It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Airbus versus Boeing

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 08:51 AM
link   
I agree with Waynos, a possible fuel crisis would be a good thing for the A380...
On the other side, the main problem could be the airports, but in my opinion this kind of big planes could be a great solution if the air traffic increases, as it seems to be doing, so maybe it is worth for the airports to get upgraded, looking at the future... because maybe flights point to point are the best solution for certain routes, but there are routes with high traffic that allways will need big planes...




posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   
I know I shouldnt do this and that it really doesnt contribute anything to this thread but sometimes you just gotta have a bit of a laugh and lighten the day, and if I get flamed then what the hell.

How is this for unfortunate planning of lettering ? Not really the kind of advert that you want is it ?




posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 10:42 AM
link   
You'd better not get flamed, I agree with you and I love that pic



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Yeah, the pic is cool, it has make me smile. I just wonder how they didn't realised that they were helping to make a joke... or they did??
Anyway, good find, I think it should remind us not to take these threads too seriously... my life don't depend on wich company is better, Boeing or Airbus...



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 03:48 PM
link   
After slugging through 7 pages of this thread, you gave me a good laugh.

We can toss this issue back and forth, but we will all have the answer in the years ahead. We can't predict the future with any clarity, and who knows what changes in the world will effect the outcome of this battle of the giants.

Something as small as a virus could seriously curtail air travel for a period of years and dash the hopes and dreams of both companies.

Thanks again for the fun pic Argus.



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice

Originally posted by websurfer
Rather be in the boeing 7E7. The airbus is made entirely out of composite material that is in the early experimental stage. The 7E7 is more reliable and safer.


The Airbus is only made out of 25% composite, verses the near 100% of the 7E7. The 7E7 is using brand new techniques for the engines and electronics. All of which are untested outside the lab and thus theres absolutely no way you can sanely claim that the 7E7 is 'more reliable and safer'.


I definetly agree with Richard.



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 11:12 PM
link   
I've flown many models of Boeings, and the A320 and A340 from Airbus. The 340 wasn't a bad flight, but the 320 was a horrible flight. The seats were horribly uncomfortable and it was cramped. It reminded me of a 757 (cattle car). I said in another thread the biggest thing I don't like about Airbus is that there is too much computer control over the aircraft. I'm not comfortable with a computer having that much say in how a plane flies.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 08:26 AM
link   
Zaphod,


Originally posted by Zaphod58
I'm not comfortable with a computer having that much say in how a plane flies.


Having had many experiences of riding in the cockpit of commercial I think you will find that the hands on time of the average pilot is minimal.

With regards to the Airbus computer controls I remember reading a study several year ago ( I will try and look it out ) but it talked about levels of reliabilty in mechanical as opposed to computer flight controls and in both cases the limiting reliability factor was the mechanical linkages themselves.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 06:14 PM
link   
My problem isn't so much with the computer controlling the flight controls, it's more that almost everywhere I've looked I've heard that the computer controls turns and climbs and if the pilot isn't comfortable with the angle, the computer will turn or climb harder to keep that angle of input. Like if a pilot doesn't like how steep the plane is climbing, and pushes forward the computer pulls back to compensate...

Yeah, I know that hands on flying is minimal. I don't really have a problem with limited computer control, like autopilot, just not the computer handling everything and the pilot being along for the ride. It's kind of like that joke where soon there's going to be a pilot and a dog in the cockpit. The dog is there to bite the pilot if he tries to touch anything.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Airbus versus Boeing?

The Americans invented flying. The French invented mayonnaise. I do not want Kraft American on my salad nor Airbus under my buns.

Inflammatory? Yes, but so were the comments out of Paris wanting to 'put Boeing out of business in ten years'.

Live and let live.

Not only is this the post-industrial age, it is the post-competitive age and watching this whole dog and pony show makes me want to spit.

If you want to see what Gallic 'competitiveness' does to American aircraft manufacturers, go visit what remains of Bell Helicopter- up in Canada.

And somebody has to say it, so I will. In an age of civil-aircraft-used-as-kinetic-weapons, what kind of an engineer goes out and designs 'The World's BIGGEST Airplane'?

Maybe we should recycle the Statue of Liberty and donate the scrap to Boeing gratis for wiring. And ban anything bigger than the 747 over the mainland. For National Security.

And ban helicopters whose rotors turn the wrong way and those who practice bribery in contracts.

Happy Cinco De Mayo, Baby.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 08:45 PM
link   
What you say about kinetic weapons hasn't any sense, somebody has to say it, and I will. Almost every comercial plane from Airbus or Boeing, launched at this speed and with the fuel these planes had, would have have the same effect. In fact, I think the planes were 767 and 757 (I don't remember wich model they were, but they were BOEING) so... If you want to ban planes "for safety", ban all the "big planes" from both companies... ok, everybody flying over the USA with bussiness jets or Cesnas... please, don't say stupid things like the A380 is more dangerous than a 747... it's so "chauvinist" that stinks. And if you have any doubt, try to collide with a 747 with the twin towers or any tower you want and look what happens... they will probably fall. Of course, if the tower is well designed and well built, the tower won't fall... Unfortunately the twin towers hadn't the best design to be collided by a plane, with most structure in the skin and bad cover of the central core...



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chemapeich
please, don't say stupid things like the A380 is more dangerous than a 747... it's so "chauvinist" that stinks.


The A380 is more dangerous than a 747. Both for the passengers who will be killed in greater numbers when one eventually goes down and for the poor unfortunate souls on the ground who will get plastered by burning debris. That is a scientific fact supportable by simple arithmatic and basic statistics. It is also dangerous to pilots, as fewer planes carry more people ergo less jobs. As an aviation professional, that irks me.

Is it a fact? Yes. Is it chauvinist? You bet.

Just as chauvinist as the French official who declared verbal war on Boeing. A spade is a spade, and if the French want a no holds barred trade war with the US, they will Get What They Want.

And I am a moderate- you should hear what the workaday American stickjockeys say in private these days- and write in urinals- about the loss of American Jobs to cut-throat Euro competition. They even write public editorials about it in Inflight USA.

I think four words sum up the 380: Big Like A Pig.

And I think statements such as have been coming out of Airbus about putting Boeing out of business are a heck of a way to treat the Heavy Bomber Company- Boeing- that saved the French bacon in World War Two.




[edit on 21-6-2005 by Chakotay]



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 05:42 AM
link   
Chak,


Originally posted by Chakotay
Airbus versus Boeing?

The Americans invented flying. The French invented mayonnaise. I do not want Kraft American on my salad nor Airbus under my buns.

Inflammatory? Yes, but so were the comments out of Paris wanting to 'put Boeing out of business in ten years'.

Live and let live.

Not only is this the post-industrial age, it is the post-competitive age and watching this whole dog and pony show makes me want to spit.

If you want to see what Gallic 'competitiveness' does to American aircraft manufacturers, go visit what remains of Bell Helicopter- up in Canada.

And somebody has to say it, so I will. In an age of civil-aircraft-used-as-kinetic-weapons, what kind of an engineer goes out and designs 'The World's BIGGEST Airplane'?

Maybe we should recycle the Statue of Liberty and donate the scrap to Boeing gratis for wiring. And ban anything bigger than the 747 over the mainland. For National Security.

And ban helicopters whose rotors turn the wrong way and those who practice bribery in contracts.

Happy Cinco De Mayo, Baby.


Interesting post.

You managed not to post one single fact and hit every single racist and ill-informed misconception going on this subject.

Quite a feat.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 06:31 AM
link   
for the last time AIRBUS IS NOT FRENCH

It is a consortium made up of French, Uk, German and Spanish Interests



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 08:33 AM
link   
I wont get drawn in to this silliness but, as a point of interest, did you (thats anyone reading this) know that the plane we now know as the A300 was actually designed by Hawker Siddeley for BEA (British European Airways - now part of BA) and the name Airbus comes from the original BEA ' Airbus Requirement'. That the UK share subsequently became revised downwards to 20% was thanks to the UK Govt of the day. Thanks Harold
Anyway thats how French it is, as French as it is British as it is German, we all own it. I think the Americans call it French because it makes it easier to hate, perhaps?

[edit on 22-6-2005 by waynos]



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 01:52 PM
link   
In adition to what Chakotay (or whatever his name is) said, in fact I would bet that a 747 is way more dangerous than a A380, only because it's an old design and probably newer planes are better than old ones. And, thanks for talking about this, because european things are way better manufactured than american ones (probably that's the reason because they have problems loosing employments, because other countries work better)... I know I'm lighting a big fire with this kind of statements, but he's who started talking about the theme... I only defend the good old europe against this kind of statements...



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 07:54 PM
link   
I'm gonna have to agree to Waynos on this one. I'd like to say things, but I refuse to be drawn into a "My tech is better than your tech" argument, or respond to the cracks that were made by Chakotay.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 04:15 AM
link   
Zaphod,

You are such a spoilsport.

Get involved in a "my tech is better than your tech" tussle.

Go on.

Live a little.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
My problem isn't so much with the computer controlling the flight controls, it's more that almost everywhere I've looked I've heard that the computer controls turns and climbs and if the pilot isn't comfortable with the angle, the computer will turn or climb harder to keep that angle of input. Like if a pilot doesn't like how steep the plane is climbing, and pushes forward the computer pulls back to compensate...


This is a common misconception. THe aircraft does not have full control, but it will stop the pilot doing something idiotic that places the aircraft outside the operating envelope.

For example, if you reduce the engines to idle, lower the airspeed to just above stall, and then pull up - the system will power the engines up to produce thrust and avoid a stall.

You cant exceed a certain bank angle, again because it places the aircraft outside flyable parameters.

Basically, if you are doing something where the system intervenes, you are an idiot and shouldnt be flying the aircraft at all. The system stops you from placing the aircraft into danger, and attempting to do something that it prevents even to get out of a dangerous situation will 99% put the aircraft into worse danger, either by airframe overstress or airframe stall.

If the pilot does something that is within the parameters for flight and stress, then the system wont intervene. This includes the case where a pilot pushes over on a steep climb - the system wont pull back up just because the pilot corrected the angle.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by paperplane_uk
for the last time AIRBUS IS NOT FRENCHIt is a consortium made up of French, Uk, German and Spanish Interests


That is true, but the French are by far the biggest public lobbiest for the company and the main assembly plant is located in France, and they tried (without sucsess) to push Foregard for the top spot at EADS, and you have the French president forgetting the Tienneman massacre to push the A380 in China. So you have to forgive people if they link the company with France.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join