Airbus versus Boeing

Originally posted by RichardPrice
Its probably important to point out that the difference between these speeds on a typical leg is only 20 - 30 minutes on an 8 hour flight. Pointless to compare really.

Indeed.


Conversely, Flybe are saving a couple of hundred kilos fuel a sector by flying a bit slower using long range cruise speeds instead of the usual.

And the time saving there would be even less by going at higher cruise speeds.



The emphasis is on fuel burn at the moment people, not arriving 10 mins earlier.

Hey look what i found, an Airbus vs Boeing thread that heven't been shut down yet

Short story:

Airbus: Cheap, built to keep the rain out, built for sensitive Frenchmen to carefully manipulate control surfaces with a sidestick.

Boeing: Decent hardware, built for hard fisted Texans to actually fly
the aircraft.

Excellent performance even single engine.

Disadvantage: Expencive

Advantage: Bang for the bucks

Originally posted by SickSoul
Hey look what i found, an Airbus vs Boeing thread that haven't been shut down yet

Short story:

Airbus: Cheap, built to keep the rain out, built for sensitive Frenchmen to carefully manipulate control surfaces with a sidestick.

Boeing: Decent hardware, built for hard fisted Texans to actually fly
the aircraft.

Excellent performance even single engine.

Disadvantage: Expencive

Advantage: Bang for the bucks

Its probably important to point out that the difference between these speeds on a typical leg is only 20 - 30 minutes on an 8 hour flight. Pointless to compare really.

There were misconceptions about the speeds earlier in the thread - that needed correcting. If you scroll down, you'll see that I said that the difference is 'only a few minutes'.

To be accurate - its *being* constructed, it only achieved first power on last week and there are still significant build left to do before it flies.

While it may not be 'finished' it definitely has for the most part been constructed. I.E. To form by assembling or combining parts; build. But I'm, sure you know what I mean.

[edit on 28/6/2008 by C0bzz]

Originally posted by SickSoul
Hey look what i found, an Airbus vs Boeing thread that heven't been shut down yet

Short story:

Airbus: Cheap, built to keep the rain out, built for sensitive Frenchmen to carefully manipulate control surfaces with a sidestick.

Boeing: Decent hardware, built for hard fisted Texans to actually fly
the aircraft.

Excellent performance even single engine.

Disadvantage: Expencive

Advantage: Bang for the bucks

Short Story: You do not know what you are talking about.


Both Airbus and Boeing have to meet the same performance criteria for one-engine out scenarios. It is disadvantageous for all sorts of performance reasons to exceed these criteria by any significant amount.

As for which is more "expensive", airlines look at the life cost of an aircraft. Thus, if one offered significantly more "bang for the buck" as you put it, it is the aircraft that will be purchased.

Well if you want to talk about ETOPS you better not say it is the manufacturer to accomplish it. It is the responsibility of the operator to meet these conditions. Either by modifying an aircraft, or buying an aircraft that is able to meet the demands of the regulation.
To fly with one engine out is a big deal and that is why regulations are put in place to keep the aircraft at a safe distance from an airfield. ETOPS allows an aircraft and aircrew (which also need to be certified/trained) to fly at greater distances away from an airfield. Allowing extended operations for a twin engine aircraft.
It is not on the hands of Boeing or Airbus to me these regulations but the operator. They do play a role in making the aircraft safe to fly with one engine, and especially the engine manufacturer does too. Such as Rolls Royce, GE, and Pratt & Whitney

reply to post by kilcoo316


Lets see, I work on a A300-600 and it is not a fly by wire aircraft. Elevators and rudder controlled by cables, assisted with hydraulics. Look it up and you will see.

Yeah you got me on the 787 I could not believe when I did learn the wing is 100% composite, very cool!

But I am still sorry to say Airbus manuals are crap! Boeing has created a much easier use manual than Airbus. And yes floorbeams are significant, same as seat tracks, usually a PSE item. Oh whats a PSE, look it up!

If you understood anything about maintenance, you would know corrosion is the killer of an aluminum aircraft. Do you think moisture does not build up inside an aircraft. I guess they made Dinitrol for no reason. Dinitrol? hmmm... Ever hear of CIC, LPS, corrosion control.

Call me a pish, since all you can do is call people names.

Originally posted by ncbrian211
Well if you want to talk about ETOPS you better not say it is the manufacturer to accomplish it.

Which is of course why Boeing pushed so hard for ETOPS extensions for the 777, and Airbus did the same for the A330 before it.

Originally posted by ncbrian211
Lets see, I work on a A300-600 and it is not a fly by wire aircraft. Elevators and rudder controlled by cables, assisted with hydraulics. Look it up and you will see.

Numerous FBW tests were performed on A300s. Look that up and you will see


Production A320 onward are fully FBW.

Originally posted by ncbrian211
But I am still sorry to say Airbus manuals are crap! Boeing has created a much easier use manual than Airbus.

I haven't seen boeing manuals to comment, but from what Airbus ones I have seen, they seemed mighty straightforward to me.

Originally posted by ncbrian211
And yes floorbeams are significant, same as seat tracks, usually a PSE item. Oh whats a PSE, look it up!

So what weight savings to the overall airframe will be accomplished by using composite floor beams?

Very little. Again, they are not a principal structural element (unless you fly with Aloha). MacAir were forced to modifiy the DC-8 as a whole load of its fuselage structure was iffy, not because the floorbeams were a PSE.




BTW, only the Boeing 777 uses CFRP for floorbeams (the 787 will too).

A380 also uses CFRP for the floor beams (and the 350 will too).

Hardly a significant advantage for Boeing.

Originally posted by ncbrian211
If you understood anything about maintenance, you would know corrosion is the killer of an aluminum aircraft. Do you think moisture does not build up inside an aircraft. I guess they made Dinitrol for no reason. Dinitrol? hmmm... Ever hear of CIC, LPS, corrosion control.

Call me a pish, since all you can do is call people names.

So you'd rather have a composite floor beam than a composite wing, or fuselage...


You know, a part that would actually be openly exposed to water and salt build up? A part that is actually critical to the aircraft staying in the air?


I'm sure you can figure out as well as me which part is going to corrode quicker.




If your wondering why I responded poorly to your posts, look no further than:

Originally posted by ncbrian211
When someone posts something please get your facts right compared to your links. Just trying to show the truth

thats what this site is all about

[edit on 13/7/08 by kilcoo316]

I think we should let this topic die. Both Airbus and Boeing sell extremely successful products and as such, there are too many variables to consider which one is 'better', as almost all cases, one aircraft will be better for ONE airline, while the competing aircraft will be better for ANOTHER airline. And yet not one of us here flies these aircraft, yet REAL pilots on PPrune and AirWarriors often have mixed feelings of aircraft and which one is 'better'. Most on PPrune like Airbus, AirWarriors regard Airbus aircraft as junk. So as I said, let it die.

[edit on 14/7/2008 by C0bzz]

Originally posted by C0bzz
as almost all cases, one aircraft will be better for ONE airline, while the competing aircraft will be better for ANOTHER airline.

I get pissed off when people say things like

and the A380, glued together airbus, just another 10 year aircraft in the sky.

reply to post by kilcoo316


First of all I admit when I am wrong, like I did with the 787....

But you saying an A300 is fly by wire is absurd...

Show me a 100% fbw A300 in production!
Spoilers being controlled by wire does not make this a fbw aircraft.

And floorbeams not PSE hmmmm.... better think hard on that.
You said you never seen a boeing manual, well you better go get one.
Not all floorbeams are PSE but in several areas on several different aircraft thay are.

I never said I would not want a composite wing, or other structure. It is the future and it is hard to grasp new materials being introduced in manufacturing parts. Especially ones that have been made of a metal for long periods of time.

I definately would rather have Boeings composite fuselage than Airbus.
It scares me when a skin is made up of a material which is composed of sandwiching aluminum and composite materials together.

new technologies can prove to be better over a period time, but for people who work on these aircraft day after day it can be scary. You got to understand this if you know anything about working on an aircraft. This is just not a job but a life style.

but please take some time and look at some boeing manuals if you can.

Originally posted by ncbrian211
But you saying an A300 is fly by wire is absurd...

Show me a 100% fbw A300 in production!

I said:

"Fly by wire? The same thing Airbus has had since... the A300, and the A320 was fully FBW."

Is that wrong?

Who ever said anything about production? Especially when the above was in retort to:

"Just look at the 777, composite floorbeams, and fly by wire the first for boeing."


Although I now think may have mis-read your intention with that "first for Boeing" as meaning "first for commercial aircraft" instead of "a first for Boeing aircraft".

Originally posted by ncbrian211
I definately would rather have Boeings composite fuselage than Airbus.
It scares me when a skin is made up of a material which is composed of sandwiching aluminum and composite materials together.

GLARE is a failure - I'll not dispute that. It is only being used on A380.

A350 will use CFRP similar to the 787. However, whereas the 787 uses barrels, A350 is slated to use panels mounted on fibreglass encased aluminium frames.

Each approach has its pros and cons.

Originally posted by kilcoo316

A350 will use CFRP similar to the 787. However, whereas the 787 uses barrels, A350 is slated to use panels mounted on fibreglass encased aluminium frames.

Each approach has its pros and cons.

The A350 approach was changed to CFRP frames last year.

Originally posted by RichardPrice
The A350 approach was changed to CFRP frames last year.

Was it? Thanks

I knew there was talk of it, didn't know they'd actually decided to change.




Wonder how Leahy is gonna sell that given he previously described the Boeing approach as "old fashioned"...

Originally posted by kilcoo316

Wonder how Leahy is gonna sell that given he previously described the Boeing approach as "old fashioned"...

With over 100 sold in the past 3 days, and more to come this week, I don't think hes having a hard time selling it at all...

The A350XWB now stands at over 450 firm orders.

Originally posted by RichardPrice
With over 100 sold in the past 3 days, and more to come this week, I don't think hes having a hard time selling it at all...

The A350XWB now stands at over 450 firm orders.

No doubt he can charm the birds from the trees...


I'd just wanna see his face when someone says to him "but you said 6 months ago that was 'old fashioned'"

just wanted to put this in
sorry for my interruption


[edit on 20-7-2008 by Jezza]

Originally posted by kilcoo316

I'd just wanna see his face when someone says to him "but you said 6 months ago that was 'old fashioned'"

"And that is why we provide the antique-ey fake oldness paint job..."