Rumol
in Preparation for Body Join
Posts: 114
|
Post by Rumol on Mar 19, 2013 15:09:51 GMT 1
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Mar 19, 2013 23:42:37 GMT 1
Pure industrial beauty!
|
|
Baroque
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,991
|
Post by Baroque on Mar 19, 2013 23:45:31 GMT 1
I presume all the red stuff in there are the test gear?  |
|
Rumol
in Preparation for Body Join
Posts: 114
|
Post by Rumol on Mar 20, 2013 12:23:50 GMT 1
One more pic, showing the Rolls-Royce Trent XWB dimensions:  Trent XWB test program by A350 XWB NewsAnd something interesting from the article: "The target is to eventually certificate the A350 to fly up to 350min from the nearest suitable diversion airfield at single-engined flying speed." Nearly 6 hours, impressive!  |
|
Baroque
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,991
|
Post by Baroque on Mar 20, 2013 22:05:50 GMT 1
One more pic, showing the Rolls-Royce Trent XWB dimensions: That pic was taken straight out of the A350-900 ACAP. AIRCRAFT CHARACTERISTICS AIRPORT AND MAINTENANCE PLANNINGLots of other interesting stuff in there too. And something interesting from the article: "The target is to eventually certificate the A350 to fly up to 350min from the nearest suitable diversion airfield at single-engined flying speed." Nearly 6 hours, impressive! There's got to be a theoretical maximum for how far you can be from a suitable airport. But I really wonder if, at some point in the future, manufacturers will take the limit to the next level by getting planes to continue safely to their planned destination without the need for a diversion should one engine require a shut down.  |
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Mar 20, 2013 23:14:45 GMT 1
I hope the answer to Baroque's question is "no". The catastrophic loss of the second engine is bound to happen some day. Let's try to delay that moment !
|
|
Rumol
in Preparation for Body Join
Posts: 114
|
Post by Rumol on Mar 21, 2013 15:41:38 GMT 1
Quite interesting indeed |
|
Rumol
in Preparation for Body Join
Posts: 114
|
Post by Rumol on Mar 21, 2013 16:49:51 GMT 1
I hope the answer to Baroque's question is "no". The catastrophic loss of the second engine is bound to happen some day. Let's try to delay that moment ! I support completely! And something interesting from the article: "The target is to eventually certificate the A350 to fly up to 350min from the nearest suitable diversion airfield at single-engined flying speed." Nearly 6 hours, impressive! There's got to be a theoretical maximum for how far you can be from a suitable airport. But I really wonder if, at some point in the future, manufacturers will take the limit to the next level by getting planes to continue safely to their planned destination without the need for a diversion should one engine require a shut down. I find this inadmissible, the flight safety would be endangered dramatically by applying such procedure. Otherwise... why wouldn't they make and the next logical step by designing a single engine jet airliner - I believe that is technically completely possible and perhaps economically much more advantageous...  |
|
K
spotted unpainted on the Flight Line (waiting for painting)
Posts: 1,152
|
Post by K on Mar 22, 2013 3:41:02 GMT 1
MSN1 currently undergos calibration test.
|
|
Baroque
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,991
|
Post by Baroque on Mar 22, 2013 4:17:52 GMT 1
I hope the answer to Baroque's question is "no". The catastrophic loss of the second engine is bound to happen some day. Let's try to delay that moment ! I support completely. I, too, would feel uneasy with such a procedure. But, looking at the present state of affairs, you have Airbus and RR working towards guaranteeing you at least 6 hours before the second engine fails. It may seem counter-intuitive but if you have the confidence to put 6 hours between you and the nearest available diversion airport, why not continue to your destination if it is reachable well within that time (and available fuel)?  |
|
