Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A380 Problems, What Are They?  
User currently offline767-332ER From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 2030 posts, RR: 10
Posted (9 years 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 27511 times:

A number of people have kept mentioning about the plaguing A380 problems, and I am curious as to what they are and if someone could list those for me? I know some of the problems have been engine problems, but those have not been related directly to the A380 design. Also, what are your sources or how did you find out about these problems?

Regards


Twinjets...if one fails, work the other one twice as hard!!!
62 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineA319XFW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 27486 times:

Flug Revue (http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/) had an article about the A380.
I think this is the one that was in the magazine. It's in English, so everyone here should be able to understand Big grin
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRheft/FRHeft05/FRH0511/FR0511g.htm


User currently offlineZRH From Switzerland, joined Nov 1999, 5569 posts, RR: 36
Reply 2, posted (9 years 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 27469 times:

Actually there are no serious problems. The flight tests are even going better than expected. At MSN1 they had to change an engine which had some problems.

User currently offlineScorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 5042 posts, RR: 44
Reply 3, posted (9 years 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 27382 times:

As far as flight testing is concerned, so far no serious problems seem to have surfaced that we know of. Recently, there seems to have been some engine problem with msn001, but there are no indications that this problem is erious enough to jeopardise the schedule. It just happened at a rather inconvenient time, i.e. just before the visit to the far east. If this had happened a few weeks earlier, it most likely would have received little attention on here, if any.

The main reason for the delays in delivery is that Airbus seems to have underestimated the level of customisation of the interiors, which requires far more workk than they had thought. The test flight program has been re-aligned with the new schedule.

The problem is that the 'number of people' you are referring to have been painting a doom and gloom picture of the A380 for a while now, jumping on every piece of news or lack thereof to attack Airbus and the A380. It's a sad state of affairs that such a hate campaign exists on what is supposed to be an enthusiast board, but I guess that's just the way these things go.

Some advice: If these people barge in here (and I'm afraid the question is rather 'when' iso 'if') remember one thing: They don't know the facts, they're just guessing.


User currently offlineFlySSC From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 7422 posts, RR: 57
Reply 4, posted (9 years 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 27332 times:

Quoting 767-332ER (Thread starter):
Also, what are your sources or how did you find out about these problems?

Airbus had overheat problems on 2 of the RR engines.
They decided to change one, then a second, and finally the 4 engines as a precaution, on msn 001 (F-WWOW) before starting the tour in South East Asia.

The plane should leave TLS to SIN next Thursday ...

sources :
http://www.lefigaro.fr/eco-entreprises/20051105.FIG0141.html?132407

Sorry, in French only ....


User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 27311 times:

What about the "tail buffeting" problem? Didn't addressing this issue require modifications to strengthen airframes which had already been assembled and significantly contribute to the six month program delay?

User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (9 years 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 27272 times:

One major issue with the 380 is the BITE software is not completed and it won't be completed before the first delivery. This will mean the first 5 or 6 aircraft will not have the onboard diagnostic software package when the aircraft is delivered. However, it will be available to be installed after the introduction of service.

In addition, VNAV will most likely not be certified prior to the first aircraft being turned over to SQ. The delay is the result of software and flight dynamic issues.

Both of these issues have been contained in Flight International and AWST.

Are they showstoppers? No, however the biggest one is the diagnostic issue. Airbus has assured SQ and QF there will be a support team from Airbus at each airline's location to assist with any issues that arise from the lack of the diagnostic capability.


User currently offlineDynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1866 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (9 years 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 27065 times:

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 3):
Some advice: If these people barge in here (and I'm afraid the question is rather 'when' iso 'if') remember one thing: They don't know the facts, they're just guessing.

Fair statement. Too many people here just rely hearsay. OTOH, when you said:

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 3):
As far as flight testing is concerned, so far no serious problems seem to have surfaced that we know of.

I'm afraid you were guessing, too. I don't believe you have access to daily Airbus operations and issues that they might have.


User currently offlineGreasespot From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 3085 posts, RR: 20
Reply 8, posted (9 years 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 27028 times:

And the people who have daily access, well if they want to be stay employed, will not post them in here.

Unless you have purchased an airplane Airbus owes us no explanation.......Same for Boeing.

If you want to know go buy an airplane or get a job at Airbus.

GS

P.S i would not even hold up Industry mags. as rock solid sources...



Sometimes all you can do is look them in the eye and ask " how much did your mom drink when she was pregnant with you?"
User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (9 years 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 27015 times:

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 3):
The problem is that the 'number of people' you are referring to have been painting a doom and gloom picture of the A380 for a while now, jumping on every piece of news or lack thereof to attack Airbus and the A380. It's a sad state of affairs that such a hate campaign exists on what is supposed to be an enthusiast board, but I guess that's just the way these things go.

Some advice: If these people barge in here (and I'm afraid the question is rather 'when' iso 'if') remember one thing: They don't know the facts, they're just guessing.

Tell me Mr. high school teacher....what do you call what you just said?
Why, that's right, class! It's an ad hominem attack very cleverly disguised and as such it is in the skeptic's guide to the universe as one of the top twenty logical fallacies.

Do you know any more than anyone else?


User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (9 years 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 26964 times:

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 3):
The main reason for the delays in delivery is that Airbus seems to have underestimated the level of customisation of the interiors, which requires far more workk than they had thought. The test flight program has been re-aligned with the new schedule.

IMHO, something doesn't quite ring true here. Airbus, the #1 builder of commercial jets, botched the estimates for interior completion work? It's only something they do everyday and is a major factor in keeping their customers happy. And if true it means they have also botched the cost estimates, at least on the initial production run. IMO, the interiors issue was exaggerated to provide additional time for resolving other issues that might prove more embarassing for Airbus or its customers.

They've got people believing they are putting in waterfalls and bowling alleys, might as well use it as a smoke screen....

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 6):
No, however the biggest one is the diagnostic issue. Airbus has assured SQ and QF there will be a support team from Airbus at each airline's location to assist with any issues that arise from the lack of the diagnostic capability.

Problems with BITE does not bode well for the initial inservice reliability figures.


User currently offlineScorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 5042 posts, RR: 44
Reply 11, posted (9 years 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 26823 times:

Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 7):
I'm afraid you were guessing, too. I don't believe you have access to daily Airbus operations and issues that they might have.

What part of 'that we know of' is it you didn't understand in the sentence of mine you quoted?

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 9):
Tell me Mr. high school teacher....what do you call what you just said?

Yes, the classical approach: no real arguments, so let's attack the profession of the poster, which has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. Want an apple?

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 9):
Do you know any more than anyone else?

Did I claim I did? Did I suggest I did? Did I in any possible way allude to knowing more? Did my use of words like 'seem' (three times in first two paragraphs), 'that we know of' and 'most likely' STILL not make it clear to you that I do not claim to know more?

Anyway, your reacting to my post in that way indicates I've hit a nerve. Good. Means I'm doing something right.

Quoting SATL382G (Reply 10):
Airbus, the #1 builder of commercial jets, botched the estimates for interior completion work?

These are the reasons Airbus themselves give, something which several customer airlines have also alluded to. Remember that the level of customisation on A380 is unprecedented.

But you're free not to believe Airbus if that suits you better.


User currently offlineDynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1866 posts, RR: 7
Reply 12, posted (9 years 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 26690 times:

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 11):
What part of 'that we know of' is it you didn't understand in the sentence of mine you quoted?

If you insist, let's analyze what you have said:

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 3):
As far as flight testing is concerned, so far no serious problems seem to have surfaced that we know of.

How do you know for a fact that no serious problems seem to have surfaced? You are speculating just like other who have speculated that serious problems have surfaced.

Quote:

Recently, there seems to have been some engine problem with msn001, but there are no indications that this problem is serious enough to jeopardise the schedule. It just happened at a rather inconvenient time, i.e. just before the visit to the far east.

You speculated again.

Quote:

The main reason for the delays in delivery is that Airbus seems to have underestimated the level of customisation of the interiors, which requires far more workk than they had thought. The test flight program has been re-aligned with the new schedule.

You chose to accept Airbus's excuse. Allow me to speculate with some reasoning. First, the fact QF, the second 380 operator, was originally scheduled to get their first aircraft six months after SQ got theirs. In the first 8 months, only 3 airlines were scheduled to receive 380s.

Second, early test airplanes are never tested in a customer's final interior configuration. To blame an early test delays on a problem that's related to refurbishing the aircraft after the test simply doesn't make sense. MSN001 took off in April. Airbus had a year to solve potential issues with SQ's interior requirements, and another six months to solve issues with QF's and EK's. I don't think that's very convincing. If 6 or 7 airlines were scheduled to receive 380s in 6 months, then the explanation would make more sense, but they only have one customer for the first 4-6 months.

I speculate, you speculate, others speculate, too. When you speculate everything is going fine with the 380, and you tell others who speculate that everything is not going well to shut up, you're not standing on very firm ground. The truth is likely somewhere in between. I certainly don't believe it's as rosy as you have portrayed, but I don't believe it's doomed and gloomed as some others have portrayed.


User currently offlineScorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 5042 posts, RR: 44
Reply 13, posted (9 years 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 26431 times:

My God, that's the dumbest post I've seen on here for a while. But OK, I'll play the game.

Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 12):
How do you know for a fact that no serious problems seem to have surfaced?

Where did I say I did? Again, what part of 'that we know of' don't you understand??? This is a no-brainer, but I'll analyze 'that we know of' for you in this context. We (that's us, the public) have not been told by Airbus or any other official source that there are serious problems with the A380. Thus: there are no serious problems THAT WE KNOW OF. Seriously, I can't believe you make a fuss about that, it's perfectly clear.

Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 12):
You speculated again.

Huh? Where did I speculate? I just said what is known to us which isn't a lot. There ARE no indications to us, the public, of this problem jeopardising the program. Unless you know otherwise, which I doubt.

Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 12):
You chose to accept Airbus's excuse.

And you chose not to. It's a free world.

Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 12):
Allow me to speculate with some reasoning.

Go right ahead. While you do so, I'll try and stop laughing at the first part of your post.


User currently offlineChiGB1973 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1619 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (9 years 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 26138 times:

Quoting A319XFW (Reply 1):
Flug Revue (http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/) had an article about the A380.
I think this is the one that was in the magazine. It's in English, so everyone here should be able to understand
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRhe...g.htm

Very interesting article, thanks!

M


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (9 years 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 26074 times:

Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 12):
You chose to accept Airbus's excuse.

Lets hear your better, more informed reason for the delay. After all, you seem to be in the know, better than Airbus.

Airbus has no public shareholders, it is answerable to noone but EADS, BAE and its customers, what reason in HELL does it have to lie about delays to the public?

Give over with the conspiracy theories.

Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 12):
Second, early test airplanes are never tested in a customer's final interior configuration.

Both of the delayed aircraft are having interiors fitted as part of the test program, that is why this is not a problem to be addressed at a later date. Both aircraft are closer to the configuration that will be delivered to customers, and both will be used in proving.

Give over with the conspiracy theories.


User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (9 years 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 25762 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 15):
Both of the delayed aircraft are having interiors fitted as part of the test program, that is why this is not a problem to be addressed at a later date. Both aircraft are closer to the configuration that will be delivered to customers, and both will be used in proving.

Isn't MSN004 the "workhorse" of the flight test programs and stuffed with test racks and water barrels? Isn't MSN002 about to be fitted out with an 853 seat configuration for the emergency evacuation tests in January and February of next year? Perhaps you can define "closer?"

"While the first two A380s are equipped with heavy test instrumentation, this third A380 to take to the air only has a medium sized instrumentation. After complete checks, it will fly to Hamburg in the coming days, where it will be the first to be fitted with a full cabin."

http://www.airbus.com/en/presscentre...eases_items/11_04_05_3rd_A380.html

[Edited 2005-11-06 21:22:55]

User currently offlineA319XFW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (9 years 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 25684 times:

MSN001 is the 'workhorse' of the test programme. Then there are the 2 cabin test aircraft and then MSN004 is the performance test aircraft.
But it's MSN001 which is the main test aircraft as such, as Airbus will keep it after the others have gone to the customers. (like MSN001 A320 and A340 and the first A340-600)


User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (9 years 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 25680 times:

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 11):
But you're free not to believe Airbus if that suits you better.

I didn't say I didn't believe them, I'm sure they do have some issues with the interiors. I just don't think it justifies a 6-month delay......


User currently offlineBoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (9 years 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 25260 times:

Did Airbus ever solve the weight problem with the A380? Does anyone know how much it weighs? I would think with three of them flying we should be getting some solid numbers from Airbus.

User currently offlineDynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1866 posts, RR: 7
Reply 20, posted (9 years 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 25194 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 15):
Both of the delayed aircraft are having interiors fitted as part of the test program, that is why this is not a problem to be addressed at a later date. Both aircraft are closer to the configuration that will be delivered to customers, and both will be used in proving.

Just to show how much you know. AFAIK, MSN001 and 004 are not going to SQ. MSN001 stays with Airbus. MSN004 will go to Etihad. Why don't you go read 772lr's flight test blog. Their first test aircraft is now being refurbished after completing the flight test. According to the blog it will take three months to complete the refurbishment. That's what both Airbus and Boeing usually do with their test airplanes.

Quote:
Airbus has no public shareholders, it is answerable to noone but EADS, BAE and its customers, what reason in HELL does it have to lie about delays to the public?

I didn't say they lied. They just didn't tell all the reasons behind the delay. Boeing is also a publicly listed company. They didn't explain to the public all the details of their 737ng production ramp up problems in 1997. The investment community in general doesn't have the knowledge to digest the details. The investment community is usually content to know the company they are investing doesn't hide any major problems. There are plenty of examples of publicly listed companies tried to hide their problems. I'm sure you have heard of whistleblowers, and read many scandal reports of the corporate world by inquisitive journalists.

My simple point is being a publicly listed company doesn't guarantee that they will tell the world every problem they have. Even when they disclose all their problems, it doesn't mean they will explain all the root causes of their problems.

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 13):
My God, that's the dumbest post I've seen on here for a while.

Insulting people doesn't get you anywhere. The simple fact is you are interpreting what's known to the public. You made an assumption that Airbus will disclose everything, and refuse to consider other evidences. If you can't try to look at the subject with an objective mind, no one will listen to your complaints about those anti-380 extremists.

You insulted me because you believe what you learned from the public is the absolute truth, but is it? Time and time, you have demonstrated that you are selective of what you want to believe in the media. There is nothing wrong with that. When you're being selective, you can't fault others being selective either.

Let me give you one last example. When the 380 overweight rumor first surfaced, Airbus quickly denied it. Then some exec from Airbus admitted the weight problem but insisted the 380 would meet fuel burn spec even before the aircraft took to the sky. Then an engineering exec claimed the OEW was actually under "target", but the million-dollar question is what target was he referring to. Who should I believe? And who did you believe? When Airbus execs can't speak with one voice, then people will take what they say with a grain of salt.


User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1590 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (9 years 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 25136 times:

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and goes quack; Its a Duck.

The 380 was delayed 6 months, that a fact.

Several problems with the structure, and production problems have been agreed by Airbus, and now they have a engine problem which they share with RR, and which will probably be quickly fixed.

This is not terribly unusual, and happens to Boeing from time to time also. eg Flutter in the tailplane of 739 was a problem now corrected.

What was unusual was the very poor PR and Customer relations of Airbus in handling this problem.

As RichardPrice said, "Airbus has no public shareholders" and this is a big part of the problems faced by Airbus. Hidden as they are behind EADS and with more political interference than is healthy, it is not surprising that their response to these problems sounds more like a political apologist than the worlds leading producer of Commercial Aircraft.

Ruscoe


User currently offlineScorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 5042 posts, RR: 44
Reply 22, posted (9 years 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 24876 times:

Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 20):
Insulting people doesn't get you anywhere.

I wasn't insulting you, I was talking about your POST being the dumbest I've seen in a while. I didn't say a thing about YOU anywhere.

I will say though that you seem to have some serious problems with simple reading comprehension, i.e. what people write vs. what you THINK people write. And that's not trying to be tongue-in-cheek or trying to be a smartass, I'm actually dead serious here. Another illustration of that?

Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 20):
You insulted me because you believe what you learned from the public is the absolute truth, but is it?

Two in one sentence here:

1) As I said earlier, I never said anything about you, just about your post. Go re-read my previous post. Everybody does stupid things, and your previous post was stupid. That's not the same as me calling you stupid.

2) You claim that I believe what Airbus says is the absolute truth. Point is, I never said that, or even alluded to that. Again: read what I said again. The fact that I used words and phrases like 'seems' and 'that we know of' alone makes it pretty clear to most people that I am NOT taking these things as the gospel and absolute truth, but that I take into account the possibility that there ARE things that we don't know about. Why else would I have said the 'that we know of' part? I'd have no reason for that. At all.

Unfortunately, chances are you will reply to this claiming I'm trying to twist my own words or something to that effect, or trying to convince me that I did say the things I never said. I can only hope that you will prove me wrong on that one, and that this retarded 'try to put words into the other's mouth' game can stop here.

Good night.


User currently offlineBlast From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 121 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (9 years 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 24568 times:

Another problem that may be facing the A380, as has been discussed in numerous other threads as well, is the question whether the A380 will be a commercial success. As far as I know about 250 should be sold, but there have been so many conflicting news releases on that...

I personally believe there is a market for the plane, but it is to be hoped for airbus that it is going to be big enough to break even and make a profit.


User currently offlineDynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1866 posts, RR: 7
Reply 24, posted (9 years 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 24430 times:

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 22):
I will say though that you seem to have some serious problems with simple reading comprehension

You can say whatever you want to say. You are stating your opinions. That's all I have been trying to say. The other people that you were accusing of stated their opinions, too, just like you. Some opinions are worse than others. I'm not here to judge whose is worse. I'm just pointing out people form opinions without all the facts. You do it, I do it, and most other people do that.

Instead of discussing this general observation which in the center of my argument, it is you who want to play with words. You always run away from the meat of the discussion but dwell on some meaningless word play.

You can deny all you want, but when you regurgitated the interior configuration as the sole reason for the 380 delay, it is quite clear you chose to believe what Airbus has told the public. When Airbus has to deliver airplanes to only one airline in the first six months, and the test airplanes are not even destined for that airline, the interior configuration excuse simply doesn't explain why it took three months from the Reveal of the first aircraft to its first flight, another 4.5 months for the second aircraft first flight, and slide the whole delivery schedule for the first two years by six months.


25 WhiteHatter : but where in the aircraft builders buible does it state that they all have to be sold before the aircraft goes into service? Did people stop buying t
26 Jbmflyer : Im a long time reader, however, this thread has spurred me to join up to put in my two cents. I mean this is no way shape or form to insult anyone, bu
27 Ruscoe : Welcome Jbmflyer, It's like supporting your favourite football team. Your team has got to do something very bad to cause a defection. Face to face the
28 Post contains images TinkerBelle : I'm surprised nobody here has mentioned the problem with the 'ugliness' of the plane. Unfortunately, Airbus can't do anything about it now
29 Grantcv : I am going to make a guess about the state of the A380. There are currently several serious issues that need to be resolved. The same can be said for
30 TrevD : In an attempt to get this conversation back on track.... Has anyone heard more on the engine removal issue? Particularly from RR? Removing one engine
31 RedFlyer : That was probably the biggest "problem" encountered by the 380, not the performance or spec issues. Given Airbus' slick P.R. machine, this was a very
32 Post contains images Ikramerica : Everything is fine, nothing at all is wrong or has ever been wrong, and never has a program been run so effectively and efficiently. All customers are
33 StuckInCA : Internet forums do strange things to people. I think the conversations would be MUCH more civil in a face to face setting.
34 Post contains images Mariner : Perhaps not everyone thinks it is ugly? I think it is a bit of a relief. I grew up with the Boeing Stratocruiser as the pinnacle of passenger aircraf
35 Gmidy : I think you guys need to stop speculating/arguing about when an aircraft is going to be launched into service, can we not celebrate the fact that a ne
36 MarshalN : I'd rather argue whether that is crap on the underside of the fuselage than to argue about hypothetical and unknowns, like "A350 will suck compared t
37 TinkerBelle : If we didn't have differences in life, this would be one hell of a boring world so you're right, not everyone thinks it's ugly. I personally think it
38 Scorpio : Another illustration of my previous point: no arguments, so personal insults. I don't insult people, I criticize actions. If you feel offended by tha
39 Post contains images GBan : Please analyze the whole sentence if you claim to "analyze". I think this sentence has a different meaning if you include "that we know of"
40 764 : I doubt that any of us really know anything. However, the utmost secrecy with which Airbus carries out testing and the little facts they feed to the p
41 KLMCedric : And to think I've been insulted by someone calling me childish for wishing people who can do no better than those kind of remarks would stay out of t
42 RichM : There was a problem with the gear getting caught on the gear doors, so the gear couldn't deploy properly. It has been fixed though.
43 Breiz : Ok. So, if I understand correctly, the A380 is poorly designed, questionably manufactured and obviously badly managed. Its structure looks to be made
44 Post contains images StuckInCA : Good thing you qualified your statement, because it seems that you don't understand correctly.
45 TGV : This was only during emergency deployment (when the landing gear has to go down using only its own weight, and not hydraulic pressure, pushing down t
46 Post contains images NAV20 : Sorry, TGV, can't resist commenting on that. Does the fact that the wheels were only going to 'hang up' in emergency situations mean that it wasn't a
47 Glacote : No it is not. However that you portrait this as a "problem" is probably dubious - unless you explain why it is so. Not even counting the question of
48 Post contains images GBan : NAV20: Where in TGVs 2 sentence post do you read that there wasn't a problem and that it didn't have to be fixed? He gave a slightly more detailed sp
49 Post contains images NAV20 : Touche', GBan, possibly I am over-reacting! I suppose it was the word 'only' that caught my eye. Seemed to suggest that, since the gear not descending
50 Astuteman : It's nice to see someone actually have a go at answering the thread-starters question, without feeling the need to indulge infantile emotional needs.
51 Post contains images A360 : I saw the TV show on discovery a short time ago... and I would just like to make a correction (small, but very important) to that. The problem was on
52 KLMCedric : Come on, Tinkerbelle This is a thread about A-380 technical problems. The fact that you say it's ugliness is a problem sounds childish to me, especial
53 Post contains images TinkerBelle : Ha haa.. I'm anything but heart broken and you're right, I've left no doubts that I don't care much for the whalejet's shape but never did I say anyt
54 KLMCedric : Hahaha, just imagine how that would be:"good mornin' folks, this is captain Tinkerbelle and I'd like to welcome you on this fugly whalejet today who
55 BoomBoom : Do you have any sources for this? As I recall it started out 20 tons overweight; and is still 5 tons over. As far as the "better than expected" fuel
56 Post contains images TinkerBelle : That is funny. With my luck though, I doubt it'll happen but who knows! Anything is possible right.
57 Glacote : I recall these from July issue of Flight International. The 5t overweight was (I believe) well publicized and perhaps even acknowledge by Airbus. I h
58 Ikramerica : Well done with the summary. i think you covered everything. I would like to point out that some of us only doubt the business model as defined by Lea
59 TinkerBelle : lol.. You just opened a can of worms with that one. Many here believe it was only meant for two customers, DL and CO, and Boeing had no intentions of
60 Ikramerica : Oh, that is very true. But at the same time, they still would have liked CO and DL to order more of them as follow on, but 9/11 got in the way. And n
61 NAV20 : Very well said, Ikramerica. The legendary 707 eventually became one of my all-time favourites; but if I'd been flying the Atlantic at the time it was
62 RAMPRAT980 : If there was a serious problem do you honestly think Airbus would share it with the public ? I doubt it very very very very much. If anyone here thin
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
DL Tristars @ VCV,what Are They Waiting For? posted Thu Jul 30 2009 09:30:07 by United_Fan
GoJets, What Are They Up To? posted Sun Nov 11 2007 14:47:02 by ATWZW170
Cutoffs In The Bulkhead, What Are They? posted Mon Oct 15 2007 21:36:45 by HAMAD
Bmi - What Are They Doing About APD?! posted Thu Feb 1 2007 20:02:05 by Demoose
A380 Evacuation - What Are The Odds Of Success? posted Sat Mar 25 2006 09:44:58 by Ants
What Are They Doing Here? posted Thu Feb 16 2006 04:03:03 by Blasphemystic
Air China - What Are They Like To Fly? posted Thu Jan 19 2006 17:01:55 by AirWales
FlyGlobespan: What Are They? posted Tue Jan 17 2006 16:16:43 by Gkirk
What Are They Using MD-11 N802de For? posted Wed Nov 9 2005 10:10:17 by Duke
JAT Airways - What Are They Thinking? posted Mon Jul 18 2005 03:23:34 by DekX