[Buckaroo]

I can see the fusalage ariveing without wiring being a problem, but I can't imagine much if any wiring installed in the wingbox.

Originally Posted by glideslope 

I'd sure be looking forward to being on the 1st 25 airframes. Wonder why the first 787 fuse section and wing box were delivered without the wiring installed as planned? It's called being proactive, vs reactive. And of course knowing how to use your software.

http://www.amtonline.com/article/art...tion=1&id=3230

[analogika]

Originally Posted by glideslope 

I'd sure be looking forward to being on the 1st 25 airframes. Wonder why the first 787 fuse section and wing box were delivered without the wiring installed as planned? It's called being proactive, vs reactive. And of course knowing how to use your software.

Actually, in the case of the 787, as per the article, it's called "having Boeing by the balls and squeezing for more dollars".

We'll see what this means in terms of cost and delays.

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Actually, in the case of the 787, as per the article, it's called "having Boeing by the balls and squeezing for more dollars".

We'll see what this means in terms of cost and delays.

Airbus now want's to go with a Barrel Fuse on the 350. Maybe next week back to panels?

Boeing has Big Balls. Go ahead and squeeze.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by glideslope 

Boeing has Big Balls. Go ahead and squeeze.

If they're squeezing for more money and causing delays, then even Boeing's Big Balls are not so relevant.

Delivering planes a year late at a decided markup is a problem for customers.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by glideslope 

Airbus now want's to go with a Barrel Fuse on the 350.

No, just that a barrel fuse will be used in future planes. Doubtful it will be used on the 350.

http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=7727

According to industry analysts, trade studies are underway in Toulouse for the change.

That's all the information given. Third hand information without a source not specifying anything about what model is being referred to. It is only assumed it is the 350. I have my reservations on that.

V

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by analogika 

If they're squeezing for more money and causing delays, then even Boeing's Big Balls are not so relevant.

Delivering planes a year late at a decided markup is a problem for customers.

Yeah, except the supplier pays big bucks and may loose the contract when they are late. They can scream and complain all they want, but if they don't deliver, they lose.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by glideslope 

Wonder why the first 787 fuse section and wing box were delivered without the wiring installed as planned?

Boeing has been planning to do more wiring (and other stuffing) of the first few frames (compared to the mature production line) for quite a while.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Yeah, except the supplier pays big bucks and may loose the contract when they are late. They can scream and complain all they want, but if they don't deliver, they lose.

This is only true if there are viable alternatives … and there aren't too many companies that can handle composites of that size. Also, changing the sub contractor will cause further delays -- which cost money. So Boeing has to think carefully whether changing their supplier makes financial sense or not.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

This is only true if there are viable alternatives … and there aren't too many companies that can handle composites of that size. Also, changing the sub contractor will cause further delays -- which cost money. So Boeing has to think carefully whether changing their supplier makes financial sense or not.

Except Boeing has the technology, experience and capability to build thier own Wingboxes etc. They've been doing it longer than anyone else, including composites.

The only reason they contracted it out was to motivate those countries into buying 787's.

[OreoCookie]

No, not quite. These companies do have more experience than Boeing when it comes to using composites in that manner. (Mitsubishi for instance has designed and built the wings for Japan's F2 (which is essentially a souped-up F16).) Boeing has chosen to outsource most of the construction and now suffers some of the consequences. If Boeing were to make it by themselves, the Dreamliner would be more expensive. (Friends of mine work for both, Airbus directly and a sub-contractor of Airbus; the wages at the sub-contractor are much lower.)

[Buckaroo]

Wrong. The B-2 has composite wings along with Tasit Blue. Many years before the Japaneese version of the F-16. Theres a big difference between the little wings on an F-16 and the wings on the B-2 Bomber and the Dreamliner.

Considering the difference in $ vs. yen, I suspect that the cost would be comprable. Especially after you take in consideration transportation. One reason for farming it out to Japan is an incentive for sales. Japan is more willing to buy the Dreamliner if they get to build some of it.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

No, not quite. These companies do have more experience than Boeing when it comes to using composites in that manner. (Mitsubishi for instance has designed and built the wings for Japan's F2 (which is essentially a souped-up F16).) Boeing has chosen to outsource most of the construction and now suffers some of the consequences. If Boeing were to make it by themselves, the Dreamliner would be more expensive. (Friends of mine work for both, Airbus directly and a sub-contractor of Airbus; the wages at the sub-contractor are much lower.)

[Buckaroo]

LiveLeak.com - Airbus A380 and two big jumbos!

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Wrong. The B-2 has composite wings along with Tasit Blue. Many years before the Japaneese version of the F-16. Theres a big difference between the little wings on an F-16 and the wings on the B-2 Bomber and the Dreamliner.

I'm not wrong … I've never claimed Boeing hasn't gathered expertise of its own when it comes to composites. While your argument that having Japanese companies participate increases the impetus of Japanese airliners to buy 787s has some merit, I don't think that's the major point here. It's unusual to outsource a key component to a sole subcontractor if you could do it yourself for a comparable price, in the same quality and quantity. If Boeing could manufacture the parts itself, it would make much more sense to do it like Airbus in China: have some parts built there, but certainly not all of them.

When I read what you write, I kind of get the impression that whenever Boeing falls behind technologically or economically, you take it personally.

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I'm not wrong … I've never claimed Boeing hasn't gathered expertise of its own when it comes to composites. While your argument that having Japanese companies participate increases the impetus of Japanese airliners to buy 787s has some merit, I don't think that's the major point here. It's unusual to outsource a key component to a sole subcontractor if you could do it yourself for a comparable price, in the same quality and quantity. If Boeing could manufacture the parts itself, it would make much more sense to do it like Airbus in China: have some parts built there, but certainly not all of them.

When I read what you write, I kind of get the impression that whenever Boeing falls behind technologically or economically, you take it personally.

ROFLOL. Boeing is not falling behind. You will see FF 8/07. Boeing is taking Airbus to school on how to manage a program without wasting billions of dollars.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by glideslope 

ROFLOL. Boeing is not falling behind. You will see FF 8/07. Boeing is taking Airbus to school on how to manage a program without wasting billions of dollars.

I'm afraid it is the other way around. Boeing was bleeding cash head over feet in the 90s while Airbus showed them how to design, produce and market airplanes.

While Boeing was buying McDonnell Douglas, Airbus was kicking their ass. Now if Boeing doesn't deliver on the 787 they're dead. That's the gamble they took.

It also explains the arrogance of posters like yourself. If (perhaps even when) Boeing fails to deliver the 787 on time and on spec, Boeing will become bankrupt within days.

This could be the end of Boeing. The most spectacular failure in aviation history, namely the 787.

V

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

I'm afraid it is the other way around. Boeing was bleeding cash head over feet in the 90s while Airbus showed them how to design, produce and market airplanes.

While Boeing was buying McDonnell Douglas, Airbus was kicking their ass. Now if Boeing doesn't deliver on the 787 they're dead. That's the gamble they took.

It also explains the arrogance of posters like yourself. If (perhaps even when) Boeing fails to deliver the 787 on time and on spec, Boeing will become bankrupt within days.

This could be the end of Boeing. The most spectacular failure in aviation history, namely the 787.

V

Preposterous. How in the name of Pete can you look at Airbus today and see anything but chaos? You may call me arrogant my friend, but I clearly support the management team that will get the job done. Besides you guys need to worry about Russia wanting EADS. Not Boeing.

p.s. How is the Production Certificate coming on the 380? Now remember it's not the Air Worthiness Cert.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by glideslope 

p.s. How is the Production Certificate coming on the 380? Now remember it's not the Air Worthiness Cert.

The production certificate is coming along quite nicely, just as planned.

Count on it. (Just imagine it's Boeing we're talking about and then you'll get it)

V

[mduell]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

The production certificate is coming along quite nicely, just as planned.

I'm not sure what "as planned" means in this context.
As planned in 2001? Or as planned in 2004? Or as planned in 2005? Or as planned in the first half of 2006? Or as planned in the second half of 2006?

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by mduell 

I'm not sure what "as planned" means in this context.
As planned in 2001? Or as planned in 2004? Or as planned in 2005? Or as planned in the first half of 2006? Or as planned in the second half of 2006?

That is your problem.

V

[mduell]

Then would you mind sharing with us the current plan?

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Then would you mind sharing with us the current plan?

Knock yourself out.

V

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Knock yourself out.

V

Here, let google do it.

http://translate.google.com/translat...language_tools

[mduell]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Knock yourself out.

That article makes no mention of a date for the production certificate.

I know they've solved the wiring for MSN003. But that doesn't tell me when they'll have a production cert.

[TETENAL]

And who says they need one? The A380 is not produced in the United States.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

And who says they need one? The A380 is not produced in the United States.

EASA does.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by mduell 

That article makes no mention of a date for the production certificate.

I know they've solved the wiring for MSN003. But that doesn't tell me when they'll have a production cert.

Does MSN003 stand for the airframe? If so, have they fixed the wiring problem for MSN004 and on?

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Does MSN003 stand for the airframe? If so, have they fixed the wiring problem for MSN004 and on?

MSN003 is the first bird for delivery to SIA. They have not solved the wiring for any other airframes/customers.

[Buckaroo]

I took some pictures of some planes landing today. I found one nice feature of Alaska Airlines I didn't know before.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

I took some pictures of some planes landing today. I found one nice feature of Alaska Airlines I didn't know before.

So the 787 will feature a "Proudly outsourced" decal?

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by analogika 

So the 787 will feature a "Proudly outsourced" decal?

A lot of Boeing's planes are outsorced. Mostly to US manufacturers. In fact Northrop Grumman use to and may still (I don't know) manufacture a majority of the 747 fuselage skins.

Boeing is primarily a Wing and Integrator company. Lately, it's more major integration then anything else.

[Kevin]

Just slap a "Copland" sticker on the Airbus and be done with it.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Just slap a "Copland" sticker on the Airbus and be done with it.

It's funny that some still like to believe it's not going to be built …

[Kevin]

I didn't mean it that way.

Just the huge amount of problems that keeps "showing up" showing there was problems in the initial planning. AKA Copland.

If Apple had the money to have thrown at Copland it would have been "built" too.

For example if Copland had been coded by MS, it would have been out eventually. (See Vista)

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I didn't mean it that way.

Just the huge amount of problems that keeps "showing up" showing there was problems in the initial planning. AKA Copland.

If Apple had the money to have thrown at Copland it would have been "built" too.

For example if Copland had been coded by MS, it would have been out eventually. (See Vista)

Nah, the A380 is almost a finished product. If you translate it into software lingo, it's in late beta -- a phase Copland never really got to. They also have a release date.

I think you just mistaking the usual problems of projects of this size with something peculiar to Airbus. Just take any large project in the aviation/military sector: the F22, the B2, the Eurofighter and whatnot, they all arrived later than initially projected and cost more than what was initially estimated.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Nah, the A380 is almost a finished product. If you translate it into software lingo, it's in late beta -- a phase Copland never really got to. They also have a release date.

So would have Copland had Apple had the money they have to throw at it.

I think you just mistaking the usual problems of projects of this size with something peculiar to Airbus. Just take any large project in the aviation/military sector: the F22, the B2, the Eurofighter and whatnot, they all arrived later than initially projected and cost more than what was initially estimated.

Like every OS has it's problems and bugs that needs to be worked out.

I would say there was more problems happening with this particular plane. Just like with Copland.

Now you can disagree with me. That is ok. I was just offering my opinion.

For example, Vista was MS's Copland, yet it made it to the shelves.

Apple just knew when to take a loss.

Then again if I had THAT MUCH money already in that plain I would put much more into it to make sure it worked... but the planning of the whole this was a clusterfudge.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

So would have Copland had Apple had the money they have to throw at it.

Well, they had half a billion dollar to buy NeXT

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I would say there was more problems happening with this particular plane. Just like with Copland.

I don't think it was really out of the ordinary, compared to other projects of similar scale.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Then again if I had THAT MUCH money already in that plain I would put much more into it to make sure it worked... but the planning of the whole this was a clusterfudge.

… just like any project of that scale. I see a tendency of Americans (not necessarily you) to attribute the lags of the project to its socialist structure or whatnot. Just like when they criticized Airbus' decision to go for fully digital controls … same thing, it was argued that Boeing's design `decision' was superior. Boeing just like Airbus is going to outsource/pseudo-outsource a lot, because that makes their planes cheaper. I have a few friends who work for Airbus, some of them are working for a subcontractor and get a lot less than what they would get if they were hired by Airbus directly. On the other hand, that makes it harder to stay on schedule. So this `clusterfudge' as you call it is linked to a current trend in the (or rather: any) industry.

[Kevin]

Again we will have to agree to disagree.

I think they should have cut their losses sooner, you do not. I am sure it has to do with "pride" more than anything else. But that is ok.

I am sure life will go on.

[TETENAL]

Copland was complete garbage with unrealistic design goals. It hardly even booted. Bringing Copland to the shelves would have ment to redesign and rewrite it from the ground up. Vista is not comparable since it always stood on a sound basis, NT. And neither is the A380. Problems with wiring does not mean that the design of the plane is principally flawed.

[Kevin]

I am saying the way they went about it was flawed. You are bringing up specific anal retentive things.

My comparison was more slang for something that wasn't done right from the start.

In which MY OPINION this plane was not.

You disagree, that is fine.

[TETENAL]

I have no opinion about the planning of the project. Neither do I know how a project of such scale is planned, nor do I know how it actually was done by Airbus. Obviously the wiring and cad software incompatibility problems sound embarrassing for Airbus. Though what I heard the principle design of the aircraft is quite well, which is not what anyone ever said about Copland.

[Kevin]

Well obviously it didn't.

[voodoo]

Ah there's noting like the smell of stupid Americans making knee-jerk comments in the morning!

V

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Ah there's noting like the smell of stupid Americans making knee-jerk comments in the morning!

Yeah nothing shows us stupid Americans how to argue like a ad-hominem attack.

[PER3]

You guys arguing aircraft design...

It's almost like you have interiorised safety checks and design redundancy into the way you dispute.

A world away from software platform clashes.

I just hope that the firms you are discussing are as level-headed in their own battles!

[voodoo]

A problem arises late in many discussion threads, that only a handful of people participate and of those only one or two know what they are talking about.

The rest.. just make noise. Like the stupid Americans (unfortunately the wise Americans are nowhere to be found )

V

[Kevin]

Those that disagree with voodoo = stupid.

It's his defense mechanism.

it's ok voodoo. We still love you even if you do say xenophobic things.

[earthlings]

I'll try not to book a flight on one of those Airbuses when they come out.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by earthlings 

I'll try not to book a flight on one of those Airbuses when they come out.

QED.

Like shooting fish in a barrel.

V

[Kevin]

I am beginning to think the airbus is voodoo's mom. He is taking anything bad said about it so personally it has to be.

I keeeiiid I keeiiid.

[Buckaroo]

No matter what, all purchased A380's will be built, and Airbus might even break even. Of course that all depends on how well it flys. The FAA has approved a 6 mile between it and other landing aircraft. The second time a plane crashes because of it's wake, they might have to extend it to 10 miles. That might influence one of the reasons for flying larger aircraft with more passengers.