I just saw this Airbus Risk $1.5 Billion in a Wild Airplane Stunt 

http://cameras.reviewed.com/news/watch-airbus-risk-15-billion-in-a-wild-airplane-stunt?utm_source=TB_paid&utm_medium=cpc


if its been posted before woopsie searched the forums couldn't find a topic

So.. Flying close to each other and low to the ground for a bit was the stunt?

< snip >

Edited June 23, 20241 yr by tobeymaguire

Awesome video, I like their new jet even though it's copied from Boeing

Very cool to watch, must have been very stress full for all the pilots 

Compare that to the Blue Angels' 18-inch wing tip to canopy separation.

Commercial jets are not meant to fly that close to each other, they're not as maneuverable as a fighter jet, so one wrong move, and you could slam into the plane next to you..  

Commercial jets are not meant to fly that close to each other, they're not as maneuverable as a fighter jet, so one wrong move, and you could slam into the plane next to you..  

Well, same goes for military jets. They aren't designed for formation flight but they do anyway. :)

Awesome video, I like their new jet even though it's copied from Boeing

 

Say whut? I'm hoping you're talking about the exterior design and the fact that all aircraft sort of lookalike in shape. Apart from that, not much more is 'copied'.

It's impressive, but they weren't very close to each other. Airbus quite frequently does formation flying. The thing with test pilots, for Boeing, Airbus, Lockheed etc. they're all ex-military (thereabouts) so they're fantastic and able to do exceptional manoeuvres with the aircraft they fly.

Looked cool but didn't look very dangerous. I'm sure it was hard to turn quickly though.

 

I mean some guy took like a 707 or something and did a barrel roll. (Tex Johnston)

You have the risk levels swapped. Formation flight takes a *ton* of training and preparation, and is generically very dangerous -- keep in mind that while fighters have bubble canopies and lots of visibility, an airline pilot has like 4-6 windows basically facing forward, and has to stay in fairly narrow parameters. In contrast, a barrel roll is a fairly risk-free maneuver on any plane with a decent pilot: the airframe is pulling 1 g the whole time, and so there are no unusual stresses or conditions. Tight formation flying in an airliner is riskier than a barrel roll done with enough altitude.

 

 

Commercial jets are not meant to fly that close to each other, they're not as maneuverable as a fighter jet, so one wrong move, and you could slam into the plane next to you..

 

On the other hand, commercial jets are not infrequently adapted for military use. Militaries do midair refueling with those planes: look at

(that's a modified 707, refueling from a plane which is derived from the same airframe the 707 was derived from). You absolutely can fly them in tight formation with sufficient training.

Say whut? I'm hoping you're talking about the exterior design and the fact that all aircraft sort of lookalike in shape. Apart from that, not much more is 'copied'.

I am. And I like you say "not much more" since the exterior is the biggest thing you can see about an aircraft.

I am. And I like you say "not much more" since the exterior is the biggest thing you can see about an aircraft.

But the exterior is also one of the least different things between different aircraft. On the other hand, as far as controlling the aircraft goes, it's Boeing who's been following Airbus -- Airbus introduced fly-by-wire with flight envelope protection with the A320 in 1986, while Boeing took until 1993 and the 777 to follow along. Even then, they didn't implement full fly-by-wire the way Airbus did -- on an Airbus the pilot uses the side stick to say what he wants the *airplane* to do and the aircraft then does it (with the normal exception of if it's a dangerous control input), while on a Boeing the pilot uses the yoke to say what he wants the *control surfaces* to do like you would on a pre-FBW aircraft. While this is somewhat a philosophical difference (on a Boeing the idea is that the pilot should ultimately be in control, and automation mostly supports the pilot, but the pilot *can* take over and fly it like one would fly any other airplane; on an Airbus the computers are normally in control, because pilots have made plenty of really stupid decisions that crashed planes, and the pilot's job is to tell the computer what to do), Boeing has shifted closer and closer to the Airbus model for control.

But the exterior is also one of the least different things between different aircraft. On the other hand, as far as controlling the aircraft goes, it's Boeing who's been following Airbus -- Airbus introduced fly-by-wire with flight envelope protection with the A320 in 1986, while Boeing took until 1993 and the 777 to follow along. Even then, they didn't implement full fly-by-wire the way Airbus did -- on an Airbus the pilot uses the side stick to say what he wants the *airplane* to do and the aircraft then does it (with the normal exception of if it's a dangerous control input), while on a Boeing the pilot uses the yoke to say what he wants the *control surfaces* to do like you would on a pre-FBW aircraft. While this is somewhat a philosophical difference (on a Boeing the idea is that the pilot should ultimately be in control, and automation mostly supports the pilot, but the pilot *can* take over and fly it like one would fly any other airplane; on an Airbus the computers are normally in control, because pilots have made plenty of really stupid decisions that crashed planes, and the pilot's job is to tell the computer what to do), Boeing has shifted closer and closer to the Airbus model for control.

 

Thanks for your informative post,

nice to see someone interested in aviation too :)

Should have mentioned that I was only talking about the exterior, my post was a bit too short

I didn't want to put myself on the Boeing side or anything, I actually like the exterior of the Airbus more.

 

Cessna is still the best :D