787 unsafe?

[Wii]

[quote]Airbus aircraft actually look like they can fly (with the exception of the A300 and A320 families).

[C]

Airbus aircraft actually look like they can fly (with the exception of the A300 and A320 families).  Whereas Boeing aircraft (767 ESPECIALLY) look like they are struggling, I love how little effort an A330/A340 or A380 uses on approach to a runway. They appear to just "catch the wind" and glide in like a feather. And the Boeing 767 (747 and 757 don't struggle too much), 777 and 737 pull up to what seems to be (on the ground) 30 degrees of pitch to actually maintain altitude. Extra long wings really influence how well a plane handles.

Papa, I don't see much difference between that and Boeing's problem, after all, it is the software designers fault that the program is faulty.

I don't like the 777 or 737 for the terrible glideslopes. hard to sim it down easy n soft. you dont hear of many airbus' crashing midatlantic like we hve over the past with the 747. maybe its just older. dunno

To be fair, only one transatlantic crash of a 747 was not caused by terrorists. Other 747 crashes elsewhere however, I do not know.

[spitfire boy]

[quote][quote][quote]Airbus aircraft actually look like they can fly (with the exception of the A300 and A320 families).

[eno]

Airbus aircraft actually look like they can fly (with the exception of the A300 and A320 families).  Whereas Boeing aircraft (767 ESPECIALLY) look like they are struggling, I love how little effort an A330/A340 or A380 uses on approach to a runway. They appear to just "catch the wind" and glide in like a feather. And the Boeing 767 (747 and 757 don't struggle too much), 777 and 737 pull up to what seems to be (on the ground) 30 degrees of pitch to actually maintain altitude. Extra long wings really influence how well a plane handles.

Papa, I don't see much difference between that and Boeing's problem, after all, it is the software designers fault that the program is faulty.

I don't like the 777 or 737 for the terrible glideslopes. hard to sim it down easy n soft. you dont hear of many airbus' crashing midatlantic like we hve over the past with the 747. maybe its just older. dunno

To be fair, only one transatlantic crash of a 747 was not caused by terrorists. Other 747 crashes elsewhere however, I do not know.

Almost all 747 crashes, I believe, were caused by human error, terrorism, or faulty maintenance. Not problems with the actual design of the plane. But don't quote me.

OK ..... just to quote you

TWA Flight 800 ..... faulty wiring in fuel tank. Exploded just off NY. (Design Fault)
Japan Air 747 ....... Pressure bulkhead failure (Design Fault)
Several other 747s .... At least one fatal accident caused by badly designed cargo door latches causing explosive decompression in flight.

[an-225]

My parents actually saw that United Airlines 747 in Honolulu after a huge piece of fuselage had been blown out due to the cargo door. Of course, it didn't help much that the day after I watched that episode of Air Crash Investigations, I was going on holiday to the US on a United 747 (400 series though). And then when I looked out the window to find that I was seated directly above the cargo door.  :P

[expat]

Airbus aircraft actually look like they can fly (with the exception of the A300 and A320 families).  Whereas Boeing aircraft (767 ESPECIALLY) look like they are struggling, I love how little effort an A330/A340 or A380 uses on approach to a runway. They appear to just "catch the wind" and glide in like a feather. And the Boeing 767 (747 and 757 don't struggle too much), 777 and 737 pull up to what seems to be (on the ground) 30 degrees of pitch to actually maintain altitude. Extra long wings really influence how well a plane handles.

Papa, I don't see much difference between that and Boeing's problem, after all, it is the software designers fault that the program is faulty.

I don't like the 777 or 737 for the terrible glideslopes. hard to sim it down easy n soft. you dont hear of many airbus' crashing midatlantic like we hve over the past with the 747. maybe its just older. dunno

To be fair, only one transatlantic crash of a 747 was not caused by terrorists. Other 747 crashes elsewhere however, I do not know.

Almost all 747 crashes, I believe, were caused by human error, terrorism, or faulty maintenance. Not problems with the actual design of the plane. But don't quote me.

OK ..... just to quote you

TWA Flight 800 ..... faulty wiring in fuel tank. Exploded just off NY. (Design Fault)
Japan Air 747 ....... Pressure bulkhead failure (Design Fault)
Several other 747s .... At least one fatal accident caused by badly designed cargo door latches causing explosive decompression in flight.

There has been a total of 40 Boeing 747 accidents involving fatalities (3698)

Matt

[spitfire boy]

[quote][quote][quote][quote][quote]Airbus aircraft actually look like they can fly (with the exception of the A300 and A320 families).

[Slotback]

787.... unsafe in a crash?

Well personally, I think it's unsafe to be in any kind of a crash, and would recommend avoiding it.

In real world scenarios it's been proved that passengers will survive when seated in stronger parts of the fuselage (Ontop of the Forward Wing Spar). Go look at passenger maps from various accidents.... the A300 which crashed into Japan from out of trim.... and the AA 757 crashing into mountain. Formula one, imagine if they were made of Aluminium, what about high performance gliders? There's been cases of Composite gliders hitting the ground at well over 100 knots with the glider retaining its shape. If it were aluminium, the pilot would of been smushed into the ground like a bug hitting the windscreen.

Composite fibres disperse energy in all directions through the fibres by tempoarily deforming like a spring, therefore there is no need for crumpling to absorb the energy.

Not like it matters anyway, chances are the 787 will not have a single crash where a aluminium fuselage would of helped.

[quote]

[expat]

Airbus aircraft actually look like they can fly (with the exception of the A300 and A320 families).  Whereas Boeing aircraft (767 ESPECIALLY) look like they are struggling, I love how little effort an A330/A340 or A380 uses on approach to a runway. They appear to just "catch the wind" and glide in like a feather. And the Boeing 767 (747 and 757 don't struggle too much), 777 and 737 pull up to what seems to be (on the ground) 30 degrees of pitch to actually maintain altitude. Extra long wings really influence how well a plane handles.

Papa, I don't see much difference between that and Boeing's problem, after all, it is the software designers fault that the program is faulty.

I don't like the 777 or 737 for the terrible glideslopes. hard to sim it down easy n soft. you dont hear of many airbus' crashing midatlantic like we hve over the past with the 747. maybe its just older. dunno

To be fair, only one transatlantic crash of a 747 was not caused by terrorists. Other 747 crashes elsewhere however, I do not know.

Almost all 747 crashes, I believe, were caused by human error, terrorism, or faulty maintenance. Not problems with the actual design of the plane. But don't quote me.

OK ..... just to quote you

TWA Flight 800 ..... faulty wiring in fuel tank. Exploded just off NY. (Design Fault)
Japan Air 747 ....... Pressure bulkhead failure (Design Fault)
Several other 747s .... At least one fatal accident caused by badly designed cargo door latches causing explosive decompression in flight.

The japan air 747 was a mintenance error; 1 row of rivets instead of 2.
twa 800; badly maintained wiring and the fact that it was sitting on the ground with its air conditioning units running for a longer than usual amount of time.

Air crash investigation is so wonderful...

P.S. I did say almost. I was aware that the cargo door latch accidents were due to design fault.

Two rows instead of three. Next time you board a passenger liner, look at a seam joint, industry standard, three rows.

Matt

[DONTREADMYUSERNAME]

I don't like the 777 or 737 for the terrible glideslopes. hard to sim it down easy n soft. you dont hear of many airbus' crashing midatlantic like we hve over the past with the 747. maybe its just older. dunno

Well i dont think you can judge a plane on how it handles in a sim. The sims representation is not exact or any where close for that matter. And also, the 747 has been the premier aircraft for transatlantic flights since it first rolled out, the one in second place, I think, is the A340. So its kind of basic probability, if the number of airbus's were flying as boeings then there would definately be more crashes....

[Nexus]

[quote]787.... unsafe in a crash?

Well personally, I think it's unsafe to be in any kind of a crash, and would recommend avoiding it.

In real world scenarios it's been proved that passengers will survive when seated in stronger parts of the fuselage (Ontop of the Forward Wing Spar). Go look at passenger maps from various accidents.... the A300 which crashed into Japan from out of trim.... and the AA 757 crashing into mountain. Formula one, imagine if they were made of Aluminium, what about high performance gliders? There's been cases of Composite gliders hitting the ground at well over 100 knots with the glider retaining its shape. If it were aluminium, the pilot would of been smushed into the ground like a bug hitting the windscreen.

Composite fibres disperse energy in all directions through the fibres by tempoarily deforming like a spring, therefore there is no need for crumpling to absorb the energy.

Not like it matters anyway, chances are the 787 will not have a single crash where a aluminium fuselage would of helped.

[quote]

[an-225]

No, I am not judging a plane by its simulated characteristics, because I have been on several (747-400, A320, 747-200, A330-200, A340-300, 717, 737-700/800) airliners, and you can still get a slight feel for the aircraft even as a passenger. Airbus aircraft such as the A330/A340 series really seem to just catch the wind. The NG 737 family do it too, and the 747 does it to a lesser extent. Now the A320, and 717 just drop like a rock. I can recall feeling sick while on that Ted approach from KLAX to KLAS due to negative Gs. The same for my flight from YSSY to YMML on an Impulse 717.

[Nexus]

No, I am not judging a plane by its simulated characteristics, because I have been on several (747-400, A320, 747-200, A330-200, A340-300, 717, 737-700/800) airliners, and you can still get a slight feel for the aircraft even as a passenger. Airbus aircraft such as the A330/A340 series really seem to just catch the wind. The NG 737 family do it too, and the 747 does it to a lesser extent. Now the A320, and 717 just drop like a rock. I can recall feeling sick while on that Ted approach from KLAX to KLAS due to negative Gs. The same for my flight from YSSY to YMML on an Impulse 717.

Well, I've been on a A330 inbound ESGG that dropped like a rock, same with a 737NG into ESSA.
You cant generalize aircrafts like that, especially when you sit there as a passenger and really have no clue what is going on.

Maybe the A320 and 717 descended on idle thrust which creates more Gs since the RoD is greater. You dont know that.
You have so many factors to take into consideration before you can actually say the things you said above.

[an-225]

Nope, A320 was at mid thrust, and so was the 717. Pointing up into the air to try and fly.

[Nexus]

Nope, A320 was at mid thrust, and so was the 717. Pointing up into the air to try and fly.

Ok how fast did you go then? I mean mach number and airspeed, not Groundspeed as seen on the IFE...