Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A350 - Cabin Pressure  
User currently offlineAJRfromSYR From United States of America, joined May 2005, 454 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 9577 times:

A lot of people keep saying the A350 will have equal or better cabin pressure then the 787. I don't know if either will be really noticeable but, when I prompt these people for supporting information I get nothing. Is there documentation I can read about this?


-AJR-
108 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21534 posts, RR: 59
Reply 1, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 9533 times:

Airbus did claim most recently that it will. I'm pretty sure it's on the website, and it is in their multi-page ads IIRC. Yet QF claimed the advantage still goes to the 787 in cabin comfort, so I wonder what they found out that Airbus is not advertising?


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineAJRfromSYR From United States of America, joined May 2005, 454 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 9512 times:

I've checked the website, nothing under the A350 passanger comfort section.


-AJR-
User currently offlineAbba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1368 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 9473 times:

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRheft/FRHeft05/FRH0512/FR0512f.htm

It says:

Quoting Flug Revue:
Inside the A350 passenger cabin, which has been slightly enlarged due to the use of flattened ribs, Airbus plans to increase the air humidity to 20 percent, that is, five percent more than in the 787 which already has a particularly comfortable design. Again, the internal pressure will defy the Boeing model, with a typical pressure altitude of only 1,830m.

Abba


User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1567 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 9429 times:

I posted a comment in another thread regarding this.

The reason the 787 could be given greater pressure is because carbonfibre is a lot more fatique resistent than Al.
The 350 can be pressurised to whatever altitude they want but it will result in higher maintenace requirements.

Similarly for the humidity. The Al fuselage will suffer more corrossion, and I have been told that the limiting factor for the 787 will be growth of fungi and microrganisms if the humidity is raised too high.(same applies to 350)

Ruscoe


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 5, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 9405 times:

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 4):
The reason the 787 could be given greater pressure is because carbonfibre is a lot more fatique resistent than Al.
The 350 can be pressurised to whatever altitude they want but it will result in higher maintenace requirements.

Thanks Ruscoe, interesting point. But surely it'll be more that 'higher maintenance requirements'? Won't both aircraft require appropriate cyclic pressure-testing at the pre-certification stage? And wouldn't some re-design of the Airbus fuselage be required?

[Edited 2005-12-16 01:41:32]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineAJRfromSYR From United States of America, joined May 2005, 454 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 9367 times:

Hmm, this is similar to Airbus saying

Quote:
You will be able to use your cell phone on the A350

They seem to be telling you what you can do, but if its feasible is a different story.



-AJR-
User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1567 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 9339 times:

Yes Nav20 what you say is correct. The 350 fuselage would need to be stronger but that may be a relatively minor problem considering that they plan to use Al/Lithium, which is stronger pound for pound than the current Al alloys used.

Boeing are using the decreased maintenance requirements of a carbon fibre fuselage as a positive selling point. From what I have read, cycle for cycle the carbonfibre fuselage will require less maintenance.

Did you happen to see the Defense Industry stand at Avalon? Carbon composites are actually being used the other way also to repair Al structures. eg F111. It is the way of the future.

Ruscoe


User currently offlineBoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 9333 times:

Quoting Abba (Reply 3):
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRheft/FRHeft05/FRH0512/FR0512f.htm

It says:...

Quoting Flug Revue:

The question becomes is this Flug Revue article accurate or was this just John Leahy running at the mouth again?

If this claim doesn't even appear on Airbus' website, I would give it no credence.


User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1567 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 9308 times:

Quoting AJRfromSYR (Reply 6):
You will be able to use your cell phone on the A350

It amazes me that this could be seen as a + selling point. Can you imagine what it would be like in a craft with cell phones going off everwhere, and the odd loud and obnoxiuos person speaking rubbish at a very loud level.

Ruscoe


User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4774 posts, RR: 14
Reply 10, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 9291 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 8):
The question becomes is this Flug Revue article accurate or was this just John Leahy running at the mouth again?

If this claim doesn't even appear on Airbus' website, I would give it no credence.

this was also in either Flight International or AWST as I read something similar and I don't ever read Flug Revue but you can't walk out of the office without tripping over a FI or AWST where I am!, Now they could all be getting it from each other or the same source. Just because its not in the Airbus website doesn't mean diddly.


User currently offlineAbba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1368 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 9283 times:

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 8):
The question becomes is this Flug Revue article accurate or was this just John Leahy running at the mouth again?

If this claim doesn't even appear on Airbus' website, I would give it no credence.

I expected this comment to come. No surprise it is from you. If you do not like what you see - then deny it.

Abba

(And by the way I have also read the information from Airbus but cannot remember where pt - and I am not going to waste my time finding it again just because you happen not to like what you read in a respected publication)


User currently offlineAJRfromSYR From United States of America, joined May 2005, 454 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 9269 times:

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 10):
Just because its not in the Airbus website doesn't mean diddly.

OK, but now the question is at what cost?

Is this like either company saying their A350 or 787 can cruise at Mach .98? Sure it can cruise at that speed but at what cost to the wing and fuselage? Will the airline actually be able to have the pressure and humidity that these articles talk about or is it just Airbus saying it can be done - and leaving out "at the cost of x to the fuselage".



-AJR-
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9661 posts, RR: 52
Reply 13, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 9246 times:

Well I am quite familiar with the 787 environmental control system since Hamilton Sundstrand is responsible for it. It is a much more powerful and an electrical system. When you have an electrical system the pressure can really be whatever you want. I honestly don't know what amount the cabin will actually be pressurized to. I never knew that when I was working on the project. But I heard it was in the vicinity of 8,000 feet above MSL.

As far as I know, no one has been awarded the contract for teh Airbus environmental control system, since the plane isn't that far in the development stage compared to the 787. Nothing has been announced that I know of.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 14, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 9242 times:

Good point, AJR. I fancy it would cost fuel/performance as well. Boeing are going 'bleedless' with the 787, the A350 would presumably have to draw the extra power/air from the engines.


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 15, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 9218 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 14):
I fancy it would cost fuel/performance as well. Boeing are going 'bleedless' with the 787, the A350 would presumably have to draw the extra power/air from the engines.

Either way the power comes from the engines. In the B787 case, the additional electrical load on the generators (which are attached to the engines) puts a corresponding additional load on the engines. There is no free lunch.

However, as RoseFlyer points out, in the electrical case one can produce just as much pressure as is needed. In the bleed-air case, one produces as much pressure as might ever be needed and then discards the rest. So there is an efficiency advantage for the bleedless case, but I expect it's minor.


User currently offlineAbba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1368 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 9183 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 15):
Either way the power comes from the engines. In the B787 case, the additional electrical load on the generators (which are attached to the engines) puts a corresponding additional load on the engines. There is no free lunch.

"Nothing comes from nothing. Nothing ever did"

(including air)

Abba


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21534 posts, RR: 59
Reply 17, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 9176 times:

Well, the APU can be designed do it with the engines only serving backup, and the APU can be designed to be most efficient at a certain speed required to produce the electricity while the engines can be designed to be most efficient at the speed required for cruise.

Kind of like a hybrid engine vs. a conventional engine. the conventional is designed to be most fuel efficient at cruise at lower RPMs but provide the most power at high RPMs, while the hybrid is designed to be most efficient with the engine OFF or at high rpms generating a lot of power to charge the batteries, then turn OFF. (At least that's how the most efficient hybrids are designed, though some of the recent ones are "hybridized" conventional setups that are used to boost efficiency but not to the same degree.)

If the APU is designed to run all the generators and the engines are allowed to just provide locomotion, you may get an efficiency savings. It would allow for a lighter, smaller engine for the same task. I assume this is their plan, but I don't know, so I'll ask.

Is the design for the APU on the 787 one that is meant to power all the systems of the aircraft under normal conditions, or is it only for use when the engines aren't running or as a backup?



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 18, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 9148 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 15):
However, as RoseFlyer points out, in the electrical case one can produce just as much pressure as is needed. In the bleed-air case, one produces as much pressure as might ever be needed and then discards the rest. So there is an efficiency advantage for the bleedless case, but I expect it's minor.

On the "old system" where engine bleed air was used to pressurize the cabin, "all the pressure that might ever be needed" was also available, if it wasn't then there would be no need for outflow valves.


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9661 posts, RR: 52
Reply 19, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 9140 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 17):
If the APU is designed to run all the generators and the engines are allowed to just provide locomotion, you may get an efficiency savings. It would allow for a lighter, smaller engine for the same task. I assume this is their plan, but I don't know, so I'll ask.

Is the design for the APU on the 787 one that is meant to power all the systems of the aircraft under normal conditions, or is it only for use when the engines aren't running or as a backup?

The APU is not designed to power electrical systems in flight. I worked on the testing of the 787 electrical generators that are being mounted in the engines. The 787 is basically making everything electrical. The generators on the 787 are the most powerful generators ever on an airplane by far. They produce somewhere in the vicinity of a gigawatt of electrical power. These are the most efficient generators ever produced and are far more powerful and efficient than those on previous jets.

Electricity will be used to power the environmental control system that will pressurize the cabin and keep everything in order for the passengers. I assume that the A350 will operate in a similar way, but I don't know of any finalized designs since I haven't done any work on that project and as far as I know contracts for systems have not been awarded yet.

[Edited 2005-12-16 03:26:36]


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineBoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 9033 times:

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 10):
Just because its not in the Airbus website doesn't mean diddly.

Just because it's in a magazine, doesn't mean diddly.


User currently offlineMcGoose From Sweden, joined Aug 2004, 37 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 9005 times:

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 4):

Similarly for the humidity. The Al fuselage will suffer more corrossion, and I have been told that the limiting factor for the 787 will be growth of fungi and microrganisms if the humidity is raised too high.(same applies to 350)

Air Mauritius will install a humidification system in their A340s next year. It will probably be possible to use the same system for the A350 and the B787.


User currently offlineBoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 8990 times:

Quoting Abba (Reply 11):
(And by the way I have also read the information from Airbus but cannot remember where pt - and I am not going to waste my time finding it again just because you happen not to like what you read in a respected publication)

I'm sure this respected publication is just reporting what Leahy said; there's nothing wrong with that. It's just that we all know Leahy has 'credibility problems'--kind of like you, Abba.


User currently offlineAbba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1368 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 8936 times:

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 22):
I'm sure this respected publication is just reporting what Leahy said; there's nothing wrong with that. It's just that we all know Leahy has 'credibility problems'--kind of like you, Abba.

Could you please explain why it should become more credible by being written on the Airbus homepage?

Abba


User currently offlineAJRfromSYR From United States of America, joined May 2005, 454 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 8905 times:

Quoting Abba (Reply 23):
Could you please explain why it should become more credible by being written on the Airbus homepage?

They would be more held to it, this could of just been Leahy talking as he tends to do. If its on their site it makes it more firm.



-AJR-
25 Abba : Leahy sure does indeed have a BIG mouth (and some of members of the Boeing fan club get rather upset about it - I find it typical American and as suc
26 PlaneDane : It would be a more credible claim because then Airbus would actually be promoting it as a genuine feature of the A350. As for now, we don't have this
27 AJRfromSYR : Exactly what I've been thinking. Abbi, would Enders be just as important to Airbus as Leahy if not more? And didn't he run his mouth about having sum
28 GARPD : I struggle to see how Airbus can raise the Cabin pressure and Humidity to levels equal or beyond those planned on the 787. Reason being that the 787 h
29 AJRfromSYR : The spin is, the plane can be at any humidity and pressure you want, how long the fuselage lasts is a different question. But the simple fact is, you
30 Abba : Do you really believe that airlines base their purchase decisions on what they read in the press or on Airbus' webpage (or Boeing's for that matter)?
31 Abba : Isn't most of the upper fuselage of the 350 made of composits - from about the floor up? Abba
32 AJRfromSYR : Not according to Airbus...
33 GARPD : Very true.
34 Post contains links Joni : What? Someone asked for a source, and when one was provided it was dismissed. If John Leahy says the pressure will be X, then would you seriously dou
35 GARPD : Err.... Yes! The CarboFibre fuselage construction is designed to be much stronger. This is the main reason the 787 can achieve a higher cabin pressur
36 StealthZ : I don't think so.. do you have any grasp of how much power that actually is!! something like 746,000 HP. I read somewhere that a Trent (can't quote t
37 Joni : If it's stronger, then it's going to weigh more and burn more fuel. And according to the quote given, the A350 will have higher cabin pressure than 7
38 GARPD : Ah, therein lies the flaw of your logic. Composites can be stronger than metals while being lighter. This the whole point of Boeing using composites
39 Joni : Composites can be stronger for given weight than metals, but the opposite can also be true - as stated by Boeing's VP I quoted in Reply #34.
40 GARPD : To a certain extant only.
41 Eilennaei : It is customary and to use the term "(cabin) pressure differential", which is the diffrerence between the cabin overpressure and the outside underpres
42 AJRfromSYR : Boeing is honest about its limits, and have said that fungi will be a problem at higher levels. Airbus has not outlined its limits, and the only thin
43 Post contains links Eilennaei : I'm afraid the greatest provider of microorganisms into the cabin air are the passengers themselves. Some actual measurements on air pollutants in th
44 Joni : True, both ways.
45 NAV20 : Ever since the Comet 1 it has been known that cycles of pressurisation/depressurisation can cause fatigue in aircraft structures. As a result, pressur
46 RoseFlyer : Sorry Roseflyer needed a little more sleep. 1500 horsepower = 1100000 watts not 1 gigawatt. I always discussed it in terms of horsepower. In an overs
47 Joni : This would be necessary in any case since the fuselage of the A350 is dis-identical to A330 and is built from different materials.
48 AJRfromSYR : So Leahy's comments are more of a goal then a fact?
49 Joni : In the same way that Boeing's goal of increasing the cabin pressure is a "goal and not a fact". In other words, the testing hasn't been done but the
50 GARPD : Airbus seem not to have finalised their decision. They're talking about a different alloy or composite mix just about every week.
51 Joni : Note that I wrote that the materials have been "largely chosen", meaning that they know the properties of the alloys and composites they're working w
52 Phollingsworth : I actually discussed some of this with some Boeing people. There argument, which from my point of view, is that if you only look at single subsystems
53 Glideslope : Absolutely. On the other hand, when Airbus gets around to realizing this, how many patents will Boeing have for production? If this works for Boeing,
54 Joni : Hard to say anything about this, since it would require extensive studies to extablish an opinion. I wonder what the guys at Airbus would say, though
55 Tod : 8000 feet is the design maximum for cabin altitude. (Ref: 14CFR25.841) Outflow valves also serve to expel old air to make room for fresh air. Tod
56 RoseFlyer : Thanks Tod, so I did actually know what I was talking about. I never worked on other projects, but what pressure do other airliners use? Is it 8,000 t
57 Tod : During regular revenue flights I've been on (yeah I'm the geek with an altimeter in his pocket) range between 5600 and 8000. The quality long haul gu
58 Post contains links NAV20 : This says 6,000ft. maximum:- http://www.alpa.org/DesktopModules/A...temid=2180&ModuleId=2420&Tabid=256
59 RoseFlyer : Wow you really are a geek. Who in their right mind carries an altimeter when they travel? I might have worked on such systems before, but I never act
60 Tod : " target=_blank>http://www.alpa.org/DesktopModules/A...d=256 That'll be nice. It's partially business and partially just another toy to help avoid bor
61 Elvis777 : Hello Joni, 'Airbus has historically been spearheading use of advanced materials (composites included) in airliners, so I wouldn't be surprised to fin
62 Eilennaei : Even Wright brothers made use of composites in their 1st aircraft. There's nothing glorious about them any longer. Even insignificant countries like
63 Post contains links and images Milan320 : Nothing different than what Boeing is attempting to do with their Connexion technology together with Qualcomm. http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,
64 Joni : Well you may feel this way if you choose to do so, but in fact boeing has historically been more conservative when it comes to applying composites to
65 A319XFW : I do remember one of the composites experts at an airline saying he was very surprised that Boeing was the first to have a composite fuse, as he expec
66 BoomBoom : I thought Connexion was for web surfing, instant messaging, and email. If it's limited to that, I don't see why it would be as intrusive as someone y
67 Ruscoe : The key technology is in the manufacturing process, so they can be produced rapidly, cheaply, and of high quality. Thats not a fair comment Milan320.
68 Areopagus : IIRC, circa 2002 Walt Gillette said that it was a very close race between advanced alloys and CFRP, but Boeing would go with carbon because it should
69 Eilennaei : In other words "key technology" = "efficient manufacturing processes" with you? I'd understand "key" as meaning "of profound and general importance".
70 787engineer : I've never heard the A340 called superplastic, are you sure you didn't just pick out the term "superplastic foaming" (SPF) which is a method used to
71 Atmx2000 : Technologies for producing an airplane are just as important as technologies in an airplane. Airbus's manufacturing advancements helped them gain mar
72 787engineer : Yea there was a pretty big push by leadership (well some of the leadership) to stick with aluminum wings to help keep costs low, but carbon fiber/com
73 Milan320 : Connexions is for websurfing etc., whilst Qualcomm is a wireless voice vendor for voice using CDMA technology. Airbus is enlisting the help of Siemen
74 Eilennaei : Advances like deep ultraviolet technology in chipmaking would be what I call "real" key technology. It's based on published basic research and will u
75 AJRfromSYR : Not the point... airline policy, etc...
76 Milan320 : Point taken, but then why single out Airbus for it and not the airlines? It's the airlines who want it, both Boeing and Airbus are happy to oblige (o
77 Joni : Well any essential technology is "key", be it related to materials, manufacturing, testing, repair or what-have-you. That, however, isn't the point.
78 Ruscoe : Joni, I,m not sure of the "point" you are making, but the "manufactureing processes" which Boeing have developed are exactly what will keep the 350 in
79 Eilennaei : So shall it be. Amen to this thread.
80 Post contains images Astuteman : That's a function of how it's designed, not because it's CF necessarily. As others have said, 3rd Generation Al-li alloys are also much stronger for
81 Post contains links Eilennaei : Hello again, thread. I've tried to say over and over again that what is considered a "key tech." in the Boeing context, for instance, is relevant to
82 Joni : Here you're positing two things for which you're not providing evidence: 1) Airbus couldn't use similar composite manufacturing processes Boeing is u
83 Post contains images BoomBoom : Can you tell us what these costs are, or are you just "winging it"?
84 Post contains links Sonic67 : According to the interviews with QF they did not say weather the delivery schedule was the deciding factor. No one really knows why QF chooses the 78
85 Post contains images Astuteman : Whistleblow away, BoomBoom. If you don't have a comprehensive understanding of the parts that go to make up a complete aeroplane, (and more particula
86 Post contains images Tod : The technology exist with ionic charge type filtration. It's prototyping on bizjets now. Love to expand, but there's something about a twelve page no
87 Post contains images BoomBoom : I don't know, that's why I asked the question. I don't have to try to make you look ignorant--you're doing an excellent job of that on your own. Not
88 Joni : According to the other source (mentioned in the other thread) the delivery schedule was in fact a key point, and the source there was inside the proc
89 Abba : Well - you seems to beat him on this one with a very big margin indeed! Abba
90 BoomBoom : u r 1 2 talk...
91 RayChuang : I have my doubts that the A350 will try to equal what Boeing plans for the cabin pressurization system on the 787, unless Airbus completely redesigns
92 Post contains images Astuteman : If you hadn't added the whistle blow, and the smartarse comment about winging it, your question might have even had a remote chance of sounding genui
93 Post contains images Joni : Perhaps you ought to share your concerns with the airline customers?
94 Post contains images BoogyJay : but v r a lot 2 think he's rite... Don't think that because there is just one person to talk, he's the only one to have this opinion. A lot of people
95 Post contains links Scorpio : The thing about the higher cabin humidity on the A350 actually is on the Airbus site: http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfamilies/a350/ In that link, go
96 787engineer : I'd like to find out exactly what % by weight of the A340 is actually composites, I've heard that the 777 is about 9% and the 737, 757, 767 are about
97 Scorpio : I think you're missing what Joni is trying to say. I don't think he meant that the A340 was somehow 'officially' nicknamed 'superplastic', or that it
98 BoomBoom : I'm not as knowledgeable as many people on this forum, but I'm pretty good at detecting bs. And it's obvious from your remarks that this post was in
99 Scorpio : LOL! Evidently not, as what Astuteman said has just been echoed by... a Boeing engineer: The truth hurts sometimes, doesn't it? Astuteman is not one
100 Astuteman : Thanks for the response, 787Engineer. Interestingly (and this is meant as a compliment, not an insult) the massive development effort by the 787 team
101 BoomBoom : Yes, 787engineer was able to articulate what Astuteman could not, and provide a reasoned response.
102 Post contains images Tod : And of course, don't forget the cost of integrating the entire puzzle. That's part of why engineers and mechanics make up only a small percentage of
103 Scorpio : LOL! Do you really have to have come to such an age to still be too stubborn to admit you were wrong? That's a rhetorical question, BTW. I'm stopping
104 MD-90 : 1.5% fuel consumption reduction, to me, would seem to far outweigh the increased mx costs. Raytheon did it first, and they bought the machines to do
105 Abba : That is waste of time and effort as you rarely respond with anything but insults (and the most narrow-mined of these) read: a) what might one way or
106 Post contains images BoomBoom : Oh boy, just what we need--another Abba temper tantrum...
107 ContnlEliteCMH : Whew! I can believe a megawatt. If you calculate the power required for this aircraft to cruise, you'll find it's probably no higher than the 100's o
108 Abba : Read this as a self portrait! Abba
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...
Alaska Airlines Flight Loses Cabin Pressure posted Fri Aug 18 2006 18:43:26 by Yellowstone
A350 Cabin Mock May Tip The Orders To Airbus posted Mon Apr 3 2006 20:12:28 by AirA380
Netherlands DVT Research Points To Cabin Pressure? posted Sat Mar 11 2006 05:48:54 by Atmx2000
Alaska Cabin Pressure Problem posted Sun Feb 19 2006 04:34:21 by Halls120
A350 -6000ft Pressure -first Stage Of Flight Only? posted Sat Jan 7 2006 13:00:03 by OyKIE
WN LAS-MHT Loses Cabin Pressure posted Tue Nov 15 2005 15:26:28 by Jay767
Champion LAS-STL Flight Loses Cabin Pressure posted Thu Oct 20 2005 19:33:14 by TWFirst
US 737 Returns To FLL After Cabin Pressure Problem posted Sat Aug 20 2005 03:27:53 by Hawk44
737 Takes Off Without Cabin Pressure! posted Tue Jun 28 2005 15:57:36 by Bmacleod
A350 Cabin Configuration Options posted Sat Jun 18 2005 16:42:05 by Eyeonthesky17