No excuse for that error. That's just carelessness.
Quoting Avianca707359B (Thread starter): "Number of passengers: Airbus A380 - up to 474 in test cabin. Boeing 787 Dreamliner - 210-250"
I guess the 787-3 or 787-9 don't count!
This one is a little easier to forgive. It represents a lack of thoroughness, rather than abject carelessness.
Quoting Avianca707359B (Thread starter): "Main Innovations: Airbus A380 - very quiet on takeoff and landing"
And then what, very noisy during flight? This is what he considers the "Main Innovation" about the A380?
I would agree that reduced noise -- inflight as well as during takeoff and landing -- is the main advance of the WhaleJet. It's the feature I'm looking forward to. It will also be the lowest CASM aircraft for a few years -- beating the 777-300ER by about 15%.
Scorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 5081 posts, RR: 44
Reply 9, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5044 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 5): I guess just about everyone in the press calls a A380 THE Superjumbo...
...much to the obvious chagrin of the sole lonely soul who stubbornly keeps on trying, to no avail, to push for another nickname, and who stubbornly refuses to call it anything other than that nickname
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7352 posts, RR: 50
Reply 13, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4862 times:
Some online articles include a link to contact the writer, but not the telegraph. I wanted to send a nastygram asking if the writer had ever been on an airliner, or even seen one up close. But they had no such link.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
IADCA From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 1497 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4557 times:
I think the best part is that he does cite ANA as the launch customer for the 787, fails to include them in the customer list, and doesn't realize this or think why it might have happened that way. Then his editors fail to notice. I can excuse most of the other stuff as just being written by someone with little knowledge of aviation or the industry, but something as glaring as that error is hard to reconcile.
Quoting Avianca707359B (Thread starter):
"Number of passengers: Airbus A380 - up to 474 in test cabin. Boeing 787 Dreamliner - 210-250"
I guess the 787-3 or 787-9 don't count!
I don't think it's unreasonable to use 787-8 stats for the plane, as it's the only version that's actually been built right now. If he had cited seat counts from the proposed A380-900, all the Boeing homers would have flipped out about that plane not existing; I don't see the problem with his decision there.
Quoting Legoguy (Reply 3): Perhap's he ment the 747-8 but ended up writing down and researching the wrong aircraft.
This is, sadly, the most likely explanation for this article.
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12710 posts, RR: 80
Reply 17, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4477 times:
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 13): Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 10):
having T/R's on only half the engines
ROFL. So now a compromise to fit an oversized aircraft on current airfields is an innovation?
The original design was no T/R's. It wasn't a compromise due to airfield size, it was an eminently sensible design choice. The regulators killed it. Very sad. T/R's are among the worst systems on any commercial aircraft.
Socalfive From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4347 times:
Well everybody has to keep something else in mind, this is but one example of how much the press cares about accuracy. How many other things get reported on that we all buy at first glance that we aren't as knowledgeable on? The press is a joke, especially the corporately controlled American Press.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21714 posts, RR: 59
Reply 19, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4320 times:
Quoting Socalfive (Reply 18): The press is a joke, especially the corporately controlled American Press.
Why take a dig at the USA? Foreign press is often worse. The BBC is awful, and their own internal audit came to that conclusion, including their anti-US bias. Many other nations flat out censor their news and plant stories, far more than the USA administration is ever accused of.
The press is one of the most corrupt industries in the world, free or otherwise.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Cobra27 From Slovenia, joined May 2001, 1062 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4166 times:
Some reporters are pathetic. They are only happy when they have something to write. Last time I read our nuclear powerplant produced around 600 mW, not enough for a single lighbulb. And whole world energy consumption in a year was 40 MJ (around 1 liter of diesel). For aviation only well known magazine can be raliable
Bringiton From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 866 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4150 times:
Quoting IADCA (Reply 16): don't think it's unreasonable to use 787-8 stats for the plane, as it's the only version that's actually been built right now. If he had cited seat counts from the proposed A380-900, all the Boeing homers would have flipped out about that plane not existing; I don't see the problem with his decision there.
Both the 787-9 and 787-3 are for sale and are being activly marketed and guarantees are being given to the customers , the designs have been frozen for the -9 (IIRC) therefore it cannot be compared to the A380-900 which hasnt EVEN BEEN LAUNCHED , DEFINED and is not being activly marketed .
PlaneHunter From Germany, joined Mar 2006, 7057 posts, RR: 76
Reply 24, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3722 times:
Sometimes I'm wondering how many guys slamming "the press" actually have a clue about what "the press" or "the media" means? Bashing "the press" after a bad article by one writer is as accurate as bashing the while aviation biz after one bad flight with one bad F/A. Also, I can only laugh about comments on "foreign press" by people who don't even have the language skills to read and rate "foreign press" articles. Get real.
Nothing's worse than flying the same reg twice!
: The T/R isn't a safety system. You're not allowed to fly any aircraft with inoperative safety systems. T/R's are heavy, hard to build, incredibly exp
: Real-time in-flight diagnostic signalling? CFRP centre wing box? Complete CFRP tailcone structure, larger than a 787 section? 22% composite by weight
: Actually it is. Compared to 90% of British newspapers (think: tabloids!) the Telegraph is very well respected and trusted. It is fair to say their co
: Would it be a good idea to invite the members of the press who write aviation articles to join us here on A.net? Maybe a little exposure to all of us
: I take a dig at the USA because I'm an American and very familiar with the American Press. Foreign press as bad or worse? Perhaps, I wouldn't argue t
: RR has had counter-rotating spools for a long time. Tom.