Forum: Civil and General Aviation

OK OK sorry. I was just referring to something I heard from some of the aviation people here at Purdue, and only with regards to the big jets. I was never sure about the fighters, but I know there have been reports of people losing rudder control (as long as it isn't stuck to a side) and being able to land the jumbo jets. Sorry if I seem/am uninformed, I'm hear to learn things. So which control surfaces can you lose and still be functional in a passenger airliner and a fighter.

F-16.net Sponsor

One thing I've noticed is that most airlines work on a bankruptcy system. They run for a while and declare bankruptcy and start the process over again. The thing about at least the US NAS is that it's a scale-free network. Yes, people try to do P2P as much as possible, but the network in H&S. H&S isn't good for business and it's not far from hitting and absolute cap on how many flights it can handle at least in this type system. Something needs to happen or capacity will be hit. A hybrid network needs to be set up. A random network and the scale free network need to do a sort of merge for a more ideal network to emerge. This is all network and what we're doing in my lab at Purdue right now. Anyone who knows anything about network theory please feel free to either smack me down or chime in on this one.

The manufactorer's of the aircraft are trying to sell the aircraft based on their own desired system. The P2P system is more a more ideal one from making money. I believe SWA is actually keeping its head above water where most of airlines are operating in bankruptcy. If I'm full of it, please call me and I'll just shut up.

No, the manufacturers are trying to cater to the customer's needs, not try and support their own desired system. Airlines would lke to have more p2p flights, because their customers want more p2p flights. I'm not saying the h&s system is better or worse. In fact I think it's rather outdated, and we could do away with it. But it takes time and $$$, both of which are in short supply for the airlines now. Boeing isn't trying to foist a p2p system on the airlines anymore than Airbus is trying to foist a h&s system on the airlines.

It's the thing that Boeing believes the P2P system will be the future and Airbus believes that H&S will be there forever. We're only now realizing the system of preferential attachment is the natural way of things. We can steer future development to change from the H&S a sort of hybrid system. That is far more ideal. Yes, they are catering to the needs of the customer, but ironically enough they are creating a more ideal system together. I'm done, so yeah not making a fool of myself anymore.

LordOfBunnies wrote:

It's the thing that Boeing believes the P2P system will be the future and Airbus believes that H&S will be there forever. We're only now realizing the system of preferential attachment is the natural way of things. We can steer future development to change from the H&S a sort of hybrid system. That is far more ideal. Yes, they are catering to the needs of the customer, but ironically enough they are creating a more ideal system together. I'm done, so yeah not making a fool of myself anymore.

In ways both companies are right. Frankfort and Heathrow, LAX and New York will always be major hubs. Note that these are all major international airports. Now for domestic flights, I'd much rather take SWA than anyone else (especially Delta) Why anyone in their right mind would want to change planes at Atlanta or DFW is beyond rationality. I think the growing sales of CRJs and ERJs (or RJs in general) points to an increas in point to point service, and that Boeings decision to drop the 717 was a mistake.

-Mark

There are a lot of people who put Airbus down, mostly from the Boeing side of things. The fact is that Airbus recently recorded higher numbers of orders and deliveries of a/c (2003 I think) than Boeing, at the same time as Boeing were having, er, managment issues (something strange about the 767 tanker/USAF deal IIRC) which led to them dismissing some high profile people.

The A380 is a big gamble, I'm not sure it will work, but what Airbus are trying to do is cement their place as number one. The fact that Boeing aren't number one anymore has led them to begin a huge FUD campaign against Airbus.

From personal experience, there's not much between them. In smaller categories I'd go Airbus given the choice, A321, but for larger/more luxurious a/c I'd tend towards a Boeing 767.

As the great Ron David, former narrator of Wings once said..."No design seems strange for long...if it's succssful." Wink

IIRC, Boeing has always outsold Airbus until the recent Paris airshow. Lets not forget that a significant portion of Airbus’ orders were from airliners that don’t even exist yet! On the other hand, Airbus is not at risk and does not have to repay billions of euros to the sponsoring EU governments unless they make revenues. This allows them to sell their new airliner at discounted prices. The A380 is clearly not as versatile a machine, but Airbus doesn’t have to worry about that, they can wait around while orders trickle in, and maybe in the not-so-near-future start making some profit to repay the R&D costs.

EDIT: Boeing wasn't the only one having managment issues...

Saw the "Blade-off" test of the `Trents for the A380. Man, never saw a 15 million dollar engine disintegrate on camera with an audience before! The control room shook which was 200 yards away!
On the same show the huge tailcone which was made in Spain was being lined up to be fitted to the prototype....it didn`t fit! A German engineer in charge of the rudder assembly, the largest ever fitted to a civil job, personally fitted the last component ... a small camera right at the top. You should have seen the look on his face when he had to tell the TV crew that the power cable was too short by half an inch!!! Cringe!!!!!!! He had spent years on the project!

Well....... prototypes are prototypes!

Did you see on Discovery?

Yeah Karim, on the "Wings" channel I think? I didn`t realise how expensive engines really were! The largest single expenditure on any aircraft, with a few exceptions.
The prototypes test pilot didn`t look very impressed with the plane on TV! Turns out he was just playing it cool! The scene with the Qantas boss sitting in an A-380 seat with a huge grin on his face was very entertaining! (the grin said....I WANT this jet!).

OK, I'll bite. Doesn't really matter to me much. They are both very very good, otherwise they wouldn't be selling. And each needs the other just so they stay on their toes. It would be a mess if there was only one medium - large body vendor.

I like all of the systems stuff on the A320 family. But then again I am not a maintainer so I don't have to work on it. I did notice that the engine pyons on a A320 family has all the gizmo connectivity in a nice strait path, where as you open up a engine pylon on some boeing products and it looks a bit more complex. However, comparing the most new from each model, if one was easier to maintain by a margin, the other would be gone. Accountants rule. Swiss Air is dumping their early gen 4 engine A340-200s because of fuel prices. The 200 series carries the least of the 340 family 257 +/- and at the end of the day with cost of ownership issues... the 767-300s they have ( about the same capacity ),.... did better for the routes they did. I kinda like the newer big engine higher capacity 500 and 600 A340s.... but woe be it to them if the 777-200ER ( soon LR ) or 777-300ER becomes dramatically cheaper to run ( re: fuel ) if the operator doesn't have to worry about any ETOPS limits that are part and parcel to 2 engine wide body ops over water like 777. A330s are great. However while the 200 ( less capacity ) has nice range... the 300 series of the A330 ( 777-200 like capacity ) doesn't have the range to match a 777-200ER. You be the judge. It's all up to your needs and what your accountant claims you can get away with and who offfers the best deal.

Some other interest. Seems that the 757 is being pushed out of domestic US coast to coast use. On a dollar per dollar cost of ownership issue, its pretty hard to compete with an A321 that can beat you up on operating cost. Notice Continental 757s growing winglets kits and being used for translantic flights. Laughing

The 787 is going to blow the doors off of the economic models for a lot of long range flight needs. If fuel prices get even worse, it might be the only sensible player in town for most long haul two engine users.

"50....40.....30..... 20..... Retard..." Very Happy

Guysmiley wrote:

Airbus rudders DO seem to have a bad habit of coming off, an Airbus A300 went down in New York when the rudder pulled off.

It was more than the rudder; the entire vertical stabilizer broke off.

Robert J. Boser
Editor,
http://AirlineSafety.Com

Elite 1K Joined: May 26, 2005 - 08:39 PM Posts: 1496

Yeah, I meant "went down in New York when the v-stab pulled off."

What hasn't been pointed out (in reference to the first post) is that Airbus recently announced the A350... a design follow-on from the A330 which is completely new in design (only about 20% A330 commonality). The specs and numbers on paper match the B787 (aka 7E7) for efficiency and range the only difference (as Air Illustrated said in a recent article); airbus have decided not to go for a "gimmicky" new fuselage design and kept with a traditional design to prove that the fuselage shape really has nothing to do with improving efficiency.etc. They announced this aircraft a month or so ago and already have over 100 orders for it.

Andy

Forum: Civil and General Aviation

Boeing Vs Airbus