@tommyaw123 It's not like the plane is going to explode if a piece of metal is ripped off under the tail. Also the pilots are incredibly experienced. They know what they are doing.
@redifreddy14 Um... it would be beneficial for yourself to read the video title and description. They both clearly state this was a test, where this is meant to happen.
They're testing for a special speed known as Vmu (the minimum unstick speed) at various weights and configurations. Vmu is very important because it's the lowest speed that the aircraft can get airborne at and the data forms part of performance calculations that pilots use on a daily basis to ensure it's safe for the aircraft to get airborne.
WEll no, they are not testing a tail strike: they were testing "V minimum unstick", that is "what is the absolute minimum speed at which this bird will leave the ground"....and this is tested at the maximum angle of attack obtainable...which occurs when the tail is let to scrape the ground and plane accelerates until it takes the air by itself. For this test, a piece of wood is usually added to the underbody to protect the fuselage from that abuse.
WEll no, they are not testing a tail strike: they were testing "V minimum unstick", that is "what is the absolute minimum speed at which this bird will leave the ground"....and this is tested at the maximum angle of attack obtainable...which occurs when the tail is let to scrape the ground. For this test, a piece of wood is usually added to the underbody to protect the fuselage from that abuse.
@FSX they are not testing for low speed take off.. they are checking for tail skid.. In the event of inadvertent tail skid, the aircraft should remain intact.. :)
With this kind of scenario, it looks like it would be well worth incorporating a pair of tail-wheels so as to prevent the tail actually striking the ground at all - just as with the Concorde! Better safe than sorry...
@m3taleye I was just thining that, it couldn't find the speed on the internet but under typical conditions the A380 can take off at around 150 knots so its VMU is probably around 138-143 knots
seriously this plane is way too big ...do we need a plane this big? the 777 does just fine and also the new 747 coming out with more fuel efficient and quieter engines.
@rmarsonutube LOL you definitely don't need such a plane in N.America with its tiny population and love for road trips in Ford vans. Travelling habits are very different in Europe and the A380 is designed for it. You didn't think Airbus invested billions of Euros just for the sake of building a giant, did you?
No, it's just another one of those annyoing chicano kids using skid plates on their ride... I bet if he pushed a button, the shocks would make it jump up and down by 2 or 3 feet.
@g25a25c hello g25a25c, not quite, V1 is called to signal Critical engine failure recognition speed. This is the speed at which, once reached, takeoff can no longer be aborted. (basically it means for the amount of runway and your planes weight, you couldnt just hit the breaks and stop before the end of the runway.) Vr however is the speed at which the wings now provide adequate lift for flight at a given weight.
@PilotcadetAlan hes not a pilot lol, hes actually a veteran pilot, Airbus hired him to be the main pilot to run all the test for the A380, this is a test every airplane goes thru, Just to make sure the tail wont hit the ground when taking off on short runways .. etc
yep thats the minimum speed test procedures, keep to nose up till the plane fly it self, they knew about the tailstrike, well...only "test pilot" doing this, dont try this at home.
its not really a minimum takeoff speed, they wanted to see what the damage wouldve been if a tailstrike has happened. if u watch closely, the tail hits the ground and starts to spark, they wanted to make sure if this ever happened, what would happen to the plane, how much damage it can hold off.
They install a special bit of equipment on the tail to prevent damage for this one. It is to test the minimum speed the aircraft will get off the ground at certain weights and configurations. The aircraft's nose would never be that high during a normal take-off. Unless you're flying a 737!
@rafman1212 actually no, the title is correct. Every aircraft has to be tested before it can be approved as to what the absolute minimum takeoff speed is for the aircraft at a given wieght. The tailstrike was part of the procedure. You pull the nose up early, put the tail on the ground, and keep speeding up until the aircraft gains enough lift to takeoff. You can actually se the equiptment under the tail meant to keep the skin of the tail from hitting the pavement.
@mig7u Well they put a metal scraping plate on the back of the plane for testing so it wouldnt ruin the plane. what happened is there was soooo much friction and weight that it burnt through the plate and it scratched a hole in the back of the plane. it took a around a day to repair. i did a little research :)
@iloveguns007 even if the scraping plate were to do its job, thats still an enormous amount of pressure on the back end of the plane as it lifted off. the back of the plane was probably damaged due to stress.
@k1llljoy I don't think the plane suffered from damage due to stress. You're right, there is enormous pressure but the tail skid is attached to the structural frame of the airplane so the pressure gets more or less evenly distributed (just like the landing gears dissipate the forces throughtout the frame on landing).
There are still too many unknows regarding composites- we're still not really sure what happens when lightning strikes it. It gives no warning before failure; hell you even leave it out in the sun and it degrades.
When we create a product that is clearly an advance on alloys and proven, then we use it. Not trial an experiment with up to 850 lives inside.
No, but I do think the Lancair Columbia is; it's got an airframe lifetime limitation of 1200hrs (yes, one thousand two hundred...).
Ok, you a mechanical engineer. Great- me too. You as well as anyone should be able to answer this without misleading yourself- do you expect these aircraft to be still flying 40 years after entering service? Do think at this early stage our composite technology is already able to out-perform our metals?
actually, it was a minimum takeoff speed test. Pay more attention to the documentary. There is also a guard under the tail to prevent the tail from hitting the ground. If it was a tail strike test (which it wasnt) they would not have this protection. The commercial A380 does not have this protection, so it would not of being in the test.
No, they are made from composite materials, not plastic. Huge difference.
It's like lumping all metals in the same bin. Metals have an extremely large range of strength, same with composites. Many composites are significantly stronger than steel.
And wings and stabilizers are designed to deflect a surprising amount. Being too stiff would make them more likely to fail.
Call it whatever you want; it's composed of plastic...
Yeah, yeah... I know, GLARE- AKA plastic... GLAss REinforced plastic... With some ultra-thin alloy sheeting between glass in an epoxy (plastic) resin.
I fly Cirrus which are, again, PLASTIC. Yeah sure there is some glass fibre inside, and the control surfaces might just be aluminium, but hey... At the end of the day; PLASTIC.
@AussieAviationist Oy mate, you haven't seen "plastic" till you've seen the Dreamliner. And it seems like Quantas wants to pay big bucks for quite a few handfuls of them... Just saying!
Call titanium whatever you want; it's composed of metal.
That's your line of reasoning. You seem to think that modern polymer-based composite materials are comparable in some way to household plastics for the simple fact that they are composed of polymers instead of iron or titanium or aluminum.
By your line of reasoning, steel, aluminum, brass, bronze, titanium and superalloys are all comparable because they are all composed of metal.
All Metal vs Composite: that's the point. I like to compare a Cessna 182 to a Cirrus SR20, both of which I have plenty of time flying.
Cessna 182, virtually indestructible. True, tried and tested; history shows us that these aircraft are good for many years. Abuse and damage is easily repaired and skins are cheap.
Cirrus SR20: There are aircraft around with under 1000hrs with fatigue cracking. Sure, more effecient but nowhere near as robust as the Cessna.
I can't see these aircraft around in 50 years like the early 182's from the 60's are now.
Or how about the Diamond DA40 with a 'roast chicken' style thermometre in the wing spar; you can't fly it if it reads over 40 degrees C.
My other feild is coaches; manufacturers tried to bring composites into the industry and it failed oh so miserably with fatigue and hopeless vibration resitance.
At this point in time, our civillian technology simply isn't good enough to risk 500 odd lives in.
And, at least Aluminium bends before it breaks. Plus, if you get an un-noticed paint chip in Composite it simply decays like an old fibreglass boat. It degrades in sunlight, it de-laminates if it gets wet, it will not flex on impact rather will smash. To quote a Boeing engineer in Aviation Consumer magazine: "The more we learn about composites, the better aluminum looks."
Composites bend before they break as well, that's part of the reason they are *composites* and not just plastic.
Here's the deal; I'm a mechanical engineer and I know a few things about materials. It's true in aviation, we know more about Al than modern composites, but you could also say we knew more about steel in the 1950s. We knew more about Al than titanium later on. Didn't stop us from using titanium.
My point is you can't expect better machines if you don't utilize better materials.
...you're comparing the pros and cons of composites in general aviation aircraft (seating a few people) to the pros and cons in state-of-the-art commercial aircraft seating hundreds of people.
That's absolutely absurd. And telling me the Cirrus SR20 doesn't last long doesn't tell me anything. The original Comet was made of aluminum and didn't last long at all; the reason was stress concentration in the window corners. Do you not think poor design could be the problem with the SR20 as well?
Mate....Aluminium and titanium are metals naturally extracted from the earth. Steel is a combination of Iron, Oxygen and other elements. Brass and bronze are also alloys of 2 or more metals.
What impresses me is how quickly they get out of ground effect and into a normal climb. But did you see how the horizontal stab was flapping after they left the ground? Yow.
No. Look at the red thing on the tail. That's not normally on the plane. A tail strike test would test the plane as built in order to study the damage sustained in a tail strike.
This is an emergency minimum speed/distance takeoff. It's what the plane can accomplish if absolutely necessary.
if they were testing tail strike then whats that protector on it just before the bend at the end of the hull or the bottom of the fuselage thers a little red protector
See that red thing hanging down. It's added to the tail intentionally, when it starts to spark (the test beings), and when it stops (as the plane rises, the test ends) without that the actual tail would be damaged, and we would witness a crash.
Balls perhaps, it's all calculated, they wouldn't do something like this without reinforcing the plane.
These guys have deliberately done this in order to determine the absolute lowest speed it can take off at - it's called the VMU test.
TheBeebe1972 2 months ago
what happens if this test fails?!? those pilots must have balls of steel ! are ejector seats fitted or some other hefty safety measures??
tommyaw123 4 months ago
@tommyaw123 It's not like the plane is going to explode if a piece of metal is ripped off under the tail. Also the pilots are incredibly experienced. They know what they are doing.
Co0Ps 4 months ago
you can't say that airbus aren't doing full tests on it
thewelderguy2008 5 months ago
BIG PLANE
Kurdistan686 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
WHAT A MASSIVE DESIGN FLAW WFT!!!!! how did that POS ever get certified....
redifreddy14 6 months ago
@redifreddy14 Um... it would be beneficial for yourself to read the video title and description. They both clearly state this was a test, where this is meant to happen.
scaremengaviation 6 months ago
@redifreddy14 That has to be one of the most stupid comments I have seen on Youtube.
WENGERGOONER 5 months ago
not a "tailstrike test". It's the Vmu test.
ryanhaart 7 months ago 4
Is a tail strike literally 'striking the ground with the tail' and if so why do they need to test it?
Hotshotowen 7 months ago
@Hotshotowen incase of emergencies or bad piloting
lhrmeonom 7 months ago
They're testing for a special speed known as Vmu (the minimum unstick speed) at various weights and configurations. Vmu is very important because it's the lowest speed that the aircraft can get airborne at and the data forms part of performance calculations that pilots use on a daily basis to ensure it's safe for the aircraft to get airborne.
250bythepark 7 months ago 3
-TAKE IT EASY, IT'S BRAND NEW!!
-Nah! I'm just running her in!! >:)
TheLucas2696 8 months ago
It's a good thing it passed the test, seeing as how after the test they are airborne!!!!
JuicyFruitFresh 9 months ago
he must have been learning
10cmdolan 9 months ago
Looks a bit like that thing my grandma's old dog used to do... dragging its ass across the carpet in a futile attempt to scratch a persistent itch.
As I recall, we were never able to establish any reliable data for ''minimum unstick speed'' on that mutt.
boatrat 9 months ago
What is the purpose of a tail strike test?
SteveWard3928 9 months ago
@SteveWard3928 it's to test the minium unstick (take-off) speed, and the pitch limit for take off
JoshTehVideoMaker 9 months ago
@SteveWard3928 under heavy load i guess
bettuva 7 months ago
algo salio mal
daemo28 10 months ago
WEll no, they are not testing a tail strike: they were testing "V minimum unstick", that is "what is the absolute minimum speed at which this bird will leave the ground"....and this is tested at the maximum angle of attack obtainable...which occurs when the tail is let to scrape the ground and plane accelerates until it takes the air by itself. For this test, a piece of wood is usually added to the underbody to protect the fuselage from that abuse.
willlook 10 months ago
WEll no, they are not testing a tail strike: they were testing "V minimum unstick", that is "what is the absolute minimum speed at which this bird will leave the ground"....and this is tested at the maximum angle of attack obtainable...which occurs when the tail is let to scrape the ground. For this test, a piece of wood is usually added to the underbody to protect the fuselage from that abuse.
willlook 10 months ago
Test pilots are the best pilot in the world!!
p0p3ye 10 months ago
screw being the test pilot on the A380
1996zeeshan 10 months ago
All I can say is DAYYYYYYYYAAAAAAAAM!
pkrieter 11 months ago
WOW!
pinkgirl862 1 year ago
holy crap, look at the horizonal tail flaps shake, insane
creatyve 1 year ago
like a dog scratching his ass on the sidewalk
sjeessjees 1 year ago
Wow the steel was orange!
gutaplayer 1 year ago
Jesus
immortalass 1 year ago
Plane's just scratchin that itch
XxWWWSAM2xX 1 year ago
PLANE IS T0O0O0O0 F.U.C.K.I.N.G OBESE, LOOOOOOOL
aryadoroudian 1 year ago
that was one long wheelie
pokemongod159 1 year ago
@FSX they are not testing for low speed take off.. they are checking for tail skid.. In the event of inadvertent tail skid, the aircraft should remain intact.. :)
bhoot 1 year ago
Comment removed
bhoot 1 year ago
Нос сильно задрал, жопой чиркнул по ВПП, искры пошли. Предпосылка!
casamarana 1 year ago
did you notice the back has started get on fire?
malaria333 1 year ago
@malaria333 those were sparks
tittietwister101 1 year ago
thats nots not a plane thats a flying building
nomercy116 1 year ago 30
the "how to light a sigaret with an A380" test
belgianhorst 1 year ago
I think the pilot had a little to much to drink
octoron85 1 year ago
worst pilot ever
octoron85 1 year ago
@octoron85 its a test flight they did it on purpose
g25a25c 1 year ago
OMG! THAT looks like a test! :D
ibuggle 1 year ago
That was not the low speed test, that was the TAIL STRIKE TEST.
waterattack 1 year ago 3
With this kind of scenario, it looks like it would be well worth incorporating a pair of tail-wheels so as to prevent the tail actually striking the ground at all - just as with the Concorde! Better safe than sorry...
LJBSasha 1 year ago
dat ass
TubeYouDVD 1 year ago
phantastic wheelie ;-)))
dirtyyyminds 1 year ago
the batton part of that plane's tail was scraping the grond and it was making fire lol hahaha.
ratecoudo 1 year ago
does anyone kno the speed for the minimum take-off
TheKarizma61 1 year ago
@TheKarizma61 Without the tail scraping?
00Billy 1 year ago
@TheKarizma61 Depends on the cargo/ pasenger weight bu stall speed is around 90 knots so minimum takeoff must be above that
TheSimonHarris 1 year ago
Motherfucker popped a wheelie, and grinded into an ollie.
gillece 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
it's too big
CobraMarty 1 year ago
I don't think that there is anything in this video that causes a person to dislike it.
hsxtcqm 1 year ago 42
@hsxtcqm 747 anti a380 fans maybe ...
patko1610 9 months ago
@patko1610 yeah thats the only reason haha
10cmdolan 9 months ago
@hsxtcqm They`re probably the ones who have to climb shaky scaffolding to repaint the scratches.
aklnrt 7 months ago
@aklnrt very well-said!
hsxtcqm 7 months ago
lol in the begin it looks like his front wheels are still on the ground
iFloppyy 1 year ago
Better get Maaco.
Celie3678 1 year ago
I want one of those!
boogerbuttpoop 1 year ago
crashed mine last night /:
Shows you kids not to smoke weed and fly your friends moms...
ysolo90 1 year ago
god damn it! sooooo massive
nr1818 1 year ago
liiiitttllleee bit of tail strike :O)
pltmihael 1 year ago
@pltmihael
:o)
hasanjohnh 1 year ago
@m3taleye I was just thining that, it couldn't find the speed on the internet but under typical conditions the A380 can take off at around 150 knots so its VMU is probably around 138-143 knots
cheesemaster1000 1 year ago
@cheesemaster1000 which is so damned low compared to the old 747.
sonicfan7 1 year ago
@sonicfan7 yeah
cheesemaster1000 1 year ago
before the Boeing 747 was the giant of airliners now its this behemoth
BRIANROX1 1 year ago
Talk about a gas guzzler
soulsurvivor52784 1 year ago
The a380 looks drunk imo lol
kiddo480 1 year ago
Her butthole is burning.
LaughsWontHurt 1 year ago
they shud make the airbus a380 jump jet n point all engines to the floor n take off
3halljo 1 year ago
seriously this plane is way too big ...do we need a plane this big? the 777 does just fine and also the new 747 coming out with more fuel efficient and quieter engines.
rmarsonutube 1 year ago
@rmarsonutube Hmmmmmmmm. Don't You think, taht some people said the same about the 777 or the 747?
Is the new 747 more fuel efficient. than the A380?
wollmamaguckn 1 year ago
@rmarsonutube LOL you definitely don't need such a plane in N.America with its tiny population and love for road trips in Ford vans. Travelling habits are very different in Europe and the A380 is designed for it. You didn't think Airbus invested billions of Euros just for the sake of building a giant, did you?
Twinman2 1 year ago
Nice catwalk!
kr0niXz 1 year ago
scraped a lil paint off the tail lol
paintball227 1 year ago
No, it's just another one of those annyoing chicano kids using skid plates on their ride... I bet if he pushed a button, the shocks would make it jump up and down by 2 or 3 feet.
stevenabb 1 year ago
that a big mother fucker
bradman5505 1 year ago
they testing the tail strike
MechquestGoldgiver 1 year ago
fucking test!!!!!!!!!!!!!
sujeshish 1 year ago
this plane exploded and 300 people were killed, just after the camera turned off.
thefoxarea 1 year ago
@thefoxarea Awesome -- idiot..
jaebbe 1 year ago
@jaebbe it was a jokkkkke..... HAR HARRRR I watched the thing on discovery channel with the plane - looked wicked.
thefoxarea 1 year ago
talk about dragging your ass
502apples 1 year ago
@502apples hahahaha yeah
128pinkfloyd 1 year ago
whats the minimum take off speed? looks like i could deliver a pizza to the pilot at the last minute on my scooter,..............!
raymondrayban 1 year ago
plan did a drag strip moves a wheelie move + a spark in the back like they would do wile taking off :P
sonicxlc123 1 year ago
lool whoooa.. wtf..
madzane94 1 year ago
Does anyone else agree that the A380 is ugly, yet a thing of beauty at the same time?
anzin74 1 year ago
@anzin74 no just ugly
FitzyC170 1 year ago
@FitzyC170 Lol. That's what I thought.
anzin74 1 year ago
@anzin74 it's an AirBUS not an AirPorsche... beauty is relative
mikel1982 1 year ago
@mikel1982 Touché
anzin74 1 year ago
Should be around 120-130 Knots, so 156- 169 MPH, give or take. The books say Vr is 130 Knots (Vr is the rotation or takeoff speed)
localizeractive 1 year ago
@localizeractive isnt it V1?
g25a25c 1 year ago
@g25a25c hello g25a25c, not quite, V1 is called to signal Critical engine failure recognition speed. This is the speed at which, once reached, takeoff can no longer be aborted. (basically it means for the amount of runway and your planes weight, you couldnt just hit the breaks and stop before the end of the runway.) Vr however is the speed at which the wings now provide adequate lift for flight at a given weight.
localizeractive 1 year ago
if that plane could talk it probly would saying something like this: "OW OW OW OW -SHIT DUDE WTF! GOD DAMN! THATS MY ASS YOU'RE DRAGGING ASSHOLE!!
(SIGH)! FUCK MAN!! TAKE IT EASY!! THATS GONNA LEAVE A MARK!!
SuperBar2000 1 year ago 4
tailstrike hahahaha!!!
manuelocoX22 1 year ago
@manuelocoX22
That's how you test for minimum takeoff speed...duh.
Sting3733 1 year ago
noob pilot?
PilotcadetAlan 1 year ago
@PilotcadetAlan hes not a pilot lol, hes actually a veteran pilot, Airbus hired him to be the main pilot to run all the test for the A380, this is a test every airplane goes thru, Just to make sure the tail wont hit the ground when taking off on short runways .. etc
tauro1691 1 year ago 2
@PilotcadetAlan
testtesttest..........
Guitarist2845 1 year ago
so what is its minimum takeoff speed...? (mph pls lol)
greengoblin200 1 year ago
scary... T_T
plsartorio22 1 year ago
Love to hear the cockpit audio on that one!!!!
bcherbs 1 year ago
That's a HUGE bitch.
lithium803 1 year ago
she didn't wanna get her ass off the ground lol
HwkyPlrs 1 year ago
yep thats the minimum speed test procedures, keep to nose up till the plane fly it self, they knew about the tailstrike, well...only "test pilot" doing this, dont try this at home.
zigaretos 1 year ago
@zigaretos
LOL...RIGHT, 'CAUSE EVERYONE HAS A A380 PARKED IN THEIR GARAGE!!!
confused210283 1 year ago 2
@confused210283 i had to sell mine. fuel costs are through the roof these days LOL
worldtravel101 1 year ago 70
@worldtravel101 if you are looking for another i got one for sale.
arctyler 1 year ago
@worldtravel101 lol
gtq838 1 year ago
@worldtravel101 Lol
OMGItsKapi 1 year ago
@worldtravel101 mine went aswell, one of the engines was dodgy, running it on chip fat didn't help !!
trekliquid55 1 year ago
man! awesome video! 5 stars!
EricSala97 1 year ago
lool
theprayerpker 1 year ago
45mph not bad
Mr1lizard 1 year ago 2
its not really a minimum takeoff speed, they wanted to see what the damage wouldve been if a tailstrike has happened. if u watch closely, the tail hits the ground and starts to spark, they wanted to make sure if this ever happened, what would happen to the plane, how much damage it can hold off.
rafman1212 1 year ago
They install a special bit of equipment on the tail to prevent damage for this one. It is to test the minimum speed the aircraft will get off the ground at certain weights and configurations. The aircraft's nose would never be that high during a normal take-off. Unless you're flying a 737!
miller298 1 year ago
@rafman1212 actually no, the title is correct. Every aircraft has to be tested before it can be approved as to what the absolute minimum takeoff speed is for the aircraft at a given wieght. The tailstrike was part of the procedure. You pull the nose up early, put the tail on the ground, and keep speeding up until the aircraft gains enough lift to takeoff. You can actually se the equiptment under the tail meant to keep the skin of the tail from hitting the pavement.
localizeractive 1 year ago
lol god damn
mccarthy155 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
the plane was probalby empty, full loaded with a few tons of people and luggage, the take off speed will increase
lociz1 1 year ago
Not accurate. They fill the plane with barrels of water to sim. PAX
KKLEPPIN 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
plane ass make fire =D
iloveguns007 1 year ago 4
old sparky
pete5668 1 year ago
what is the speed here ?
madonnafan57 1 year ago 4
haha they had it Tailstriked!
reverent1993 1 year ago
jaka bania masakrator
robertknur 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
that is a fake toy plane. right guys.
SuperVellyputt 1 year ago
Was it full of fuel? and how much speed???
InsaneMetalSoldier 1 year ago
they scratched the paint
mig7u 1 year ago
@mig7u Well they put a metal scraping plate on the back of the plane for testing so it wouldnt ruin the plane. what happened is there was soooo much friction and weight that it burnt through the plate and it scratched a hole in the back of the plane. it took a around a day to repair. i did a little research :)
iloveguns007 1 year ago 57
BUT!!! look again lol if you watch Closely You can see The back of The plane Hit The Ground not The metal plate but The Fuselage it self!!! lol
nikthepilot 1 year ago 2
@iloveguns007 even if the scraping plate were to do its job, thats still an enormous amount of pressure on the back end of the plane as it lifted off. the back of the plane was probably damaged due to stress.
k1llljoy 1 year ago
@k1llljoy I don't think the plane suffered from damage due to stress. You're right, there is enormous pressure but the tail skid is attached to the structural frame of the airplane so the pressure gets more or less evenly distributed (just like the landing gears dissipate the forces throughtout the frame on landing).
Twinman2 1 year ago
@iloveguns007 Lolz, nice
OMGItsKapi 1 year ago
@iloveguns007 that's french engineering
artistgmg 1 year ago
@artistgmg yes completely designed like a talbot....(an old rusty french car that even rottet in the folder before u bought it)
robot015 1 year ago
plane ass make fire =D
iloveguns007 2 years ago
you all is wrong,,, this plane made by wood
MrUtuzz 2 years ago
Your head isnt on right bro.....its made out of rubber....duhhh
Professabu14 1 year ago
next time ill fly ill try to take an small plane heh
lmmf18232167 2 years ago
@lmmf18232167 smaller airplanes crash much more often
hubeda 1 year ago
ok next time ill go walking :P
lmmf18232167 1 year ago 2
@hubeda that's cause there'e more of them
mikel1982 1 year ago
fuck
Semiramisovic 2 years ago 2
There are still too many unknows regarding composites- we're still not really sure what happens when lightning strikes it. It gives no warning before failure; hell you even leave it out in the sun and it degrades.
When we create a product that is clearly an advance on alloys and proven, then we use it. Not trial an experiment with up to 850 lives inside.
AussieAviationist 2 years ago
No, but I do think the Lancair Columbia is; it's got an airframe lifetime limitation of 1200hrs (yes, one thousand two hundred...).
Ok, you a mechanical engineer. Great- me too. You as well as anyone should be able to answer this without misleading yourself- do you expect these aircraft to be still flying 40 years after entering service? Do think at this early stage our composite technology is already able to out-perform our metals?
AussieAviationist 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This was a tail-strike test, not a minimum takeoff speed test.....
m7mad95 2 years ago
holy shit that did not look like it was moving fast enough to be flying haha
redneck10293 2 years ago
This was a tail-strike test, not a minimum takeoff speed test.....
A380sebster 2 years ago 3
actually, it was a minimum takeoff speed test. Pay more attention to the documentary. There is also a guard under the tail to prevent the tail from hitting the ground. If it was a tail strike test (which it wasnt) they would not have this protection. The commercial A380 does not have this protection, so it would not of being in the test.
nvstewart 2 years ago
@A380sebster could be both
lorenzol1996 2 years ago
It was shaking like a bastard... These things are made from plastic remember...
AussieAviationist 2 years ago
No, they are made from composite materials, not plastic. Huge difference.
It's like lumping all metals in the same bin. Metals have an extremely large range of strength, same with composites. Many composites are significantly stronger than steel.
And wings and stabilizers are designed to deflect a surprising amount. Being too stiff would make them more likely to fail.
captain150 2 years ago
Call it whatever you want; it's composed of plastic...
Yeah, yeah... I know, GLARE- AKA plastic... GLAss REinforced plastic... With some ultra-thin alloy sheeting between glass in an epoxy (plastic) resin.
I fly Cirrus which are, again, PLASTIC. Yeah sure there is some glass fibre inside, and the control surfaces might just be aluminium, but hey... At the end of the day; PLASTIC.
AussieAviationist 2 years ago
@ AussieAviationist:
So whats the point youre trying to make? You sound a bit stupid.
flyingmagiccarpet 2 years ago
@AussieAviationist Oy mate, you haven't seen "plastic" till you've seen the Dreamliner. And it seems like Quantas wants to pay big bucks for quite a few handfuls of them... Just saying!
Twinman2 2 years ago
Call titanium whatever you want; it's composed of metal.
That's your line of reasoning. You seem to think that modern polymer-based composite materials are comparable in some way to household plastics for the simple fact that they are composed of polymers instead of iron or titanium or aluminum.
By your line of reasoning, steel, aluminum, brass, bronze, titanium and superalloys are all comparable because they are all composed of metal.
captain150 2 years ago
@captain150 Well, that's it.
All Metal vs Composite: that's the point. I like to compare a Cessna 182 to a Cirrus SR20, both of which I have plenty of time flying.
Cessna 182, virtually indestructible. True, tried and tested; history shows us that these aircraft are good for many years. Abuse and damage is easily repaired and skins are cheap.
Cirrus SR20: There are aircraft around with under 1000hrs with fatigue cracking. Sure, more effecient but nowhere near as robust as the Cessna.
AussieAviationist 2 years ago
I can't see these aircraft around in 50 years like the early 182's from the 60's are now.
Or how about the Diamond DA40 with a 'roast chicken' style thermometre in the wing spar; you can't fly it if it reads over 40 degrees C.
My other feild is coaches; manufacturers tried to bring composites into the industry and it failed oh so miserably with fatigue and hopeless vibration resitance.
At this point in time, our civillian technology simply isn't good enough to risk 500 odd lives in.
AussieAviationist 2 years ago
And, at least Aluminium bends before it breaks. Plus, if you get an un-noticed paint chip in Composite it simply decays like an old fibreglass boat. It degrades in sunlight, it de-laminates if it gets wet, it will not flex on impact rather will smash. To quote a Boeing engineer in Aviation Consumer magazine: "The more we learn about composites, the better aluminum looks."
AussieAviationist 2 years ago
Composites bend before they break as well, that's part of the reason they are *composites* and not just plastic.
Here's the deal; I'm a mechanical engineer and I know a few things about materials. It's true in aviation, we know more about Al than modern composites, but you could also say we knew more about steel in the 1950s. We knew more about Al than titanium later on. Didn't stop us from using titanium.
My point is you can't expect better machines if you don't utilize better materials.
captain150 2 years ago
@AussieAviationist ...........And is that why Boeing builds jets with composites?
BigGunz357 2 years ago
...you're comparing the pros and cons of composites in general aviation aircraft (seating a few people) to the pros and cons in state-of-the-art commercial aircraft seating hundreds of people.
That's absolutely absurd. And telling me the Cirrus SR20 doesn't last long doesn't tell me anything. The original Comet was made of aluminum and didn't last long at all; the reason was stress concentration in the window corners. Do you not think poor design could be the problem with the SR20 as well?
captain150 2 years ago
Mate....Aluminium and titanium are metals naturally extracted from the earth. Steel is a combination of Iron, Oxygen and other elements. Brass and bronze are also alloys of 2 or more metals.
Neanderthalmanny 2 years ago
First, I know all that (read my comment more carefully; I was replying to someone. I probably should have used a direct quote).
Secondly, steel is not a combination of iron and oxygen. A combination of iron and oxygen gives you an *iron oxide*, which is rust.
Steel, by definition, is an alloy of iron and carbon (with the concentration of carbon being in a specific range).
Of course, steel can have other metals alloyed with it (stainless steel has chromium, for example).
captain150 2 years ago
i saw one for the 747 once on tv but cant find it opn youtube
galaxy1o1 2 years ago
was the left stabilisator shaking?
player1diao 2 years ago
@player1diao
Just before the left stab shook the right one shook.
The only thing I can think of is that the inboard engines thrust is being forced between the stab and ground causing interesting flutter.
splendair 2 years ago
What impresses me is how quickly they get out of ground effect and into a normal climb. But did you see how the horizontal stab was flapping after they left the ground? Yow.
skydaddy 2 years ago 3
Look how close the horizontal stabilizer gets to the runway just as it's lifting off. Yikes.
TimeLapseSteve 2 years ago
I would imagine that aircraft still sustained some damage as the very tip of the tail is sparking just before it leaves the tarmac.
SinisterDexter1 2 years ago 2
They're testing "TAIL STRIKE" not minimum take - off speed. duh...
chrisean777 2 years ago
No. Look at the red thing on the tail. That's not normally on the plane. A tail strike test would test the plane as built in order to study the damage sustained in a tail strike.
This is an emergency minimum speed/distance takeoff. It's what the plane can accomplish if absolutely necessary.
captain150 2 years ago
@chrisean777
if they were testing tail strike then whats that protector on it just before the bend at the end of the hull or the bottom of the fuselage thers a little red protector
corih97 2 years ago
:25
See that red thing hanging down. It's added to the tail intentionally, when it starts to spark (the test beings), and when it stops (as the plane rises, the test ends) without that the actual tail would be damaged, and we would witness a crash.
Balls perhaps, it's all calculated, they wouldn't do something like this without reinforcing the plane.
garf1eld029 2 years ago