NATION

PASSWORD

Airplanes grounded for being crappy...

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Remove ads

User avatar
Northern Dominus
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14337
Founded: Aug 23, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Northern Dominus » Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:41 am

Vitaphone Racing wrote:
Northern Dominus wrote:I don't have to imply anything. Look at the failure rate of Dreamliners and try to tell me that they were as extensively tested and not sub-contracted out into oblivion. I know new aircraft have a higher failure rate than average, but the kinds of things that are going wrong with Dreamliners should have been worked out in early testing.

And I agree, the F-22, while an amazing feat of engineering, also had a few issues as well that should have been worked out in prototyping. Chief among them was the NBC filter that gave pilots the infamous "Raptor Cough", as well as stupid bean-counting methods of fixing problems like re-installing a crappy valve for high-altitude maneuvers that didn't work in the F-15 or F-16. And don't get me started on the JSF either.

As NEMT put it, aircraft design and engineering has been infecetd with Bean Counting to an intolerable level know, and it will get people killed one day soon. Budget and profits should be their only concerns, not executive meddling in engineering.

I still have a problem that you seemingly think Boeing deliberately cut corners on the 787 yet Airbus decided out of nothing more than goodwill to engineer their aircraft properly. The 787 is not the first aircraft in the world to experience problems coming into service. The 737 and the 747, two of Boeing's most successful aircraft to date, had problems early on and they were fixed.

The failure rate for Dreamliners isn't out of the ordinary, battery pack aside.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/16/trave ... index.html

Like the article says; leaks and cracked windscreens happen all the time. If the 787 wasn't under such intense scrutiny then nobody would bat an eyelid. The 787 is the first aircraft to receive a vastly different battery pack to what the previous norm was and li-ion battery packs are known to have problems with temperature. Boeing has been professional and responsible about the whole issue. This is media sensationalism at it's finest, nothing more.

You keep talking about Boeing always looking for new ways to cut costs and that, but haven't offered any proof apart from saying MBE's and not engineers are running the show. I can't imagine Boeing is any more concerned about developing aircraft at the lowest cost possible than what they were in years gone by, nor any other company regardless of what they produce. It isn't good business to release flawed products, certainly not airliners, and I'm guessing Boeing knows this.

Either way, expecting products to be flawless and without fault is ridiculous. More often than not, a new line in any industry will be plagued with problems. Would you rather Boeing accepted the accusations on the chin and dealt with the battery pack issue (like they're doing) or pass it off as an isolated incident and let things work themselves out?
And the fact that they have those new battery packs means they should have tested them a bit more before installing them on aircraft, common failure rate aside.

Again, as I said new aircraft always have teething problems, and perhaps you're right, this isn't out of the norm as far as the Dreamliner is concerned. But given the hype around the aircraft in general, you would think that Boeing would go to extraordinary lengths to do as much as possible in-house and over-engineer the aircraft to negate this sort of bad publicity in the first place.

Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f wrote:
Risottia wrote:I've flown on DC-10s and even on Tu-134s. :p


De Havilland Comet anyone? With Dan-Air...
Hah, got you beat. I've flown on a genuine DC-3 in Hawaii. Yes it was just as exhilarating and terrifying as it sounds.
Last edited by Northern Dominus on Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
Battletech RP: Giant walking war machines, space to surface fighters, and other implements blowing things up= lots of fun! Sign up here
We even have a soundtrack!

RIP Caroll Shelby 1923-2012
Aurora, Oak Creek, Happy Valley, Sandy Hook. Just how high a price are we willing to pay?

User avatar
Oceanic people
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 146
Founded: Jan 25, 2010
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

You haven't been around...

Postby Oceanic people » Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:51 am

Risottia wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21054089

Only, one wouldn't expect Boeing (the producer of legendary stuff such as the B-52, the 747...) to release such crappy products. Companies and air traffic regulators worldwide are grounding the 787 Dreamliners, which appear to have a lot of issues, including fuel leaks, broken windows in the cockpit, and electrical fires.
This just after Boeing closed last year leading over their direct competitor Airbus.

What's up, Boeing? Tried to save by buying stuff from shitty contractors? Less tests to save on manpower? Outsourced too much stuff?
And how will this impact on the Boeing shares (they dropped by 3% yesterday) and on Boeing workplaces?

...long enough, or know enough to be so critical! The issue is safety and where lives are at steak you just can't be 'safe' enough.

User avatar
Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9191
Founded: Jan 21, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f » Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:54 am

Northern Dominus wrote:
Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f wrote:
De Havilland Comet anyone? With Dan-Air...
Hah, got you beat. I've flown on a genuine DC-3 in Hawaii. Yes it was just as exhilarating and terrifying as it sounds.


I've only managed to get on board a DC-3 as a static display...god I love that plane.

My Comet was a scheduled service flight with Dan Air...Heathrow to Frankfurt.

Most unusual plane....one of these at an air display (RAF Duxford) - de Havilland Dragon Rapide.
Last edited by Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f on Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
PLEASE DO NOT SEND ME TG's. MODERATORS READ YOUR TG's WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Flowers Call me Rubi for short or Vonners

User avatar
Ovisterra
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16017
Founded: Jul 17, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Ovisterra » Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:56 am

Oceanic people wrote:where lives are at steak


I try not to point out people's spelling errors all the time, but this one was brilliant.
Removing the text from people's sigs doesn't make it any less true. I stand with Yalta.

User avatar
Northern Dominus
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14337
Founded: Aug 23, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Northern Dominus » Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:59 am

Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f wrote:
Northern Dominus wrote:Hah, got you beat. I've flown on a genuine DC-3 in Hawaii. Yes it was just as exhilarating and terrifying as it sounds.


I've only managed to get on board a DC-3 as a static display...god I love that plane.

My Comet was a scheduled service flight with Dan Air...Heathrow to Frankfurt.

Most unusual plane....one of these at an air display (RAF Duxford) - de Havilland Dragon Rapide.
It's a noisy aircraft, no getting around that, noisier than an HC-130 that's for sure.

Plus it doesn't fly above the weather so you get buffeted by not only the vibrations from the engine but a helluva lot more turbulence. But the nostalgia factor alone is fantastic. Plus I got to take a look in the cabin and meet the pilots because I'm a geek like that and one of them told me that he would much rather fly the DC-3 than any Gulfstream. According to him the DC-3 is overbuilt and rock-solid, plus the hydraulic system made it easy to "read" through the controls apparently.
Battletech RP: Giant walking war machines, space to surface fighters, and other implements blowing things up= lots of fun! Sign up here
We even have a soundtrack!

RIP Caroll Shelby 1923-2012
Aurora, Oak Creek, Happy Valley, Sandy Hook. Just how high a price are we willing to pay?

User avatar
Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9191
Founded: Jan 21, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f » Thu Jan 17, 2013 10:52 am

Northern Dominus wrote:
Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f wrote:
I've only managed to get on board a DC-3 as a static display...god I love that plane.

My Comet was a scheduled service flight with Dan Air...Heathrow to Frankfurt.

Most unusual plane....one of these at an air display (RAF Duxford) - de Havilland Dragon Rapide.
It's a noisy aircraft, no getting around that, noisier than an HC-130 that's for sure.

Plus it doesn't fly above the weather so you get buffeted by not only the vibrations from the engine but a helluva lot more turbulence. But the nostalgia factor alone is fantastic. Plus I got to take a look in the cabin and meet the pilots because I'm a geek like that and one of them told me that he would much rather fly the DC-3 than any Gulfstream. According to him the DC-3 is overbuilt and rock-solid, plus the hydraulic system made it easy to "read" through the controls apparently.


Yeah...the DC-3 is a totally awesome plane...flying "The Hump" must have been awesome...
PLEASE DO NOT SEND ME TG's. MODERATORS READ YOUR TG's WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Flowers Call me Rubi for short or Vonners

User avatar
Gauthier
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 52887
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Gauthier » Thu Jan 17, 2013 11:06 am

It's like Dilbert was about the aviation industry.
Crimes committed by Muslims will be a pan-Islamic plot and proof of Islam's inherent evil. On the other hand crimes committed by non-Muslims will merely be the acts of loners who do not represent their belief system at all.
The probability of one's participation in homosexual acts is directly proportional to one's public disdain and disgust for homosexuals.
If a political figure makes an accusation of wrongdoing without evidence, odds are probable that the accuser or an associate thereof has in fact committed the very same act, possibly to a worse degree.
Where is your God-Emperor now?

User avatar
Northwest Slobovia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11489
Founded: Sep 16, 2006
Anarchy

Postby Northwest Slobovia » Thu Jan 17, 2013 11:20 am

Risottia wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21054089

Only, one wouldn't expect Boeing (the producer of legendary stuff such as the B-52, the 747...) to release such crappy products.

Funny you should mention the BUF:

Fuel leaks, icing of the fuel system, imperfect water injection pumps, faulty alternators and, above all, deficient bombing and fire-control systems were the main troubles of the early B-52Bs


In mid-1956, the Air Force and the Thompson Products Company were still working on a permanent fix for the faulty alternators that had been responsible for the fatal crash of a B-52B. A new Thompson model, in use by 1957, was much better but still troublesome. Problems occurred because of defects in the alternator drive's lubricating system, which used grease instead of oil. This was expected to be corrected before the end of the year. Another B-52 malfunction, detected in March 1957, had to do with the trunnion fittings of the main gear. Defective fittings were found in nearly all B-52Cs.


B-52Ds encountered the same initial problems as preceding and subsequent models. They were hampered by fuel leaks, icing of the fuel system, and malfunctions of the water injection pumps. After much frustration, the cause of the pump's failure was uncovered. It was simply due to the fact that the water pumps kept operating when the water tanks were empty. The installation of water sensors was the answer. This was done by Sky Speed teams as part of the water injection system's overall improvement program, which was completed by the spring of 1959. Other problems, however, took longer to solve.


All from poking around these B-52 pages.

The 747 is the same way:

Just about every new passenger plane has been infested with gremlins in its early months of flight. The first 707 jets, for example, suffered from a dangerous case of bad brakes. Because it is the biggest jet of all, Boeing's 747 was widely expected to run into more bugs than most planes when it began carrying passengers last January.

And troubles there were. Defective air conditioning, blinking cabin lights and long lines in front of the twelve toilets have inconvenienced passengers aboard the jumbo plane. Pilots have had to cope with sticky controls, inadequately lubricated engine instruments and an anti-icing...


From Time. (Since I'm not a subscriber, I don't have the full article, but Wakipedia's summary says that the problems were solved quickly.)

So, those "legendary" planes all had teething problems, and if you'll check, you'll see that some were never solved. The B-52 had fuel problems until the entire wing was redesigned for the G model. Almost every 747 variant has had problems, too. Unless the problems with the 787 are worse than they appear, these seem pretty typical, and will be patched up quickly.
Gollum died for your sins.
Power is an equal-opportunity corrupter.

User avatar
Ovisterra
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16017
Founded: Jul 17, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Ovisterra » Thu Jan 17, 2013 11:24 am

Northwest Slobovia wrote:
Risottia wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21054089

Only, one wouldn't expect Boeing (the producer of legendary stuff such as the B-52, the 747...) to release such crappy products.

Funny you should mention the BUF:

*le snip*


Still, it's set to stay in use until the 2040s by some USAF estimates.

So, those "legendary" planes all had teething problems, and if you'll check, you'll see that some were never solved. The B-52 had fuel problems until the entire wing was redesigned for the G model. Almost every 747 variant has had problems, too. Unless the problems with the 787 are worse than they appear, these seem pretty typical, and will be patched up quickly.


I sure as hell hope so.
Removing the text from people's sigs doesn't make it any less true. I stand with Yalta.

User avatar
The Corparation
Post Czar
 
Posts: 33852
Founded: Aug 31, 2009
Corporate Police State

Postby The Corparation » Thu Jan 17, 2013 11:37 am

Its a new plane full of tons of technologies that have never been used to this extent. Its going to take a bit to iron out the Kinks. Every new aircraft has this issue. You can't figure everything out while designing them. Sometimes things only turn up once they start seeing regular use.
Nuclear Death Machines Here (Both Flying and Orbiting)
Orbital Freedom Machine Here
A Subsidiary company of Nightkill Enterprises Inc.Weekly words of wisdom: Nothing is more important than waifus.- Gallia-
Making the Nightmare End 2020 WARNING: This post contains chemicals known to the State of CA to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.
Prop 65, CA Health & Safety
This Cell is intentionally blank.

User avatar
Northwest Slobovia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11489
Founded: Sep 16, 2006
Anarchy

Postby Northwest Slobovia » Thu Jan 17, 2013 12:11 pm

Ovisterra wrote:
Northwest Slobovia wrote:Funny you should mention the BUF:

*le snip*


Still, it's set to stay in use until the 2040s by some USAF estimates.

Sure, because the problems have been worked out... well, and because of outside factors which have nothing to do with the design. (Most importantly, I think, that the US government keeps being surprised by its need to drop lots of bombs on people, but never quite gets up to actually designing a new heavy bomber.)

Ovisterra wrote:
So, those "legendary" planes all had teething problems, and if you'll check, you'll see that some were never solved. The B-52 had fuel problems until the entire wing was redesigned for the G model. Almost every 747 variant has had problems, too. Unless the problems with the 787 are worse than they appear, these seem pretty typical, and will be patched up quickly.


I sure as hell hope so.

Well, as with all the previous 7x7s, Boing has too much money riding on the 787 to let it fail. Sure, it's possible that they have or will screw up so badly that it will wreck the company, but the silly thing did get initial airworthiness approval, so I think it will just hurt their bottom line.

I think it is reasonable to ask why these problem are still typical, despite the revolutions in computing and design methods since the 707 was designed. Some of it can be explained by increased complexity, but all of it? I don't think so, though I'm not sure what the other causes are. (I'm skeptical of pat answers like "stooopid bean counters", because that sounds like nothing but scapegoating by the engineers.)
Gollum died for your sins.
Power is an equal-opportunity corrupter.

User avatar
Rio Cana
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9673
Founded: Dec 21, 2005
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Rio Cana » Thu Jan 17, 2013 12:52 pm

Back to the Boeing 787. Problem is the lithium batteries are overheating. Those lithium batteries are made in Japan. You see what you get for not buying Made in China Batteries. :lol:

Seriously, which company does make the best batteries. Especially, expensive batteries like those found in the Boeing 787.

It seems the problem with the 787 is the parts they are getting from suppiiers. They need to make sure suppliers maintain top quality which includes extensive testing of the parts .
Last edited by Rio Cana on Thu Jan 17, 2013 12:54 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Empire of Rio Cana has been refounded.
We went from Empire to Peoples Republic to two divided Republics one called Marina to back to an Empire. And now a Republic under a military General. Our Civilian Dance Force
Our Military Forces
Formerly appointed twice Minister of Defense for South America Region.
Formerly appointed Minister of Foreign Affairs for South America Region.

User avatar
Ovisterra
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16017
Founded: Jul 17, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Ovisterra » Thu Jan 17, 2013 12:57 pm

Rio Cana wrote:Back to the Boeing 787. Problem is the lithium batteries are overheating. Those lithium batteries are made in Japan. You see what you get for not buying Made in China Batteries. :lol:


Can you source any of this?
Removing the text from people's sigs doesn't make it any less true. I stand with Yalta.

User avatar
Northwest Slobovia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11489
Founded: Sep 16, 2006
Anarchy

Postby Northwest Slobovia » Thu Jan 17, 2013 1:32 pm

Ovisterra wrote:
Rio Cana wrote:Back to the Boeing 787. Problem is the lithium batteries are overheating. Those lithium batteries are made in Japan. You see what you get for not buying Made in China Batteries. :lol:


Can you source any of this?

I can:

The 787 is the first Boeing plane to use rechargeable lithium ion batteries, which charge faster and can be moulded to space-saving shapes compared to other airplane batteries. But such batteries are known to have the potential to overheat and even catch fire.

"This is a make or break issue for Boeing," University of Toronto business professor Joseph D'Cruz told CBC News. "They've got to fix these and find out what the problems are, [and] they have to be very alert about keeping these aircraft in top-notch condition."

GS Yuasa Corp., the Japanese company that supplies all the lithium ion batteries for the 787, had no comment as the investigation was still ongoing.


U.S., Japan ground 787 Dreamliners over battery concerns

Edit: more detailed story.
Last edited by Northwest Slobovia on Thu Jan 17, 2013 1:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Gollum died for your sins.
Power is an equal-opportunity corrupter.

User avatar
Ethel mermania
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 90405
Founded: Aug 20, 2010
Father Knows Best State

Postby Ethel mermania » Thu Jan 17, 2013 2:59 pm

Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f wrote:
Risottia wrote:I've flown on DC-10s and even on Tu-134s. :p


De Havilland Comet anyone? With Dan-Air...


best i can do is a 707,

how was the russian plane?
The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion … but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.

http://www.salientpartners.com/epsilont ... ilizations

User avatar
Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9191
Founded: Jan 21, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f » Thu Jan 17, 2013 3:26 pm

Ethel mermania wrote:
Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f wrote:
De Havilland Comet anyone? With Dan-Air...


best i can do is a 707,

how was the russian plane?


Yeah 707 here as well.

One plane I never flew in but would love to...Concorde.
PLEASE DO NOT SEND ME TG's. MODERATORS READ YOUR TG's WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Flowers Call me Rubi for short or Vonners

User avatar
Divair
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63434
Founded: May 06, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Divair » Thu Jan 17, 2013 3:27 pm

Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f wrote:
Ethel mermania wrote:
best i can do is a 707,

how was the russian plane?


Yeah 707 here as well.

One plane I never flew in but would love to...Concorde.

Definitely an experience, but I wouldn't want to fly in it more than once.
Last edited by Divair on Thu Jan 17, 2013 3:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9191
Founded: Jan 21, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f » Thu Jan 17, 2013 3:30 pm

Divair wrote:
Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f wrote:
Yeah 707 here as well.

One plane I never flew in but would love to...Concorde.

Definitely an experience, but I wouldn't want to fly in it more than once.


Concorde? I would have no issue. After all it only had one catastrophic accident and that was pretty damn unlucky...
PLEASE DO NOT SEND ME TG's. MODERATORS READ YOUR TG's WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Flowers Call me Rubi for short or Vonners

User avatar
Divair
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63434
Founded: May 06, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Divair » Thu Jan 17, 2013 3:31 pm

Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f wrote:
Divair wrote:Definitely an experience, but I wouldn't want to fly in it more than once.


Concorde? I would have no issue. After all it only had one catastrophic accident and that was pretty damn unlucky...

Actually, I was more worried about comfort ;)

The structure of the plane doesn't allow for as much space as, say, an A340.

User avatar
Costa Alegria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6454
Founded: Aug 29, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Costa Alegria » Thu Jan 17, 2013 3:34 pm

The Corparation wrote:Its a new plane full of tons of technologies that have never been used to this extent. Its going to take a bit to iron out the Kinks. Every new aircraft has this issue. You can't figure everything out while designing them. Sometimes things only turn up once they start seeing regular use.


Pretty much. Take the Bombarider Q-Series aircraft for example. There was a recent spate of incidents and emergency landings with the Q300 & Q400 where the nose gear or all the landing gear in some cases didn't deploy properly or at all, leading them to be retired indefinitely from SAS and grounded by ANA. Air New Zealand had two similar accidents with it's aircraft within about six months of one another where the aircraft's nose gear failed to deploy.
I AM THE RHYMENOCEROUS!
Member of the [under new management] in the NSG Senate

If You Lot Really Must Know...
Pro: Legalisation of Marijuana, LGBT rights, freedom of speech, freedom of press, democracy yadda yadda.
Con: Nationalism, authoritariansim, totalitarianism, omnipotent controlling religious beliefs, general stupidity.
Meh: Everything else that I can't be fucked giving an opinion about.

User avatar
UNIverseVERSE
Minister
 
Posts: 3394
Founded: Jan 04, 2004
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby UNIverseVERSE » Thu Jan 17, 2013 3:35 pm

A friend of mine actually worked on the 787. He described the most insane bit of it which he came across as the following somewhat braindead piece of computer system design:

Normally, the flight control systems and the passenger entertainment system run on fully physically separate computers. This means that if the passenger stuff fails, it cannot possibly interfere with the ability of the plane to fly. This is known as an 'air gap', as the two systems are physically separated, there's a gap with nothing on air in it between them.

On the 787, however, there is instead a 'virtual air gap'. They run on the *same* computers, but with software intended to make sure the two can't interfere with each other.

Please take a moment to consider just how stupid an idea this is.
Fnord.

User avatar
Divair
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63434
Founded: May 06, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Divair » Thu Jan 17, 2013 3:36 pm

UNIverseVERSE wrote:A friend of mine actually worked on the 787. He described the most insane bit of it which he came across as the following somewhat braindead piece of computer system design:

Normally, the flight control systems and the passenger entertainment system run on fully physically separate computers. This means that if the passenger stuff fails, it cannot possibly interfere with the ability of the plane to fly. This is known as an 'air gap', as the two systems are physically separated, there's a gap with nothing on air in it between them.

On the 787, however, there is instead a 'virtual air gap'. They run on the *same* computers, but with software intended to make sure the two can't interfere with each other.

Please take a moment to consider just how stupid an idea this is.

Why in the fuck?

User avatar
Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9191
Founded: Jan 21, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f » Thu Jan 17, 2013 3:40 pm

Divair wrote:
Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f wrote:
Concorde? I would have no issue. After all it only had one catastrophic accident and that was pretty damn unlucky...

Actually, I was more worried about comfort ;)

The structure of the plane doesn't allow for as much space as, say, an A340.


Oh yeah...I've been inside one (the static desplay one they have at Duxford)....and it is like that...very narrow but you do get quite comfy seats and decent leg room...bearing in mind the cost of the ticket worked out at something around £8,000+ (Heathrow to JFK) in today's money during the 70/80's.

Still you only needed to be seated for a three and a half hours...
PLEASE DO NOT SEND ME TG's. MODERATORS READ YOUR TG's WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Flowers Call me Rubi for short or Vonners

User avatar
Divair
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63434
Founded: May 06, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Divair » Thu Jan 17, 2013 3:41 pm

Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f wrote:
Divair wrote:Actually, I was more worried about comfort ;)

The structure of the plane doesn't allow for as much space as, say, an A340.


Oh yeah...I've been inside one (the static desplay one they have at Duxford)....and it is like that...very narrow but you do get quite comfy seats and decent leg room...bearing in mind the cost of the ticket worked out at something around £8,000+ (Heathrow to JFK) in today's money during the 70/80's.

Still you only needed to be seated for a three and a half hours...

Time isn't a very big deal for me. I sleep during most of my flights anyway, so I prefer a lot of space in exchange for a slower flight. But I'd have liked to fly on a Concorde at least once.
Last edited by Divair on Thu Jan 17, 2013 3:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9191
Founded: Jan 21, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f » Thu Jan 17, 2013 3:41 pm

UNIverseVERSE wrote:A friend of mine actually worked on the 787. He described the most insane bit of it which he came across as the following somewhat braindead piece of computer system design:

Normally, the flight control systems and the passenger entertainment system run on fully physically separate computers. This means that if the passenger stuff fails, it cannot possibly interfere with the ability of the plane to fly. This is known as an 'air gap', as the two systems are physically separated, there's a gap with nothing on air in it between them.

On the 787, however, there is instead a 'virtual air gap'. They run on the *same* computers, but with software intended to make sure the two can't interfere with each other.

Please take a moment to consider just how stupid an idea this is.


I love bean counters. Not.
PLEASE DO NOT SEND ME TG's. MODERATORS READ YOUR TG's WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Flowers Call me Rubi for short or Vonners

PreviousNext

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: An Alan Smithee Nation, Australian rePublic, Cannot think of a name, Herskerstad, Majestic-12 [Bot], Merconitonitopia, Serconas, United States of PA, Vassenor, Vedastia

Remove ads