 | The A300... or the beginning of the Airbus Legend The Airbus A300 is a short to medium range widebody aircraft. Launched in 1972, it was the first twin-engined widebody in the world, and the first aircraft created by the Airbus consortium of European aerospace companies, which is now fully owned by EADS. Airbus partners employed the latest technology, some derived from the Concorde. On entry into service, in 1974, the A300 was very advanced and influenced later subsonic airliner designs. The technological highlights include: * Advanced wings by de Havilland (later BAE Systems) with: o supercritical airfoil section for economical performance o advanced aerodynamically efficient flight controls * 222-inch diameter circular fuselage section for 8-abreast passenger seating and wide enough for 2 LD3 cargo containers side-by-side * Structures made from metal billets, reducing weight * First airliner to be fitted with wind shear protection * Advanced autopilots capable of flying the aircraft from climb-out to landing * Electrically controlled braking system Later A300s incorporate other advanced features such as * 2-man crew by automating the flight engineer's functions, an industry first * Glass cockpit flight instruments * Extensive use of composites for an aircraft of its era * Center-of-gravity control by shifting around fuel * The first airliner to use wingtip fences for better aerodynamics The last A300 has been delivered at 12.7.2007 in a ceremony to Fedex. Last A300 has a special sticker "I'm the youngest of the Eldest Airbus Family". The Frame(cn878)will be as N692FE registred. The A300B and its follower, the A310, had a rather slow start, but as their reputation for economy and reliability spread among airlines, they went on to become market leaders in short to medium haul passenger operations, and the family also became the best selling freight aircraft ever. With more than 820 aircraft sold, the A300/A310 family included different variants, both newly built and converted freighters, combis, air tankers, military and VIP transport, and of course Airbus' fleet of 5 A300-600ST Belugas. The A300 allowed the world to see that European engineering, production was world-class. The A300 was the first airliner to use just-in-time manufacturing techniques. Originally devised as a way to share the work among Airbus's partners without the expense of two assembly lines, it turned out to be a more efficient way of building airplanes (more flexible and reduced costs) as opposed to building the whole airplane at one site. This fact was not lost on Boeing, which, over thirty years later, decided to manufacture the Boeing 787 in this manner, using outsized 747s to ferry wings and other parts from Japan. The A300 cemented European cooperation in aviation. Its first flight was commemorated on a French three-franc stamp. |
 | Air Disasters - American Airlines Flight 1420 As the aircraft approached Runway 4R, a severe thunderstorm arrived over the airport. The controller's last report, prior to the landing, stated that the winds were 330 degrees at 28 knots. That exceeded the MD-82's crosswind limit, for landing in reduced visibility on a wet runway. With that information, plus two wind shear reports, the approach should have been abandoned at that point. But, the captain decided to continue his approach to Runway 4R. During their rush to land as soon as possible, both pilots became overloaded with multiple necessary tasks. That led to errors and omissions, which proved to be the final links in the accident chain. They failed to arm the automatic ground spoiler system (panels on top of the wings). The smooth airflow over the top of the wings is disrupted when the spoilers deploy automatically, as the wheels touch the runway. That kills the lifting ability of the wings, which makes the wheel brakes effective. The pilots also failed to arm the auto braking system. Both automatic deployment of the ground spoilers and automatic engagement of the brakes, are essential to ensure the plane's ability to stop within the confines of a wet runway, that is being subjected to strong and gusting winds. After landing, the first officer stated, "We're down. We're sliding." Neither pilot observed that the spoilers did not deploy, so there was no attempt to activate them manually. The result was almost no braking at all, because the wings were still "flying." Directional control was lost when the captain applied too much reverse thrust, in contradiction to the limits stated in the flight manual. The aircraft skidded off the far end of the runway at high speed and finally came to a stop on the banks of the Arkansas River. Such structures are usually frangible - i.e. designed to shear off on impact - but because the approach lights were located on the unstable river bank, they were firmly anchored and the impact destroyed the aircraft. It broke into three pieces and ignited. Simulated in FSX. By Wenjie ROX |
 | Airbus A340-600 Rejected Take-Off test (subtitles) A340-600: Rejected Take-Off test One of the tests to be undertaken for the certification of a new aircraft is the accelerate-stop with "maximum energy braking" test. This was undertaken for the A340-500/600 on February 12, 2002 in Istres using MSN360, the prototype aircraft. This test, which is based on brakes already close to their wear limit, is always one of the last to be performed and it is not unusual for unexpected events to occur. The test is in general a destructive test for the brakes, wheels and tyres, with occasionally some risk of local damage to the airplane. In this particular instance the test proceded normally, with the target braking distance and brake energy levels being obtained during the deceleration. However, several minutes after the aircraft had come to a stand, damage occurred to a number of wheels. The cause of the wheel damage, which is consistent across affected wheels, has been identified as an insufficient margin in the design of the wheels to withstand the extreme heat transfer from the brakes and the associated increase in tyre pressure after the aircraft had stopped. The results were reviewed with the component manufacturer and modifications defined. They consist in local reinforcement of the wheels and modifications to the thermal shield between the brake assembly and the wheel. |
 | High Speed SEM Barrier Tests Here are some film clips that show the highest impact speeds that an SEM impact system has been tested to, to date. The test Bogie vehicle weighed in at 1,700 lbs and the impact speeds ranged from 42 mph up to 62 mph! There was only a single SEM shock housing with a 1.25" Inside Diameter (ID) and the ejection material used was High Density Polyethylene, the same type of material that is used in one gallon plastic milk containers. The ejection material stayed intact but there was a slight melting or sheen on the outer layer of the ejected plastic slugs. The first SEM shock housing was 10.0' long, which was not quite enough length to bring the test Bogie to rest. All remaining shock housings were kicked up to 15.0' lengths, after which there was no further detachment problem. This particular design had some of the lowest costs crash performance, of any prototype crash barrier, that this particular crash lab ever tested. This system used a remote cable attachment to the SEM impact piston assembly; such system could be viable for semi-truck run away lanes, with a cross netting attached to cables and then the SEM shock assemblies; and/or a tail-hook SEM braking system with a runway cross cable and SEM assemblies to provide emergency braking loads to decelerate over speed or late runway aircraft landings. |
 | SEM Road Barrier & Seat Shock Tests & Test Dummy Waving A series of crash test were run on the SEM (Solid Ejection Material) shock isolator technology in 11/04 and 11/05 at the Texas Transportation Institute. The purpose of the test effort was to see if the crash performance of stock railcar seats could be improved with SEM shock modifications. The SEM technology was also employed in the impact barrier to deliver a spec crash pulse to the Bogie test vehicle. In both energy absorption applications the SEM technology performed very well. The seats were allowed to have a controlled displacement and the SEM impact barrier just about aced the desired triangular crash pulse. While better crash performance could be had by adding some form of padding to the seat back, the SEM seat shocks did reduce some of the loading after the initial load spike. If SEM seat shocks were employed in a horizontal impact event, then the ideal design would be a stiffer seat structure, with back padding and the SEM shocks would be designed to deliver an ideal restraint load performance with the desired displacement. Some current seat designs have some of these design parameters, such as aircraft seats, but current aircraft seat designs have no controlled travel, or in other words, no form of horizontal shock isolation. Another ideal application for SEM seat shocks would be vertical load seat shocks, to reduce the impact and blast injuries that military personnel experience in emergency helicopter landings and in ground vehicles that hit mines or IEDs. One last thought that we try to touch on in the video, and that is, SEM shocks can literally stop a train. If you look at the current barrier design, in this video clip, the I-beam that supports the SEM shock housings is much like a steel rail. So why not install such systems right into the rails, at track termination points, in the form of bumping posts; or put SEM shocks into the rails to act as "runaway" tracks, to stop trains that loose their brakes? The restraint load performance for this particular barrier design, which was used in this High Speed Rail-IDEA study, topped out at 35,600 lbsf but that could be easily be scaled up to 350,000 lbsf for a rail braking system. Again the SEM technology is very diverse and we are currently pursuing interested parties to get select application markets launched. |
 | How to make a paper airplane that has rudders for up!! Its an airplane i made that has rudders at the tail for going up. it has a special brake system to:when it goes down to crash it goes up and lands on its "belly". You might have seen the wing design earlier but the tail is way cooler with the rudders. WEL ENJOY! |
 | The Airbus A350 XWB New Dimensions The A350 XWB Family represents a 21st Century solution for an aircraft in this size category. The A350 XWB brings together the very latest in aerodynamics, design and advanced technologies. With an airframe made of more than 60 per cent new materials, chosen for their superior weight and strength properties, the A350 XWB has the most efficient structure in terms of design concept. In particular, its innovative use of all-new Carbon Fibre Reinforced Plastic (CFRP) panelled fuselage skins cater for much easier maintenance and reparability. This design also allows weight savings via optimum fibre lay-up and skin thickness tailored to the requirements of the location. The all-new composite wing design lifts the A350 XWB cruise speed to Mach 0.85 (the cruise speed of the A380). Excellent aerodynamics, together with advanced high lift devices and advanced systems contribute to greater fuel economy in all flight regimes and on the ground. Moreover, the new Rolls Royce Trent XWB engine, producing up to 92,000lb of thrust, will draw on the latest manufacturing, materials and thermodynamic expertise to deliver lower fuel burn and lower maintenance costs while minimising the noise 'footprint' around airports and reducing environmental impact. Building on the A380 interactive cockpit and systems, the XWB Family will feature- modern functions such as an airport navigation system and the brake to vacate, a system designed to optimize braking for passenger comfort and better runway usage. The A350 XWB is designed to give exemplary reliability in service with longer maintenance intervals and customised maintenance schedules to help provide airlines with higher operating productivity. The A350 XWB Family represents a 21st Century solution for an aircraft in this size category. |
 | T-4 "project 100" Sukhoi T-4, or "Aircraft 100", or "Project 100", or "Sotka" was a Soviet high speed reconnaissance and interceptor aircraft that did not proceed beyond the prototype stage. It is sometimes incorrectly named Su-100.The T-4 was made largely from titanium and stainless steel, and featured a primitive fly-by-wire control systems but also employed a mechanical system as a backup. The aircraft's nose lowered to provide visibility during takeoff and landing. A periscope was used for forward viewing when the nose was retracted, and could be employed at speeds of up to 373 mph (600 km/h). Braking parachutes were used in addition to conventional wheel brakes.The first T-4, designated "101," first flew on August 22, 1972. The test pilot was Vladimir Ilyushin, son of famed aircraft designer, Sergei Ilyushin. It has flown only ten times for a total of less than eleven hours. It is believed to have reached at least Mach 1.3 using four Kolesov RD36-41 engines. These engines each produced 16,000 kgf (35,300 lbf or 157 kN) thrust with afterburners. The aircraft was designed to achieve speeds of up to Mach 3.0, but the program was cancelled before the full performance of the aircraft could be determined.One T-4 survives today. Aircraft "101" is on display at the Monino Museum near Moscow. At least two additional prototypes ("102" and "103") were under construction, but only aircraft "101" was completed and flown before the project was cancelled in 1974 or 1975. The other two prototypes were scrapped. General characteristics * Crew: 2 * Length: 44.5 m (146 ft) * Wingspan: 22.0 m (72 ft 2 in) * Height: 11.2 m (36 ft 9 in) * Wing area: 295.7 m² (3,183 ft²) * Empty weight: 55,600 kg (123,000 lb) * Max takeoff weight: 110,000 kg (243,000 lb) * Powerplant: 4× Kolesov RD-36-41 turbofans, 160 kN (35,000 lbf) each Performance (estimated) * Maximum speed: 3,200 km/h (1,700 knots, 2,000 mph) * Cruise speed: 3,000 km/h (1,900 mph) * Ferry range: 6,000 km (3,700 mi) * Service ceiling: 20,000-24,000 m (66,000-79,000 ft) |
 | High Speed SEM BarMORE VIDEOS WWW.STUNTERSCHOOL.COM http://www.stunterschool.com STREETBIKE STUNT SCHOOL 1000'S OF FREE STUNT VIDEOS!!! http://www.stunterschool.com Here are some film clips that show the highest impact speeds that an SEM impact system has been tested to, to date. The test Bogie vehicle weighed in at 1,700 lbs and the impact speeds ranged from 42 mph up to 62 mph! There was only a single SEM shock housing with a 1.25" Inside Diameter (ID) and the ejection material used was High Density Polyethylene, the same type of material that is used in one gallon plastic milk containers. The ejection material stayed intact but there was a slight melting or sheen on the outer layer of the ejected plastic slugs. The first SEM shock housing was 10.0' long, which was not quite enough length to bring the test Bogie to rest. All remaining shock housings were kicked up to 15.0' lengths, after which there was no further detachment problem. This particular design had some of the lowest costs crash performance, of any prototype crash barrier, that this particular crash lab ever tested. This system used a remote cable attachment to the SEM impact piston assembly; such system could be viable for semi-truck run away lanes, with a cross netting attached to cables and then the SEM shock assemblies; and/or a tail-hook SEM braking system with a runway cross cable and SEM assemblies to provide emergency braking loads to decelerate over speed or late runway aircraft landings. |
 | Landing Chicago ORD Heavy Braking A bumpy ride into Chicago on a gusty December morning - Aboard a United Airlines Airbus A319 arriving from Detroit as UAL 1225 ILS Approach Runway 22 Right Wheel spin-up beyond the touchdown zone - Heavy braking / max thrust reverse allowed the convenient turn-off before 9R/27L- very short rollout - Rapid deceleration caused strong,loud vibration |
العربية
中国
Français
Deutsch
Ελληνική
हिन्दी
Italiano
日本語
Português
Русский
Español
![Don\](images/articles/thumbs/beachrainthumb.jpg "Don\")
