Airbus versus Boeing

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 09:11 AM
link   
Sorry but this is just daft Vertu.

If you want to 'believe in' the latest Boeing CGI cartoons and the 'we're gonna......' propaganda you just work away.
The rest of us will deal with the real world.

(IMO this is akin to the laughable 'Luftwaffe46-itis' which afflicts a - disturbing? - number of adolescent boys.
Any old sketch, drawing or retouched photo of a German prototype along with a series of guesses as to it's 'capabilities' and hey presto if the WW2 had lasted 28minutes longer Germany would have won!
)

The fact is this Boeing is just a drawing and a set of estimates many years away from taking to the air, if ever, and the A380 is a physical reality perhaps only hours away from it's first flight and the start of proving all it's specs.

Anyone can play the 'in a couple of years time things will be so much better/efficient....' game that they never end up doing anything whilst today's needs go unmet.
The best time to buy pretty much anything is always in the future, but, if we all did that no-one would actually ever do anything.

.....and what makes you think anyone is just going to hang around for the several years that this mild warming over of the 747 that this is all going to take?

My bet is it'll never happen, I reckon it's a cheap and petty spoiler intended for the A380's first flight (and they even managed to get the timing for that wrong).




posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
The fact is this Boeing is just a drawing and a set of estimates many years away from taking to the air, if ever, and the A380 is a physical reality perhaps only hours away from it's first flight and the start of proving all it's specs.

.....and what makes you think anyone is just going to hang around for the several years that this mild warming over of the 747 that this is all going to take?


It is not yet necassary to wait up years until the 747A will be massproduced. All the timing is just marketing, nothing more. Of course, that new engine is needed, but I doubt they will wait so long. Anyway, the time between 2006 and 2009 is not THAT long.

Also, as the Airbus had to plan a completely new airplane, the Boeing only needs to reconstruct the existing one, with all its benefits packed inside. A very big difference. The actual aim of Boeing is also important, they intend to make a better plane than Airbus A380, excluding that 800 pax.

But I'm really curious to see, which airlines is going to fill up an A380 with 800 pax for only 9000Km?!



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Vertu,

Where are you getting this 9,000 km nonsense from?

Read the data on your own link.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vertu

Also, as the Airbus had to plan a completely new airplane, the Boeing only needs to reconstruct the existing one, with all its benefits packed inside. A very big difference. The actual aim of Boeing is also important, they intend to make a better plane than Airbus A380, excluding that 800 pax.



Or, to put it another way, Boeing is reworking a 37 year old design which technology has now largely left behind whilst Airbus has the advantage of starting from scratch with an all new design that is aerodynamically and structurally bang up to date.

Why the desperate scramble to discredit the Airbus against the Boeing? The 747 has been the queen of the skies for four decades now. Time and technology moves on and it is the A380's time. Way back when the A380 was just the A3XX Boeing had the plans and the opportunity to market a rival but chose not to. The current 747A proposal (and it is just a proposal at the moment) suggests they now think they might have got that wrong.

Finally, why can't you grasp the pure silliness of your dismissing the A380's claims as guesswork while thinking somehow that the 747A figures can be taken as fact? At least the A380 has been buiolt and aircraft have been sold, neither of which applies to the Boeing yet.



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Or, to put it another way, Boeing is reworking a 37 year old design which technology has now largely left behind whilst Airbus has the advantage of starting from scratch with an all new design that is aerodynamically and structurally bang up to date.


The 37 years old design of the 747 was constantly changing through time. If you have a look at the evolution of the 747 through time, you may see that several changes were made to the series of 747. To say so, it only looks the same from a distance. Having a look from closer, or seeing its airframe constructions, the models are way different.

But why 747? Because the 747 has a history, and it wouldn't be a great idea to rename the different models for marketing reasons. No wonder, it musz look the same from the outside, too. Also, the aerodynamics of the 747 aren't bad at all. It's the reason why it can be fast and perform at long distances, along with its massive size and weight.



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Of course the 747 has evolved over the years, the 747-400 is a very different beast to the 747-100 of 1970. However that does not change the fact that the basic airframe was designed in the 1960's and the structural architecture is largely unchanged. To have done otherwise would have been cripplingly expensive and unnecessary (the 747-400 is more than a decade old - dating from long before Airbus were interested in the Jumbo market). For it to have undergone the changes you seem to be suggesting it would have been just as easy for Boeing to design an all new plane of their own.

Also the aircraft was designed the old fashioned way with draughtsmen and drawing boards. I'm saying not there's anything wrong with this but aircraft design has come a long way in the last 30 odd years and modern CAD procedures mean that the design of the A380 (as with the 787 or any other new type) is as efficient as current knowledge can possibly make it.

Applying CAD techniques to 747 upgrades is basically tinkering with and refining the existing form. Naturally this will yield less spectacular results than designing a completely new aircraft from scratch, (for a parallel it is like the difference between designing the F/A-22 or simply upgrading the F-15, think about that - the 747 is older than the F-15 but the A380 is newer than the F/A-22 - see how far design technology has progressed?)

If Airbus didn't believe they could improve upon the 747 by a significant margin do you really think they would have even bothered trying to shake the 747's iron grip on the market? Clearly Boeing thought they couldn't as they were content to sit back and say the current 747 would be good enough for the foreseeable future, a position which the rather hurried 747A proposal now shows to have been wrong.

Just how the economics of the 747A truly stack up against those of the A380 is something we will only truly know when both aircraft are competing in service, what 2010? by which time the A380 will have already been in service for four years.

You also raised a point about the engines, what was it, the 747A will have better engines?

Airlines will specify whichever engines they want, thats the beauty of underslung pods, you can fit any suitable engine to any plane and if the engines of the 747A ARE significantly better than the A380's R-R Trents they will simply be retrofitted to wipe out that advantage.

edit; whats that about renaming the 747? I don't get what you're on about there at all I'm afraid.

[edit on 11-4-2005 by waynos]



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Also the aircraft was designed the old fashioned way with draughtsmen and drawing boards. I'm saying not there's anything wrong with this but aircraft design has come a long way in the last 30 odd years and modern CAD procedures mean that the design of the A380 (as with the 787 or any other new type) is as efficient as current knowledge can possibly make it.

Applying CAD techniques to 747 upgrades is basically tinkering with and refining the existing form. Naturally this will yield less spectacular results than designing a completely new aircraft from scratch, (for a parallel it is like the difference between designing the F/A-22 or simply upgrading the F-15, think about that - the 747 is older than the F-15 but the A380 is newer than the F/A-22 - see how far design technology has progressed?)

You also raised a point about the engines, what was it, the 747A will have better engines?


Yes, we could simply say that the Boeing 747 was just perfect since the first rolled out to the runway. But the 747 division of the Boeing factory is the most advanced among all others, even if the 787 is being engineered with computer technology. And we shouldn't forget that a 747 has 4million parts from all around the World, and they aren't handmade at all.


But all this is simply manufacturing process, and a Boeing is leaving the factory every 8 days. That is a rather good quota, I guess.

So, how will Airbus make hundreds of planes while rolling around the A380 parts through avenues and streets of large cities? I really mean, how?! I've seen on TV , and I was really amazed, how it is done. Anything goes wrong in the shipping, anything, and the Airbus will loose huge money.

While Boeing has all the access to sea, railways, highways and the air. The Airbus factory is yet very far from this, and perhaps in the longterm future they will get somewhere.

So what will the investors say? "If you don't build me an A380 until the desired date, I am gonna buy a Boeing 747!", Well, that's about it. And I have a feeling that at the Boeing they know some stuff very well, because they are not stressed at all. They will make a 747 every six weeks (that's the manufacturing time right now), while Airbus will NOT be near this quota at all. Well, this is a very important issue, and concerns a lot of airplanes!



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 12:22 PM
link   
I'm not having this at all, you are simply ignoring what I say and making up your own points to answer.


Originally posted by Vertu

And we shouldn't forget that a 747 has 4million parts from all around the World, and they aren't handmade at all.




Where did I say that it was handmade? Don't be silly.


But all this is simply manufacturing process, and a Boeing is leaving the factory every 8 days. That is a rather good quota, I guess.


No, it isn't. Its design. If modern design allows for a lighter structure then that allows for more fuel for greater range, likewise if the design is more aerodynamically efficient throught the use of computer aided design this has a knock on benefit for fuel efficiency and thus again benefits range. These are highly significant elements and not simply 'manufacturing process'




So, how will Airbus make hundreds of planes while rolling around the A380 parts through avenues and streets of large cities? I really mean, how?! I've seen on TV , and I was really amazed, how it is done. Anything goes wrong in the shipping, anything, and the Airbus will loose huge money.


Does this sound familiar? "And we shouldn't forget that a 747 has 4million parts from all around the World," Do you know what contradiction is?



While Boeing has all the access to sea, railways, highways and the air. The Airbus factory is yet very far from this, and perhaps in the longterm future they will get somewhere.


What we have no roads, sky, sea or railways in Europe?


Instead of this rambling nonsense how about the real points I made in those two posts which have gone ignored? Maybe you don't have the answers?



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vertu
Yes, we could simply say that the Boeing 747 was just perfect since the first rolled out to the runway. But the 747 division of the Boeing factory is the most advanced among all others, even if the 787 is being engineered with computer technology. And we shouldn't forget that a 747 has 4million parts from all around the World, and they aren't handmade at all.


But all this is simply manufacturing process, and a Boeing is leaving the factory every 8 days. That is a rather good quota, I guess.


- Anyone manufacturing large passenger jets today is operating an advanced process.

Wake up.


So, how will Airbus make hundreds of planes while rolling around the A380 parts through avenues and streets of large cities? I really mean, how?! I've seen on TV , and I was really amazed, how it is done. Anything goes wrong in the shipping, anything, and the Airbus will loose huge money.

While Boeing has all the access to sea, railways, highways and the air. The Airbus factory is yet very far from this, and perhaps in the longterm future they will get somewhere.


- Are you just trolling here?

Has it escaped your notice that Airbus has out-sold Boeing (IIRC since 2003).

That means hundreds of planes.

That means (given the multi-national way Airbus works) transportation by air, sea and road.

Self evidently the system works.

(and the methods used to move the first examples of the A380 about are not necessarily indicative of how the mass production systems will work)


So what will the investors say? "If you don't build me an A380 until the desired date, I am gonna buy a Boeing 747!", Well, that's about it.


- Sorry matey but this is just ludicrous wishfull thinking.


And I have a feeling that at the Boeing they know some stuff very well, because they are not stressed at all.


- Don't be naive; Boeing dare not give the impression of how they truely feel as it would spook their shareholders and they are one group of people who have had quite enough 'agitation' from the Boeing board lately.


They will make a 747 every six weeks (that's the manufacturing time right now), while Airbus will NOT be near this quota at all. Well, this is a very important issue, and concerns a lot of airplanes!


- The 747 is an old plane on the wind-down. Airbus' A380 has only just started (and is already half way to break even having already sold approx 150 examples before it's wheels have even left the ground)

They can warm over the old 747 design all they like but it is old and it has had it's time.
It'll be about for some time yet but, let's put it like this, there are a hell of a lot more sales behind it than it has to look forward to, right?



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Waynos,

I too noticed that Vertu does not answer the questions he is asked but instead brings his own to which he knows the answers.

I asked him several hours ago where he got the range figures for the A380 from. I checked the very site he posted a link to and the ranges for the A380 and 747A with 500+ passengers apeice are to within 10 miles of each other.

Did he answer? Nope. Not even an acknowledgment to the fact that he was wrong.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Back on topic and stop member hunting,
or ill just lock this thread!



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Back on topic? member hunting? the topic is Airbus v Boeing, I have been trying to get vertu to stop meandering away from the point. What are you on about?

BHR, I noticed that too.



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 11:57 PM
link   
I dont think that guy knows much about what hes talking about, none of his arguments make anysense.


Heres some cockpit pics of the early 747, the curent model, and the all new A-380.








posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 02:54 AM
link   
Thats a good choice of pictures murcielago.

It clearly shows that the 747 has come a long way during its lifetime but then you see the A380 cockpit and its on another level altogether. That is a very good illustration of the general point I was making.


I agree with your assessment too and so I will let the topic go. At least until provoked again that is



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 02:57 AM
link   
DJDOHBOY,

I was wondering if you could clarify your last post for me.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
DJDOHBOY,
I was wondering if you could clarify your last post for me.
Cheers
BHR


What i maen is that a few people were starting to gang up on a member, and trying to call him out, if you don't like what he has to say, ignore it, but dont start wandering off the subject trying to belittle people.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJDOHBOY
What i maen is that a few people were starting to gang up on a member, and trying to call him out, if you don't like what he has to say, ignore it, but dont start wandering off the subject trying to belittle people.



This is probably going to bring down punishment on me, but quite simply we arent ganging up on him. He has made a claim that several of us dispute, and he hasnt offered any evidence for his claim. This happens a lot when Airbus is concerned, there is a lot of anti Airbus propaganda being posted and we try and dispell that. This thread isnt conspiracy based nor is it rumour based, there are a lot of hard facts about the A380 and other Airbus aircraft around so why should we accept stuff that we can and do disprove?

Yes, we should be warned if we were ganging up on a member for no reason, but should we allow the same member to post wrong facts and continue to act as if they are correct? Surely there should be a protection of facts?



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 04:14 AM
link   
DJDOHBOY,

Is it considered ganging up if several people post facts which disprove another posters supposition?

I thought this site was subtitled Deny Ignorance?

Cheers

BHR



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 03:32 AM
link   
the AN 225 can land on unpaved runways. As can the AN 124. This is why the Antonov planes are especially popular in African countries

and btw the AN 225 has 32 wheels


edit: edited out the big-quote violation.



[edit on 29-4-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 08:18 AM
link   
Wow I cant believe this thread, no one is telling any truth or facts yet in this conversation. Like the 787 being 100% composite....whew.. wont happen today.
and the A380, glued together airbus, just another 10 year aircraft in the sky. And yes boeing already has parts being produced for the 787, planned to go into full production in the next couple of years. When you work as a structure tech. on heavy commercial aircraft for almost your whole life then you know what you want to fly on or not. And airbus is on the bottom of my list. Just go to any aircraft maintenance facility that works on Boeing, Airbus, and even Douglas and ask which plane do you think is built the best? Douglas is known to be built like a tank, lasting forever, Boeing cutting edge technology in airframe, and airbus glued together cant understand their blueprints and not mechanic friendly at all.
What would you fly on? See there is more than meets the eye here, airplanes fly for a long time and to do this they need to be maintained, if it is hard to do this when people start getting frustrated and dont do there job a 100% which is needed in aviation. Boeing, every time they make a new airplane they try to make it easier for the mech to get his job done, Has not been the case for airbus. The first time I see that A380 role onto the tarmac for maintanence I will be shaking my head because it is going to be a nightmare.

And boeings planes might look similiar but under ther skin they are very different. Just look at the 777, composite floorbeams, and fly by wire the first for boeing. trust me as a mech composite floor beams are a big thing, corrosion loves aluminum and the less the better. But see a aircraft cannot be 100% composite, since technology does not allow this yet. Landing gear, wingroots, spars, and the skin made out of composite. This is a dissaster waiting to happen. The main structure has to be able to hold a load and take the pounding of landing.... well i better stop bacause i could write for ever.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join