When the Future is the Past

[LongHaul]

I do see the point that is being made about the apparent tendency of modern technology going backwards (no Concorde, no Hovercraft etc.), and the seeming lack of individual passion in technology...but there is a flipside to it.

It has always struck me that there is a tendency for English people, at any rate, to celebrate the lone pioneer, and a tradition of muddling through. While these traits are considered positive, they have often done more harm than good. As an example, we celebrate the Battle of Britain for the victory it was, but we also forget (or celebrate as a very British 'muddling through'), that our pilots very nearly went to war in outdated biplanes that would have made the end result very different. The fact that we got Spitfires and Hurricanes into service just in time to avoid that fate is seen as a triumph of sorts...when in reality we should ask why it was, that with war on the horizon for most of the thirties, combat squadrons were still flying outdated biplanes in 1939.

And maybe it is less 'daring' to only fly an aircraft only once we are sure it will fly - but I personally believe it is far preferably to flying the aircraft without that preparation, only to lose it and the highly experienced test pilot flying it.

While the stories of previous exploits, and the sometimes haphazard way they were achieved, are certainly inspiring, and captivate many people here (myself included), we should also consider that we now have a level of technology and control over it's use, that we no longer need to put people in the dangerous situations we once did - and would be foolhardy and irresponsible to do so.

Anyhoo, thats my tuppence of chin-stroking for the night

[VEGAS]

I understand what you are saying Toby, however I was merely pointing out that the A380 IS a geniune milestone is current aviation terms.

But is it really?

Yes it is really...... :huf:

Quite biased are'nt you? Look what I have put in my post Chris. I have made some very valid points. These should address your comments

[Chris Trott]

Look what I have put in my post Chris. I have made some very valid points. These should address your comments

Well, let's try quoting the sum of your comments from those posts -


Post #4

I get the impression that many perhaps are not too keen on the A380 and its progress in the aviation industry.

I, like many on here, am completely bonkers over Aircraft in general and personally think its a wonderful achievement in technology reaching a new milestone in next generation flying.

No mention of any specific reason why the A380 is a milestone.

Post #9

IMHO I think the A380 is the best thing to happen to the Aviation industry for a long time. But I agree with you in the fact that its not generating the same sort of excitement as perhaps the good old days.

No mention of anything specific.

Post #19

I understand what you are saying Toby, however I was merely pointing out that the A380 IS a geniune milestone is current aviation terms.

Like you said in your own statement, Boeing have'nt come close since the 1970's for anything like this.

Again, nothing specific. Only a vague "haven't come close since the 1970's". Funny though, since the 1970s, Boeing's built the 777 which was the first aircraft built completely on computer before being built and at the time the largest FBW aircraft in the world. Then there's the 757-300 which was the first aircraft to ever achieve ETOPS certification on its airworthiness certification. Oh, and the 767-400 which was the first aircraft in the world to use raked wingtips instead of winglets. What about the 737Next Generation which was the first to have a single-piece fuselage instead of a joined one and the first production aircraft to use winglets of greater than 5 feet in height? Not only that, but the 737s were the first airliners to be equipped with FADEC engines and the 757 and 767 were the first production aircraft to be delivered with a "glass cockpit".

Sorry VEGAS, but you didn't make any statements to support your point. Everything that the A380 is doing has been done by another plane in the last 60 years. It may be the first passenger jet to put most of them together, but it's certainly not the first to do any of the items in singular.

[TSR2]

Chris,

Maybe its time you left the nursery mate.

[DaveB]

I've not read any of this post (for various reasons) until now at page 3 and it seems I came in at the right time

DaveB :tab:

[jonesey2k]

Oh dear. Another Airbus vs Boeing foodfight.

[VEGAS]

Ok Chris

Firstly I have'nt enough time on my hands to do all the fancy copy n paste stuff you did in your last post, so I will address your points in one nice 'easy-to-use' post.

In my post #4

There does'nt need to be a specific reason why the A380 is a milestone. I thought anyone with at least even the smallest amount of aviation knowledge would know that nothing like this has been produced before. Even the 747 which was probably the closest was going back to the 1970's.

In my post #9

Again I think perhaps you need to specifically read what I and the others have put. I have specifically mentioned the A380. Thats specifically what I am talking about. Is that specific enough for you?

In my post #19

You discuss the 757-300 which was the first aircraft to ever achieve ETOPS certification on its airworthiness certification.

The 767-400 which was the first aircraft in the world to use raked wingtips instead of winglets.

The 737Next Generation which was the first to have a single-piece fuselage instead of a joined one and the first production aircraft to use winglets of greater than 5 feet in height?

The 737s being the first airliners to be equipped with FADEC engines and the 757 and 767 were the first production aircraft to be delivered with a "glass cockpit".

All I can say to those facts is....yawn...ZZZzzzzz.....ooops...sorry.. I seem to have nodded off whilst reading that nonsense. But I suppose you were specific

Fact is, who is arsed about how high a 737NG's winglets are?

Clearly I am not an expert. I visit here for relaxation and general interest. What I said is IMHO still valid and I hope its certainly SPECIFIC enough for you

And now I will go and pick up all my toys from around my cot.... :curse:

[britishtourer]

Sorry Vegas, but I must agree with Chris. He has proven his point and you haven't.

[AndyG]

Ooh, isn't this getting heated. BT, I think both parties have 'proved' some points, but not all.

As for the point Chris made about the A380 not doing anything new, well, to an extent that's true; I believe the phrase is "standing on the shoulders of giants".

It applies, and always has done, to all aspects of aviation. The Caravelle used the nose of the Comet, the 727 used the design of the Trident ( ), the 737 used much from the 727; the point is, why reinvent the wheel if it's not necessary, but if you can make a better wheel....!

Sure, double deckers are not new, but the examples you gave were a little tenuous as they were from an era when aviation was very different; let's not forget that Boeing proposed versions of the 747 that were effectively double deckers, they just never had the courage (or the nous?) to see the project through. The examples of payload capacity you gave were, in the main, military projects and, in the case of the Antonov 225, specialised ones at that.

The 380 IS a milestone because it takes all the best that has gone before and blends it into a harmonious whole, setting the standard for others to follow. Airbus has done this consistently, evolution rather than revolution; with the notable exception of the 737 family Boeing have never really achieved this in recent years; BT, you mentioned in another thread about Airbus always using the same cockpit from model to model - not sure why you think that's a problem!!

Oh, and like a number of us here I remember back to the days of Tridents, Comets, Britannias etc; I may well have stood beside some of you at Heathrow, watching those classics arriving and departing. One other thing I remember though; they were damn noisy, a Trident 3B on the flightpath from Gatwick certainly made the window frames in our house shake rather nicely, and how did we always know when Concorde was overhead. The Trent engines on the 380 (British, remember) are reputed to be the quietest in their class; that's certainly one piece of this future thats an improvement on the past.

AndyG

[britishtourer]

I look at the aircraft for uniqueness in design. That's why I love British aircraft. Apart from the blatant copies of the Trident (727) and the VC - 10 copy from russia, they are all unique.

Does a Trident look like a Comet? Nope. But they are both beautiful. Both have different fuselage and wing shapes and engine positions.

Now look at the Airbus. Is there any real beauty there?

Sure it may be the most efficent, economical and environmentally friendly design but is it fun? Is it beautiful? I don't think so. There's just nothing unique about them. In essence, they have become like a Ford Transit - no one gets excited about them or even notices them half the time.

I recently went to Paris on a ERJ 145 and was very excited about it. Kids shouted out "Cool!" when they saw it and one woman said "Wow, it's a buisiness jet!"

Does an Airbus get that sort of reaction?