A.R.S.E.

Tomorrow!

http://www.A350XWBFirstFlight.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yeah, I know: it's just another big cigar-shaped thing with two engines and a conventional layout. But it's still a brand new type and I reckon that's worth getting excited about.

Yep, got my email from airbus. Forgot I had even signed up! Always nice to watch these events. It's a huge investment and doesn't come around too often.

Are these public events really the first flights, or would they have done test flights behind closed doors?

They'd have to be rather large doors, admittedly

Ok, so 4pm Aussie time! I'll try to catch it, but will be at work... so will suck a little!

It flies!

It was in Sydney on Tuesday:

http://video.au.msn.com/watch/video/air ... es/xz5yz9a" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It sounds great.

Remarkably, it's development seems to be more or less on schedule.

Wasn't me. I live in Melbourne.

The A350 just seems to be a big plastic A330 in a way. I doubt if it's as high risk a project as the B787. Airbus sorted out all fly-by-wire stuff with the A320 and went from there.

Mind you, the A350 in its original design was all wrong and had to be redone but that was before they sold any. Airbus hadn't actually planned to build a new type but demand from airlines led them to reconsider. The first design got it wrong and the airlines put pressure on Airbus to start again pretty well from scratch. It wasn't different enough from the B787 or A330 they said. Airbus went back to the drawing board. But since they started cutting parts off sprues and gluing them together, there have been very few problems and it looks as though the customers will get their machines more or less when they were promised.

The 787 will work well. Of that I have no doubt. The development problems are, hopefully, behind it now.

The biggest worry will be accommodation...

Are these twin engined jobbies designed for flying from here to the US? I would be terrified of losing a donk as I would be going to canberra from Sydney for that matter. I didn't relax at all on the trip to LA and that was in a plane with four donks .

Jet engines have a much lower failure rate than piston engines and are much more closely monitored.

This is why ETOPS is now common.

The power output of a single jet engine is really too much for most people to comprehend. Even at maximum weight a twin engine jet has to be able to maintain a positive rate of climb on takeoff with one engine out. They have to be able to clear a theoretical obstacle of a specific height within a certain distance of the airport.

avro707c wrote:And on the subject of the engines, in testing the engines are usually used and abused in a way that will never occur in civil operation. And the planes themselves are often flown in a manner that would not be appropriate for a civil transport aircraft. This establishes the flight envelope boundaries outside of which a plane will not be flown. These include maximum G loadings, service ceiling, maximum operating speed, cruise speeds, maximum pitch angles for takeoff and landing, lowest liftoff speed, stall speeds, vZRCs, etc. They also simulate failures.

And once these parameters are established, the computers are set so that the boundaries simply cannot be exceeded unless everything is switched off. There would be next to no circumstances under which this would happen. On the subject of ash clouds, some aircraft are now fitted with spectrographic analysers which give advanced warning of what's ahead that could be dangerous.

From a media point of view, the likelihood that we would cover an engine failure on a jet aircraft is quite high and the reason is that it is a very rare event (with potential consequences). When a car engine fails nobody takes any notice of it or we'd be doing it every day. "Car conks out on freeway" isn't a big story.

Truth is, the most dangerous and failure-prone component in an aircraft is the pilot.

J.D. wrote:Truth is, the most dangerous and failure-prone component in an aircraft is the pilot.

I disagree. It's those headphones they give you. Every other time I fly I get a dud set. Not particularly dangerous, though.

The trouble is that most people (probably including a lot of airline execs) think that flying an airliner is like driving a car and gauge the problem solving procedures accordingly. That's why pilots are under increasing pressures from senior management.

Earlier this week I came back from a trip with 7hr B777 flights and 14hr A380 flights and didn't think twice about the ETOPS rating of the B777, although it was substantially over land in Europe so lots of divert fields available.

Interestingly, the B777 flew over Mosul on the outbound trip (a fortnight ago) but on the return trip we came back fully over Iran.

Also, on the return trip the A380 spent at least 9hrs of the 14hr flight over the Indian ocean...as in, South east from Dubai and then water (stayed west of India altogether) until crossing the coast at Perth for the final trans-Australia part to Sydney. Seemed an odd route to take for a direct flight. The outbound track took us over the Pilbara and Singapore...which seemed more direct, but then my great circle geometry was never good.

So it wasn't a Malaysia Airlines flight?

http://www.gcmap.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's not just great circle, there were probably some favourable winds by heading further south.

First aircraft delivered to Qatar Airways. First flight expected in January.

Remind me; when was the last time a new jet was delivered this quickly?

J.D. wrote:First aircraft delivered to Qatar Airways. First flight expected in January.

Remind me; when was the last time a new jet was delivered this quickly?

WWII???

I am not comfortable with this two engine business to be honest , went to Hawaii a few months back and i quietly shat myself when I saw the plane had twin engines.

Doesn't bother me at all. Done plenty of long haul on a B777 and A330.

I guess there extremely reliable but I would prefer two more engines .

They are designed to fly with one engine if the other fails, but if both go, how are you at swimming?