brad kaste
Charter Member
RE: Rolls Royce fixes Airbus problem!
Everything should be OK now!
(If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going!!)
Everything should be OK now!
(If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going!!)
-
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
RE: Rolls Royce fixes Airbus problem!
- Thread starter brad kaste
- Start date
Brian_Gladden
SOH-CM-2025
Aircraft mechanic I know told me this, "If you want a nice car, Get Rolls Royce. If you want a Toaster, get General Electric. But... If you want a real aircraft engine, Get a Pratt and Whitney!!!!"
That said, he did work for good ole' P&W
That said, he did work for good ole' P&W
That isn't always true. This last 4th of July, my brother-in-law and I strapped 850 thousand bottle rockets (not the little bitty ones, the bigger 10 inch long ones) to my mother-in-law and lit them all at one time. We calculated the combined thrust to be close to 425 thousand pounds.....while some of the fat on her back did melt and take on a rather bacony smell, she did not lift off the ground one bit. I guess there just ain't enough horsepower in the world to launch her into a low earth orbit. Which makes me wonder...just how the heck does her broom get her airborne.
OBIO
If Ya wanna be like a Test Dummy passenger..Why get a ticket on the A-380..one way ...the thought of one of these huge people movers going down has to be a nightmare prospect!..Yes she is beautiful,thrill to see,and I wish her well, but boarding that Whale???...not yet!.....I fear its an accident looking for a place to happen,and it will find it,and I pray it does not!..but Murphy's Law is a factor here!.........Rolls Royce.the gold standard, Blowing up in flight???...nope I'll wait a few years ,and reviewing their safety performances, then wait a few more years....Why does the COMET come to mind???
brad kaste
Charter Member
Tim,...ha-ha,...your statements remind so much of Jackie Gleason...aka...Ralph Kramdem of the "Honeymooners." He was ALWAYS having a wing-ding fit with his mother-in-law for one reason or another. Usually she stood up to him which irked him to no end. But,...I'm sure you deeply care for your mother-in-law,....I'm not too sure Ralph K. did for his.
The Comet!..it was new,revolutionary,beautiful, exciting,brought out with great promise,a great commercial jet..........You may want to read this..tells that story...Cheers Rich!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet
Sunny9850
SOH-CM-2024
Not to launch into a silly Boeing vs Airbus discussion that has about as much chance at coming to a fruitful conclusion as the high wing vs low wing one so often held at FBOs around the world. But in this particular case the engine and not the airplane it was attached to was the source of the incident. Sure there were quite a few bad surprises discovered by the crew trying to fly their crippled liner back to terra firma, which now will have to be sorted out.
But unlike on the recently grounded Dreamliner it was not the companies "costsaving" outsourcing policy that caused the problem. The RR engine is not the cheapest option out there by any means. They did screw up and in hindsight definitely should have re-engined the early serial numbers of the A380 as soon as they found they had a weakness in their design.
I will gladly fly on the A380 as soon as LH puts it in service between LAX and FRA.
:ernae:
Stefan
But unlike on the recently grounded Dreamliner it was not the companies "costsaving" outsourcing policy that caused the problem. The RR engine is not the cheapest option out there by any means. They did screw up and in hindsight definitely should have re-engined the early serial numbers of the A380 as soon as they found they had a weakness in their design.
I will gladly fly on the A380 as soon as LH puts it in service between LAX and FRA.
:ernae:
Stefan
At 68 and being British I was around at the time of the problems with the Comet in fact one of them crashed into the Bristol channel not that far away from where I lived, just wondering about the connection of the Comet and the Airbus 380 ?? no problem with the Comet engines and as far as I remember they were Dh engines not RR ??
It was the Comet 1 that had the problems and that wasn't with the DH Ghost engines. It was airframe failures due to catastrophic metal fatigue that weren't even considered in the original design because no one had ever designed a jet airliner before that were the cause of the crashes.
The later Comet 4 which was designed to correct the airframe problems and had a long service life used RR Avons.
Comparing the A380 RR engine problems to the DH Comet is like comparing apples and oranges.
Willy, exactly right, the metal fatigue bit was around the square cabin windows and if they had'nt been grounded till the cause was found and the results made public the early 707's would have had the same problems as they to were to have square windows like the Comet, nothing to do with engines.
Dh engines were on the decline at that time and Rolls Royce were ahead of them with the more powerfull and reliable Avon.
Dh engines were on the decline at that time and Rolls Royce were ahead of them with the more powerfull and reliable Avon.
Well Willie and Rich, trying to inject sense into one of these Boeing Airbus flamers is like asking Sarah Palin to tell her South and North Koreas apart. 
Mind you, how many other "hockey moms" earn $12m a year from the press they espouse to despise? Wish I was that dumb.
Back on topic, apart from the Comet 1, has any other company ever produced the whole commercial airliner including engines?
LET THIS BE THE ONE AND ONLY POLITICAL SLANTED STATEMENT IN THIS THREAD. I AM WATCHING THIS ONE AND WILL CLOSE IT IF IT BEGINS TO GET OUT OF HAND. OBIO
Oh, and keep in mind, that the thread was started in a humorous way....the Airbus with all the extra engines photoshopped onto the wings. I found that pic to be rather amusing. OBIO.
Mind you, how many other "hockey moms" earn $12m a year from the press they espouse to despise? Wish I was that dumb.
Back on topic, apart from the Comet 1, has any other company ever produced the whole commercial airliner including engines?
LET THIS BE THE ONE AND ONLY POLITICAL SLANTED STATEMENT IN THIS THREAD. I AM WATCHING THIS ONE AND WILL CLOSE IT IF IT BEGINS TO GET OUT OF HAND. OBIO
Oh, and keep in mind, that the thread was started in a humorous way....the Airbus with all the extra engines photoshopped onto the wings. I found that pic to be rather amusing. OBIO.
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That's the funniest thing I have read it a long time. Can I steal this?
Drzook
Charter Member
IIRC DeHavilland was the last most recent company to do that trick with the Comet. They had also put their own engines on the pre-War Albatross as well.
However Curtiss-Wright's AT32 Condor airliner had Wright R-1820 Cyclones on it.
Hard to believe that only 20 years separated the Condor from the Comet.
(file photo attached from Jens Kristensen's Condor)
edit: after reading this thread all of a sudden I got a craving for bacon, I dunno why...lol