Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Give Airbus 380 a wink! [JPEG orgy]

Give Airbus 380 a wink! [JPEG orgy] (Page 37)
Thread Tools
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2010, 02:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
If Northrup thought there was any chance Boeing's bid would be more than $184MM, why don't they submit a bid at $184MM?
I think that comes across very clearly in the official statement: the Northrop Grumman-EADS consortium claims that the requirements are so skewed towards Boeing that submitting a proposal is useless.
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
Reread the statement I was replying to: "The 767 has almost completely disappeared from the market and been replaced by Airbus planes."
My point was the 767 is still very much present in the active fleets. Also military transports are more like civilian freighters in terms of utilization than civilian passenger aircraft.
Aircraft are in service for a very long time. Just because the 767 was outsold 8:1 last year by the A330 doesn't mean the existing planes have to be scrapped. Of course, the 767 has been supplanted (in part) by the 787, for instance, so it's not at all surprising there are very few orders.

My point is not that the 767 is a bad aircraft. It's just old and has been supplanted by better alternatives (offered by both, Airbus and Boeing). That's what the sales figures reflect.
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
767 BCF conversions are not reflected in your numbers.
So? I wasn't talking about the `second-hand market' of aircraft.
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
A 1 year sample is far too short in a market where products are on the market for ~10 years and used for 15-30 years.
No, it's not too short. Even if we go back a few years, I doubt the comparison changes substantially: the 767 has become less and less attractive in the eyes of potential customers. The tankers are supposed to be in service for a very long time and to start with a platform that is 30 years old is not very prudent.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2010, 03:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
This decision should be first and foremost about what it takes to support the warfighter so our forces can get in and get out most effectively, most successfully, and fastest. Having congresscritters argue about whether one state is being favored over another sounds like kids whining on the playground about who didn't get invited to the cool kid's birthday party. The decision should be made by people who KNOW about the uses of the aircraft in question, and how those aircraft would fit into a larger picture, not by people who are interested in lining their pockets, whether they're stuffed shirts that like to stay in Congress, or stuffed shirts who have fancy titles in DoD.
I agree that this is a nice thought in theory. And while I don't claim any expertise in the field of tankers (I really have none), what is obvious to the non-expert is that this whole process was indeed very political.

And there have been several instances where `politics' has led to the procurement of sub-par equipment (dragon skin anyone?).

In Round 1, Boeing was awarded the contract due to criminal behavior.

Hence, Round 2 was a much more open to prevent any illegal practices. The Airforce chose the KC-135 over Boeing's KC-767. As a result, there was a public outcry (and I suppose the large majority of people and politicians are not experts) and Boeing, as the defeated competitor, launched a political campaign to fight the decision.

Fast-forward to Round 3: the Northrop-Grumman-EADS consortium withdraws from the competition quoting that the requirements are tailored to fit Boeing's offering.

Indeed, it's very hard to tell what the `real' technical requirements of the Airforce are. Chances are that the requirements which have trickled down are a very watered down version of what experts have initially assessed would be in the Airforce's best interest. As I've said, I have no expertise in this field, but it seems very hard to believe that the political pressure that was mounted between rounds 2 and 3 did not push in Boeing's favor.

This is a competition about a lucrative long-term contract with the US government and Boeing (as well as EADS) are in a bad financial shape: they both have to deal with delays and production problems in their latest airliners (the B787 on the one hand and the A380 + A400M on the other). Boeing is involved in a lot of government programs (also and especially military projects). In addition to that, there is a global financial crisis.

Do you think it's possible that political pressure to help Boeing was a big factor in the last round of the competition (never mind that Northrop-Grumman is also an American company which has lost a juicy contract)? If that were the case, do you think it is acceptable that locally, a worse product is chosen over a better one in an open competition to help Boeing's survival?
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
While the Air Force has broken their own rules several times on this project, the whole procurement system is really at fault. Too many people who have no clue what the plane is for and how it would be used have way too much input in the process. I think the whole thing should be double-blind, with all "vendor-identifiable" data removed before an impartial panel reviews how well the offerings meet the standards set out for the final product, and then vote on which candidate best fits those standards. No, I'm not holding my breath, but that would be a much better, much less contentious system.
Although I like the idea in theory, I'm not sure this is possible: if these products are based on existing airframes, it should be relatively simple to find out which is which.


Just to make this clear: the Europeans are involved in the same manipulative BS with Airbus. A friend of mine worked there and the business practices are very unethical. On the one hand, the company cannot choose on its own how to conduct business (things have to be split across countries according to the results of political negotiations) and on the other they receive a lot of direct and indirect support. In the end, the company will rot from the inside and will not be able to withstand future competition from, say, China and Brazil.

Boeing is in a similar shape: there are no domestic competitors anymore and it receives a lot of direct and indirect political support (just have a look at the tax rate Boeing has had to pay).

I've heard a talk by a test pilot of the SR-71 who is also an engineer. He talked about how the SR-71 came to be and if his recount is to be believed, this aircraft was conceived in a very short amount of time and on budget. In his opinion, the biggest factor as to why this was the case was that people worked towards the same goal and engineering tasks were left to the engineers.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2010, 08:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I agree that this is a nice thought in theory.
My idea above is indeed a pipe dream. This is how ALL military procurement should be done-once a solid requirement is hammered out. Coming up with a solid, final, no kidding we're not going to mess with it requirement is still an enormous problem. For ALL products needed for the warfighter.
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I've heard a talk by a test pilot of the SR-71 who is also an engineer. He talked about how the SR-71 came to be and if his recount is to be believed, this aircraft was conceived in a very short amount of time and on budget. In his opinion, the biggest factor as to why this was the case was that people worked towards the same goal and engineering tasks were left to the engineers.
I would not doubt this at all. Lockheed, without the need for a public eye on every decision, every drawing and every rivet placement, was able to design a product that worked, worked well, and did so because of incredibly innovative use of both on-hand parts and brand new technologies.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Andy8
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hong Kong
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2010, 08:03 AM
 
Story from BBC NEWS:
BBC News - US offers to extend deadline for refuelling tanker bids

Published: 2010/03/31 22:14:55 GMT

US offers to extend jet deadline

The Pentagon has said it is prepared to extend the bidding deadline for a new fleet of US air refuelling tankers, if Europe's EADS makes a formal request.

EADS and US partner Northrop Grumman abandoned their planned bid for the $40bn (£26bn) deal on 9 March, saying the process was biased against them.

They argued that the terms of the tender favoured the US Boeing group.

EADS said it would consider whether to make a formal request for an extended deadline and so re-enter the bid race.

If EADS does do so, it remains to be seen whether it will go it alone this time, or again work on a joint bid with Northrop.

The Pentagon has offered to extend the deadline for bids by 60 days from the current 10 May.

EADS said it had told US defence officials that it needed an extra 90 days.

"We have firmly indicated that a 90-day extension would be the minimum time necessary to prepare a responsible proposal for this $40bn programme," said EADS North America spokesman Guy Hicks.

"We will consider the department's decision to offer a 60-day extension."

The Pentagon's offer follows after US President Barack Obama promised visiting French President Nicolas Sarkozy that the bidding for the new fleet would be "free and fair."
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2010, 02:46 PM
 
Further demonstrating that the RFP isn't unreasonable (Northrup is just a bunch of whiners?), EADS will be bidding for KC-X on their own.
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Washington + Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2010, 01:23 PM
 
Anybody here get to see the AF A380 in Boston last week? Diverted due to weather in JFK.
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2010, 04:24 PM
 
EADS is hiring like they're gonna win.

And Boeing is running their mouth about pulling out of KC-X since they think EADS will underbid at any cost (enabled by massive RLI).
     
Andy8
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hong Kong
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2010, 07:39 PM
 
The European defence contractor, EADS, has submitted a new bid to supply refuelling aircraft for the US Air Force.

Arch-rival Boeing's bid is expected to be delivered to the Pentagon soon.

The contract, which has been long delayed, is worth $35bn (£23bn).

Earlier, a long-running World Trade Organisation (WTO) investigation into whether Boeing receives illegal subsidies from the US government postponed its decision on the matter.

Both the US and the European Union have reported each other's companies to the WTO, alleging illegal subsidies.

The WTO has already ruled - at the end of June - that the EU had paid illegal subsidies to the EADS subsidiary, Airbus.

The EU and Airbus criticised the delay over the Boeing decision.

"The time lag between this case, and the United States case against support to Airbus... has constantly increased over the six years this dispute has been running and the gap is now at nearly a year," the EU's executive Commission said.

Political decision

Meanwhile, EADS is hoping that the US will find something to please within the pages of its 8,000 page-plus proposal for the defence contract, which it has submitted a day ahead of deadline.

The US hopes to have chosen a winner by November.

It is replacing its current fleet of tankers, some of which date back to the late-1950s.

Several previous attempts to choose a contractor have failed - one because of a dispute between Boeing and its then-rival Northrop Grumman.

The decision is highly political.

Although EADS plans to build its craft within the US, it is seen as very much a European business.

Boeing's supporters in Congress argue the recent WTO ruling shows EADS has an unfair advantage over Boeing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/10562961.stm
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2010, 10:25 AM
 
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 10, 2010, 03:55 PM
 
That said, here's the slides for An-112 KC.

Strap GEnx or T1k on an An-70
     
Phileas
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 10, 2010, 11:06 PM
 
I just bought X-Plane for the iPad. The A380 is one of the planes included.
     
glideslope
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2010, 09:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by Phileas View Post
I just bought X-Plane for the iPad. The A380 is one of the planes included.
Cool. Whats it like as far as performance?
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.”
Sun Tzu
     
Phileas
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2010, 12:20 PM
 
Really fun and very quick. The Cessna comes with a flight instructor talking you through take offs and landings.
     
macaddict0001
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Edmonton, AB
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2010, 10:25 PM
 
The A380 is very sluggish, feels large thanks for asking
     
Montezuma58
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Madison, AL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2010, 08:44 AM
 
Engine go boom.
Qantas is probably cleaning shit stains off the seats today.
     
Lateralus
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2010, 08:54 AM
 
I like chicken
I like liver
Meow Mix, Meow Mix
Please de-liv-er
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2010, 09:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by Montezuma58 View Post
Engine go boom.
Qantas is probably cleaning shit stains off the seats today.
Your handle is esp. apropos for the post.
     
Don Pickett
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: New York, NY, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2010, 03:59 PM
 
This is the third major engine failure Rolls Royce has had in the last month or so, including an almost identical test stand failure on the 787. Methinks someone at RR is currently sweating bullets.

As an aside, Airbus has yet to make profit on the 380.
The era of anthropomorphizing hardware is over.
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Washington + Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2010, 04:09 PM
 
Heck, Quantas ought to be pissed at RR right now. This is the third RR power plant that has been ruined for them in the last month or so.
     
Montezuma58
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Madison, AL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2010, 04:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Don Pickett View Post
This is the third major engine failure Rolls Royce has had in the last month or so, including an almost identical test stand failure on the 787. Methinks someone at RR is currently sweating bullets.

As an aside, Airbus has yet to make profit on the 380.
Are there other engines available for the the 380 besides the Rolls Royce?
     
Phileas
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2010, 04:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Montezuma58 View Post
Are there other engines available for the the 380 besides the Rolls Royce?
Yes, and other airlines use them.
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Washington + Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2010, 04:27 PM
 
Engine Alliance makes the GP7200 for the A380. Emirates and Air France (and soon Air Austral) are powered by them.
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2010, 06:07 PM
 
From pprune:
Uncontained #2 engine failure, resulting in loss of both green and yellow hydraulics. Debris punctured leading edge and damaged wiring to #1 engine. Also debris punctured under wing surface resulting in fuel leak. On landing, blew 4 tyres. Stopped on runway. Unable to shutdown #1 engine due to damaged wiring. Attempted to drown #1 engine with water from fire truck, but did not work. 3 hrs after landing #1 engine still running.

Reminiscent of UA232.

Originally Posted by Don Pickett View Post
This is the third major engine failure Rolls Royce has had in the last month or so, including an almost identical test stand failure on the 787. Methinks someone at RR is currently sweating bullets.
Plus the very publicized unstart on the 787 in the desert.

Originally Posted by Don Pickett View Post
As an aside, Airbus has yet to make profit on the 380.
Correct; they'll start turning a profit on new units delivered in a few years, but program profitability is distant.
( Last edited by mduell; Nov 4, 2010 at 06:27 PM. )
     
Don Pickett
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: New York, NY, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2010, 06:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
Correct; they'll start turning a profit on new units delivered in a few years, but may never pay back the investment.
Which is why I have been saying, in the long run, the A380 was the wrong choice. They should've concentrated on the A350 and the A320 replacement. Now they're years behind on the 350 and the 320 replacement isn't even on the drawing boards. Meanwhile they're getting squeezed by Embraer and Bombardier on the low end of short haul, Boeing has more 787 orders than they can handle and the long haulers are steadily replacing 340s with 772LRs.

They're just too small to take on more than one major engineering project at a time, and the 380 was the wrong choice.
The era of anthropomorphizing hardware is over.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2010, 07:50 PM
 
@Don Picket
It seems to me that Boeing isn't doing significantly better with the 787 in terms of profitability. Both programs, the 787 program and the A380 program have seen significant setbacks. I don't think the respective sizes make any difference, they're just catering any to different markets.

Regarding an A320/B737 replacement, as far as I understand both companies have concluded that the time is not ready for designing a replacement from the ground up -- it just doesn't make financial sense yet.

However, I do absolutely agree that both `giants' need to be very careful about Embraer and Bombardier.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Don Pickett
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: New York, NY, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2010, 09:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
@Don Picket
It seems to me that Boeing isn't doing significantly better with the 787 in terms of profitability. Both programs, the 787 program and the A380 program have seen significant setbacks. I don't think the respective sizes make any difference, they're just catering any to different markets.
The 787 will make Boeing a profit sooner than later, and will earn back its investment. Boeing is already making noises about rewinging the 777 with a composite wing, and you can bet the 737 replacement will be composite as well. Add to this the fact that Boeing is about half funded by military projects, and is thus much less dependent on cash flow than Airbus, and Boeing looks much stronger to me.

The money spent on the 380 is gone, and won't be coming back.

Regarding an A320/B737 replacement, as far as I understand both companies have concluded that the time is not ready for designing a replacement from the ground up -- it just doesn't make financial sense yet.
Boeing's had an ongoing replacement project for a while, and no one is sure which direction it will take. Last I heard, they have decided against re-engining the 737 because it will only provide a small percentage gain in economy. Airbus doesn't know what they're gonna do.
The era of anthropomorphizing hardware is over.
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Washington + Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2010, 09:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
@Don Picket
It seems to me that Boeing isn't doing significantly better with the 787 in terms of profitability. Both programs, the 787 program and the A380 program have seen significant setbacks. I don't think the respective sizes make any difference, they're just catering any to different markets.

Regarding an A320/B737 replacement, as far as I understand both companies have concluded that the time is not ready for designing a replacement from the ground up -- it just doesn't make financial sense yet.

However, I do absolutely agree that both `giants' need to be very careful about Embraer and Bombardier.
The 787 is very costly to Boeing, but the upside is that the money that is spent on the 787 can translate into other programmes rather well (IE, the Sky Interior 737, the 747-8i). The A380 is unfortunately a dead end for Airbus in terms of applied technologies. They're doing as much groundwork for the A350 as Boeing did with the 787 (IE, testing out composites on A340-300 test beds.

In terms of the A320/B737, you understand correctly, although both companies are going to, and have been, slowly adding refinements on top of the current design. A re-engining is also a good possibility in the 737, Southwest and Ryanair specifically have been pushing for it, and they have a lot of sway with Boeing. McInerney has said though that a new 777 will happen before a new 737.

What will either make or break Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, and Bombadier is the China market. Both Boeing and Airbus estimate that the Chinese market will need around 5k new planes in the next 20 years. To put it in perspective, Boeing recently just delivered their 800th airplane to China.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2010, 02:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
The 787 is very costly to Boeing, but the upside is that the money that is spent on the 787 can translate into other programmes rather well (IE, the Sky Interior 737, the 747-8i). The A380 is unfortunately a dead end for Airbus in terms of applied technologies.
How so? The cabin must be the quietest cabin on the planet: my cousin and a friend both flew with the A380 and they said it's super quiet. What prevents airbus from using this and other new technologies developed during the A380 program in the A350 or in upgrades to the A320?

The only big difference between the A380 and B787 I see is that the latter's fuselage is mostly made from composites. But if you're talking about technology transfer, this bit can't make it, because it requires a redesign of existing aircraft -- which, as far as I understand your post, isn't what you have in mind.
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
What will either make or break Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, and Bombadier is the China market. Both Boeing and Airbus estimate that the Chinese market will need around 5k new planes in the next 20 years. To put it in perspective, Boeing recently just delivered their 800th airplane to China.
I once read that Airbus will open up a plant for A320s in China. Apparently it was a condition by the Chinese government, otherwise they wouldn't buy. Coincidentally, they have plans to make an A320-sized aircraft. Go figure
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
mattyb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2010, 08:17 AM
 
Signed yesterday : 50 x A320, 42 x A330 and 10 x A350 for 10 billion euros (14 billion $US) doesn't sound too bad to me.

China wil buy from everyone, and then in 15 or 20 years, they'll come out with their own aircraft. Using their own engines.
     
badidea
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2010, 08:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I once read that Airbus will open up a plant for A320s in China.
You must have read that a long time ago!

And this thread still amuses me quite a bit...especially when I read here what we are doing with the A350...
(^not directed at you Oreo)
***
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2010, 08:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by badidea View Post
You must have read that a long time ago!
Yes, it's been a while. It's certainly long enough that I can no longer pinpoint a source. So you're saying those plans have been canned? (I'm curious.)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
badidea
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2010, 09:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Yes, it's been a while. It's certainly long enough that I can no longer pinpoint a source. So you're saying those plans have been canned? (I'm curious.)
From our Intranet
Originally Posted by Airbus
The Tianjin FAL (FALC) is the first Airbus final assembly line to operate outside Europe and it is based on the state-of-the-art A320 Family FAL in Hamburg. It started operation in August 2008 and was inaugurated in September 2008. By 2011, the FALC will ramp up its production of A320s and A319s to four aircraft a month.
It is a joint venture between Airbus and a Chinese consortium comprising Tianjin Free Trade Zone (TJFTZ) and China Aviation Industry Corporation (AVIC).
An Airbus delivery centre will also be set up by Airbus in Tianjin.
***
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2010, 12:16 PM
 
@badidea
Thanks. And yes, I'm really that old
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Washington + Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2010, 06:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
How so? The cabin must be the quietest cabin on the planet: my cousin and a friend both flew with the A380 and they said it's super quiet. What prevents airbus from using this and other new technologies developed during the A380 program in the A350 or in upgrades to the A320?

The only big difference between the A380 and B787 I see is that the latter's fuselage is mostly made from composites. But if you're talking about technology transfer, this bit can't make it, because it requires a redesign of existing aircraft -- which, as far as I understand your post, isn't what you have in mind.
I'm not talking only about the composites, I'm also talking about smaller things like the 787's active sound deadening, systems that minimize turbulence, the window shades, etc. The A380 simply doesn't have the same degree of innovation. It's more a very-well tuned design than groundbreaking technologically.
     
Don Pickett
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: New York, NY, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2010, 07:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
The only big difference between the A380 and B787 I see is that the latter's fuselage is mostly made from composites. But if you're talking about technology transfer, this bit can't make it, because it requires a redesign of existing aircraft -- which, as far as I understand your post, isn't what you have in mind.
This isn't a big difference: this is a huge, ginormous difference, and really is groundbreaking. It is the first airplane, civilian or military, which has a monocoque built entirely from various types of composite. It's completely different from what Airbus are doing with the 350--composite panels bonded/riveted to aluminum--and gives Boeing a huge leg up on Airbus. It's one of the reasons Boeing is thinking of rewinging the 777 with a composite wing: now they've done it once, further builds are much easier.
The era of anthropomorphizing hardware is over.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2010, 05:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by Don Pickett View Post
This isn't a big difference: this is a huge, ginormous difference, and really is groundbreaking. It is the first airplane, civilian or military, which has a monocoque built entirely from various types of composite.
Made of composites ≠ better. There are very advanced materials other than composites: metal composites, metal foams and such. Replacing everything with composites doesn't make things better.
Originally Posted by Don Pickett View Post
It's completely different from what Airbus are doing with the 350--composite panels bonded/riveted to aluminum--and gives Boeing a huge leg up on Airbus.
I'm not so sure if it's really a leg up: the composite fuselage wasn't something engineers dreamed up. What gives a manufacturer an advantage is not the material they choose, but performance (here: fuel economy), reliability and serviceability. If the A350 is on par with the B787 in terms of fuel consumption -- or even more fuel efficient, nobody cares what the fuselage is made of or how it is constructed.

And there are good reasons to use a sufficient amount of metal in the construction of the fuselage. One aspect would be to make sure you have a Faraday cage for the passengers and the electronics (hopefully in that order of importance). Boeing has to embed a copper mesh into its composite fuselage -- which makes it heavier.

So I don't think it's at all clear Boeing's concept fares better: there are no established service procedures to check and fix faults in a composite fuselage. It takes a lot of time, effort and money to train the maintenance crews. Of course, you can argue that this is the price of progress -- and you'd have a point. All I'm saying is that it's not a foregone conclusion Boeing's ansatz is more successful.
Originally Posted by Don Pickett View Post
It's one of the reasons Boeing is thinking of rewinging the 777 with a composite wing: now they've done it once, further builds are much easier.
The A400M has composite wings as well so Airbus knows how to build them.

So I don't see the big advantage that Boeing has. Both companies have developed state-of-the-art planes which are in many respects leapfrogging the competition. But both are in trouble because their latest aircraft are late to the market and there are manufacturing problems which caused serious delays. And both rely on their bread and butter models (A320 and B737, respectively) to bridge this gap.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2010, 05:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
I'm not talking only about the composites, I'm also talking about smaller things like the 787's active sound deadening, systems that minimize turbulence, the window shades, etc. The A380 simply doesn't have the same degree of innovation. It's more a very-well tuned design than groundbreaking technologically.
I'm not sure I can follow here, it seems you're making a marketing argument with `not the same degree of innovation.' It's fuzzy and not a concrete argument.

Regarding noise, from all the people who have flown with the A380 (my cousin and a colleague from South Africa), I was told it's the quietest cabin they have ever flown with by a very wide margin. I'm sure we've all read the story that the cabin crew asks for white noise generators, because the engine noise no longer covers the noise of the passengers.

Of course we don't know how quiet the B787 will be, and I imagine it will be very comfortable. But to make such a judgement without any experience by passengers of planes put in service seems premature.

I admit I don't know what's up with the window shades on the A380
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Washington + Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2010, 10:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I'm not sure I can follow here, it seems you're making a marketing argument with `not the same degree of innovation.' It's fuzzy and not a concrete argument.
Does the A380 have active sound deadening? No. Does it have active turbulence deadening? No. Does it have a composite monocoque? No.

Regarding noise, from all the people who have flown with the A380 (my cousin and a colleague from South Africa), I was told it's the quietest cabin they have ever flown with by a very wide margin. I'm sure we've all read the story that the cabin crew asks for white noise generators, because the engine noise no longer covers the noise of the passengers.
Not sure why we are arguing this, I agreed with you that it is a well-known fact that the A380 is currently the quietest airliner in service today.

Of course we don't know how quiet the B787 will be, and I imagine it will be very comfortable. But to make such a judgement without any experience by passengers of planes put in service seems premature.
Sure, but I'm judging the amount of technology that has gone into the A380, and it's just not the airplane re-engineered as much as the 787 is. For Airbus, the A350 will be more of a technical behemoth, rather than just a physically huge behemoth. I'm not saying the A380 isn't an impressive piece of engineering, because it is, it's just engineered in a very different manner than the 787 was and the A350 is being created.
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2010, 01:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
The 787 is very costly to Boeing, but the upside is that the money that is spent on the 787 can translate into other programmes rather well (IE, the Sky Interior 737, the 747-8i). The A380 is unfortunately a dead end for Airbus in terms of applied technologies. They're doing as much groundwork for the A350 as Boeing did with the 787 (IE, testing out composites on A340-300 test beds.
A number of systems developed for A380 have reuses already announced, incluing but not limited to the cockpit configuration and 5000 psi hydraulics.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
How so? The cabin must be the quietest cabin on the planet: my cousin and a friend both flew with the A380 and they said it's super quiet. What prevents airbus from using this and other new technologies developed during the A380 program in the A350 or in upgrades to the A320?
In general both size and newness work in your favor for cabin noise (holding basic design and engine type constant), so the A380 being both the largest and the newest is expected to also be the quietest. I don't see any evidence that A350XWB or A320NEO will be as quiet inside as A380.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I once read that Airbus will open up a plant for A320s in China. Apparently it was a condition by the Chinese government, otherwise they wouldn't buy. Coincidentally, they have plans to make an A320-sized aircraft. Go figure
As someone probably already pointed out, the A320 FAL in Tianjin is up and running.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
So I don't think it's at all clear Boeing's concept fares better: there are no established service procedures to check and fix faults in a composite fuselage.
Oh not this sh!t again. We've been inspecting and repairing composite aerostructures for decades. You know the wingbox and fuselage section 19 on your beloved quiet A380 are reinforced plastic?

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
Does the A380 have active sound deadening? No.
Why would it? It's not a turboprop.

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
Does it have active turbulence deadening? No.
Yes, Load Alleviation Function Law (Damping):
A380 TECHNICAL TRAINING MANUAL

PRIMARY F/CTL: FLY BY WIRE DESC. (3)
Auxiliary Functions (continued)
Load Alleviation Function
The aim of the Load Alleviation Function (LAF) is to alleviate the fatigue and static loads on the wings by reduction of the wing bending moment.
The LAF is composed of:
- the passive turbulence alleviation and,
- the active turbulence alleviation.
The passive turbulence alleviation alleviates the static loads in turbulence and during maneuvers. The activation is based on the vertical load factor given by normal law. The computed orders are sent to the ailerons and spoilers 6 to 8. The pitch compensation linked to the deflections is sent to the inner elevators. The active turbulence alleviation alleviates the fatigue and static loads. The activation is based on the measurement of the vertical load factor on the wings given by the accelerometer units installed on the pylons. The computed orders are superimposed (added) to the computed orders of the passive turbulence alleviation. They are sent to the ailerons. Compensation orders are sent to the inner elevators. The LAF is activated above a given speed and, vertical acceleration thresholds but are inhibited when slats and flaps are in full configuration.
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2010, 04:16 PM
 
The Australian confirms it was the T900 IPT disk that failed; same disk as the prior RR failures with the RB211 near SFO and the T1000 in the test cell.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2010, 11:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
Does the A380 have active sound deadening? No. Does it have active turbulence deadening? No. Does it have a composite monocoque? No.

Not sure why we are arguing this, I agreed with you that it is a well-known fact that the A380 is currently the quietest airliner in service today.
I still think you're missing the point: what matters isn't how you achieve a goal, but that you achieve a goal. If it were more fuel-economic to build planes of wood or jelly, Airbus and Boeing would do it. Just because the B787 has more composites doesn't necessarily imply it's more fuel economic (comparing fuel economy of these two planes won't make much sense anyway). Nor does the B787's cabin have to be quieter.
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
Sure, but I'm judging the amount of technology that has gone into the A380, and it's just not the airplane re-engineered as much as the 787 is. For Airbus, the A350 will be more of a technical behemoth, rather than just a physically huge behemoth. I'm not saying the A380 isn't an impressive piece of engineering, because it is, it's just engineered in a very different manner than the 787 was and the A350 is being created.
I think you're misjudging the `amount of technology' here a little and thinking of `re-engineering' in the wrong way: both planes have been designed from the ground up. They're both full of state-of-the-art technology. The A380 contains more composites than an F-22 Raptor, for instance, arguably the most modern fighter jet on the planet. The two are also not `engineered in a different manner,' Boeing has just made the decision to use an all-composite fuselage while Airbus hasn't for the A380, just like the design decision whether or not to go with a bleedless engine. I think I somehow understand what you're trying to say, but I would express it differently: Boeing has made a ballsy, but also risky move to go with an all-composite fuselage. In that area, Airbus has stuck to improving traditional and proven approaches in this area.
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
Oh not this sh!t again. We've been inspecting and repairing composite aerostructures for decades. You know the wingbox and fuselage section 19 on your beloved quiet A380 are reinforced plastic?
First of all, it's not `my beloved plane,' I love all technology: I'm as eager to fly with an A380 than to fly with a B787. Secondly, I still think it's a qualitative difference to compare planes which use composites in certain parts and almost the whole plane.
( Last edited by OreoCookie; Nov 6, 2010 at 11:47 PM. )
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
glideslope
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2010, 12:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
The Australian confirms it was the T900 IPT disk that failed; same disk as the prior RR failures with the RB211 near SFO and the T1000 in the test cell.
Not a surprise. The real issue: Was the AD on the IP shaft coupling done correctly? Was the failure earlier than the AD directed the scopes to be completed? If it lost specs earlier than expected, major MX hog for current T900's. (always preferred the GP7200). Also, IMO more concerning was the lost of control on #1. What happened inside the wing?
( Last edited by glideslope; Nov 7, 2010 at 12:27 PM. )
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.”
Sun Tzu
     
glideslope
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2010, 12:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
Oh not this sh!t again. We've been inspecting and repairing composite aerostructures for decades. You know the wingbox and fuselage section 19 on your beloved quiet A380 are reinforced plastic?[/i]
Thank you. It does become annoyingly redundant.
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.”
Sun Tzu
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Washington + Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2010, 06:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by glideslope View Post
Also, IMO more concerning was the lost of control on #1. What happened inside the wing?
Shrapnel?
     
glideslope
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2010, 09:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
Shrapnel?
Sure, could have been. I'm more concerned with the design and placement of the triple redundancy. Was an electrical component shorted/severed by foreign objects entering the structure? Obviously the 380 has a very well designed wing. IMO, the flight deck saved the plane. I'm sure final with #1 stuck at cruise setting, #2 shut down, and #3, and #4 to manage the approach was not a simulator experience. This crew knew their Stick and Rudder, and are an example to be held high for all crews.
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.”
Sun Tzu
     
glideslope
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2010, 10:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by badidea View Post
You must have read that a long time ago!

And this thread still amuses me quite a bit...especially when I read here what we are doing with the A350...
(^not directed at you Oreo)
Just don't let Alenia Aeronautic build the Horizontal Stab.
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.”
Sun Tzu
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2010, 10:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by glideslope View Post
Also, IMO more concerning was the lost of control on #1. What happened inside the wing?
Originally Posted by glideslope View Post
Sure, could have been. I'm more concerned with the design and placement of the triple redundancy. Was an electrical component shorted/severed by foreign objects entering the structure?
A piece of the IPT rotor went through the leading edge of the wing; there's photos of it. AFAIK the engine controls are only dual redundant, not triple like the hydraulics.

Originally Posted by glideslope View Post
Obviously the 380 has a very well designed wing. IMO, the flight deck saved the plane. I'm sure final with #1 stuck at cruise setting, #2 shut down, and #3, and #4 to manage the approach was not a simulator experience.
Actually that seems like well balanced thrust. And I wouldn't be surprised if LOTC is a common simulator experience.
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Washington + Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2010, 10:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by glideslope View Post
I'm sure final with #1 stuck at cruise setting, #2 shut down, and #3, and #4 to manage the approach was not a simulator experience. This crew knew their Stick and Rudder, and are an example to be held high for all crews.
No, it is definitely run in the simulator, as are every possible combination of engine failures (including various engines stuck at 100%). Not that the crew aren't a great crew (because they are and should be commended and honored by Qantas), and from what I've heard they were great about keeping the passengers informed, but they were following what they have learned. Also, remember, if an engine loses control input, it will stay at the last known setting.
     
glideslope
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2010, 09:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
No, it is definitely run in the simulator, as are every possible combination of engine failures (including various engines stuck at 100%). Not that the crew aren't a great crew (because they are and should be commended and honored by Qantas), and from what I've heard they were great about keeping the passengers informed, but they were following what they have learned. Also, remember, if an engine loses control input, it will stay at the last known setting.
THX for the update.
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.”
Sun Tzu
     
badidea
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2010, 11:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by glideslope View Post
Just don't let Alenia Aeronautic build the Horizontal Stab.
I worked with Alenia already (A330 freighter)...and if I would have to decide anything...I wouldn't work with them again...
***
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:23 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,