-
There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.
If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.
Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.
The Staff of SOH
The BEST of Paris Air Show 2019
- Thread starter Hanimichal
- Start date
COBS
Members +
Very boring , airliners ............... then even more airliners !
Boeing have always had their act together , Airbus and others just copy technology , developments , and concepts created by Boeing in a lame
attempt to cash in on the market , even the Concorde was a British project .
And no , I'm not American , I'm an Australian , but the facts are inescapable .
No coverage of new technology developments , or General Aviation or Military aircraft , very annoying .
Cheers
Karol
Boeing have always had their act together , Airbus and others just copy technology , developments , and concepts created by Boeing in a lame
attempt to cash in on the market , even the Concorde was a British project .
And no , I'm not American , I'm an Australian , but the facts are inescapable .
No coverage of new technology developments , or General Aviation or Military aircraft , very annoying .
Cheers
Karol
YoYo
SOH-CM-2023
(!) but its a nice technicaly movie.Hi Kobs,
Newbie in aircraft and airliners, welcome to you!
Let me please kindly suggest you to dig in the subject, you will learn a lot!
Plenty of excellent stuff on this forum and others like PRRUNE, AIRLINERS.net (not to mention those on flightsim) will help you to progress quickly.
Avoid as much as possible the very typical and very, very, basic black vs white approach, it does not fit at all the aeronautic world.
Again, welcome onboard!
Newbie in aircraft and airliners, welcome to you!
Let me please kindly suggest you to dig in the subject, you will learn a lot!
Plenty of excellent stuff on this forum and others like PRRUNE, AIRLINERS.net (not to mention those on flightsim) will help you to progress quickly.
Avoid as much as possible the very typical and very, very, basic black vs white approach, it does not fit at all the aeronautic world.
Again, welcome onboard!
Bjoern
worst developer ever
Come on Karol, that's just utter BS. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it.
Just my thoughts! Boeing and Airbus just copied the whole thing from Otto Lilienthal. Who was copied first by the Wright Brothers, but they got the design wrong an introduced an engine. And than this guy Bleriot did it again and so on. In the end Microsoft copied them all and and put them on a DVD and called it FS2004. But not the Concorde because they found out it was a French project copied from the Tupolev Tu-144. Which was actually a poor copy from the "Thunderbirds Fireflash Atomic Airliner".......
Cheers,
Huub
Just as a point of information, if Boeing had their so-called "act together", their planes wouldn't be falling out of the sky, they wouldn't be leaving critical information out of their pilot manuals, they wouldn't be limiting the number of inspectors checking production lines, they wouldn't be leaving tools inside air frames and they wouldn't be lying to the FAA. Not that the FAA is much better these days. Sorry but this ain't your fathers' Boeing.
FlyingsCool
SOH-CM-2019
I've always been a Boeing fan, but, I gotta say, they REALLY screwed the pooch this time..... And the FAA, my god. It's just so disgusting what worshipping the almighty dollar does to folks. Hopefully now that the doors have been blasted open, we can finally start turning this country around again. And I hope that whoever was responsible for this at Boeing gets his head handed to him. They should have been designing a proper new replacement for the 737 a decade ago, or two for that matter.... This shortcut they took totally to extend its life way beyond its capability bit them in the ass, and they deserve everything that'll hopefully happen to correct this. Everything you said is true. So many things that were done wrong, and in my opinion illegally so, across the board from Boeing to the FAA.
Extending an aircraft’s useful life is no crime. Fitting it with under-designed, inadequately tested “safety” systems is, or ought to be. To then omit mentioning the system in pilots’ documentation and later giving incomplete updates to that documentation is cavalier at best. It won’t end well.
However, Airbus has had its problems too, as Air France 447 clearly showed. Let him who has no sin cast the first stone.
COBS
Members +
Over the years I have picked up my car(s) after service or repairs only to find several days later a tool left in the engine bay , it wasn't often ,
probably only half a dozen times .
You would go into the hangars and they had mobile tool cabinets , each tool had a tool outline painted , when the aircraft was zipped up
a check was made to ensure all tools were accounted for before the aircraft could be signed off .
Years ago the Australian authorities issued pilots with what we called the "Crash Comic" , an aviation safety digest , I remember a accident report
on a fatal Chipmunk aerobatic event , the pilot had a good record and was proficient at aerobatics , tests revealed that no medical event was involved .
Examination of the wreckage discovered a 20 cent coin in aft fuse , control was by bellcrank and tubular push rods , as the rod moved through it's normal travel
it moved up and down , an elongated hole was in a bulkhead to accomodate that travel , indent markings were found on the coin , the rod , and the bottom
of the hole , the summary was that a mechanic working in the fuse had a coin in his pocket that fell out , and purely by chance during aerobatics lodged in the
elongated bulkhead hole and limited the rod's movement , thus pilot had no control and it went in .
In 1969 the Saturn 5 had an instrument/control ring it included a computer that had the memory capacity of a tiny shopping calculator , it powered men to the moon .
In one early firing an igniter line came adrift from one of the 5 second stage engines , that engine began to faulter , that was detected and the computer sent a
message to shut down the engine , unfortunately all 5 engines were serviced by identical cables of the same length , during assembly there was a mix up ,
the message went to a good engine , so the second stage ended up with 2 dead engines .
The rocket started to pitch down , but that small computer regained control , rectified the pitch and it went into orbit .
The Space Shuttle used a old Computer chip ( possibly the 3086 , but I'm not sure ) it took several years to write and purify the software to a man safe
standard , as the years progressed chip stocks were depleted and manufacture lines had closed years earlier , NASA ended up having to search
for stocks of chips and it was reported they had to resort to secondhand chips .
The Australian version of the F-111 ended up with about 1.1 million lines of software code , thats a lot , however , last I heard
the F-35 had 24 million lines of code and that was before the gun was integrated into it .
You can imagine the effort that goes into debugging and purifying all that code , to remove errors , bugs , and conflicts , and that task has to be done
thoroughly as the end product will be flying frequently over populated areas with live munitions , or worse .
A modern Miljet might be designed and built in as little as 4 or 5 years , but the integrated systems , avionics , fly by wire , computers , and software
can take over 15 years to sort out . Some will remember the saga with those systems in the B-1 bomber , it dragged on for many years .
The "E" jet is a nightmarishingly complex beast .
Cheers
Karol
probably only half a dozen times .
You would go into the hangars and they had mobile tool cabinets , each tool had a tool outline painted , when the aircraft was zipped up
a check was made to ensure all tools were accounted for before the aircraft could be signed off .
Years ago the Australian authorities issued pilots with what we called the "Crash Comic" , an aviation safety digest , I remember a accident report
on a fatal Chipmunk aerobatic event , the pilot had a good record and was proficient at aerobatics , tests revealed that no medical event was involved .
Examination of the wreckage discovered a 20 cent coin in aft fuse , control was by bellcrank and tubular push rods , as the rod moved through it's normal travel
it moved up and down , an elongated hole was in a bulkhead to accomodate that travel , indent markings were found on the coin , the rod , and the bottom
of the hole , the summary was that a mechanic working in the fuse had a coin in his pocket that fell out , and purely by chance during aerobatics lodged in the
elongated bulkhead hole and limited the rod's movement , thus pilot had no control and it went in .
In 1969 the Saturn 5 had an instrument/control ring it included a computer that had the memory capacity of a tiny shopping calculator , it powered men to the moon .
In one early firing an igniter line came adrift from one of the 5 second stage engines , that engine began to faulter , that was detected and the computer sent a
message to shut down the engine , unfortunately all 5 engines were serviced by identical cables of the same length , during assembly there was a mix up ,
the message went to a good engine , so the second stage ended up with 2 dead engines .
The rocket started to pitch down , but that small computer regained control , rectified the pitch and it went into orbit .
The Space Shuttle used a old Computer chip ( possibly the 3086 , but I'm not sure ) it took several years to write and purify the software to a man safe
standard , as the years progressed chip stocks were depleted and manufacture lines had closed years earlier , NASA ended up having to search
for stocks of chips and it was reported they had to resort to secondhand chips .
The Australian version of the F-111 ended up with about 1.1 million lines of software code , thats a lot , however , last I heard
the F-35 had 24 million lines of code and that was before the gun was integrated into it .
You can imagine the effort that goes into debugging and purifying all that code , to remove errors , bugs , and conflicts , and that task has to be done
thoroughly as the end product will be flying frequently over populated areas with live munitions , or worse .
A modern Miljet might be designed and built in as little as 4 or 5 years , but the integrated systems , avionics , fly by wire , computers , and software
can take over 15 years to sort out . Some will remember the saga with those systems in the B-1 bomber , it dragged on for many years .
The "E" jet is a nightmarishingly complex beast .
Cheers
Karol