▲ 64 points
back
50 comments
Airbus plans are a silly source of pride for me as a French 30-something. They're one of the very few tokens of pan-European success in tech and engineering. Airbus being a subsidiary of EADS, a company that works across European lines (Germany, France, the UK), it's living proof that despite all the natural hurdles and bickering, we can still be competitive and innovative as a continental entity.
I wish there were more examples like this one in the midst of this silly Eurozone crisis.
Actually there is a few other successful engineering examples in France, such Alstom with its TGV, or even Dassault.
I find this really strange that whereas "traditional engineering" is pretty strong and remarkable in France, there is almost nothing in computer sciences.
> there is almost nothing in computer sciences.
Or you don't know them or don't realize they are French…
- OVH (Biggest server host in the world) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OVH)
- Ubisoft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubisoft),
- Capgemini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capgemini),
- STMicroelectronics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STMicroelectronics),
- Bull (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupe_Bull),
- DailyMotion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dailymotion),
- etc.
I wouldn't be proud of Capgemini.
And lest we forget the Concorde as a French / English engineering marvel.
True, it was - despite the outrageous ticket prices - a money loser of the highest order. Nevertheless, a beautiful piece of engineering and arguably the most beautiful civilian plane ever built.
I, for one, regret never to have flown in it.
> in France, there is almost nothing in computer sciences
What about INRIA?
"Inria is a public research body dedicated to digital science and technology" - http://www.inria.fr/en/
Most people are completely unaware of what CS researchers are doing in France because they don't work on things which the public finds ultra-sexy. Most of what they do and are good at has direct industrial application.
They made some pretty interesting things in type theory, language design (OCaml), proof (Coq), static analysis and certification (B-method, Frama-C, CompCert).
All of these is useful if you want to do safe embedded softwares for your planes, flight control softwares, automatic metros or nuclear reactor monitoring systems (which they do) but it isn't really easy to explain to the general public.
There is also a supposedly quite strong numerical modelling group working on nuclear deterrence but most of this stuff is classified. Let's also not forget that France still is a major arm dealer so you have some R&D done by private defence companies. Nothing comparable to the USA but you still apparently have some development in targeting, surveillance and interception (well, France has a world covering array network, I hope they at least try to use it).
Now, there is nothing particularly exceptional here. The situation is mostly the same in all publicly founded laboratories around the world. What France doesn't have very much is people doing frivolous stuff like email sorting or social network aka start-ups but that's another problem.
Fabrice Bellard is french.
He is the father of FFmpeg (which pretty much makes online video possible), and QEmu (which is one of the most versatile emulator/virtualization software).
Why silly? Pride is a very strong motivation. The important thing is that pride for our own successes doesn't become hate for others' successes.
It's silly because we haven't contributed to the achievement in any way.
You contribute as a member of a civilized society that makes it all possible. The reason A350's aren't being built in Bangladesh isn't just the lack of monetary capital. It's the lack of social capital, in the form of functional institutions that enable some people to concentrate on things like next-generation airplanes.
To what rayiner said, I'll add that feeling part of something (the EU, in this case) is not silly - it's a basic human need. And if you feel part of something, it's also human to feel good for its successes and bad for its failures.
Well I find all manners of nationalistic pride kind of silly. Like someone said below, it's not like I did anything to make that happen, besides the taxes I'm paying.
The pride I'm feeling in this case is more a measure of the fact that Europe still produces great engineers and can sometimes cooperate to make great things happen. It's hope for the future.
What? Europe is literally world's first industrial power. Take any phone, laptop, car, etc. and trace back where the machines that made the machines that made the machines .... that made the parts of the device come from and most of the time you will end in UK, Germany, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland ...
As an engineer, I find it amazing that aside from cleaner, more efficient, quieter, and safer, we really haven't significantly improved mainstream jet travel speed for over 50 years. Supersonic must be a major barrier for all practical purposes.
"You're Too Cheap to Fly Faster"
Well http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part91-817-FAR.shtml pretty much sums up the whys.
The passenger miles per unit of fuel were not in favor of super sonic planes which were originally developed to compete with the smaller jets (707) that were around when development started. Those jumbos (747) made air travel really cheap.
It's a matter of cost. It's "easy" to build Mach 2.5 jetliners, but customers actually prefer to fly really, really cheap instead of flying really, really fast.
We had supersonic flight (Concorde, also by airbus btw) and it was far too fuel inefficient (that and I think also they were not allowed in some countries if I remember correctly)
> also by airbus btw
By its predecessor Sud Aviation and BAC.
You think cars have changed? Trains? Most things have not changed much.
Cars and trains have changed a lot.
This video shows the difference pretty clearly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_ptUrQOMPs (it's a head-on crash test between a 1959 Bel Air and a 2009 Malibu).
Cars are immensely safer than the death-traps they were in the past. They're also immensely more comfortable, mind-bogglingly more fuel efficient, and produce a hell of a lot less pollution.
These aren't marginal improvements.
The newer, lighter planes are using a lot of plastic and are worse at isolating passengers and crew from the radiation at high altitudes.
People do not like sonic booms, at all.
A related BBC article about the advanced engines developed by Rolls Royce for the A350:
There's a surprising lack of information about this plane. From what I can tell, it's similar to the 787 (in that it's made from composites) but with marginally better fuel efficiency.
Does anybody know if it has a similar turbulence-dampening system? Or increased cabin pressure? As an airline customer, I don't really care about how many seats it has or its operating costs...
They say it's very quiet from the outside during takeoff, but has there been any word on what the cabin noise is like, compared to the A380?
That's the main reason I'll choose an A380 whenever possible. It makes a big difference in how exhausting and miserable a long flight can be.
Doesn't cabin noise become white noise after a while? That has been my experience with trans-Atlantic flights.
I tend to agree with you. It's not the engine sound that bothers me, it's little kids screaming, hearing sneezes, etc. that get to me. In fact, many people have actually found the quietness of the A380 engines to be a detriment to the flying experience because suddenly they can hear others' quiet conversations and other such noises that remind you you're tightly packed with 300+ other people.
It also means I can actually hear the flight attendant. And personally, human noise really doesn't bother me. I ride public transit all the time without issue.
It's just the constant loud wind/engine noise that gives me a headache. Objectively, the A380 is by no means quiet (compared to a modern train for example), but the level of cabin noise feels much less oppressive.
I was just reading the wikipedia page on the A380 and discovered that in an all-economy configuration it can seat 850 people. Blew my mind.
Only if you're flying in F
If you haven't already, buy noise cancelling headphones. It's amazing the difference they make. The almost completely cut out the droning noise.
Are there good noise cancelling headphones < $100? I'm not interested in paying Bose $300. It doesn't seem like good ones should cost so much. By "good" I mean degree of noise cancellation, not quality of stereo speakers in the earphones.
Consider the Etymotic mc5 or Sennheiser HD-280. Both under $100.
I own the HD280 and an older Etymotic model (ER-6i) and love them both, especially on flights.
[1] http://www.etymotic.com/ephp/mc5.html [2] http://en-us.sennheiser.com/professional-dj-headphones-noise...
In-ear phones are a good budget option. It's like wearing ear plugs, plus the music kills any remaining low-volume sound that would get through.
Or, save ourself some money and get a package of disposable earplugs at a pharmacy.
Pilot on the test flight:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJrLAktTWBo
So does "successfully completes maiden test flight" mean "the aircraft passed all of the tests we put it through" or "the aircraft didn't fall out of the sky"?
Generally speaking the purpose of the maiden flight isn't to actually test anything (other than the obvious "does it fly"), but rather it's more to collect that will be used to design the scope and scale of future tests.
Thanks, that's what I wanted to know.
Well to give you a frame of reference the Boeing 787 completed its maiden flight on December 15th 2009 and actually flew commercially on October 26, 2011.
On the other had the Boeing 747 had better luck. From its wikipedia page:
First flight February 9, 1969 Introduction January 22, 1970 with Pan Am
I wonder if the test pilots wore parachutes.
> I wonder if the test pilots wore parachutes.
They did, and the test article has a special escape hatch installed (good photo here):
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2013/06/test-pilots-discuss-a35...
So can someone clear up what model this replaces or competes with?
Some people may disagree with me, but I think 350 replaces 340. 350's got a long range and it's extremely fuel efficient (more so than the new 787). 340 is a four engine airliner and it's not fuel efficient at all. That fact alone makes 340 pretty much obsolete. Operating costs for both 787 and 350 is probably much less than 340 (totally speculating here) so it's hard to justify operating 340s when there are much better airliners out there that can save you a lot of money in the long term. Operating other 4 engine airliners like 747 and 380 is justifiable because they carry way more people than 340 does AND their new models (380 is already a new plane and 747 has gotten an upgrade) are fuel efficient as well.
340s are already out of production and I'm pretty sure it's gonna be rare to see one of them in the skies over time. Which is a shame. I like 340s.
747's are being phased out in passenger service, actually. The larger 777 variants can carry almost as many (~375 for a 777-300 vs 415 for a 747-400), while being more efficient. The current 747 fleet is rapidly being transitioned by most operators into freighter roles.
Competes with the B787.
Doesn't really replace much. I'd say the A330, as it's a twin, and wide-body. In fact, it's called 'XWB', standing for 'extra wide body'.
Better fuel consumption and better cabin for passengers. That's pretty much everything these days… B787/B737MAX, and A350XWB/A320NEO for the two big players for new generation (aside from B777-300ER and B747-800 as "renewed classics" for Boeing, and A380 and A330 for Airbus).
Depending upon configuration, it competes with the upper range 767/777/787s. http://i.minus.com/ibue0fziZTMd11.jpg shows the comparisons pretty well, as far as size alone is concerned.
