Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Will Airbus delay mean much? (A380's postponement might aid Boeing, might not)
Associated Press via the Corvallis Gazette-Times ^ | Tuesday, June 7, 2005 | ELIZABETH M. GILLESPIE

Posted on 06/06/2005 10:41:11 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-66 next last
To: Paleo Conservative
Very few Stratoliners produced, beautiful bird.

Not sure, but the new Smithsonian has lots of room, I'd like to see a Stratocruiser join the exhibit. They have a DC-7C coming, and I believe a Connie. I would hope they get a 737-100, and a DC-8. Of course I would kill for a 747-SP.

41 posted on 06/07/2005 11:28:58 PM PDT by Central Scrutiniser (Intelligent design is neither.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
I wonder why Boeing didn't get more market share with the 247...

The 247 was a revolutionary plane when introduced, but Boeing made the error of committing the initial deliveries to United, which was a sister company. This effectively froze all the other airlines out of the new technology. So Jack Frye of TWA went to Donald Douglas and asked him to build something that could compete with the 247. Thus was born the DC-1 and its follow on DC-2 and DC-3 versions.

Boeing's "United preference" caused the competition to build an alternative that turned out to be a "better mousetrap". There is a lesson to be learned here!

42 posted on 06/07/2005 11:41:36 PM PDT by StevieB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser
I would hope they get a 737-100, and a DC-8. Of course I would kill for a 747-SP.

I think they'll get the prototype 737-100 that NASA used as test bed.

43 posted on 06/08/2005 1:58:26 AM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Andrew Heyward's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser


44 posted on 06/08/2005 2:02:46 AM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Andrew Heyward's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser

Thank you. This one-sided bashing, deserved or not, isn't very informative, so your input (being an aviation enthusiast and a veteran in the field) is refreshing.


45 posted on 06/08/2005 2:39:28 AM PDT by neutrality
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser

There is no way that Boeing received, in any form, anywhere near as much "government cheese" as Airbus has received for the development of this one plane.


46 posted on 06/08/2005 5:47:31 AM PDT by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser

And how do you feel about Boeing ?


47 posted on 06/08/2005 7:24:47 AM PDT by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM 53 : 1 The ( FOOL ) hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser
The fact is ? the first and 3 rd 747 never went into regular service.
Fact: the 3 rd 747 was used for structural stress test and fatigue test and the wings were broken into pieces.
Fact: a 777 was used for stress test and the wings were broken into pieces.
Regardless if you know more about airplanes than anyone on the planet earth, this IS still a public forum and YOU are not the boss at Freerepubic, Jim Robinson is, so get off your high house are learn some humility.
48 posted on 06/08/2005 7:36:19 AM PDT by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM 53 : 1 The ( FOOL ) hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Prophet in the wilderness
typo correction: " so get off your high horse and learn some humility."
49 posted on 06/08/2005 7:41:51 AM PDT by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM 53 : 1 The ( FOOL ) hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

My airline flew the last 737-100 in service in the US. It was a hangar queen, spend lots of time stuck because of it being broke down. Its been scrapped since.

I think they are going to keep that NASA plane in a museum.


50 posted on 06/08/2005 10:21:29 AM PDT by Central Scrutiniser (Intelligent design is neither.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Prophet in the wilderness

I like Boeing, I spend a lot of time on 757's and 747-400's. I really like the 717 (technically not Boeing), and wish that they could have sold lots more, it beats the hell out of flying on a noisy ATR-72, which I seem to get stuck with frequently.


51 posted on 06/08/2005 10:23:40 AM PDT by Central Scrutiniser (Intelligent design is neither.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Prophet in the wilderness

The fact is, that was back in the late 60's, they don't do that anymore the first 777 is still in the air. And don't go preaching to me how to behave at FR, you came onto this thread like a braying ass and can't handle any opposite views.

You are getting worked up over a plane for god's sake, imagine what you would do over something important!


52 posted on 06/08/2005 10:26:22 AM PDT by Central Scrutiniser (Intelligent design is neither.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser
Well,, if there is one thing we both can agree on, is ? , we both wish McDonald Douglass was still in business.
I am sorry, I flew in a Airbus once, and never liked it.
My disregard towards Airbus is more towards the French then anything else.
When I flew on a Airbus once , the floorboards buckled up and down as the people passed me while boarding while I was seated, I don't know about you, but, I like to fly in a plane more solid than that.
What is wrong with being biased towards Boeing anyway ?
Take care.
53 posted on 06/08/2005 10:50:56 AM PDT by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM 53 : 1 The ( FOOL ) hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser
I hate to disagree with you, but yes, airframe static, fatigue, GVT, component failure and destructive tests are still performed today. Your comment about "back in the 60's" has more to do with the fact that most commercial projects today are derivatives of previously certified designs (they do not need to be retested thus the reason there are so many derivatives - saves bucks).

The FAA amd CAA are responsible for the certification of these new airplanes from the design through production, testing and delivery. I agree with you that many on this board diss Airbus because of the "French connection" which is kind of juvenile. What I tend to look at are the little things that Boeing does (and MDC used to do) to please the airlines because their profit margins had to be met. As long as Airbus has part of their costs born by their mother countries, they will never learn what true competition and customer satisfaction is all about.

54 posted on 06/08/2005 11:02:05 AM PDT by jettester (I got paid to break 'em - not fly 'em)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: jettester

They do tests and destroy stuff, but they don't sacrafice a whole plane like in the old days. They have enough data so that "if its fixed, don't break it"

One of the great things about living in Phoenix is that Boeing does heat testing of new designs here in the summer. We got the first 747-400 and the first 777, it was cool to be able to see them coming in and out on a blazing hot day.

As for the ripping of Airbus, yeah, its irrational, good thing everyone here likes Brazil, otherwise Embraer would be villified!


55 posted on 06/08/2005 12:03:49 PM PDT by Central Scrutiniser (Intelligent design is neither.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Prophet in the wilderness

I like Mcdonnell Douglas planes, with the exception of the MD-11, it was not a good plane. I really miss the L1011, an advanced plane for its time, ATA just sent a bunch of theirs into D check, so they will be flying in the US for a few years (mostly military charters).


56 posted on 06/08/2005 12:06:00 PM PDT by Central Scrutiniser (Intelligent design is neither.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

I can't help but wonder about how much "Oil for Food" money went toward building Frances Air Folly!


57 posted on 06/08/2005 12:14:15 PM PDT by Gator113
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

Maybe they found a radio tranmitter within the carbon-fiber core of the first jumbo-liner;

that had the business card of Al-Ansar-bin-Atwat-bin-Gringo-bin-Raghed, and got concerned about the Arabic employees on the assembly line.


58 posted on 06/08/2005 12:30:38 PM PDT by aShepard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser
Let me have your opinion .... ( I never got to fly in MD or Lockheed's planes ) what is the comparisons between MD and Lockheed ? and MD's, Lockheed and the rest ..i.e. Boeing, Airbus ? ....
I heard the L1011's were legendary.
You have to admit.. the DC - 9 is a beautiful plane.
59 posted on 06/08/2005 1:15:38 PM PDT by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM 53 : 1 The ( FOOL ) hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser
Sorry, hate to disappoint you, but you are wrong. Many of the programs I managed (including the C-17, T-45, MD-90 and others) all had full-size static and fatigue tests done on them. The MD-90 had half of a fuselage (the new section that needed certification) cantilevered off of a wall so that the new pylons and tail could be tested in static and fatigue. The C-17 had two test articles that were built, tested, and never flown. The T-45 had one full size article that was static tested and then dropped repeatedly to simulate aircraft carrier landings.

The FAA and JAA (sorry, I said CAA earlier) review the design submittals and work with the manufacturers to ensure the necessary tests are done to achieve an Airworthiness Rating. This includes calling for demonstration tests on any new or uniquely designed areas of the plane. If that means that the design is "new" enough where there is no existing data to rely on, then a full-scale test can be called for. Believe you me, I sat though enough design strategy sessions trying to pencil whip a design to the point where it is "similar enough" to an existing one so that a high cost test could be avoided. There haven't been as many full-scale tests because there haven't been enough all new designs coming out of the box - most are derivatives of existing ones so that similarity can be claimed.

60 posted on 06/08/2005 1:33:42 PM PDT by jettester (I got paid to break 'em - not fly 'em)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-66 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson