StarDestroyer.Net BBS

corporial wrote:I forget the exact name of the jet in question, but I remember hearing about an Airbus jet that gave the autopilot the ability to take complete control over the aircraft, and could even lockout the pilot. I remember it crashed during a test flight or expo.

I think it was the A-320,its funny how they rushed in blaming the pilot when it was the damn computers fault.

Wasn't there this plane with a bunch of wings that was made a short bit after the Wright Brother's first flight that was build on the false assumption that it would fly better with numerous wings? There must have been a lot of goofy crafts in the early days of flight.

What about the "Concordski?"

StarshipTitanic wrote:What about the "Concordski?"

It was pretty awful. After blowing up in mid flight over Paris all it did was haul freight in Siberia with a limit to sub sonic speed.

SyntaxVorlon wrote:Delta, I know it's an airline not a specific plane, but those seats are TOO FUCKING SMALL!

Russian planes are worse. My dad flew from Moscow to Leningrad in the mid 80's. Unfortunately the airliner was a converted bomber, and half his legroom was taken up by a structural pylon. He had to keep his legs cross for the whole flight. The plane still had its glass nose bombardier position and while the tail guns had been removed the position remained as well.

Another candidate. The Douglas X-3 Stiletto. It was designed to explore supersonic flight but was so underpowered it couldn't even pass mach 1.

Frank Hipper wrote:I believe that's more of a measure of the pilots than the planes they were flying. Then there's the quality of the opposition to consider, also.

Skill was a big factor there considering the success of the finnish pilots compared
to the american pilots.

Thunderfire wrote:
Skill was a big factor there considering the success of the finnish pilots compared
to the american pilots.

The best Soviet fighter beyond a couple MiG-1's that might have fought was the I-16, which was inferior to the Buffalo in many respects and most Soviet fighters where I-15 biplanes. Meanwhile US, Dutch and British Buffalos got to fight hoards of Zero's and Ki-43's.

Sea Skimmer wrote:The Sänger Amerika Bomber
http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/seymo ... ngerch.jpg

http://www.luft46.com/misc/sang3.jpg


A sub orbital manned aircraft that would fly around the earth at 13000mph often accelerating at dozens of g's, the Germans thought a pilot could withstand 20, to drop a single bomb onto an American city.

He said aircraft, not pipe dream.


And I am tempted to smack you for daring to question the might of the Tu-144.

Howedar wrote:He said aircraft, not pipe dream.

How could you expect me to resist bring up possibly the most absurd paper or not.
most plane ever? I mean come on, ever if it worked perfectly and was made out of unobtainium the pilot would black out and likely die from having to sustain 20 g's during launch. How can you not love it?

And I am tempted to smack you for daring to question the might of the Tu-144.

It would have been a fine Kamikaze plane, I’ll give you that

http://www.stibbens.com/tu144-1.jpg
http://www.stibbens.com/tu144-2.jpg
http://www.stibbens.com/tu144-3.jpg
http://www.stibbens.com/tu144-4.jpg

I could post similar pictures of a Concorde. Whats your point?

Howedar wrote:I could post similar pictures of a Concorde. Whats your point?

Concord had one crash after years of service and hundreds of commerical flights. The Tu-144 crashed at an air show before it even entered service. It then ended up hauling mail between Alma Ata and Moscow and other cargos in Siberia for years, during which it was discovered fuel consumption was something like twice as high as planned. Then in 1977 it got approved for passenger service. It promptly crashed again, resulting in the whole production run being grounded permanently.

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Thunderfire wrote:
Skill was a big factor there considering the success of the finnish pilots compared
to the american pilots.

The best Soviet fighter beyond a couple MiG-1's that might have fought was the I-16, which was inferior to the Buffalo in many respects and most Soviet fighters where I-15 biplanes.

How about Spitfires, Hawker Hurricanes, LaGG-3s, MiG-3,s La-5s, Yak-1s, Yak-7bs or Boston IIIs? All of these planes were used in the Finnish front against the FAF, which flew Brewsters (the best FAF aircraft), Fiats, Fokkers, Moranes and Curtisses. Messerschmitts didn't arrive until the spring 1943.

Finnish pilots were generally very good, but the Soviet pilots hardly were on the same level as their Japanese or German counterparts.

In any case, Brewster Buffalo isn't definetely the worst aircraft in the world.

Oberleutnant wrote: How about Spitfires, Hawker Hurricanes, LaGG-3s, MiG-3,s La-5s, Yak-1s, Yak-7bs or Boston IIIs? All of these planes were used in the Finnish front against the FAF, which flew Brewsters (the best FAF aircraft), Fiats, Fokkers, Moranes and Curtisses.

I thought we where talking about the winter war. During Barbarossa many modern aircraft did make it to the Finnish front, however it was mostly a backwater and with stationary lines and thick forests air power alone couldn't accomplish a whole lot anyway.

Sea Skimmer wrote:
I thought we where talking about the winter war. During Barbarossa many modern aircraft did make it to the Finnish front, however it was mostly a backwater and with stationary lines and thick forests air power alone couldn't accomplish a whole lot anyway.

B-239 didn't fight in the winter war AFAIK. Most kills were I-153 , I-16 ,
Hurricanes , LaGG3 and MiG-3 fighters.

Both of you are correct.

Although Buffalos were bought during the Winter War, they didn't arrive in time to be of any help.

corporial wrote:I forget the exact name of the jet in question, but I remember hearing about an Airbus jet that gave the autopilot the ability to take complete control over the aircraft, and could even lockout the pilot. I remember it crashed during a test flight or expo.

Montcalm wrote:I think it was the A-320,its funny how they rushed in blaming the pilot when it was the damn computers fault.

Actually All the Airbus aircraft from A320 onwards (including A318, A319 A321, A330-200 A330-300 A340 and likley the new A380) all have a very sofisticated autopilot which has the privelage of overriding the pilot in most areas of flight. That expo crash was caused by faulty computer logic using Radar height rather than Weight on Wheels to determine weather it had landed or not. The pilot also gave it an unusual configuration by flying below 30 feet with the landing gear up, The computer thought he was landing, unfortunatley he didn't have his landing gear down. After all that the computer software was updated to give the pilots more controll at low level, and to disable landing modes when the gear was not down or something similar. The A320 is still a headache for most of it's pilots though I hear, (reading www.pprune.org ) and it's handling of windsheer events is still poor leading to lots of marginal weather go-arounds and aborted landings. However it's probably the only plane that can't be used in a September 11 style attack since the aircraft will just want to climb away (Pilot pushing full forward stick, plane climbing anyway <g>) unless he was flying less than 160 knots airspeed gear and flaps down in landing configuration... And try doing a barrel roll... you'd get to 40 degrees bank, and then it'd stay there

It's simply a different design polocy than boeing. Boeing say pilots are smart enough to fly safe, Airbus just make the plane just simply not do those things that are uncomforable or unsafe... of course it is a machine, so it always has the ability to stuff up once in a whyle.


some interesting thoughts:

Ignition Override wrote: were you indirectly refering to the tragedy at a Polish airport? The Lufthansa First Officer died after the 'advanced' aircraft landed either very long, maybe with a strong tailwind, on a wet runway, and because the main wheels barely rotated, the "advanced" software logic prevented all of these functions:

1) thrust reverser actuation
2) ground spoiler extension
3) auto/manual braking (probably negated anyway by antiskid transducers on a hydroplaning machine).

The plane must have had a better chance of landing and stopping after the "advanced" software was redesigned to somehow function differently. Good guess- " " denotes either irony, not so subtle sarcasm, or both. Would not a superior set of aircraft systems allow a human pilot to quickly control and lift levers and deploy spoilers plus reversers.?

Frank Hipper wrote:Others in the Really Bad list include:

The Caproni Ca 60, a NINE winged houseboat that got about 20ft into the air before breaking up. And Count Caproni built such good planes,normally.

Ahhh... the Ca60. Behold - a CAPRONI CA-60 FANSITE:

http://www.space.net.au/~dpwyrm/junk/fephem/caproni.htm

Simon H.Johansen wrote:Ahhh... the Ca60. Behold - a CAPRONI CA-60 FANSITE:

http://www.space.net.au/~dpwyrm/junk/fephem/caproni.htm

Ladies and Gentlemen, trust me when I say that it pains me to say this, but someone is more obsessed with anachronistic design than I am!

Frank Hipper wrote:

Simon H.Johansen wrote:Ahhh... the Ca60. Behold - a CAPRONI CA-60 FANSITE:

http://www.space.net.au/~dpwyrm/junk/fephem/caproni.htm

Ladies and Gentlemen, trust me when I say that it pains me to say this, but someone is more obsessed with anachronistic design than I am!

Also notice the Ca60 fan lists among his reasons to like the design that the Ca60 looks like something out of "Stop the Pigeon".

(It's a long while since I last saw "Stop The Pigeon", so I'd rather say the Ca60 looks like something from "Crimson Skies"... if the aircrafts for that game were designed by a LSD junkie)

Simon H.Johansen wrote:Ahhh... the Ca60. Behold - a CAPRONI CA-60 FANSITE:

http://www.space.net.au/~dpwyrm/junk/fephem/caproni.htm

Someone actualy like the plane.

Montcalm wrote:

Simon H.Johansen wrote:Ahhh... the Ca60. Behold - a CAPRONI CA-60 FANSITE:

http://www.space.net.au/~dpwyrm/junk/fephem/caproni.htm

Someone actualy like the plane.

Planes with cult status get different treatments, depending on their nature. The Messerschmitt Me262 "Sturmvogel" got a song by Blue Oyster Cult in its honour. (But why not a single one by Graveland or Nokturnal Mortum?)

And the Ca60 gets THIS.

Simon H.Johansen wrote:

Montcalm wrote:

Simon H.Johansen wrote:Ahhh... the Ca60. Behold - a CAPRONI CA-60 FANSITE:

http://www.space.net.au/~dpwyrm/junk/fephem/caproni.htm

Someone actualy like the plane.

Planes with cult status get different treatments, depending on their nature. The Messerschmitt Me262 "Sturmvogel" got a song by Blue Oyster Cult in its honour. (But why not a single one by Graveland or Nokturnal Mortum?)

And the Ca60 gets THIS.

I think it's fitting, SR-71 was also a band name.

But reading that site... pissing myself laughing.

Admiral Valdemar wrote:
I think it's fitting, SR-71 was also a band name.

There's also a metal band called Budgie, which had a SR71 on one of their albums. And I think it's common knowledge that a band named themselves the B-52s.....

(Some norwegian guys also started a band called "Mezzerschmitt")

There was a band called the Me 109's and a song by the Dickies called "Stukas over Disneyland", too.

Frank Hipper wrote:There was a band called the Me 109's

Let me guess - they were a Skrewdriver-style skinhead punk band??