Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Airbus versus Boeing

page: 9
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I didn't say that the 200LR is faster.

I was replying to Harlequin's post.

[edit on 24-8-2005 by AtheiX]




posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 06:39 AM
link   
you said my link`s cannot be true as it was from an aviation magazine - i then provided the manufacturers website for the aircraft

and that states the 777-200LR is faster than the A340-500


so , have i happily refuted your claim the A340 has a longer range than the Worldliner now?

The jury is still out on the speed.



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
you said my link`s cannot be true as it was from an aviation magazine

No. I said that the manufacturer of the plane knows better than an aviation magazine.

Originally posted by Harlequin
and that states the 777-200LR is faster than the A340-500

No, it doesn't. The 777-200LR can fly at a speed of up to 0.84 Mach. The A340-500 can fly at a speed of up to 0.86 Mach.

Originally posted by Harlequin
so , have i happily refuted your claim the A340 has a longer range than the Worldliner now?

You were right about range.



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 06:52 AM
link   
According to Airliners.net the typical cruising speed for the A340-500 is 0.83. The cruising speed for the 777 is 0.84.



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
According to Airliners.net the typical cruising speed for the A340-500 is 0.83.

Could you give a direct link?



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 07:00 AM
link   
www.airliners.net...

under the tech specs portion.



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 07:02 AM
link   
So you are right.

But the world's fastest airliner is A380. It can fly at a speed of up to 0.89 Mach. Its cruising speed is 0.85 Mach.



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 07:07 AM
link   
The 787 will be just as fast. It's designed for a 0.85 cruising speed as well.



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 07:28 AM
link   
Please delete this post of mine.

[edit on 24-8-2005 by AtheiX]



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by khruschev
not to mention the pressure put on EU countries to acquire Airbus aircraft.

You are wrong. Poland is a member of the EU, but they bought Boeings, not Airbuses.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
According to Airliners.net the typical cruising speed for the A340-500 is 0.83. The cruising speed for the 777 is 0.84.




Let me see your link says the B777-200 cruises at 905 km/h. Mach at commercial airline cruising altitude is 1062 km/h so the math says .852165 cruising

C'mon now lets get it right the first time. Oh and by the way

B747sp max speed 1000km/h= .94 mach heck of alot faster than the A380


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 2-2-2006 by ncbrian211]



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 01:35 PM
link   
does it matter whether these planes fly at 0.84, 0.85 or 0.86? Its not a difference that matters in any real sense. The only airliner in which its speed would have been something to boast about would have been the sonic cruiser. Sadly it will not now be built and the days of fast airliners are behind us, at least for a few decades they are.

The Sonic cruiser would have cruised around 0.95-0.99, the Boeing 747 does not fly at anywhere near that speed. Its max cruise speed is 0.85 according to the 2004 JAWA, same as the 777 and 757 and 0.05 faster than the 767. This is data supplied directly by the manufacturers and Janes has been the most trusted publishing source since 1909 so I will go with it.

The equivalent figures for Airbus are;

A380 = 0.89 (projected, this was 2004 remember)
A330 & A340 = 0.86

Or, put another way, virtually identical to Boeing and so closew it makes no difference.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Quite so Waynos.

Of course the aspect of this being missed is not a theoretical range of cruising speed(s) but the cruising speed that gives the most economic range and least cost of maintenance.

It's all about costs and the airlines will fly them with eyes fixed on the fuel guages and the bank balances, no matter what fairly meaningless isolated specs the manufacturers claim or folks here want to throw around.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Competition is healthy. It keeps costs down, efficiency up and innovation in the forefront. The A380 and the 787 are good for the world marketplace and satisfy specific market needs. Ultimately, the debates herein have these particular aircraft in mind. Ironically, these aircraft and their respective mission couldn't be more different. The pie is plenty big enough and there is more than enough to go around.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Maintenance view "Airbus vs Boeing"!
Well I work on both brands ( had even russian aircraft in my CV ) and I can say that:
Airbus:
1.Very friendly maintenance manuals with Airbus - AIRNAV System, I'm sure yor son will work with it within 15 min!
Boeing:
1.Unfriendly maintenance manuals I would say - Your son will manage to work with Boeing manuals when he gets 20 ( still need 2 years of experience ).
Airbus:
2.Maintenance itself – Very Good level, easy tasks, maintenance friendly, sophisticated computer based troubleshooting plus lot of test available.
Boeing:
2.Maintenance – Relatively good, still in progress.( Example - panel with sizes 1 sq m will be fitted from Boeing with 60 screws - for same panel Airbus use 16 screws ).
Airbus:
3.Technology progress – We’re in 21 century for sure, no doubt!
Boeing:
3.Technology – We’re somewhere in the middle of 19 to 21 century. You see same components on B727,B737 and now B737 NG ( specially for NG I was amazed to see a mechanical rotary switch, similar I saw first on radio receiver produced in early 50’s to switch the frequencies – believe me or not – it’s there on B737 Next Gen ).
Airbus:
4.Avionics – Good try, still not very sure how to use all this computers
Boeing:
4.Avionics – More conservative, but better reliability I think
Airbus:
5.Design – I know it’s a bit personal, my hit is for Airbus
Boeing:
5.Design – Again I’ll say conservative and somehow military ( saying military I mean that difference that you feel when you get into military truck ( Boeing) and civil one (Airbus). You need only to see how cockpit window handle hits the dashboard on its way to close and you’ll get an idea what I mean – stone age design, not a single thought put over ).
Airbus:
6.Systems on board – Almost same as Boeing ones, Airbus know-how needs more time to clean and improve itself from its beginning period.
Boeing:
6.Systems are just a bit improved from previous edition so they are reliable and good performed.

Finally a passenger view best aircrafts are:
1 Speed – Russian Tupolev, Iliushin nearby 1 Mach
2 Air inside the cabin – again Russian Tupolev, Iliushin ( you don’t need to breath same air 3 times before it is replaced )
3 Comfort in ridding - Russian Tupolev, Iliushin ( flexible wings design, simple example Tupolev 154 ( about 160 passengers ) wings waving in its tip about 1 meter up and same amount down – turbulence is very hard to be felt + it is very heavy, about 20 tons more than same Boeing and Airbus which makes it very stable – like big heavy cars, you know the difference).
4 Economy – Airbus and Boeing simultaneously
5 Price – Boeing has better prices I think ( for spare parts Airbus for sure is the expensive one ).



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ncbrian211
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.


Wow... can't believe no-one dispelled this pish.


1. Glued together A380 - yeah... dead on, do you know that if the planes started to fall apart after 10 years the airlines would sue airbus, never buy airbus again, and quickly result in the death of airbus?

404PostingLogicNotFound

2. 100% composite aircraft - will never happen. There are always things on an aircraft that will have to be metallic. The 787 is approx half composite.

3. Maintenance - if the A300 had crap maintenance records and processes, then airlines would definitely not have bought the follow on A330.

404PostingLogicAWOL





Originally posted by ncbrian211
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.


Because floorbeams are such significant structural member?

And aluminium floorbeams are obviously exposed to the (natural) elements and will corrode within weeks.

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



Originally posted by ncbrian211
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.


Just as well you stopped writing really.

The main structure has to be able to hold a load and take the pounding of landing?

Like a carbon fibre wishbone on a formula 1 car has to take a loading and the pounding of kerbs?


If composite wingroots, spars and skin are a disaster, can I assume you will not be flying on the 787 or A350 anytime soon?



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 09:30 AM
link   
The 7E7 is more reliable and safer.



- The 787 hasn't even been constructed yet never mind flown.....


.......and the Airbus safety record is second to none, for your information, actually.


It has now!



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joalex1995


- The 787 hasn't even been constructed yet never mind flown.....


It has now!


It has?



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 10:50 AM
link   
This threads like two years old.
But, if I may...





  • 777 Max Mach Operating is 0.87.
  • 777 usually cruises at AROUND 0.840 mach, however it varies due to conditions like cost index, winds, altitude, load... etc.
  • 747 Max Mach Operating is 0.920.
  • 747 usually cruises at AROUND 0.855, varies in the same way as the 777.
  • A380 cruises at 0.85x, same factors as other aircraft.
  • Max Mach Operating is 0.89.
  • A340 normally cruises at around 0.82 Mach. Maximum is 0.86. Same factors as Boeing.
  • A340NG, normally cruises at 0.83, maximum is 0.86. Same factors as Boeing.
  • 787 normally cruises at 0.85, maximum of 0.89. Same factors.


More importantly, with fuel prices the way they are, the pilots will enter a higher cost index into the Flight management computer, which will give you a more economical, albeit more slow profile. They are just averages, and if you add them up a diferance between 0.85 and 0.80 is usually only a few minutes.





2. 100% composite aircraft - will never happen. There are always things on an aircraft that will have to be metallic. The 787 is approx half composite.

By weight.

80% by volume.


It has?

It's been constructed.


[edit on 27/6/2008 by C0bzz]



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz


  • 777 Max Mach Operating is 0.87.
  • 777 usually cruises at AROUND 0.840 mach, however it varies due to conditions like cost index, winds, altitude, load... etc.
  • 747 Max Mach Operating is 0.920.
  • 747 usually cruises at AROUND 0.855, varies in the same way as the 777.
  • A380 cruises at 0.85x, same factors as other aircraft.
  • Max Mach Operating is 0.89.
  • A340 normally cruises at around 0.82 Mach. Maximum is 0.86. Same factors as Boeing.
  • A340NG, normally cruises at 0.83, maximum is 0.86. Same factors as Boeing.
  • 787 normally cruises at 0.85, maximum of 0.89. Same factors.



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.




It has?

It's been constructed.


[edit on 27/6/2008 by C0bzz]


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.






top topics



 
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join