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.

 

Looks like Airbus did it.

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 12:03 PM
link   
In particular, what I would like to know is how the market is currently. IN particular, how many boeing aircraft there are in operation versus the amount of airbus aircraft in operation. I would also like to know the revenue per year. But if not, o well.

I would like to bring it to the attention of those who would say that boeing is sunk if this trend continues that boeing is not sunk. Airbus is a significant force in the manufacture of PAX aircraft. Boeing has its hand in the PAX and military development cookie jars, example being the F-35 (I think thats the new boeing one thats a big hit?). It was also involved in the RAH-66 Comanche.




posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkpr0
I would like to bring it to the attention of those who would say that boeing is sunk if this trend continues that boeing is not sunk. Airbus is a significant force in the manufacture of PAX aircraft. Boeing has its hand in the PAX and military development cookie jars, example being the F-35 (I think thats the new boeing one thats a big hit?). It was also involved in the RAH-66 Comanche.



Its next to impossible to say how many Boeing or Airbus are currently flying today, because many are flying with third world airlines and arent counted anywhere. Airbus is a private company so detailed accounts are hard to find, but both have company profiles at yahoo! business if you want to check them out.

The F-35 is Lockheeds project, Boeing failed with its bid. The Commanche is cancelled, and the C-17 has hit huge amounts of problems in its EIS. Boeing is a hugely diversified company, and will definately survive anything, but for the next few years Airbus is likely to be top dog.

Boeing is both an military contractor doing civil aerospace work and a civil aircraft maker doing military contracting work, and it doesnt know what it wants to do more. Until it has its long term strategy sorted out, its going to continue having a hard time, for example what sort of aircraft manufacturer only releases 1 aircraft in 12 years, with another on the drawing board?



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPriceComplete and utter crap. Im sorry, but thats all there is to say about it. You need to stop spouting utter rubbish like this.


Believe me, I didn't make that stuff up. It is second hand information though. I'll ask the person I heard it from about it when I get a chance. But just so you all know this may take some time. But trust me, I didn't make it up myself, assuming it was made up at all.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 09:42 PM
link   
With regards to maintenance, I would like to see some numbers. I know this is impossible because of Airbus' private status. My thought is even if airbus are harder to repair, are their failure rates lower? If so that might offset the increase in costs due the ease or lack thereof of maintenance.

The reason I said it looks like Airbus is doing to Boeing what Toyota did to Ford is because Airbus have released new models fairly recently and consistently (like toyota), but Boeing has not (Like ford using a 20 year old chassis on the 99-04 mustang's).

Please note that theses statements don't reflect any brand loyalty, I drive a 96 M3, but are merely an analogy to other companies in similar industry.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Well even if Airbuses are more reliable (I have no idea), they would still require lot's of maintenence. Not a single plane out there can aviod the fact that lightning strikes and patches have to be put on. Fluids need changing. Parts need inspection and cleaning, etc. Overall I'm pretty sure most maintenence costs these days (don't quote me on this) are mostly routine things that have to be done no matter what plane you use.



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Looks like there are more troubles with the A380 than are being let out!

For those of you who aren't passingly familiar with what this is all about .... someone was trying to turn Airbus' great big, brand-new, A380 aircraft a little too sharply (we don't know whether under it's own power, or while it was under tow).

Airbus elected NOT to make their main landing gear system (four separate gear with four wheels apiece) steerable. Why? You save a considerable amount of weight -- not to mention some serious extra cost -- by not doing so. There is a trade-off, however ...

When you have non-steerable gear that are configured like they are on this aircraft, you have scuffing/skidding going on whenever you turn the aircraft. This isn't an unusual design for a wheeled vehicle, though. For instance, a dual-axle semi-trailer does the same thing when it's being maneuvered sharply within a warehouse parking lot. What makes the A380 so special, is the incredible amount of weight on each huge tire, in conjunction with the widely-spaced gear. In concert, these two aspects considerably magnify the inherent problem -- to the point where the asphalt (not just the rubber tire) is taking it in the shorts ... not to mention the stress and overload that's happening to the entire structure between the tire and the gear attaching points in the wing structure. Note the apparent bending of the gear in one of the shots! No, that is NOT a good thing to be happening to your aircraft's main landing gear. Unless they're making everything out of rubber, those stress loads have GOT to be off the scale!

As new-aircraft design problems go, this will likely prove to be a very expensive one for Airbus to deal with. It's either that, or the aircraft will only be able to operate in and out of airports that have the extra fifty-acres it will need to get safely turned-around. It'll be interesting to see how they solve this one.

Here are some pictures that give a view of the problem:

A-380-1
A-380-2
A-380-3
A-380-4

[edit on 29-7-2005 by Off_The_Street]



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street

Here are some pictures that give a view of the problem:

A-380-1
A-380-2
A-380-3
A-380-4


All that i can see is when i visit those links.....i suggest you upload those pics here : www.imageshack.us...



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Stealth, I think this may have fixed it; please try again.



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Those lateral loads must be huge. It kind of looks like one of those (I forget the term for it) tests where they do a full break stop and blow out the temp plugs in the rims

So what is the fix?



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Excuse me while I remain sceptical.

£10 says its photo-shopped or a fish-eye lens exaggeration.

(outside chance it's an extreme deformation tyre/wheel test.)

[edit on 29-7-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 06:10 PM
link   
It's interesting that you should ask that. Not ten minutes after I posted the article and pictures (which was forwarded to me by my boss, a retired O-6 army aviator), the department administrator dropped off my copy of today's AW&ST, which had an article about the same thing.

Airbus says that the 380 was undergoing deliberate full-load tests, but, interestingly, the aircraft was about ten or twelve tons below max takeoff weight. And Aribus said that the individual load on each tire was less thatn the per-tire max load on a 777-900ER, which is true, but the triple 7 doesn't have the same width of the tire truck that the 380 has.

I think thatmost airport authorities are more concerned about what the 380 is going to do to their runways' asphalt than the damage to the aircraft itself, but I doubt if it will be a show-stopper.

At the very worst, it could delay the big 'bus by a year, but that in itself could cost the French big bucks.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

[edit on 29-7-2005 by Off_The_Street]



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Sminkey, you'd lose your ten Euros or whatever currency you have; three of those identical pictues are in today's AW&ST.



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
(outside chance it's an extreme deformation tyre/wheel test.)

[edit on 29-7-2005 by sminkeypinkey]


I was thinking about that but the skid marks show a quite a slide and I would not expect the plane to tailslide that much in that type of test. I also thought they usualy did that sort of test near the end of the flight test as it totaly toast the breaks and tires? Esp since they have only one in test right now.



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
It's an advantage when you're building a plane in France and all your sections are coming from countries "next door" [/quote

True, it's easier to have all your parts come from countries "next door", but Boeing is probably building parts for planes in Japan JUST BECAUSE IT"S CHEAPER, thus having to lay-off a thousand people.



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by waynos
I was going to ask about that too. Can it really be true or is it another one of those myths that surface over the pond without foundation?



JAL has an all Boeing fleet and serves Europe. I doubt the US Government would have kept that one quiet.


Are you sure about that? Lets see what the Wiki page says!Read "Competition In Japan" and "Workforce by Sites".



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Qwazzy says:


True, it's easier to have all your parts come from countries "next door", but Boeing is probably building parts for planes in Japan JUST BECAUSE IT"S CHEAPER, thus having to lay-off a thousand people.


Actually, it's not cheaper at all.

Boeing is partnering with Fuji Jukogyo (makers of the Subaru and the AH-64D Apache Longbow under license) for portions of the wing/empennage for the 787 Dreamliner, because they (and everyone else) are more likely to buy an airplane which helps keep their people employed, too.

I spent six months at the Fuji plant, and believe me, their engineers are paid more than we are. Japan has a higher standard of living than the US does; why else does a Japanese-made car cost so much?



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Japan has a higher standard of living than the US does; why else does a Japanese-made car cost so much?

Is that why the Nissan Skyline and Honda integra TYPE R are so much money?

Shattered OUT...

[edit on 30-7-2005 by ShatteredSkies]



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Typical european effort and I believe the first 'fly by wire' commercial aircraft.

Boeing has the same to offer but at a worse price (767).
AB 380 will crush boing's market on the 747300.
You aircraft people correct me if I'm wrong.

Dallas



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Actually fly by wire has been around longer than the 380. The 777 was Boeings first, and I'm not sure about earlier Airbus models.

The 777 was originally conceived as a stretched 767, but Boeing instead adopted an all new design. Notable 777 design features include a unique fuselage cross section, Boeing's first application of fly-by-wire, an advanced technology glass flightdeck with five liquid crystal displays, comparatively large scale use of composites (10% by weight), and advanced and extremely powerful engines. The 777 was also offered with optional folding wings where the outer 6m/21ft of each would fold upwards for operations at space restricted airports.

www.airliners.net...

I think the 380 will be successful, but not the huge hit that people are saying it will be. I think most airports just won't be able to handle them coming in within even a couple of hours of each other. I know our airport has a hard time with just all the 747s coming in as close together as they do from Japan. Throw in a couple 600 plus passenger flights, and we'd be totally swamped. Chicago, LAX, and Atlanta are already operating at pretty close to peak capacity. O'Hare, and Atlanta swap the busiest airport title between them every year.



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 10:59 PM
link   
Thanx for that great info. As little as I know about aircraft, seems to me Airbus was first on the 'fly by wire' thing though.

Dallas



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join