Earlier quoted context omitted.
IMO this is a bad take. MCAS was a fine system, the different aero charicteristics were fine. The only problem is that Boeing cheaped out and made MCAS depend on a single sensor for critical decision making. If they just had 3 sensors like any other saftey critical system none of these problems would have happened.
No, it would have been fine if 1) they had 3 sensors and 2) the system was in the flight manual and the pilots were trained on the system. If this means needing a new type certification, then so be it.
Qantas is bringing back Airbus A380s from the California desert
191–200 of 251 posts
Re: Qantas is bringing back Airbus A380s from the California desert
#192> A380s are not very fuel efficient. I won't stand for A380 slander. They are very fuel efficient per passenger provided that you fill up the plane. Unfortunately many airlines had issues filling up the entire plane with passengers.
That’s what I thought but if you look at the long haul flight table [1] and sort by fuel per seat, the A380 is near the bottom of the list, along the B747 and A340, ie all the models with 4 engines. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft#Long-...
Re: Qantas is bringing back Airbus A380s from the California desert
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
lol, this attitude is why so many Aussies don’t want to go back.
Yup. I'm in Sydney and it's one of the most disappointing things about Australians. The inability or unwillingness to understand things like this.
Re: Qantas is bringing back Airbus A380s from the California desert
#194Earlier quoted context omitted.
Kerosene produced from oil adds carbon to the atmosphere (carbon positive), biofuels take carbon out of air and after burning put it back (carbon neutral). There is a big difference.
No, there isn't. Read my other replies.
Re: Qantas is bringing back Airbus A380s from the California desert
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
IANAP, but a lot of the root cause analysis around the 737 max crashes was that they were sufficiently different and so should have required re-certification of pilots before being allowed to fly them. Due to the costs involved, Boeing made the ultimately fatal mistake of minimising these changes to airlines so that pilots didnt know what they were flying (insofar as some of the subsystems).
IMO this is a bad take. MCAS was a fine system, the different aero charicteristics were fine. The only problem is that Boeing cheaped out and made MCAS depend on a single sensor for critical decision making. If they just had 3 sensors like any other saftey critical system none of these problems would have happened.
No. Pilots weren’t even aware of MCAS’ existence until after the second fatal crash.
That’s a huge problem, compounded by
> Boeing cheaped out and made MCAS depend on a single AoA sensor.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuvering_Characteristics_...
Re: Qantas is bringing back Airbus A380s from the California desert
#196Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe a dumb question but can’t you switch the engines to the more efficient ones? I mean it’s surely not cheap but maybe cheaper and faster than building whole new planes!?
More efficient engines fitting the A380 requirements do not exist.
Re: Qantas is bringing back Airbus A380s from the California desert
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's not get too carried away, shall we? At least the 346 people that died in the two 737-MAX crashes would probably question your "unqualified success" statement. But yes, no one can deny that the 737 has been a cash cow for Boeing (for far too long, some would say).
To be fair, the 737 NG fiasco that preceded it isn't well known and it's unknowable how many excess deaths it caused or will cause because there are planes flying around with substandard structural components. https://christinenegroni.com/boeing-workers-warn-of-737-ng-s...
Re: Qantas is bringing back Airbus A380s from the California desert
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, it's obviously a matter of diminishing returns and opportunity cost. But the re-engine for the A380 was basically a rote, low-risk, B-team exercise for Rolls Royce. All they had to do was tweak their existing generation stuff. The program was already well underway, and they still dropped it; they all but explicitly said the reason was, "meh, we lost interest". Something seems to have changed. Putting my cynical…
Starship launches tomorrow. There is a non-trivial chance that point to point suborbital flights totally disrupt the airline industry. Hong Kong to Los Angeles in 30 minutes for the price of a first class ticket is pretty hard to argue with.
Also it will not be 30 minutes from actual city to actual city and it will not be a first class price ticket (10-20k) for that, but actually more like x10 times higher. And that IF Elon's fantasy Starship price of 2mil/launch happens. If actual launch price will be 20 mil, then this theoretical E2E ticket will be x100 times more expensive than fist class ticket.
And that not even mentioning several dozen independently blocker issues to this zany idea. How come people still repeat it on the tech site?
Re: Qantas is bringing back Airbus A380s from the California desert
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
Starship launches tomorrow. There is a non-trivial chance that point to point suborbital flights totally disrupt the airline industry. Hong Kong to Los Angeles in 30 minutes for the price of a first class ticket is pretty hard to argue with.
This is an interesting comment. I am a bit disappointed it was so heavily downvoted. My main concern: "first class ticket" -- that is roughly 5% of the market. Way too expensive for most. If your comment (and reality) were "cattle class ticket", then yes, there is great potential for "half globe" flights. Even 2x to 4x faster would be a game changer.
First you need to include price of the floating megaports at each destination in the world. The cost of a single such human rated platform divided by a number of physical rockets using it per year will be many orders of magnitude higher than a price of airport divided by the number of planes serviced per yer.
Second you will need a lot of highly expensive maintenance crew members at each location (more expensive per person than airplane maintenance crews). Plus much much bigger staff at the dispatcher tower in each location, compared to a handful of aircraft dispatchers in an airport servicing hundreds of planes simultaneously.
Third you will need a private (and thus unprofitable) public transportation lines/ships to each of the rocket starts.
4th - you will need a lot of training facilities for the prospective passengers. And staff for them.
5th - you will need low orbit rated space suits in a variety of the sizes at each location. And maintenance and repair facilities for them. Dragon low orbit suit clock at about 0.5 mil dollars today. 4 suits and that's more that entire fuel cost for the launch :) (theoretical cost, with best outcome). Even is economies of scale will help to lower costs 2-3 times (doubtful) it still doesn't scale to a global E2E operations.
I'm probably missing some other significant costs but you can get the picture. It will never be a first class ticket price because it is impossible.
And that's not even counting other blockers for this idea.
Re: Qantas is bringing back Airbus A380s from the California desert
#200Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, I thought it was just me! All the Airbus planes have horrible autopilots that gradually rise and fall, in a barely noticeable way. I found myself feeling irritated and wished the source code was opensource so I could have a look at it.
Are you telling us this as a pilot or a coder? Calling it's autopilot is horrible is a lot of stretch.