Skip to comments.Airbus A320 Outshines Boeing‘s 737
Posted on 02/27/2006 7:47:04 AM PST by ConservativeStatement
SINGAPORE - Boeings 737 passenger plane, which has seen deliveries top 5,000 since it entered service 38 years ago, has always been touted by its U.S. makers as the worlds most popular commercial jet.
Last year, Toulouse, France-based Airbus had a 62 percent market share of the single-aisle plane market with 918 orders for the A320. The 737 had 569 orders.
(Excerpt) Read more at localnewsleader.com ...
one would certainly hope that a new airframe would "outshine" a 38 uear old one.
...And the Airbus A380 snapped a wing off during stress testing. If I were investing now, I would be buying Duct Tape manufacturers.
So this is how far Airbus has fallen -- they have to troll for news that some 38 YEAR OLD Boieng aircraft are being phased out and replaced by A320's.
LOL. If given the choice, I'd prefer airworthiness to shine myself.
One would hope so. The 737 is 30+ years old.
For real? That does not sound good, hard to believe.
The 787 eventually will replace the 737, 757 and 767. Currently the 787 is being offered in a number of variations and looks quite flexible as to its capacity. There is even a fear that it could impede on the 777 market.
Your post is misleading. All new wings are tested to failure. The 380 wing failed a little short of it's design specification. I remember that the C-17 wing also failed short of it's design specification but production went on anyway. Here's a related article
On Friday came the shocking report that the wings on an Airbus A380 had ruptured and failed during testing. That led to lurid reports like "Airbus: On a wing 'n' a prayer?" in the Financial Times of India.
But the fact is that the wings were supposed to fail during the tests. Both Boeing and Airbus test key components (like wings) "to failure." Basically, they put them in big monster machines and torque the suckers until they snap. I've seen videos and it's pretty dramatic, and my inner 8-year-old is seriously hoping to be on hand when Boeing does that kind of test on the 787.
What the test is designed to prove is that the wings will withstand 1.5 times the stress that they'll encounter during normal operations, and that's what's significant about the news - the A380 wings ruptured 3.3 percent short of the target.
Airbus downplayed the event. Alain Garcia, Airbus' executive vice president for engineering, told an industry publication that "essentially no modifications" would be required to production aircraft as a result of the tests.
And Airbus spokeswoman Barbara Kracht told the Associated Press that while the wing may need to be tweaked, that shouldn't be a major issue.
Airbus engineers and officials from the European Aviation Safety Agency and U.S. Federal Aviation Administration will decide what if any modifications are required, she told AP. "We will need to find out from the data what is really needed, but it's certainly not a redesign of the wing."
But that is the issue. If U.S. or European regulators require changes, that will send Airbus back to the digital drawing board to design and build a new wing, which means further delays for a program already running six months late.
I was thinking the same thing.
All wings snap durng this test. That's the point. The only problem at this time is that the wing snapped before it was supposed to. The wing was not as strong as believed. However Aribus says the wing was not a production wing and the wings are now stronger. Of course that's what Airbus says. Anyway the planes development just got that much more expensive as they now to go break some more wings. Probably run them another $100 million or so more over budget. Just keeps adding up.
It's true. A car backfired in the parking lot the wing fell off and the French army surrendered.
They were hoping the wing would handle 150% of the stress of a full plane, but it snapped at 147%
Thanks for your explaination, seems the 380 has a lot of problems to solve.
While the A320 does have a slightly wider cabin, this doesn't really translate to wider seats or more space for passengers. Most airlines simply have a wider aisle on the A320 and use the same seats as are used on the 737.
That little admission probably means that instead of strengthening the wing, AirBus has decided to lower the gross weight rating for the aircraft. I don't blame them, since they are already way over budget for the aircraft, but it will cost them down the road.
How many 737s has Boeing sold over the entire life of that model vs. how many A320 have been sold by Airbus?
As a French colleague told me, there is a large number of Airbus employees who commute from Paris to Toulouse every week -- leave on Monday, return on Friday. The plane they fly in is a Boeing 747.
He doesn't think much of the A380 either.
I just can't wait to hear how they evacuate 800+ passengers out of that monstrosity in 90 seconds. I wonder if they plan on using the enitre French and German track and field teams. This should be intresting. I guarantee they have been practicing this test over and over until they can figure out how to get everyone out. My prediction, 800+ ejection seats. They cost about $500,000 each so that's another $400 million to the price of the plane.
The 380 is a white elephant but Airbus seems to win in the middle category with the 320, hopefully that will turn around.
I wasn't being misleading. The Airbus A380 wing snapped between the engines and failed to make the 150% mark that is required. Period.
Ask any pilot which aircraft they would rather fly. Even the french ones will tell you they prefer Boeing.
Airbus has spent it R&D budget on the A380 which does not give it the technology needed to compete with the 787. They will need to head back to the drawig board and reallocate funds in order to compete. They of course will. But how long will that take and what will it cost them.
They (Airbus) wrote the 787 off originally. Now they kow they need to get moving.
And what percentage of stress does a violent wind shere cause?
Up to the 100% of load predicted in the flight envelope. The planes are designed for that. They are supposed to be designed to a point that is 50% greater than what they should ever experience in actual operation.
I may be nitpicking but you said a wing snapped of. Off of what? It wasn't attached to anything but the test machinery.
Navagator: The wings are crevulating Captain
Mitty: Let them crevulate
A failure short of a goal is a still a failure.
Okay. How's this? A wing snapped under stress test, short of the stated goal.
I agree. It doesn't bod well to the customer. Our wings only break ALMOST at our goal.
I would still rather fly in a DC3
Actually it was attached to a static airframe. During certification tests, two or more airframes are built and then tested to destruction.
It's actually attached to a test rig, not an airframe. I would post a pic for you but I'm html challenged. Let me see if I can find a link.
Oh, if you want to post a pic, do this.
< img src="" >
Just put the URL for the picture into the "" and remove the spaces between the < >
I like a Boeing airplane that you can fly manually if something goes wrong.
No scarebus for me.
Thanks. I'll give it a try. I haven't found any so far but I did find this info on the C-17 wing test failure. It failed at a much earlier point than the A-380.
Static Wing Test Failure. A potentially serious problem was revealed in October 1992 when the wings of a C-17 used in static ground testing failed during loads testing -- the wings buckling on both sides of the plane at the same spot when a load approximating 130% of maximum was placed on the aircraft. Contract specifications and military standards call for a 150% capability, and the Air Force has made this a strict benchmark. The company corrected the 1992-93 wing problems without redesigning and replacing the entire wing structure. Once a suitable fix was determined, it was retrofitted on planes already delivered or on the production line, and further changes for ease of production were engineered into the production line.
I'm partially righ then. LOL!
All of the patents have expired, so you're free to ramp up production again. I used to love flying in those old girls.