Would you rather fly on a Russian plane or an Airbus plane?

[freegeeks]

There is a little more to the story. Had the FADEC software been a little less conservative, I'm willing to bet that A320 would have been able to return to LGA.

I don't think its a mark against Airbus at all but a mark against whomever programmed those FADECs. Safety v. $$.

has nothing to do with FADEC. Both engines were lost because of bird ingestion. The airbus was basically a glider and a kickass crew did a perfect water landing. The A320 behaved just like airbus predicted it to behave, it remained structurally intact and stayed afloat. The engines came of just like they were supposed to do after a water landing because else the weight would pull the plane down. Afterwards the FAA loaded all the data in a flight simulator, no pilot managed to bring the airplane back.

Instead of telling all these nonsens about airbus and boeing, people should inform themselves. The forums off pprune.org are very good for this. You will be banned if you start Boeing vs Airbus bs and people posting there are very knowledgeable because they actually fly the damn planes

 

[H54]

has nothing to do with FADEC. Both engines were lost because of bird ingestion. The airbus was basically a glider and a kickass crew did a perfect water landing. The A320 behaved just like airbus predicted it to behave, it remained structurally intact and stayed afloat. The engines came of just like they were supposed to do after a water landing because else the weight would pull the plane down. Afterwards the FAA loaded all the data in a flight simulator, no pilot managed to bring the airplane back.

Bird strikes happen all the time. Several times per year, there are aircraft that return safely after eating a few. Had that A320 been an DC-9 or L1011 or MD-80 or something of that generation, I'm willing to bet that would have returned safely or made it to EWR.

There was partial power (~30% if memory serves) one one engine and flight idle on the other. Those CFM56s were capable of making power but they would likely have destroyed themselves after a period of time but it likely would have been enough to get the plane safely back down. EWR and TEB were right there.

FADEC can't be overridden, the end user merely makes requests to the system and if deemed appropriate, you get what you ask for.

 

[ibex333]

Russian aircraft are historically well-known for being mechanically unfit and hazardous in flight. Their attention to detail is lacking because Russians do not value human life.

Are you talking about their civilian aircraft, military aircraft or both? If you're only talking about civilian aircraft, you're somewhat right. Otherwise, you're very very wrong. Although the Russians have a history of copying planes, cars and just about everything else from the West when it comes to outside design, it's the inside that really matters.

Russians tend to simplify the innards, while managing to keep the machine in good working condition and much cheaper to service and produce. Their military planes are often superior to the American counterparts in real world performance. The Russian pilots are often able to perform maneuvers in air during air shows that no one can repeat.

It looks like much is changing now when the US has the F-35 Raptor, there is no disputing absolute American superiority at this point. However, the Russians already "copied" the F-35 and created their own version that looks very similar and is much cheaper to produce. It is in the final testing stages at this point. Even if the American planes will ultimately win in quality, the Russians will more than make up for it with quantity.

when it comes to the Sukhoi Superjet, it's an interesting machine. Obviously it's a copy of another plane. Most likely an A320. Still what's important is that the Russians now have their own, cheaper version which they will try to mass produce. This will effectively take a share of the business from the US, and other countries. Russians has been out of the "scene" for a while since the collapse of the USSR, and now ambition is driving them yet again to enter this market.

 

[freegeeks]

Bird strikes happen all the time. Several times per year, there are aircraft that return safely after eating a few. Had that A320 been an DC-9 or L1011 or MD-80 or something of that generation, I'm willing to bet that would have returned safely or made it to EWR.

There was partial power (~30% if memory serves) one one engine and flight idle on the other. Those CFM56s were capable of making power but they would likely have destroyed themselves after a period of time but it likely would have been enough to get the plane safely back down. EWR and TEB were right there.

FADEC can't be overridden, the end user merely makes requests to the system and if deemed appropriate, you get what you ask for.

or you would have blown up the engine completely, potentially causing damage to the wing. There is a reason why these planes are so automated, to keep everything within limits. And i was wrong about the simulator, test pilots could bring it back but the investigation agreed with the capt that he could not take the risk flying the plane over densely populated areas with 2 engines out. Read the report, there was a complete and totall loss of both engines, the APU and RAT were used to keep the fly-by-wire system going

 

[H54]

or you would have blown up the engine completely, potentially causing damage to the wing.

Both wing and tail mounted engines are surrounded by puncture proof materials so that engine failures, no matter how violent, are contained. The wing would have been fine. And like I said, if they had power for a few more minutes of flight, they would have made TEB or EWR. The engine may have muched itself a little but thats better than putting down in the water or in the buildings. All those lives and the airframe are worth more than a set of 10 million dollar engines that insurance will pay for anway.

There is a reason why these planes are so automated, to keep everything within limits.

I'm fully aware of why these airplanes are automated. As a person that works in the industry, my colleagues and I agree that the automation is very helpful but also a hindrance at times. In this case, if the pilots had the option of running the engine longer to get to TEB or EWR, you can bet your bottom they would have and let the company worry about the insurance later.

 

[ichy]

Both wing and tail mounted engines are surrounded by puncture proof materials so that engine failures, no matter how violent, are contained.

I'm sure the passengers and crew of United 232 would've been interested to hear that!

 

[H54]

Their military planes are often superior to the American counterparts in real world performance.

The only area I will agree with this on is serviceability/maintenance. Russian aircraft of all types are designed to operate at rough unprepared fields. Most American and European jet aircraft require manicured surfaces for operations.

The Russian pilots are often able to perform maneuvers in air during air shows that no one can repeat.

That is true but they are really of no use in a combat situation. The F-22 for example has superior detection capability, superior weapons, and is far less observable than anything in the Russian arsenal. In short, Russian aircraft would be destroyed BVR.

It looks like much is changing now when the US has the F-35 Raptor, there is no disputing absolute American superiority at this point. However, the Russians already "copied" the F-35 and created their own version that looks very similar and is much cheaper to produce. It is in the final testing stages at this point. Even if the American planes will ultimately win in quality, the Russians will more than make up for it with quantity.

I think you mean YF-23. Yes they've made a copy but in terms of observability, detection, weapons, etc., it can't hold a candle to the F-22.

when it comes to the Sukhoi Superjet, it's an interesting machine. Obviously it's a copy of another plane. Most likely an A320. Still what's important is that the Russians now have their own, cheaper version which they will try to mass produce. This will effectively take a share of the business from the US, and other countries. Russians has been out of the "scene" for a while since the collapse of the USSR, and now ambition is driving them yet again to enter this market.

It was designed to compete against Embraer's (Brazil) E-jets like the E-190 series. If its a copy of anything, its a copy of that aircraft.

The one area that the Russians used to really lag behind the West was engine tech. Since the onset of the Jet Age, American metallurgy was a lot better than Russian metallurgy. It really hurt them for a while because engine tech was in a large part held up by how good metallurgy was. You could have an excellent design on paper but if you couldn't produce and work the materials to make it, whats the point? This was especially important in the early days of jet flight because the limiting factor back then was engine tech not aerodynamics. Fast forward to current and last gen aircraft and the Russians have narrowed the gap quite a bit. If you look at some of those airshow maneuvers, they could only be done by Russian aircraft because of their engines. No American fighter until recently could fly for extended periods of time at an angle of attack of 110 degrees without compressor stalls. It really is amazing.

 

[H54]

I'm sure the passengers and crew of United 232 would've been interested to hear that!

LoL, you got me there. Every once in a while, a piece gets through. The engine failures that get the publicity are the ones that are un-contained.

I went to a seminar where Al Haynes spoke. It truly was remarkable.

 

[mmntech]

I saw an Antonov AN-2 leaking a worrying amount of oil at an airshow. The Russians were still making this commercial airliner biplane up until 2002. Complete with gas guzzling WWII era engines.

Airbus doesn't have a particularly bad safety record compared it's competitors. Most accidents are caused by pilot error or improper maintenance by the airline. That's in general. Sully's A320 landing in the Hudson was a bird strike.

 

[ichy]

Airbus doesn't have a particularly bad safety record compared it's competitors. Most accidents are caused by pilot error or improper maintenance by the airline. That's in general. Sully's A320 landing in the Hudson was a bird strike.

Yep. Modern airliner crashes are so rare that attempts to compare their safety statistics are kind of meaningless.

 

[GoSharks]

Both wing and tail mounted engines are surrounded by puncture proof materials so that engine failures, no matter how violent, are contained. The wing would have been fine. And like I said, if they had power for a few more minutes of flight, they would have made TEB or EWR. The engine may have muched itself a little but thats better than putting down in the water or in the buildings. All those lives and the airframe are worth more than a set of 10 million dollar engines that insurance will pay for anway.

Bullshit. See: Qantas Flight #32, A380.

 

[H54]

Bullshit. See: Qantas Flight #32, A380.

Nothing is 100% effective. To my knowledge, that was the first engine failure "in the wild" for that aircraft. Being a newly certified aircraft means that there are bound to be teething problems. I'm willing to bet that the containment system for the nacelle will be scrutinized and redesigned/modified as a result. Luckily, no one was hurt.

Of all of the hundreds or thousands of engine fires/failures, the vast majority of them were contained.

 

[davmat787]

Bullshit. See: Qantas Flight #32, A380.

Yep, called Uncontained Engine Failures. Also on turboprops the portion of the fuselage that aligns with the prop blades are usually hardened as well, in case a blade comes loose or worse.

 

[davmat787]

Nothing is 100% effective. To my knowledge, that was the first engine failure "in the wild" for that aircraft. Being a newly certified aircraft means that there are bound to be teething problems. I'm willing to bet that the containment system for the nacelle will be scrutinized and redesigned/modified as a result. Luckily, no one was hurt.

Of all of the hundreds or thousands of engine fires/failures, the vast majority of them were contained.

I've seen some pretty cool high speed video of Rolls Royce testing a blade coming loose at high thrust. It was a single blade, and was contained. Obviously there is a threshold of what can realistically be expected to be contained or not, we are probably thinking of different scenarios.

But I wouldn't call the Qantas incident a "teething" problem, that was a tad more significant IMO.

 

[GoSharks]

Nothing is 100% effective.

Yet, that was exactly what you were claiming.

 

[H54]

I've seen some pretty cool high speed video of Rolls Royce testing a blade coming loose at high thrust. It was a single blade, and was contained. Obviously there is a threshold of what can realistically be expected to be contained or not, we are probably thinking of different scenarios.

But I wouldn't call the Qantas incident a "teething" problem, that was a tad more significant IMO.

Hehe yeah they do some pretty wild stuff for certification. Check out the wing stress tests on youtube.

You're right, teething problem was the wrong term hehe. :thumbsup:

 

[H54]

Yet, that was exactly what you were claiming.

How so?

 

[Colt45]

I saw an Antonov AN-2 leaking a worrying amount of oil at an airshow. The Russians were still making this commercial airliner biplane up until 2002. Complete with gas guzzling WWII era engines.

The only time a radial doesn't leak is when it's out of oil. I don't think you can really fault old utility / bush planes for being old, cheap, and simple...

 

[GoSharks]

How so?

Both wing and tail mounted engines are surrounded by puncture proof materials so that engine failures, no matter how violent, are contained. The wing would have been fine.

:hmm:

 

[freegeeks]

LoL, you got me there. Every once in a while, a piece gets through. The engine failures that get the publicity are the ones that are un-contained.

I went to a seminar where Al Haynes spoke. It truly was remarkable.

quantas A380 last year, containment my ass

 

[freegeeks]

Both wing and tail mounted engines are surrounded by puncture proof materials so that engine failures, no matter how violent, are contained. The wing would have been fine. And like I said, if they had power for a few more minutes of flight, they would have made TEB or EWR. The engine may have muched itself a little but thats better than putting down in the water or in the buildings. All those lives and the airframe are worth more than a set of 10 million dollar engines that insurance will pay for anway.



I'm fully aware of why these airplanes are automated. As a person that works in the industry, my colleagues and I agree that the automation is very helpful but also a hindrance at times. In this case, if the pilots had the option of running the engine longer to get to TEB or EWR, you can bet your bottom they would have and let the company worry about the insurance later.

I don't know what you are talking about, THEY HAD NO POWER, read the transcript, it went silent in the cockpit, both engines flamed out, no power, APU and RAT used because NO engine power. If this was Boeing, they would had the same problem, this is not about some FADEC software or whatever, if big gooses fly into your turbofan, it's going to dye, simple as that

this is what happens if one bird hits you

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2frjSvo9BBc

 

[Bignate603]

and the same WTO also ruled the same about Boeing

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704254304576116051390545350.html

The loans were valid under an agreement signed by Airbus and Boeing in the nineties, then Boeing backed out of the agreement because they were loosing from Airbus

The magnitude of what they're being accused of is not anywhere near the same.

Airbus

That ruling, which has been appealed by both sides, concluded that Airbus had received the subsidies, including $15 billion in loans from European governments at below-market interest rates and several billion dollars in grants, to produce the A380 superjumbo and five other best-selling models.

Boeing

He stressed that roughly half of the subsidies condemned by the W.T.O. had been previously remedied by changes in American policy, noting that the panel (the panel being the WTO) had recommended the United States withdraw just $2.7 billion in aid to Boeing.

 

[Bignate603]

Bird strikes happen all the time. Several times per year, there are aircraft that return safely after eating a few. Had that A320 been an DC-9 or L1011 or MD-80 or something of that generation, I'm willing to bet that would have returned safely or made it to EWR.

There was partial power (~30% if memory serves) one one engine and flight idle on the other. Those CFM56s were capable of making power but they would likely have destroyed themselves after a period of time but it likely would have been enough to get the plane safely back down. EWR and TEB were right there.

FADEC can't be overridden, the end user merely makes requests to the system and if deemed appropriate, you get what you ask for.

You do realize that we're not talking about ingesting sparrows, right? These things sucked in Canadian geese. Feeding a turbofan something the size of a thanksgiving turkey is going to do some serious damage.

 

[FoBoT]

i've flown in A320 plenty of times, A340 a few times, no problems

 

[Locut0s]

In Soviet Russia plane crash you!