Well said Stepha380, to hear is to obey.
Lets make this topic news as opposed to troubles in future.
Was interested in your reverse thrust information because if my memory serves me, Airbus planned to build the plane without thrust reversers, because the wheel brakes and air brakes were deemed adequate.The certification authorities insisted on them, and I guess two only thrust reversers was the negotiated outcome.
Airbus had long before starting production had some discussions with potential costumers over the issue of trust reserve. When the Airline saw the benefits of only 2 reserves they agreed to built the aircraft with only two. During hydraulic failure you really need some trust reserve and there is no chance to build such huge aircraft no reserve at all!
Apart from saving weight it’s also makes the technical service of the A380 a bit cheaper!
What I have heard though out the years is that most of the time the trust reserve is deployed but with no trust to save fuel.
But a Qantas B747-400 accident in Bangkok would have been avoided if they actually hade used full trust reserve!
achace wrote:
The certification authorities insisted on them, and I guess two only thrust reversers was the negotiated outcome.
The certification process of an aircraft does not require any thrust reversers. The plane has to be able to stop on a runway with its full weight only using the brakes !!! Thrust reversers are a plus when you have contaminated runway conditions but as I said are not taken into account for the certification of an aircraft.
What I have heard though out the years is that most of the time the trust reserve is deployed but with no trust to save fuel.
What is often done is an operation called 'idle reverse" but this should not be discussed in this topic please
Avro wrote: Thrust reversers are a plus when you have contaminated runway conditions but as I said are not taken into account for the certification of an aircraft.
And must not be taken into account when calculating the landing performance...(one of the cause of Chicago Midway accident)
achace wrote:Well said Stepha380, to hear is to obey.
Great move.
It should be good to have only one or two topics per airplane and airline.
I don't think there are problems with the GP engines. They just reorganized the schedule to deliver the RR in priority with all the delays.
Emirates, the first GP customer will receive it first airplane in second half of 2007.
Once you have certified the airplane, it is really quicker to certify new engines.
The war of words. We will soon see on the performance specifications for the Pax versions.
I would be surprised if 747-8 is overweight
And keep in mind for the freighter versions, Emirates dropped order for 2 (and moved them to pax) with the statement, "we do not have sufficient details to order".
Av weeks comments were that a great many of the details were still missing (I would assume they have not had time to do them with the other scrambles they have been going through).
While the 7747-8F is a much newer proposal, they were comfortable enough with Boeing details to order it.
Having seen the rather startling photo's of the first start-up of the GP7200 engines on the Flight website last week(lots of oil), Airbus seem to be having real problems putting the beast into the air, unless of course they have gone back to their much interrupted summer vacation.
achace wrote:Having seen the rather startling photo's of the first start-up of the GP7200 engines on the Flight website last week(lots of oil), Airbus seem to be having real problems putting the beast into the air, unless of course they have gone back to their much interrupted summer vacation.
Does anyone know what the problem is in getting the GP7200 version into the air please?
