AIRBUS 380

[eddie]

"The Chauchat (pronounced 'show-shaw'), from a design by Hungarian Rudolph Frommer, was the primary French light machine gun first introduced in 1907. It is generally regarded as one of the great engineering failures in the history of firearms."
From:
<http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/C/Ch/Chauchat.htm>

Apparently it was not belt fed, but fired from 20-round magazines, so it had to be reloaded constantly. This combined with a tendency to not eject its shell casings caused some problems. "Referred to as 'the worst machine gun ever issued to any army at any time in history'."


That crescent-thing, is that the magazine?

FlyNavy, do I get a prize, or just an over-inflated sense of accomplishment?

 

[Fly Navy]

Your prize is your increased knowledge of firearms history?

I know, I'm a douche.

Yes, the crescent is the magazine. Notice it is open, hence letting dirt and such get in there and jam it up good.

 

[eddie]

D'oh, was composing post... looking it up on the internet and citing my sources and all that crap when A4's got in there first... oh well... my pic is better than his (I jest... A4s, your pics are always minor high lights of my day...).

 

[Lawman]

So, what do I win, Big Boy .... ??? A BAR, perhaps ?? That P-O-S is the "Sho-Sho" .... (Chauchard? sp?) a French WW1 attempt @ a squad automatic rifle. Since the U.S. Doughboys had no equivalent -- no BAR fielded as yet --- we used the Froggie. It was very prone to jamming as dirt readily accumulated in the underslung half-circle magazine (pictured). See Citroen automobile (above) for similar French groundbreaking technological achievement(s) .....

We actually had BAR's (limited number) but the Army decided it was to much of a risk of them falling into German hands and being reverse engineered.

Biggest problem is they were made in bicycle shops and with no standard of tooling. One part from weapon A would not fit weapon B, even if they were constructed in the same shop 9 feet from eachother. It would be like the Army buying a bunch of CETME's today, just asking for trouble.

And they havent much improved on Firearms design in France, anybody thats ever fired a FAMAS can tell you all about it. Worst Assult Rifle ever made (And Ive shot plenty).

 

[A4sForever]

We actually had BAR's (limited number) but the Army decided it was to much of a risk of them falling into German hands and being reverse engineered.

Biggest problem is they were made in bicycle shops and with no standard of tooling.

(edit and DISCLAIMER): The following post (and several appearing ahead of it) has absolutely nothing to do with the Airbus 380, trust me, I know the difference ..... but since this has drifted into firearms "range" and the BAR information needs to be clarified ..... here it is. If you don't like it .... pull the plug on my computer --- I didn't start the firearms stuff. Or better yet, maybe I should move it to another thread --- you know, and start that general "Gun Thread" that 67% of respondents said they wanted in the recent poll a couple of weeks ago .... ??? It's amazing how these threads go "sideways" ..... makes my eyes glaze over.

Model of 1918 Browning Automatic Rifle

Actually, we fielded the BAR against the Germans late in WW1. The Browning Automatic Rifle, Pat No. 1,293,022, was invented by John Browning in 1917, and was used in the latter days of WWI. They were adopted by the US Army in 1917 and reached France in 1918 --- but prior to this the U.S. forces used the French Chauchat and the American designed Lewis light machine gun (Col Lewis couldn't interest the US Army in his design so he took it to Belguim where it was originally adopted by the Brits in .303 Enfield).

Not sure where that bicycle stuff came from; maybe an old wives' tale, as COLT Patent Firearms Company was the contracted arms manufacturer for the Army. There was much confusion and fits and starts with the production, and perhaps this is where the "bicycle" shop fable came from.

In order to make a long story short .... John Browning sold the manufacuring rights to Colt's and the Ordnance Department negotiated production rights "for the duration" with Colt's and John Browning -- both receiving royalties. Since Colt's was backed up with 1911 and other weapons production, and the Ordnance Dept. had turned down Colt's request to sub-out the production to another facility in Meridian, CT -- the Ordies felt this would take too long to tool up ---Winchester and Marlin-Rockwell were awarded production contracts to take up the considerable slack from Colt's.

As a side note: a snag developed when Colt's would not give Winchester its only working model of the BAR as they wanted to finalize the drawings and specs. for the gun themselves --- there being NO production drawings in existence at the time --- UNBELIEVABLE!! So Winchester went to Colt's and their engineers literally made the drawings and specs over the weekend from the only prototype in existence.

Winchester got into production in February 1918 a month ahead of Marlin-Rockwell and two full months ahead of Colt's and turned out 1200 BAR's in that first month. Later months would see 4000 BAR's per month as production spooled up. It was designated "Model of 1918" as that was when full production commenced. No bicycle shops here ..... that was Wilbur and Orville .

The first BAR's arrived in France in July of 1918 and were demostrated to the American contingent by Army 1Lt Val Browning --- as in John Browning's son. After a training period, the BAR saw its first combat against the Germans on September 12, 1918 with the US Army's 79th Infantry Division.

sources:
Winchester in the Service, Bruce N. Canfield
U.S. Small Arms, Howard R. Crouch
U.S. Infantry Weapons of WW2, Bruce N. Canfield
Rock in a Hard Place, James J. Ballou

.....79th Infantry Division .... "Cross of Lorraine Division"

​

The insignia of the 79th Division is a gray Lorraine cross on a blue shield with a gray border; it was adopted during World War I. Having distinguished itself at Montfaucon, in Lorraine, the division selected the Cross of Lorraine, a symbol of triumph since the 15th Century, as its insignia.

 

[VarmintShooter]

I think he meant that the French Chauchat was made in bicycle shops ...

 

[A4sForever]

I think he meant that the French Chauchat was made in bicycle shops ...

.30-06 (U.S.) Chauchat LMG M1918 CSRG​

And example of the 19,641 Chauchats manufactured in .30-06 specifically for U.S. Forces --- note the 16-round box magazine rather than the crescent shaped magazine required by the rimmed and tapered 8mm Lebel in the French versions. This still did not help the jamming problems as the parts fit too loose (slack French manufacturing standards) and it operated on a "long-recoil" principle which exacerbated the problem.​

Got it, and thanks .... rereading Lawman's post now makes that possible in my fuzzy, doddering, nearly stone-cold senile mind ) ) that he intended that meaning. Bicycles and French light machine guns -- that I might believe --- but I still think the "bicycle shop" makes for a more "colorful" story rather than a true reflection of reality. There were just too many -- ten's of thousands-- "Sho-Sho's" (what the Amis called them -- the Brits called them the Chauchard) produced to be dependent on bicycle shops. Maybe if someone could reference some .... (drum roll) references ... ??? Documentation ... ??? I love colorful "Sea Stories" , but when it comes to technical details re: military history ... I try to be right on the money. And I'm not from Missouri, either .....

For example ... "Wikipedia" -- an "online 'encyclopedia"(?) that many use is just flat-out WRONG on many military history/military hardware items --- but it's used by many as a source as it's easy to pull up online. Just because Wikipedia (for example) says it doesn't make it so --- the people who produce online "encyclopedias" are basically always compiling from other sources -- they do no research of their own. I'll take the word of military/firearms historians (NRA history dept. , Bruce Canfield, Collector Grade Publications, amongst many others) before a feel-good online encyclopedia, i.e. Wikipedia.

I've seen a LOT of information on the Lewis (.303 and .30-06) -- and why Army politics made us slow to adopt an American Army Officer's basically good weapon, the BAR, the Chauchat (both .30-06 and 8mm Lebel) , the Hotchkiss of 1909 -- none of them mentioned in the same sentence with "bicycle shops". Again, maybe some documentation ??

But I've been wrong before --- ask the ex-wife.:icon_woma

We gotta' get that gun thread, yes ...???


But to try to pull this back to the original subject of Frog-Jets ..... when I was going through Concorde training, I was slated to go to Toulouse instead of Bristol, England. We sent our early class to England and the Brits busted almost 30% of our guys -- I think to teach them a lesson. We always wore coat & tie in training and when our first class "Sho-Sho'ed" up in Toulouse -- they asked "what's the dress code"? To which the Frenchies replied "What dress code"? The Frogs passed everyone in the first class that went there ......:chef_125: C'est la vie, oui???

 

[Broadsword2004]

Now watch, you'll make a "Gun Thread" and the discussions will turn from guns to aircraft....

 

[lance]

I think it is a cool plane, great designs, but haven't we all learned from PANAM and TWA and BRANIFF: that fat girls are like mopeds, their really cool until your buddies catch ya riding one. No seriously go for the 7E7s.

 

[A4sForever]

Former Continental Air Boss Takes Swipe At Airbus A380

[font=Verdana,Sans-Serif]Thursday May 12, 4:28 PM EDT [/font]



[font=Verdana,Sans-Serif]WASHINGTON (Dow Jones) -- Former Continental Airlines Inc. (CAL) boss Gordon Bethune took aim Thursday at the 600-seat Airbus A380, saying the biggest passenger jet ever built has more to do with "engineers' testosterone" than giving passengers what they want.

"What's in it for you to wait in line with 600 other people to get on an airplane?," said Bethune, who retired as Continental's (CAL) chairman and chief executive officer at the end of last year.

Bethune, speaking at the Investment Company Institute 2005 general membership meeting in Washington, is also a former Boeing Co. (BA) executive and a pilot. (Note: and a Navy machinist's mate .... I guess they bury that in the biography ??? )

"What's in it for you to wait for your bag with 600 people? What's in it for you to wait in customs and immigration lines with 600 people?," he asked.

(note: Old A4's posted this earlier on this thread .....

but do these "smart guys" ever use the facilities or fly the routes? Can you imagine rolling into LAX in the morning only to find 2500 people from other A380's ahead of you waiting to clear US CUSTOMS? Huh??? Can you ??? How about bagage??? How about ground transport?? HUH???

And I'm not even a CEO .....
[/font]

 

[A4sForever]

Airbus: Ground Test Of A380 Undercarriage Successful

[font=Verdana,Sans-Serif]Friday July 15, 12:36 PM EDT[/font]


[font=Verdana,Sans-Serif]LONDON -(Dow Jones)- Airbus (ABI.YY) said Friday that ground tests conducted late last month to analyze the performance of tires and undercarriage on its A380 plane under extreme conditions proved successful.

"This was a normal test," an Airbus spokesman said, adding that there was nothing unusual seen during the test procedures. Under the trial - which Airbus performs on all its new plane models - the aircraft was pulled and pushed at extremely tight angles by a ground handling vehicle.

Photographs were posted on an aviation Web site late Thursday purportedly showing a badly deformed A380 tire and heavy skidding on the tarmac. The Airbus spokesman confirmed the tests took place about two weeks ago.

Airbus has already said that initial deliveries of the double-decker A380, which can carry at least 555 people, have been delayed by six months. The aircraft made its first flight earlier this year. Airbus is jointly owned by European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co. and BAE Systems PLC .

[/font]

 

[gregsivers]

Still an ugly, ridiculous, unnecessary design. Damn frogs.

 

[Jaxs170]

I am just sitting back and waiting for this thing to drag Airbus and all their illegal subsidies under. That fact and getting to see how the frenchies try to save their precious business by undoubtedly blaming Boeing and the US government for anticompetitive practices which caused its demise, rather than the piss poor business plan and even more piss poor planes they build.

If it's Boeing, you're going. If it's Airbus, your stuck!

 

[Prashant Patel]

From AP:

"Rosay, co-pilot Claude Lelaie and four fellow crew members took no chances — donning parachutes for the first flight. A handrail inside the test plane lead from the cockpit to an escape door that could have been jettisoned had the pilots lost control."

Ahawhawhahwhahaw, it would be a funny sight (maybe not from a passenger point-of-view) if the passengers suddenly saw the crew bail out of their passenger-loaded A380 ? We all know that the crew doesn't have their own chutes but still, in my world of humorous fiction, it would be a godsend.

 

[snizo]

Singapore Airlines Chief Furious at A380 Delay, Threatens to Sue Airbus

Looks like all is not well for the A380 - now 8 months behind schedule.

Its a pretty amazing piece of design and engineering - but how could it possibly sell the number needed to break even?

I would think that the large orders already placed would represent a good portion of the overall demand for such a gigantic plane over the next decade even. A few international carriers plus the obvious booming cargo market. Most US airports cannot handle the A380, and only a few are being modified to support such a huge plane. Why bother? Even the busiest airport in the world - Atlanta Heartsfield - does not see a single Boeing 747 passenger jet all day. Only two passenger airlines in the US - the country with the largest domestic aviation market in the world - even operate the 747.

I've flown quite a few times over the Atlantic and Pacific oceans and only once have I flown a 747 (SFO - NRT on a NW 742) every other time has been a 777, A330, or DC10/MD11 (back in the day). Quite simply - people are used to being able to have short layovers because of high frequency flights. If you can't fill up a 747 ... why would anyone need an A380? The only immediate cause for such a plane is for slot restricted airports like London Heathrow.