![]() |
Originally Posted by moeve
(Post 21160289)
The reason Airbus is producing quieter aircraft is simply because EU laws are requiring them to do so to protect people who (foolishly choose to live near an airport) but then again we Europeans simply have less space at our disposal so we need to fix problems and noise polution is one factor being adressed in this form.
|
Have you ever wondered why FRA has a curfew??? Quiter aircraft can help lift those.
|
Originally Posted by moeve
(Post 21160750)
Have you ever wondered why FRA has a curfew??? Quiter aircraft can help lift those.
There is no EU law that requires Airbus to produce quieter aircraft. The laws around noise abatement and noise levels for aircraft apply equally to Airbus and Boeing aircraft. |
Well in effect they are since EU and national courts are handing down judgements regarding the amount of noise being tollerated. It is a round about way. However if airlines cannot fly to certain important destinations with certain models because they do not conform - aircraft builders are more or less forced to come up with a solution or they will not sell their product.
It is a fact that europeans in particular the german courts are very pro indiviual rather than pro industry in this particular instance so airbus (bear in mind german interessts are fairly important here) is going about looking for solutions that will more than likely become an increasing factor in other countires around the world too. Right now the aircraft builders are being given homework for the future by the airlines who in turn are facing the same development at many airports around the world. |
Yes, however there is no EU law requiring Airbus to produce quieter aircraft. This was your original statement:
Originally Posted by moeve
(Post 21160289)
The reason Airbus is producing quieter aircraft is simply because EU laws are requiring them to do so to protect people who (foolishly choose to live near an airport) but then again we Europeans simply have less space at our disposal so we need to fix problems and noise polution is one factor being adressed in this form.
|
Originally Posted by moeve
(Post 21160289)
The reason Airbus is producing quieter aircraft is simply because EU laws are requiring them to do so to protect people who (foolishly choose to live near an airport) but then again we Europeans simply have less space at our disposal so we need to fix problems and noise polution is one factor being adressed in this form.
when i moved into my current house, dca had only prop planes, and the flight path ended about 2 miles past the end of the runway. the flight path is now 15 miles out. dca had a 10 pm firm curfew. it is now a 24 hr airport with a pretty big dump shortly after 12 midnite. the new jet engines are much quieter than the prior generations, not from decree"you be quiet" but from engine design. the engines now move a lot more air at lower velocity than the older generation engines. much quieter engines. |
Originally Posted by pinniped
(Post 21149654)
This awesome thread is awesome.
|
Originally Posted by nux
(Post 21148802)
:confused::confused:
The 787 is not one piece of carbon fibre. It is very similar to the A350 design/construction with carbon fibre sections. If you could read back what you've written before you post so that it makes sense that would help.. THe B787 uses what they call "one-piece frames" which are somewhat larger sections than the A350's and have a full barrel to most of them. Picture explains this better: http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a3...b/279eedb9.png Just imagine a bunch of those bolted together to create the fuselage. |
vary nice detail on photos..
i imagine it is of boeing to replace tail section after fire...for secure........sure all area of both 787 an a350 will be advanced in future...because of mishaps....yes a quite plane is better always...still not understand why one way too control plane as joy stick of airbus
|
Akelkar, thanks for the photos, I'm surprised by how light the fuselage section in the illustration is.
|
Originally Posted by slawecki
(Post 21161401)
i am one of those who foolishly live "close to the airport"(flight path) however, i did not live "close to the airport" until bigger and larger planes were allowed, and a larger radius of service was allowed(DCA). although europe has "less space", most airports are quite far from heavily populated areas......lhr, cdg, mxp, fco, fra, muc, are all out in nowhere. most of the midsize airports in europe i have used are also out in nowhere.
when i moved into my current house, dca had only prop planes, and the flight path ended about 2 miles past the end of the runway. the flight path is now 15 miles out. dca had a 10 pm firm curfew. it is now a 24 hr airport with a pretty big dump shortly after 12 midnite. the new jet engines are much quieter than the prior generations, not from decree"you be quiet" but from engine design. the engines now move a lot more air at lower velocity than the older generation engines. much quieter engines. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 4:31 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.