BEEP, wrong answer; the 777 came pretty close, but it was not delivered with no issues. It quickly gained the nickname of the 'Cripple Seven' because its in flight entertainment system would go unserviceable fairly often. And of course it has subsequently had to have a bit of a redesign following that BA crash landing at Heathrow, although to be fair, that was the engines at fault and not the aircraft itself.Al

not the engines but the fuel pumps that would freeze over, right? The 777 had a good delivery schedule, but then again it has had so many variants since then because of the negatives in its production (not long enough range, not good enough fuel flow, not good enough wings). The triple 7 is probably the only airplane with little issues and no delayed delivery. Even the A320 had a bad test flight record including the infamous crash at the airshow

not the engines but the fuel pumps that would freeze over, right? The 777 had a good delivery schedule, but then again it has had so many variants since then because of the negatives in its production (not long enough range, not good enough fuel flow, not good enough wings). The triple 7 is probably the only airplane with little issues and no delayed delivery. Even the A320 had a bad test flight record including the infamous crash at the airshow

I don't remember any dramatic delays in the initial deliveries of the 757/767 program either, but that was years ago!

This is proof that cockpits are being comprised of humans and a dog, with a dog to bite the pilot in case he touches anything :(. JKBack on topic, I really don't mind the delays with school and other things going on, it just increases the suspense waiting for such an awesome product. Hopefully this will allow the developer to release a basic and advanced version at the same time.

Even the A320 had a bad test flight record including the infamous crash at the airshow

That one was pilot error, and was not a test flight, it was an Air France sightseeing flight with paying passengers that was bound for Mont Blanc, with a detour to the airshow at Habsheim where it crashed. It was piloted by a senior Air France captain who had recently been appointed as Air France's main A320 training captain. The co-pilot was also A320 qualified (three months before the incident).The A320 (F-GFCK) was brand new, having been handed over to Air France two days before the crash, so the flight was nothing to do with the A320's test programme. The crew were misinformed about which runway they were to perform the fly-by over at Habsheim, and aligned with the wrong runway initially for their demo fly-by. Since it was at an airshow at a local flying club, the crowd were aligned with a smaller runway, and the Airbus crew assumed they would be going down a longer runway. Realising their mistake, they should probably have orbited the airfield whilst they sussed out a better approach to the fly-by, but instead they simply went for it with a hurried alignment on the smaller runway, and as a consequence, did not have a proper briefing for what they were going to do, which is always a bad idea.Too low and too slow, they realised their mistake, panicked (as you would), hit TOGA and hauled back on the stick, whereupon the Airbus protection systems said: 'sorry I'm not climbing at this speed' since the airspeed was still slow as the engines were still spooling up. The A320 therefore remained at 30 feet AGL in line with the trees at the end of the runway, which the crew would have known about if they had been more mindful of doing a proper recce of the airfield in the changed circumstances, and briefed for it. As it turned out, they made that hurriedly arranged fly-by at 132 knots, 40 feet above the airfield with the throttles at open descent idle, and it dropped to 30 feet, which is clearly a very dodgy thing to do with a 40 foot forest of trees right in front of you, but pitched up at 6 degrees, they could not see that the tree tops were above their height. When they realised that was the case, they applied TOGA and hauled back on the stick, but they actually only did that four seconds before they hit the trees, which was too late to gain enough airspeed to allow the protection systems on the A320 to agree the command to climb in response to such a control input.Officially, when Air France aircraft do fly-bys at airshows, they are supposed to maintain 170 feet AGL in VFR conditions, but it is common practice for most airlines to ignore that and go down to 100 feet AGL. This might seem reckless, but it does happen a lot and is usually not a problem if the clearances at the end of the runway are known, I've personally seen a BA Concorde go a lot lower than that at an airshow over a grass airfield (Barton, Manchester), and apparently the pilot was willing to try a touch and go on that occasion, but was advised not to by the tower. When airlines agree to do such fly-bys, what usually happens is the airline get a briefing about what the show organisers would like, and that tends to include which runway the fly-by will be over. In the case of the A320 crash at Habsheim, it had been assumed that runway 02 would be used (which is about 3,300 feet long and paved), whereas upon arrival in the circuit for the fly-by, the A320 crew realised that was not going to be the runway, and the crowd were aligned for runway 34, which is over 1000 feet shorter in length, with trees at the end of it, and you know what happened because of that.Al

Hey Al - off topic, but is your trusty dog copilot a Sheltie?