Overpressure bombing effects (or why Zarqawi still had a face after the bombing)

On another note-

There is speculation that the DC10 was the main reason MD went under in the long run. Would you agree with that statement?

I understand that the MD11 today has an exceptional safety record, but it was a bumpy road at first and there were issues originally with the cargo doors and mounting of the motors. Rumor has it that the rough beginning of this plane pretty much made MD loose out against Boeing which later bought them up. Would you agree with that statement?

Which brings me to my next question. MD looses in the race because of the DC10 (speculation) and the Comet kills De Havilland because of material fatigue. There is little room for failure in this industry since huge sums of money and human lives tend to go away when things go wrong. Yet Airbus fly's an A320 on its maiden flight full of VIPs into a forest and burns them up.

http://www.airdisaster.com/download/af320.shtml

They misread the market trend and build a plane designed for the “Hub a spoke” concept of air travel when in reality the trend is going away from this concept (A380). Their best rated plane assumes position eight statistically with seven Boeing, former MD, and a Saab leading the way; this despite the Boeing fleets having older planes on average and being used in more back yard operations (Africa, Latin America) where FAR’s don’t apply and minor things like weights and balances may not be completely within their defined limits. I have raised this point several times with some of our European friends here that defend Airbus. I know years ago there was an incident where Perot Systems had to buy itself out of a bad contract and lost 35 million dollars. Despite being a large firm and having the assets to recover from this easily, people were running away and stocks plummeted. To me it seems VERY suspect that Airbus has the capital for such rapid expansion and despite having accidents that should have had an impact on sales and investment they just keep selling and “somehow” the lenders just keep pumping money into them despite minor incidents like a planeload of VIPs going up in flames. One plane, the De Havilland Comet, ended them as a major contender on the international market for large airframes - One error. Some issues on the DC10 (Which were resolved quickly) that today enjoys one of the best safety records all together caused MD to loose out to Boeing (If that point is accurate). But Airbus- Would you agree that Airbus defies historical precedence and reasonable investor behavior?

Basically the direction I head with this is that Airbus is “state” backed. The Consortium member states float this firm. In the 90s most of the national airlines were still state owned. The state owned airline Lufthansa was going to buy the state sponsored and subsidized plane, no matter what. That would be the logical conclusion from the question above.

What I really like is the stink of our men (in my case as a helo driver '65 - ish, NOT in VN - somewhere else, but doing the same good deeds with them wunnerful claymores - dead Commies).

I took 'em in six weeks before on the border and they moved up, laid up and observed and then wasted a bunch of Indons in Lumbis. I picked 'em up, no packs, longs only, and they backed into the LZ, boarded in excellent order and I flew them out.

They never washed, moved more than few yards to sh*t into a plastic bag, and drank out of waterholes that might have given them dengue or lepto. I was privelged to serve with such men.

I was just 21 years old.

Red6, with regard to your questions about the MD11, the short answer is I really don't know. While I learned everything I possibly could about the F-16, I don't have the same interest in the MD-11. It is a means to an income rather than my instrument of life and death.

But your comments about Airbus are spot on. They are state backed, and rely very strongly on that state backing for their survival. Unfortunately for them, nothing that relies on government for survival does very well. The recent buffoonary with the 350 and the continued problems with the 380 are becoming unrecoverable. They can't compete with Boeing because they've never really had to compete with Boeing. They dumped a lot of eggs into the 380 basket, and now the whole thing is turning rotten.

Can't say I'm sorry. FedEx bought the 380, but we'd be much better off with the 747. And I've always wanted to fly them.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.