Dash 8 First Power On

[Cras 6]

Where did that come from?Don't recall anyone dying in a A380, did I miss something?

The ides of March are come.Ay, Caesar; but not gone.

[clum 2]

Congrats to Boeing. While the flight deck looks the same as the -400, apart from the display screens, what are the major differences in the systems?

Bit more info here-http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/2009/08/a-closer-look-747-flight-deck.htmlOther than what Tabs has already said, subtle differences include the new style gear lever and a relocated autobrake selector.

[cenkcnk 24]

cables...what the hell kilometers?!! :(

[scandinavian13 5,192]

The ides of March are come.Ay, Caesar; but not gone.

Clever.

[Spaceman3 1]

Same here. With the A380 looking like another Scarebus Death Trap, maybe more people will think twice about putting in orders for that thing, and will instead give a hard look at the 747-8i when it comes time to replace their older 747s.

This comment strikes me as particularly ironic and uninformed. You need to keep up with current events. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6A900120101110Talk about a scary, poorly engineered airplane. You couldn't pay me to get on a 787. And mind you, I have no interest or bias in the whole Airbus/Boeing thing, because when you get right down to it, they're both international megacorps who've made some massive engineering boo boos in the past that have cost hundreds of lives.

[fencer 16]

Same here. With the A380 looking like another Scarebus Death Trap, maybe more people will think twice about putting in orders for that thing, and will instead give a hard look at the 747-8i when it comes time to replace their older 747s.Plus, I like the bit about the new cabin. Looks very cool.

Hi Scott, The cabin looks cool indeed, but (if I may) your comment doesn't . The 747 is a great aircraft (one of the greatest in aviation history, in fact). But it had its share of problems in the beginning too. And nobody called it a Death Trap then.In another post, you write : "I have very limited knowledge in how Airbus operate" . I'm sure you know much more than you say. If not, I would suggest you take some time to learn a little bit more. It's quite fascinating ...like most aircraft !Bruno

The A380? Isn't that the aircraft with wings that failed to meet expected failure loads?? I recall they did some fancy math and said it will be okay. We'll see in about five years how good that math was.

Hi Dan,I didn't know about that. Can you tell us more (or provide a link)?Thanks in advance,Bruno PS : (edit) Don't bother, a quick Google search did the trick.

[Guest meshweaver]

Talk about a scary, poorly engineered airplane. You couldn't pay me to get on a 787.

That is equally a poor statement to the first mention of the A380 earlier in this thread.It leaves me shaking my head, it really does.Matt

[Spaceman3 1]

That is equally a poor statement to the first mention of the A380 earlier in this thread.It leaves me shaking my head, it really does.Matt

Please elaborate as to why you feel that way. Boeing already has a bad reputation at this point in regards to the 787 program, including this latest emergency incident. Solid well engineered products usually don't go up in smoke (quite literally) this early in their life.

[Cras 6]

Solid well engineered products usually don't go up in smoke (quite literally) this early in their life.

I might be going on a bit of a limb but I thought of the Apollo/Saturn. That was a pretty darn amazing ship, and the first one was very tragic. (So was the 13th one, but it was still the Successful Failiure).It is not the first run that is the issue, especially with airplanes. It is the 100th flight, the 1000th flight. That shows how good a ship is built and designed.Issues abound were present during development of the 747, for it was the first Jumbo Jet, first passenger jetliner to use High Bypass. It was first designed as solely a cargo hauler, as it was consensus at the time that the future of passenger flight was in smaller supersonic jets. How wrong they all were, both now and 2000. I bet there were plenty of people in the early 60's when they heard about the 747 they thought, "Giant Death Trap." No look where we have come. 777, a longer range aircraft that is a full widebody, first since the 747 (as the 767 is not a true wide), designed entirely on the computer, fly by wire, and only TWO turbines. Wow, yet it worked. Now here we are, the A380 and the B787, two planes that are pushing the envelope harder than the 747 or 777 ever tried. Are they attempting too much in one airframe? With the A380 going for size on a scale of the stupid? and the 787 having so darn much computing power that the airfoil actually continuously adjusts to achieve smoothest and efficient flight? Not to mention the bleedless systems, and carbo fiber, and the new construction methods. Now regarding my previous post on Airbus, compared to people on these boards, I do not know much abour Airbuses, I only know from a few people talking abou them, and I flew on one only ONCE in my entire life (an United A320). Boeing planes, I buy FSX addons, read what I can about realworld systems, I come across a real world line pilot who flys Boeings, I ask questions, I read books I can get my hands on. My view on Airbus may seem arbitrary, carpricious, and even off the deep end to some. I see Airbus' very existance illegal. An attempt from Europe to rig their side to have a fighting chance with Boeing. No yoke and their autopilot system? How they come to think that was the best way to go about things is beyond me. They deliever a plane to compete with the 777, yet it has four engines. Saying their engineers think it the safest way, not to go the ETOPS route. Watch out for the vertical stablizer.777s do have their own engine issues, gear boxes, throttle not responding as it should, so I am not here to say Boeing makes perfect airplanes that are 100% safe, nothing traveling at those speeds at those altitudes does not carry risk. We all know and accept this. But you cannot compare the two companies track records on innovation and engineering. The plane that went down in Queens, the Air France that went down over the ocean Lost style, now the A380 having its engines blow and take out parts of the wing.Boeing does have a bit of a stain on their record as they are three years late on the Dreamliner, the issue with the wing connecting to the main fueslage, this last one where they forgot they had to cool all their new electronics.Maybe my disdain for Airbus is born of ignorance, out of nationalistic pride, what ever. But it is not totally unwarrented. Anytime a plane goes down because the vertical stablizer falls off, or the pitot gets iced over, or they jam all the hoses (including the redundencies) in the same space right under the fan so when it goes, you are royally $%^&ed (this is why I have no love for the DC-10 MD11), calls for serious looks. The Dreamliner will fly when it is ready (almost feels like a PMDG quote), all those orders that are still on the books will be filled, those that cancelled will most likely get put back in, Boeing will make a chunk of change, and it will be a plane we will see in the sky for the next 50 years. Someday I am sure Airbus will fix their issues and actually develop the XWB, but I wont hold my breath for it.

[fencer 16]

I might be going on a bit of a limb ...

I agree....Kind regards, anywayBruno

[jcmontagne 1]

I'm glad the 747 line has a successor because it is indeed a venerable aircraft.It is, by the way, probably the aircraft (the dash 400) I have flown on the most (back in my teenage hood when I used to live in Asia).Recently, I had the opportunity to fly on the A380 CDG -> JFK -> CDG and I have to say it was a very nice experience : very comfortable (flying qualities, noise and cabin atmosphere), seats are pretty standard in economy class and you do have slightly more leg groom but...Speaking of engineering, I'm not an engineer (I'm a pharmacist) so I won't comment on either of Boeing's or Airbus' engineering.My feeling is just that they are both good at what they do. Their different perspectives of the airline market are perhaps not so different and all this row is after all maybe just the result of marketing : they have to emphasize their differentiation ! So everybody, shake hands ! :(

[Cirrus22 9]

Someday I am sure Airbus will fix their issues and actually develop the XWB, but I wont hold my breath for it.

Huh? The A350 is very much in development...573 firm orders...

[trisager 2]

Wow, that thread went down the drain pretty quick.I guess that now the FS9 vs FSX debate has pretty much subsided around here, Airbus vs Boeing is always a good fallback.

[Spaceman3 1]

Cras,Thank you for your extensive reply.I think you are thinking of Apollo 13 which was called a successful failure. Apollo 1 on the other hand is the perfect example of exactly what I'm talking about. The Block 1 capsules were a mess and extremely dangerous. The complexity and the ambitiousness of the mission does not negate the fact that the early Apollo command modules were poorly engineered and the contract probably should not have gone to North American who had little experience with spacecraft to that point.It is not the first run that is the issue, especially with airplanes. It is the 100th flight, the 1000th flight. That shows how good a ship is built and designed.I'm not sure this is a particularly true statement. Some projects are doomed from the start, others don't reveal issues until much later in their life cycle.Issues abound were present during development of the 747, for it was the first Jumbo Jet, first passenger jetliner to use High Bypass. It was first designed as solely a cargo hauler, as it was consensus at the time that the future of passenger flight was in smaller supersonic jets. How wrong they all were, both now and 2000. I bet there were plenty of people in the early 60's when they heard about the 747 they thought, "Giant Death Trap." No look where we have come. 777, a longer range aircraft that is a full widebody, first since the 747 (as the 767 is not a true wide), designed entirely on the computer, fly by wire, and only TWO turbines. Wow, yet it worked. Now here we are, the A380 and the B787, two planes that are pushing the envelope harder than the 747 or 777 ever tried. Are they attempting too much in one airframe? With the A380 going for size on a scale of the stupid? and the 787 having so darn much computing power that the airfoil actually continuously adjusts to achieve smoothest and efficient flight? Not to mention the bleedless systems, and carbo fiber, and the new construction methods. I'm not sure the size matters. The 748 is pushing the envelope just as hard as the A380. And other aircraft of similar size have been around much longer. I'm thinking in particular of the C-5 which I have thousands of hours on. New technology on the other hand can be frought with issues. But both Airbus and Boeing are always trying to incorporate new inovations. I don't see a lot of difference between their methodologies.Now regarding my previous post on Airbus, compared to people on these boards, I do not know much abour Airbuses, I only know from a few people talking abou them, and I flew on one only ONCE in my entire life (an United A320). Boeing planes, I buy FSX addons, read what I can about realworld systems, I come across a real world line pilot who flys Boeings, I ask questions, I read books I can get my hands on. My view on Airbus may seem arbitrary, carpricious, and even off the deep end to some. I see Airbus' very existance illegal. An attempt from Europe to rig their side to have a fighting chance with Boeing. So you are opposed to capiltalism? I don't get it.No yoke and their autopilot system? How is a yoke a prerequisite for a quality airplane? Everything from the Wright Flyer to an F-18 does not require a yoke to be a good airplane.How they come to think that was the best way to go about things is beyond me. They deliever a plane to compete with the 777, yet it has four engines. Saying their engineers think it the safest way, not to go the ETOPS route. It's called redundancy and typically it does lead to safer products.Watch out for the vertical stablizer.A problem for Airbus to be sure, which is why I point out that there isn't a whole lot of differences between the two companies in regards to engineering blunders.777s do have their own engine issues, gear boxes, throttle not responding as it should, so I am not here to say Boeing makes perfect airplanes that are 100% safe, nothing traveling at those speeds at those altitudes does not carry risk. We all know and accept this. But you cannot compare the two companies track records on innovation and engineering. Why not?The plane that went down in Queens, the Air France that went down over the ocean Lost style, now the A380 having its engines blow and take out parts of the wing.Engine failures are far more common than you probably realize. Why not blame the engine manufacturer whos engines hang from a lot of Boeing wings?Boeing does have a bit of a stain on their record as they are three years late on the Dreamliner, the issue with the wing connecting to the main fueslage, this last one where they forgot they had to cool all their new electronics.Maybe my disdain for Airbus is born of ignorance, out of nationalistic pride, what ever. Yes, it usually strikes me that people who are strongly opinionated on the subject are subject to exactly that (nationalism). When you look at actual facts, the safety records of the two companies are virtually identical and most likely not a factor when airline excecutives make purchasing decisions.But it is not totally unwarrented.I'm not sure you've proven this.Anytime a plane goes down because the vertical stablizer falls off, or the pitot gets iced over, or they jam all the hoses (including the redundencies) in the same space right under the fan so when it goes, you are royally $%^&ed (this is why I have no love for the DC-10 MD11), calls for serious looks. I could provide a long list of Boeing engineering failures from cargo doors ripping off, plumeting passengers to their death over the Pacific, to faulty 737 rudder servos giving the crew no chance of recovery, to exploding fuel tanks. No company in the business of producing high performance aircraft are immune to such incidents. I would politely suggest that you rethink your bias based on the evidence.Thanks again for your reply.

[MorsAbAlto 19]

Gentlemen,the intention of this thread was to share a fascinating moment in aviation with you. It was not intended to be the launch platform for another A vs. B flame war. However, there is no point in closing the barn door after the horse has escaped, so we can as well keep going. Just remember to stay civil. I'll try the same. Spaceman already posted a good reply, while I was still working on mine. Here is a friendly reminder regarding wing load testing for the people that used this point to discredit the A380. The wing of the original 737 failed at 95% of the projected maximum load, leading to a wing redesign, while the A380 failed at 96.67%. I am not commenting on this, other than it's not a sign of inferiority if a wing fails during load testing. This is what the tests are for. Boeing and Airbus equally influenced aviation history during the last 50 years with fascinating new techologies and spectacular airplanes alike. The 747 is a unique aircraft, recognized by many around the globe, but so is the A380. All the distain and talk about Airbus being illegal is caused by the somewhat kafkaesque phobia, that Airbus might one day surpass Boeing somehow and diminish a symbol of national pride to many Americans. But we as aviation enthusiast and pilots should be grateful. Competition is always a motor for advance and improvements. It actually forces the manufacturers to invest into R&D and we get to see new aircraft in the sky or actually fly them, if you are a pilot. After decades of 737 and A320 variants, it's about time.Airbus (as well as it's parent company EADS) is a symbol for the post-war European motto of cooperation and teamwork. Yes, it was also born out of the neccessity to bundle the dwindling aerospace industries of the major European countries, but what's wrong with that? It's smart and advantageous in a number of ways. I think Airbus is one of the few European ventures that actually somewhat works. Boeing was a major beneficiary of WWII and the recovery of the global economy thereafter and they made a huge profit, bringing countries like Japan and Germany back into the sky. The 737, Boeing's single most successful design, was co-developed with Lufthansa. Boeing and the other American manufacturers had the market almost for themselves. It's ironic that some of you chide Airbus for accepting subsidies, when Boeing did the same thing and use their strong lobby to influence major defense contracts (KC-X) all the time. I am sure most of us know what the WTO's opinion about those subsidies was.Don't get me wrong. I love Boeing and their aircraft, especially the dreaded 787. But Airbus is a serious competitor and the only one that is actually on par with Boeing. I'll wager and estimate that A and B will join forces in the long-term to fend of the emerging competition from China and South America. The current duopoly is a nice arrangement for both companies.So long...