml
>
> Money quote from the observer article...
> The Observer has learnt that after the 587 disaster, more than 20 American
> Airlines A300 pilots asked to be transferred to Boeings, although this
> meant
> months of retraining and loss of earnings. Some of those who contributed
> to
> pilots' bulletin boards last week expressed anger at the European
> manufacturer
> in vehement terms. One wrote that having attended an Airbus briefing about
> 587,
> he had refused to let any of his family take an A300 or A310 and had paid
> extra
> to take a circuitous route on holiday purely to avoid them: 'That is how
> con
> vinced I am that there are significant problems associated with these
> aircraft.'
>
> http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2005/03/16/a-tylenol-crisis-in-the-making-at-airbus/
>
> Interesting stuff that caused me to wonder who is in charge over at Airbus
> and
> exactly who is responsible if their lackadasical attitude towards
> composite
> inspection kills 800 people in their big new bird. Call me a coward but I
> am not
> flying on anything Airbus builds until they get serious about inspections.
>
> PAPADOC
>
>>I dont know why I like this plane so much considering its a glorified bus.
>>
>>http://www.airbus.com/A380/seeing/indexminisite.aspx

Having worked at the Boeing 747 hatchery it seems odd to me that you would
build an airplane and then tell the pilot NOT to use the rudder controls in
certain conditions because the tail might fall off. If it is really that
bad you build the rudder controls so they can't be operated in the condition
described or buld the tail so it won't fall off.

They don't call them SCAREBUS for nothing!



>>
>
> My Blog all about politics and the terror war.
> www.papadoc.net/PinkFlamingoBar.html

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

"Andrew MacPherson" <andrew.mcp@DELETETHISdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:memo.20050427213322.2364A@address_disguised.address_disguised...
> In article <d4odmi$cgb$1@ikaria.belnet.be>, MrSylvestre@worldcompany.com
> (Mr. Sylvestre) wrote:
>
>> Nice bit of engineering, though.
>
> Absolutely, looks far more elegant in motion than it did on the drawing
> board.
>
> I agree about the cattle truck thing as well. I've never had any
> inclination to travel in a tube stuffed with cheap tourists. No doubt my
> environmental karma is all the better for it. Which is a good thing,
> because if I ever save up enough for a flight in a Russian Su-27 I'll blow
> an awful lot of pollution brownie points.

Boeing for many years has had the japanese ask the that the upperdeck be
stretched to the tail since the japanese use 747 like trains and buses to
transport people within Japan. Boeing looked into it and decided not to
since they just didn't think it would make money. I don't think that
situations changed. and Boeing seems to be going in the intermediate sized
airplane with dreamliner


>
> Andrew McP

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 16:29:23 -0500, PAPADOC <PAPADOC@jimbobs.drive.by>
wrote:

>Have you been following the stories of the 300 series planes having several
>design flaws that cause the Rudders to oopsy fall off? There is a story
>burbling around the blogs that the NTSB is covering up what they know about the
>Airbus 300 series that came down in New York a couple of months after 9/11. The
>NTSB blames the pilot for moving the rudder too quickly without any mention of
>possible delamination problems.
>
>Airbus issued an order for visual inspections but sorry having worked with
>Composites visual inspections dont cut it when you are worried about
>delamination.
>
>Some links
>
>http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1436374,00.html
>
>What you dont want to see when you land.
>http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/c-gpat/photo.shtml
>
>Money quote from the observer article...
>The Observer has learnt that after the 587 disaster, more than 20 American
>Airlines A300 pilots asked to be transferred to Boeings, although this meant
>months of retraining and loss of earnings. Some of those who contributed to
>pilots' bulletin boards last week expressed anger at the European manufacturer
>in vehement terms. One wrote that having attended an Airbus briefing about 587,
>he had refused to let any of his family take an A300 or A310 and had paid extra
>to take a circuitous route on holiday purely to avoid them: 'That is how con
>vinced I am that there are significant problems associated with these aircraft.'
>
>http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2005/03/16/a-tylenol-crisis-in-the-making-at-airbus/
>
>Interesting stuff that caused me to wonder who is in charge over at Airbus and
>exactly who is responsible if their lackadasical attitude towards composite
>inspection kills 800 people in their big new bird. Call me a coward but I am not
>flying on anything Airbus builds until they get serious about inspections.
>
>PAPADOC

I've never flown Airbus, always Boeing, and I think I'll keep it that
way.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

More fun things you never want to see when you look out of the window.

PAPADOC

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=577414&size=L&width=1024&height=692&sok=&photo_nr=&prev_id=&next_id=

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/612177.stm

http://www.capeaeroclub.co.za/images/Engine%20Cowling%20Off.jpg

>Have you been following the stories of the 300 series planes having several
>design flaws that cause the Rudders to oopsy fall off? There is a story
>burbling around the blogs that the NTSB is covering up what they know about the
>Airbus 300 series that came down in New York a couple of months after 9/11. The
>NTSB blames the pilot for moving the rudder too quickly without any mention of
>possible delamination problems.
>
>Airbus issued an order for visual inspections but sorry having worked with
>Composites visual inspections dont cut it when you are worried about
>delamination.
>
>Some links
>
>http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1436374,00.html
>
>What you dont want to see when you land.
>http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/c-gpat/photo.shtml
>
>Money quote from the observer article...
>The Observer has learnt that after the 587 disaster, more than 20 American
>Airlines A300 pilots asked to be transferred to Boeings, although this meant
>months of retraining and loss of earnings. Some of those who contributed to
>pilots' bulletin boards last week expressed anger at the European manufacturer
>in vehement terms. One wrote that having attended an Airbus briefing about 587,
>he had refused to let any of his family take an A300 or A310 and had paid extra
>to take a circuitous route on holiday purely to avoid them: 'That is how con
>vinced I am that there are significant problems associated with these aircraft.'
>
>http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2005/03/16/a-tylenol-crisis-in-the-making-at-airbus/
>
>Interesting stuff that caused me to wonder who is in charge over at Airbus and
>exactly who is responsible if their lackadasical attitude towards composite
>inspection kills 800 people in their big new bird. Call me a coward but I am not
>flying on anything Airbus builds until they get serious about inspections.
>
>PAPADOC
>
>>I dont know why I like this plane so much considering its a glorified bus.
>>
>>http://www.airbus.com/A380/seeing/indexminisite.aspx
>>
>
>My Blog all about politics and the terror war.
>www.papadoc.net/PinkFlamingoBar.html

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

Kinda reminds me of that old twilight zone episode... <grin>

"PAPADOC" <PAPADOC@jimbobs.drive.by> wrote in message
newsnk2711tl7ekqu7s6fsr5u83qtoind6d4r@4ax.com...
> Have you been following the stories of the 300 series planes having
> several
> design flaws that cause the Rudders to oopsy fall off? There is a story
> burbling around the blogs that the NTSB is covering up what they know
> about the
> Airbus 300 series that came down in New York a couple of months after
> 9/11. The
> NTSB blames the pilot for moving the rudder too quickly without any
> mention of
> possible delamination problems.
>
> Airbus issued an order for visual inspections but sorry having worked with
> Composites visual inspections dont cut it when you are worried about
> delamination.
>
> Some links
>
> http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1436374,00.html
>
> What you dont want to see when you land.
> http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/c-gpat/photo.shtml
>
> Money quote from the observer article...
> The Observer has learnt that after the 587 disaster, more than 20 American
> Airlines A300 pilots asked to be transferred to Boeings, although this
> meant
> months of retraining and loss of earnings. Some of those who contributed
> to
> pilots' bulletin boards last week expressed anger at the European
> manufacturer
> in vehement terms. One wrote that having attended an Airbus briefing about
> 587,
> he had refused to let any of his family take an A300 or A310 and had paid
> extra
> to take a circuitous route on holiday purely to avoid them: 'That is how
> con
> vinced I am that there are significant problems associated with these
> aircraft.'
>
> http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2005/03/16/a-tylenol-crisis-in-the-making-at-airbus/
>
> Interesting stuff that caused me to wonder who is in charge over at Airbus
> and
> exactly who is responsible if their lackadasical attitude towards
> composite
> inspection kills 800 people in their big new bird. Call me a coward but I
> am not
> flying on anything Airbus builds until they get serious about inspections.
>
> PAPADOC
>
>>I dont know why I like this plane so much considering its a glorified bus.
>>
>>http://www.airbus.com/A380/seeing/indexminisite.aspx
>>
>
> My Blog all about politics and the terror war.
> www.papadoc.net/PinkFlamingoBar.html

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

leadfoot wrote:

> Having worked at the Boeing 747 hatchery it seems odd to me that you would
> build an airplane and then tell the pilot NOT to use the rudder controls in
> certain conditions because the tail might fall off. If it is really that
> bad you build the rudder controls so they can't be operated in the condition
> described or buld the tail so it won't fall off.
>
> They don't call them SCAREBUS for nothing!

Leadfoot, Papa Doc et al.. you dumb f**ks...

Does Boeing 737 "Rudder Hard-over" ring a bell? I practice it now and
then in the simulator. Nasty stuff... and yes, even Boeing prohibits the
pilots from using sudden and extreme rudder inputs. There were more
Boeing arcraft lost in rudder related incidents than any of all the
other brands of aircraft combined! Go back to writing blogs (drivel?)
about something you do know something about... Cajun-Shrimp anyone?
Papa, I need your recipe!

Kind regards...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

PAPADOC wrote:
> (...)
> Airbus that allows its composite tail to fall off. Exactly how are they gonna
> fix that? Remove all the Vertical Stabs? Maybe they can go to a tailess design?

I suspect you will like this tail design better (see Fig. 4):

http://tinyurl.com/dvnxd [airbus.com]

> And in the spirit of brotherly love let me put a smiley face at the end so you
> know how much I love you.
>
> There now all those mean things I said are all better eh?
> PAPADOC

All this brotherly love has to be rewarded:

http://tinyurl.com/c2mtf [airbus.com]

Time to sharpen up those pink crayons !


Mr. S.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

hehe....That I will fly.

PAPADOC
>
>I suspect you will like this tail design better (see Fig. 4):
>
>http://tinyurl.com/dvnxd [airbus.com]
>
>> And in the spirit of brotherly love let me put a smiley face at the end so you
>> know how much I love you.
>>
>> There now all those mean things I said are all better eh?
>> PAPADOC
>
>All this brotherly love has to be rewarded:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/c2mtf [airbus.com]
>
>Time to sharpen up those pink crayons !
>
>
>Mr. S.

My Blog all about politics and the terror war.
www.papadoc.net/PinkFlamingoBar.html

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

"B. Jansen" <bcpj_totallybogus@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:42766317$0$162$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
> leadfoot wrote:
>
>> Having worked at the Boeing 747 hatchery it seems odd to me that you
>> would build an airplane and then tell the pilot NOT to use the rudder
>> controls in certain conditions because the tail might fall off. If it
>> is really that bad you build the rudder controls so they can't be
>> operated in the condition described or buld the tail so it won't fall
>> off.
>>
>> They don't call them SCAREBUS for nothing!
>
> Leadfoot, Papa Doc et al.. you dumb f**ks...
>
> Does Boeing 737 "Rudder Hard-over" ring a bell? I practice it now and then
> in the simulator. Nasty stuff... and yes, even Boeing prohibits the pilots
> from using sudden and extreme rudder inputs. There were more Boeing
> arcraft lost in rudder related incidents than any of all the other brands
> of aircraft combined! Go back to writing blogs (drivel?) about something
> you do know something about... Cajun-Shrimp anyone? Papa, I need your
> recipe!

Is the 737 rudder problem a structural failure?




>
> Kind regards...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

In article <5b0f71htk0u01tm0hvtod24t2o75qqluk2@4ax.com>,
PAPADOC@jimbobs.drive.by (PAPADOC) wrote:

> Does any plane aside from the Su-25 get the improved
> physics? Doesn't look like it.

Things have definitely been tweaked. Flying the 27 you now get a lot
more control at the edges of the flight envelope, and the kobra is
certainly less scripted. If you fly along at 450, press k, then pull
back the stick you can actually abort the kobra if you're quick enough.
You also get control back (it seems) much more quickly ie the aircraft
starts to respond again realistically when AOA drops to within more
normal parameters.

Can't talk for the other aircraft because between the excellent (if
somewhat frustrating at times) weapons platform that is the 25T, and the
superb flying machine that is the 27 I don't have time for anything else.

> Is there any hope of any other planes getting the
> improved physics?

It's *very* time consuming and tricky work apparently, and not really in
ED's financial interests to work too hard on it from what I've read.
Maybe it'll be on the cards for what sounds like a total rewrite after
1.2. Either way it's a long wait.

Andrew McP

 

[jp]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

"Andrew MacPherson" <andrew.mcp@DELETETHISdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:4277e2b9$0$295$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
> In article <5b0f71htk0u01tm0hvtod24t2o75qqluk2@4ax.com>,
> PAPADOC@jimbobs.drive.by (PAPADOC) wrote:
>
> > Does any plane aside from the Su-25 get the improved
> > physics? Doesn't look like it.
>
> Things have definitely been tweaked. Flying the 27 you now get a lot
> more control at the edges of the flight envelope, and the kobra is
> certainly less scripted. If you fly along at 450, press k, then pull
> back the stick you can actually abort the kobra if you're quick enough.
> You also get control back (it seems) much more quickly ie the aircraft
> starts to respond again realistically when AOA drops to within more
> normal parameters.
>
> Can't talk for the other aircraft because between the excellent (if
> somewhat frustrating at times) weapons platform that is the 25T, and the
> superb flying machine that is the 27 I don't have time for anything else.
>
> > Is there any hope of any other planes getting the
> > improved physics?
>
> It's *very* time consuming and tricky work apparently, and not really in
> ED's financial interests to work too hard on it from what I've read.
> Maybe it'll be on the cards for what sounds like a total rewrite after
> 1.2. Either way it's a long wait.
>
> Andrew McP


And to think, all the effort made doing these, releasing add-ons, etc.,
but they don't have the time to make a dynamic campaign........hmmm.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

In article <DZRde.163$Q15.1824@eagle.america.net>, jp@hotmail.com (JP)
wrote:

> And to think, all the effort made doing these, releasing
> add-ons, etc., but they don't have the time to make a
> dynamic campaign........hmmm.

It's always been a hope that ED would manage to squeeze something in, but
experience shows (a) ED have struggled to meet their own expectations let
alone ours, and (b) sims have to be built around dynamic game engines, not
the other way around. Both the F4 and EECH engines seem to have the
campaign at their core, with the simulated aircraft added on top. With ED
(and the vast majority of other sims, historically speaking) it's usually
appeared to be a case of "ok, we've modelled this great aircraft and some
landscape, what do we do with it now?"

Maybe the sequel to LOMAC (if it happens) will learn this lesson. Maybe it
won't. In the mean time I'm enjoying 1.1 for what it is. The 25T really
does push flight modelling in a military sim to new (and very
challenging!) heights. And visually the much higher poly count on the new
aircraft is stunning. The new weapons systems are both complex (sometimes
frustratingly realistic!) and satisfying to use when you get it right. And
while the AI and gameplay is as disappointing as ever, when you lose
yourself in the challenge of tackling a particular problem, it's possible
to lose yourself in the moment.

And there is one user-made dynamic campaign out in alpha form. I haven't
explored it yet, because I'm too busy movie making, pylon racing, and
learning the 25T. But it looks promising.

http://lockoncampaign.com:8811/board/index.php?a=topic&t=63

Andrew McP

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

B. Jansen wrote:
> leadfoot wrote:
>
>> Having worked at the Boeing 747 hatchery it seems odd to me that you
>> would build an airplane and then tell the pilot NOT to use the rudder
>> controls in certain conditions because the tail might fall off. If
>> it is really that bad you build the rudder controls so they can't be
>> operated in the condition described or buld the tail so it won't fall
>> off.
>>
>> They don't call them SCAREBUS for nothing!
>
>
> Leadfoot, Papa Doc et al.. you dumb f**ks...
>
> Does Boeing 737 "Rudder Hard-over" ring a bell? I practice it now and
> then in the simulator. Nasty stuff... and yes, even Boeing prohibits the
> pilots from using sudden and extreme rudder inputs. There were more
> Boeing arcraft lost in rudder related incidents than any of all the
> other brands of aircraft combined! Go back to writing blogs (drivel?)
> about something you do know something about... Cajun-Shrimp anyone?
> Papa, I need your recipe!
>
> Kind regards...

Doesnt matter. Americans generally dislike the French.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

Irrelevent but true.

PAPADOC

>Doesnt matter. Americans generally dislike the French.

My Blog all about politics and the terror war.
www.papadoc.net/PinkFlamingoBar.html