[UnixMac]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

New 4/8/06 From a United Air LInes employee:

[rant]

Well, I didn't fly Airbus for UAL, I came from American's B-757, and now fly Citation X part time; but a good friend here in Phoenix is an Airbus Captain for UselessAir, and he said the bus has absolutely no problems in terms of the pilot being the FINAL authority over the aircraft, he just needs to understand his systems, and their various flight envelop protection modes.

The truth is, the accident described above (A demo flight by a French Test Pilot) was as a result of a systems confusion issue, and not aircraft design. This could have just as easily occurred on a 737NG with the same level of automation.. The Throttles not being connected via cable isn't going to cause an accident of the pilot knows how to disengage the automation when he needs to... and in the case of every airplane I've flown (7), they all have quick disconnects via one button.. as dues the Bus.

I don't fear FBW, and most pilots I know today accept it, like we all accept OS X over OS 9.. I do however fear that the entire profession is under a lot of pressure these days as a result of a various economic and geopolitical factors that have nothing to do with aircraft designs of the future.

[/rant]

[veryniceguy2002]

Originally Posted by KeyLimePi

I don't understand this even a little. Airlines want to buy updated versions of existing aircraft. Over time an aircraft evolves to where it hardly resembles its predecessor except in name, and the 747 is no different. Carriers want it, so airframers will sell it.

Airlines generally like to buy the updated versions of existing aircraft because the cost of pilot converison (where pilots need to re-train to fly the new aircraft type) is minimised. Also, the cost of maintenence is generally less if the airline already has the earlier variants of the same aircraft because of common parts (in some degree) and re-training of maintenance staff is lower.

However, there is a point where the brand-new aircraft type offers better fuel economy (which is a big factor nowadays), better passenger comfort and performance... which can make airlines more willing to introduce new aircraft type to their fleet. That's one of the reason why Boeing 787 is so successful at the moment.

Originally Posted by KeyLimePi

Right now the next big platform that Boeing is looking at is the replacement for the 737. The 737 is arguably one of the most commercially successful aircraft in history, so you can bet airlines will want a newer, better version. That's just called progress.

No neccessary... words from the streets is that Boeing's drawing board for 737's replacement will be a wide-body short fuselage aircraft in 2+2+2 seating! So, you might not neccessary to see 737-1000 or 737-10. I think Boeing's program for that 737 is called 7N7 (but I might be wrong on that code name).

[voodoo]

@UnixMac:

Man... great post, but I envy so much for flying Citation X I want!!!



V

[UnixMac]

thanks voodoo... it was a bit OT, but I don't come here often, so I have an excuse.

[chabig]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

New 4/8/06 From a United Air LInes employee:...

This explanation is completely wrong.

1. There are no Go-around buttons on the Airbus throttles.
2. There is never a moment when placing the thrust levers in the takeoff/go-around position will not result in takeoff/go-around thrust.
3. There is no "landing mode" for the engines.

I am a United Airlines Airbus instructor. All of our instructors are professionals who really know the systems well. Nobody here would offer an incorrect explanation such as that.

Chris

[UnixMac]

Originally Posted by chabig

This explanation is completely wrong.

1. There are no Go-around buttons on the Airbus throttles.
2. There is never a moment when placing the thrust levers in the takeoff/go-around position will not result in takeoff/go-around thrust.
3. There is no "landing mode" for the engines.

I am a United Airlines Airbus instructor. All of our instructors are professionals who really know the systems well. Nobody here would offer an incorrect explanation such as that.

Chris

Good too hear from a fellow pilot with more expertise on the subject.. I take it the 320 has a TOGA button on the throttles? or no? I thought it, along with the go around command bars were required under FARs for transport category a/c. What do they use for same?

[chabig]

Originally Posted by UnixMac

I take it the 320 has a TOGA button on the throttles? or no?

No. There are no TOGA buttons.

I thought it, along with the go around command bars were required under FARs for transport category a/c. What do they use for same?

There may be such a requirement, but it isn't in FAR Part 25. Airbus' equivalent to the TOGA buttons on other airplanes is simple and elegant. You just push the thrust levers fully forward to the firewall and you get go-around thrust along with TOGA flight guidance. This is a great design because it's much simpler to just push the throttles forward than it is to find and press buttons.

Chris

[UnixMac]

I agree Chris.. very smart.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by chabig

This explanation is completely wrong.

1. There are no Go-around buttons on the Airbus throttles.
2. There is never a moment when placing the thrust levers in the takeoff/go-around position will not result in takeoff/go-around thrust.
3. There is no "landing mode" for the engines.

I am a United Airlines Airbus instructor. All of our instructors are professionals who really know the systems well. Nobody here would offer an incorrect explanation such as that.

Chris

ouch

[imitchellg5]

I love Airbus cockpits, and I would rather be in a small Airbus than a small Boeing.

[exca1ibur]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5

I love Airbus cockpits, and I would rather be in a small Airbus than a small Boeing.

Could careless which plane, I'd personally prefer a competent pilot in either.

[imitchellg5]

Very true

[veryniceguy2002]

Has badidea or other Airbus people who "lives" here got a chance to fly inside the A380 flight test this week?

A380 starts passenger flight test

[mrtew]

Originally Posted by veryniceguy2002

Has badidea or other Airbus people who "lives" here got a chance to fly inside the A380 flight test this week?

A380 starts passenger flight test

COOL! I'm so glad that despite predicitons here of the whole program flopping, it seems to be basically fine except for the delay. Whew! I love that plane!

[badidea]

No, somehow I missed to apply for that!

[veryniceguy2002]

Originally Posted by badidea

No, somehow I missed to apply for that!

Well, at least you don't have to be an "air hostess", asking everyone "tea or coffee..."

Does the lucky draw also determine whether it's first, business or "self loading cargo" class?

[badidea]

Originally Posted by veryniceguy2002

Does the lucky draw also determine whether it's first, business or "self loading cargo" class?

Yes - all are equal but some are more equal than others!

[mduell]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

How about you get back to reality. The A380 is outselling the 747-8 by a wide margin. It will be delivered, it won't matter much if it is a few months later than planned. As far as I understand, the 747-8 will be delivered in 2009 the earliest.

The wide margin is the other way. Orders since the B748 launch:
A388: 11
B748: 29

Even if you count the A388 orders from the 9 months before the B748 launch, the A388 is still down 16 to 29.

[OreoCookie]

Well, on the other hand, Airbus has sold its entire production for how many years now, 2009, 2010? It also doesn't change that (according to wikipedia at least) all orders for the 748 except for one are freighters -- which means the A380 is outselling the B748 by a wide margin. So Airbus' books are full for a few years to come and I think once many 747s will be sent into retirement (e. g. Lufthansa is mulling over this right now) and the airlines have to think carefully what to do: either go for smaller planes (then the 787 is clearly a good option) or stay with jumbo jets -- then obviously the A380 has a clear advantage.

I just don't think the 748 is Boeing's strong point right now, it's the 787. As we say here, it's selling like sliced bread. It would be foolish to deny that. The 787 is a nice piece of engineering and I hope it will be successful, because -- quite frankly -- Boeing has tied its future that plane as Airbus did with the A380. Both bets seemed to have worked out -- in part, because either company won't have much of a real competition for a few years to come.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by mduell

The wide margin is the other way. Orders since the B748 launch:
A388: 11
B748: 29

Even if you count the A388 orders from the 9 months before the B748 launch, the A388 is still down 16 to 29.

That is data providing no information. Such as not one of the B748s are pax versions. They're all cargo planes.

The A388s that have been sold since B748 launch have all been pax models.

Pax versions of B748 sold since its launch: 0

Pax versions of A388 sold since B748 launch: 29

These two aren't even competing in the same market. Even though the B748 is the largest thing Boeing makes, doesn't automatically make it a competitor to the A380.

V

[mduell]

It's not as though the B748 is selling due to early availablity... EIS isn't until 09 and with Emirates deliveries in 2010 and the relatively low production rate, I'd say it too is sold out through 2010.
Is a freighter not an airframe? The price of the pax and freight versions are about the same.

Originally Posted by voodoo

That is data providing no information. Such as not one of the B748s are pax versions. They're all cargo planes.

The A388s that have been sold since B748 launch have all been pax models.

Pax versions of B748 sold since its launch: 0

Pax versions of A388 sold since B748 launch: 29

These two aren't even competing in the same market. Even though the B748 is the largest thing Boeing makes, doesn't automatically make it a competitor to the A380.

You should review Boeing's orders page before making such statements.

Both the B748 and A388 have been offered and sold in pax and freight models. As I said above, what's the difference between a pax airframe and a freight airframe? Why count them seperately?

[OreoCookie]

The first A380 customer also signed six years ago. Roughly half of the orders were placed up until 2001. If you really want to compare how well each of these aircraft sell, compare how many orders were placed for the A380 in its first two years.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by mduell

Both the B748 and A388 have been offered and sold in pax and freight models. As I said above, what's the difference between a pax airframe and a freight airframe? Why count them seperately?

No, you're wrong. Only the A388 has been sold *both* in pax and freight versions, the B748 has only been sold in freighter version - it is offered in pax, but hasn't sold a single frame yet.

Why count them seperately? Because the B748i and B748f are not identical. The f model has a longer fusilage and a shorter upper deck than the i version.

Length:

Intercontinental - 244 ft (74.4 m)
Freighter - 250 ft 2 in (75.3 m)

Boeing: Boeing 747 Family

There is also a difference in fuel capacity:

Intercontinental - 60,125 gal (227,600 L)
Freighter - 56,825 gal (215,105 L)

Freighters are never converted to pax planes, only the other way around. This means the mission is very different for a pax airliner compared to a freighter. So far the B748 is *only* a freighter. Both versions are built on the same line, but the i needs to be designed and the factory tooled. This costs money, so Boeing may end up losing money just because they decided to offer the B748i.

So if there is to be any comparison between the A388 and B748 at this point it can only be made with the freighter versions, but even such comparison falls short. They are not competitors in that area. The B747 is better suited for high-density cargo while the A388 is a better low-density cargo freighter.

At the the risk of sounding repetitive: Even though it is the largest plane made by Boeing, it doesn't automatically make it the direct compatitor to the largest plane made by Airbus. Boeing may sell a few B748i frames in the future, but so far it hasn't sold a single one.

Since the B748i was launched the A388 has sold 10 more frames.

V

[badidea]

Oh guys, please!


this is better:

[KeyLimePi]

For those following along at home, Airbus replaced the head of its A380 program today.

From WSJ:

New Airbus Chief Executive Christian Streiff began putting his mark on the plane maker by replacing the head of its A380 superjumbo-jet program, in a fresh effort to revive the project after costly and embarrassing delays.

I don't know if Champion was really the problem, or he's just getting ceremonially ousted to improve public perception.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by voodoo

No, you're wrong. Only the A388 has been sold *both* in pax and freight versions, the B748 has only been sold in freighter version - it is offered in pax, but hasn't sold a single frame yet.

Why count them seperately? Because the B748i and B748f are not identical. The f model has a longer fusilage and a shorter upper deck than the i version.

Length:

Intercontinental - 244 ft (74.4 m)
Freighter - 250 ft 2 in (75.3 m)

Boeing: Boeing 747 Family

There is also a difference in fuel capacity:

Intercontinental - 60,125 gal (227,600 L)
Freighter - 56,825 gal (215,105 L)

Freighters are never converted to pax planes, only the other way around. This means the mission is very different for a pax airliner compared to a freighter. So far the B748 is *only* a freighter. Both versions are built on the same line, but the i needs to be designed and the factory tooled. This costs money, so Boeing may end up losing money just because they decided to offer the B748i.

So if there is to be any comparison between the A388 and B748 at this point it can only be made with the freighter versions, but even such comparison falls short. They are not competitors in that area. The B747 is better suited for high-density cargo while the A388 is a better low-density cargo freighter.

At the the risk of sounding repetitive: Even though it is the largest plane made by Boeing, it doesn't automatically make it the direct compatitor to the largest plane made by Airbus. Boeing may sell a few B748i frames in the future, but so far it hasn't sold a single one.

Since the B748i was launched the A388 has sold 10 more frames.

V

As I said in my previous post, you need to read the Boeing orders site instead of making yourself look incredibly ignorant.

I'm aware of the minor differences. The freighter also has a nose door. As you say, they both come down the same production line and share a lot of the tooling.

I don't see how offering a jet for sale implies they're going to lose money on building tooling if they don't get any orders. They're not going to build the tooling without orders, but that's a moot point now.

I agree the 748 and 388 have a capacity mismatch by about 120 seats. Really they're both unrivaled in their own markets.

[Buckaroo]

Is someone playing with Photoshop?

Originally Posted by badidea

Oh guys, please!


this is better:

[badidea]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

Is someone playing with Photoshop?

No, someone was playing with a camera!

[Mediaman_12]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

Is someone playing with Photoshop?

There are too many 'differences' between the planes for that to be a Photoshop job.
The second one in doesn't have 'A380 Airbus' on the side and all three are as slightly different angles for starters.

[badidea]

Oh please, there is no need to discuss this any further!
We have 7 flying A380s right now - the ones in the pictures are MSN001, 002, 004 and 009!

[veryniceguy2002]

Originally Posted by mduell

As I said in my previous post, you need to read the Boeing orders site instead of making yourself look incredibly ignorant.

I'm aware of the minor differences. The freighter also has a nose door. As you say, they both come down the same production line and share a lot of the tooling.

I don't see how offering a jet for sale implies they're going to lose money on building tooling if they don't get any orders. They're not going to build the tooling without orders, but that's a moot point now.

I agree the 748 and 388 have a capacity mismatch by about 120 seats. Really they're both unrivaled in their own markets.

There are more than minor differences between passenger and freighter versions of 747-800. The freight version has a longer fuselage. Also, the fore section top deck (i.e. the "goose head" bit) has big differences. The upper deck of the passenger verison is much longer than the freighter version. The freighter version top deck is more like a 747-200 design. (Same applied to 747-400 freighter design).

[badidea]

Minor differences???

[veryniceguy2002]

Originally Posted by badidea

Minor differences???

That one is the specially converted 747-400 for carrying 787 fuselage sections from various places in the world to Seattle for assembly. You cannot buy this from Boeing. (In fact, Boeing contracted this conversion to EVA Air.)

[Troll]

Originally Posted by badidea

What is that silver stuff? Metal? Someone still builds planes with metal and rivets?

[ghporter]

Aluminum is useful for more than just soda cans! And that looks like they used an OLD 747 to build the conversion on!

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Aluminum is useful for more than just soda cans! And that looks like they used an OLD 747 to build the conversion on!

Very true, aluminum is still very much used by aircraft manufacturers. For instance the A350XWB is much made with a Li-Al alloy.

The B747 above is a -400 version, so it isn't that old. 21 at most.. Planes are mostly made of aluminum today. Let's look at a brand new B737-800:



The vertical and horizontal stabilizers, the nose cone, the wing box and the engine pylons are the major structures not made of aluminum.

V

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by voodoo

The B747 above is a -400 version, so it isn't that old. 21 at most..

The skin on the forward section looks pretty wrinkled; I have seen that in VERY old KC-135s and B-52s, and it seems to primarily come from multiple pressure/depressure cycles, or from repeated airframe torque events on the Buffs (lots of mid-fuselage panels show lots of wrinkles on the big guys).

In the 1960s this didn't show up on the -135s because SOP was to polish portions of the skin. Until the Air Force had a skin failure (blow out) on a tanker as it climbed to cruising altitude. Oops...polishing makes the skin thinner... who'd a thunk it! Since then most airplanes seem to collect wrinles. Kind of like people.

[mrtew]

Originally Posted by badidea

Oh please, there is no need to discuss this any further!
We have 7 flying A380s right now - the ones in the pictures are MSN001, 002, 004 and 009!

Here's a couple of great picture of the same formation!

http://airliners.net/open.file/1101860/L/
http://airliners.net/open.file/1101677/L/

and here's another cool formation
http://airliners.net/open.file/1093648/L/

[mrtew]

Originally Posted by ghporter

The skin on the forward section looks pretty wrinkled; ,,,,,

Here's a bigger version of that picture... Airliners.net Photos: Untitled (Boeing) Boeing 747-4J6/LCF It doesn't look wrinkled to me... it looks like it's been buffed with a wheel polisher of some kind. I bet they're getting it ready for paint.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by mrtew

and here's another cool formation
http://airliners.net/open.file/1093648/L/

Wow.. If they were all painted dark grey... picture and Imperial Star Destroyer in formation with a squad of TIE Fighters

Cool!

V

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Well, on the other hand, Airbus has sold its entire production for how many years now, 2009, 2010? It also doesn't change that (according to wikipedia at least) all orders for the 748 except for one are freighters -- which means the A380 is outselling the B748 by a wide margin. So Airbus' books are full for a few years to come and I think once many 747s will be sent into retirement (e. g. Lufthansa is mulling over this right now) and the airlines have to think carefully what to do: either go for smaller planes (then the 787 is clearly a good option) or stay with jumbo jets -- then obviously the A380 has a clear advantage.

I just don't think the 748 is Boeing's strong point right now, it's the 787. As we say here, it's selling like sliced bread. It would be foolish to deny that. The 787 is a nice piece of engineering and I hope it will be successful, because -- quite frankly -- Boeing has tied its future that plane as Airbus did with the A380. Both bets seemed to have worked out -- in part, because either company won't have much of a real competition for a few years to come.

Not the 748I until the 380 EIS numbers come in. The 748F will be a huge problem for the Whale Freighter. Besides, nobody will have a good look at the 380 until it's EIS + 12months.

If it performs, it will sell. If not, it's the 21st Century Concorde. Airlines don't sign MOU's from viewing 4 ship Echelon formations. Although, lot's of people make statements like, "cool, glad the program is on track, and will be a success " after viewing the before mentioned formations.

It's always nice to see this thread pop up over here.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by glideslope

the Whale Freighter

The A380 can probably freight whales, but it is not confined to that.. do you know.

Originally Posted by glideslope

If it performs, it will sell. If not, it's the 21st Century Concorde.

Why Glideslope.. why?? Don't give it the benefit of the doubt! This is a pinko-commie, state-bought, Iran-supporting and anti-American French made POS. I seriously doubt it will ever fly. Of course it will not perform.

Now go out and find a star spangled banner to kiss and read the declaration of independance ten times.

Originally Posted by glideslope

It's always nice to see this thread pop up over here.

Don't let thy heart stray oh proud patriot. Give those lazy ass, buck toothed freedom-haters hell!!



V

[analogika]

Originally Posted by glideslope

Not the 748I until the 380 EIS numbers come in. The 748F will be a huge problem for the Whale Freighter. Besides, nobody will have a good look at the 380 until it's EIS + 12months.

If it performs, it will sell. If not, it's the 21st Century Concorde. Airlines don't sign MOU's from viewing 4 ship Echelon formations. Although, lot's of people make statements like, "cool, glad the program is on track, and will be a success " after viewing the before mentioned formations.

It's always nice to see this thread pop up over here.

I really am sorry about your penis.

[cSurfr]

Originally Posted by ghporter

The skin on the forward section looks pretty wrinkled; I have seen that in VERY old KC-135s and B-52s, and it seems to primarily come from multiple pressure/depressure cycles, or from repeated airframe torque events on the Buffs (lots of mid-fuselage panels show lots of wrinkles on the big guys).

In the 1960s this didn't show up on the -135s because SOP was to polish portions of the skin. Until the Air Force had a skin failure (blow out) on a tanker as it climbed to cruising altitude. Oops...polishing makes the skin thinner... who'd a thunk it! Since then most airplanes seem to collect wrinles. Kind of like people.

You should see our KC-10s. A of wrinkles on those bad boys. We carry excess of 350,000LBS of gas and that's enough to torque anything out there. That said, we're flying more than pretty much every airline, and cargo company out there, and transitions do take quite a toll on the airframe.

I'll see if I can get pics of our strike birds (84 models). You can see lines of rivets on the flaps that look sort of like this - - - _ _ _- _ ---- __ - - It's pretty scary to think that Douglas kept on trucking with whomever they could find to shoot a rivet gun. Oh well, we've not lost one yet to a crash, so I'd say we're doing ok.

cs

[Troll]

Originally Posted by voodoo

VPlanes are mostly made of aluminum today.

Well there's a difference between using aluminium composites and using riveted sheets of aliminium. My understanding is that most Boeings still use rivets and sheets of aluminium (at least for the outer skin whereas Airbus employs composites. I could be wrong though but I thought this was one of the major advantages of Airbus over Boeing and one of the biggest reasons why Airbus went from 0 to market leader.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by Troll

Well there's a difference between using aluminium composites and using riveted sheets of aliminium. My understanding is that most Boeings still use rivets and sheets of aluminium (at least for the outer skin whereas Airbus employs composites. I could be wrong though but I thought this was one of the major advantages of Airbus over Boeing and one of the biggest reasons why Airbus went from 0 to market leader.

You assumed wrong. The A380 is mostly aluminum, very little if any composites.

[Mastrap]

Ahem:

The A380 center wing box, aft pressure bulkhead, some floor beams, horizontal stabilizer main box and vertical stabilizer main box are all carbon fiber composite and primary structure. The A380 fuselage crown panels are GLARE - fiberglass/alumimum composite. In addition the A380 rudder, elevator, flaps, aileron, spoilers, wing leading edge are carbon fiber composite - but these are not really primary structure.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by cSurfr

You should see our KC-10s. A of wrinkles on those bad boys. We carry excess of 350,000LBS of gas and that's enough to torque anything out there. That said, we're flying more than pretty much every airline, and cargo company out there, and transitions do take quite a toll on the airframe.

I'll see if I can get pics of our strike birds (84 models). You can see lines of rivets on the flaps that look sort of like this - - - _ _ _- _ ---- __ - - It's pretty scary to think that Douglas kept on trucking with whomever they could find to shoot a rivet gun. Oh well, we've not lost one yet to a crash, so I'd say we're doing ok.

cs

Are you sure those lines of rivets aren't from a phase inspection rework? The Air Force DOES get whatever the winning contractor manages to provide, you know... At least Boeing is still doing C-5 overhauls. I'd hate to see what would happen if a truly "low" bidder won... It would be all over the news.

[analogika]

nice moment:



...and...I broke it.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

You assumed wrong. The A380 is mostly aluminum, very little if any composites.

The A380 contains by weight and by volume the highest amount of composites of any plane flying today.

V