Airbus A380: The Game-Changing Jet that Has Boeing on Edge

[Clausius2]

http://www.airbus.com/product/a380_backgrounder.asp

Boeing must come to a conclusion rapidly about that. Airbus is taking advantage seriously, and European aeronautics have reached a significant advance.

Boeing...Who knows them?

 

[hitssquad]

Airbus is taking advantage seriously

Airbus has not yet tested the A380, and Boeing's LR (long-range non-stop capability) strategy may yet prove to be more competitive regardless of any engineering success of the A380.

 

[wolram]

Boeing...Who knows them?
They used to be the worlds leading aircraft manufacturer

 

[PerennialII]

What does Boeing actually have in the works for the future (which will rival the A380 and so forth) ?

 

[Clausius2]

Airbus has not yet tested the A380, and Boeing's LR (long-range non-stop capability) strategy may yet prove to be more competitive regardless of any engineering success of the A380.

What do you mean with "tested"?.

I don't think it is going to be a disaster like the Zeppelins. As far as I know it is the bigger commercial aircraft ever built, and I haven't heard of nothing so updated being made by Boeing. Give me some link to that.

Don't be jealous, hitssquad...

Airbus (Europe) 1- Boeing (USA) 0. The things are returning to be as they once were...(Zeppelin, Von Braun's V series, Stuka,Spitfire,...Airbus A380,...)

 

[spender]

It is obvious that Airbus and European Aeronautical industry is taking off.Airbus is just one example on how to aggressively and boldly go where others(Boeing) is afraid to go.I think Boeing is slowly abandoning passenger jet market and going deeper into defense production.(i hate to see what happens to boeing when pentagon finally start to cut defense spending)
I just love what Airbus is doing, for example;they produce all of their aircrafts with the same cockpit layout to minimize cross training for pilots while Boeing's jets have whole new and different cockpits,really amazing. Commion sense and logic is found more and more in Europe instead of US

 

[FredGarvin]

"Boeing must come to a conclusion rapidly about that. Airbus is taking advantage seriously, and European aeronautics have reached a significant advance."

They have. Boeing's business strategy is relying on the success of the 7E7. They are banking on staying smaller than the huge A380. Only time will tell who is going to be right about it. I'd say, right now despite the hype, I think Boeing has the edge because they won't need any current airport reconfigurations like the A380 will eventually force. Also, the A380 has yet to fly and is not type certified yet if I am not mistaken. Let's also not forget that the A380 has to sell at least 250 (the last number I have read) units to simply break even. That is a lot of airplanes in a very competitive market.

 

[remcook]

it's up to the airliners. can they fill up this large thing? or do they want to fly more frequent with smaller planes, means more flexibility, but possibly more expensive.

by the way...a few weeks ago airbus said they also wanted to make something like the 7e7.

 

[FredGarvin]

"Airbus (Europe) 1- Boeing (USA) 0"

That's an extremely arrogant statement considering what Boeing has produced over the years. Airbus is not repsonsible for many of the true breakthroughs in aviation. The A380 is big, no doubt about it. Is it revolutionary like the B-29, the 707 or the 747 were? No. Airbus is taking existing ideas and expanding on them. That is hardly revolutionary. I'm not saying it's easy, but give credit where credit is due. Some of the finest aircraft in the world are the result of Boeing's work. The only thing I am willing to give Airbus full marks for revolutionizing right now is the hydraulic systems used on that aircraft. Getting a 5000 psi system to work took a bunch of hard work. All aircraft will be going to that type of system in the future.

 

[hitssquad]

The A380 and its slim margins for error

Airbus has not yet tested the A380

What do you mean with "tested"?

It has never been flown, and thus no real-world data has been collected on its performance specifications. The A380 is being sold partly on the basis of certain fuel-economy specifications. Does it achieve those fuel-economy specifications in real-world operation? No one knows because the only data Airbus has compiled so far is the result of running computer codes.

I don't think it is going to be a disaster like the Zeppelins.

If the performance specs are off by just a few percentage points, the A380 will be a financial disaster. Business magazines around the world have been pointing this out during the past few weeks:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/999134.cms

• Is Airbus taking a gamble with A380's performance targets?...
  
  ...the aircraft has yet to fly, is overweight, and has to hit some strict performance targets for its customer airlines.
  
  The first two obstacles are likely to be the least troublesome...
  
  Sir Richard Branson, chairman of Virgin Atlantic, the only British airline to have bought the aircraft, said in Toulouse that Airbus had guaranteed to Virgin that the A380 would be more economical to operate than 747-400, the largest passenger aircraft in service today.
  
  If it failed to hit performance targets, Airbus would reimburse the difference, Branson said. Airbus is likely to have struck similar deals with other airlines.[/color]

 

[spender]

"Airbus (Europe) 1- Boeing (USA) 0"

That's an extremely arrogant statement considering what Boeing has produced over the years. Airbus is not repsonsible for many of the true breakthroughs in aviation.

I believe all Airbuses have fly-by wire technology incorporated in them, Boeing started doing this only recently with 777.
Maybe Airbus did not have revolutionary products like Boeing, but before Airbus existed European aerospace companies mostly French did build truly revolutionary and most beautifull plane ever,Concorde.

 

[hitssquad]

The Concorde Fallacy

European aerospace companies mostly French did build truly revolutionary and most beautifull plane ever,Concorde.

The Concorde is perhaps an excellent example of Europe's capacity for aerospace leadership: it was an unequivocal financial disaster.
http://www.google.com/search?q=concorde+"financial+disaster"

• A financial disaster from the beginning, it has given rise to what those in business refer to as “The Concorde Fallacy”.[/color]

 

[spender]

Bad timing = oil crisis.

 

[marley.wannabee]

the concorde... funny i just saw a special on pbs. It seems the concorde may have lost money because of political pressure only. Unbelieveable eh? :)

 

[Clausius2]

The Concorde is perhaps an excellent example of Europe's capacity for aerospace leadership: it was an unequivocal financial disaster.
http://www.google.com/search?q=concorde+"financial+disaster"

• A financial disaster from the beginning, it has given rise to what those in business refer to as “The Concorde Fallacy”.[/color]

Despites it was a financial disaster or not, everybody who knows something about engineering knows that Concorde was a prodigious of the european technology. Scramjet and the Space Shuttle are also projects which are financial disasters, but they are a great step for the humanity, as the A380 is too. Don't watch it only from the economic point of view.

Anyway, this was an humorous thread. I'm not laughing at Boeing at all. Everybody knows that USA is at the vanguard of aeronautical technology, but I am happy if only one of you have realized that here we know how to do the things too.

 

[FredGarvin]

I don't recall anyone ever saying that the europeans didn't know what they were doing in that arena.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

From what I read recently - Boeing is working on a middle sized
composite materials made jet with supposedly excellent parameters.
It's a serious bet since it seems they've nothing else to offer
in the near future. Hopefully, they'll make it.

Live long and prosper.

 

[FluidSpace]

Hi,

By learning from history, everytime man (along with his arrogance) tries to build mechanical or transport systems of gargantuan proportions, it results in major disasters. The A380 may represent an achievement in aviation, howevever, integrating with extraneous components, such as in-flight casinos, gyms, etc. just complicate matters from the highest priority of all - SAFETY! With 550+ people on board, there would be huge casualties if something seriously goes wrong.

With the global state of affairs as it is today, the aviation industry should have focused much more on anti-terrorist measures and lifesaving or fail-safe mechanisms.

Hopefully, all goes well.

FluidSpace

 

[Gonzolo]

Yup, but this Airbus project was well underway before 9/11.

Gym?

 

[Clausius2]

I don't recall anyone ever saying that the europeans didn't know what they were doing in that arena.

I don't remember anyone too. But it doesn't happen nothing if I want to underline it, does it? It is like an ant want to say to an elephant: hey I'm here too!.

 

[Spectre32]

Boeing still has the whole defense side of there business that booming. All airbus has is it's commerical airliners.. .. plus let's not even get into Boeing Space stuff.

 

[Wardw]

re the quote by Hitssquad:

the aircraft has yet to fly, is overweight, and has to hit some strict performance targets for its customer airlines

, I read that Aircraft no 1 came in well below projected weight.

For those who say, "but it hasn't even flown yet, I think that is just a formality.
Apart from some of the structural designs required to attach such large wings, it really is "just another Airbus".

It's design is so generic that I think most of the bugs have already been shaken out in the simulator.
Wardw

 

[Spectre32]

Also, i heard something about airbus and there use of composite parts. Apparently, now i don't know if this is in relation to there newer series(a318-330) or the older series (a300-310s), but is was stated that if the pilot used to much rudder while perfroming a hard turn, that the tail section would "rip" off. Airbus, using whole side stick and computers system, would just program the computer to not exceed this "ratio". When in manual mode the limit also doesn't come close to the failure point as well. Now i mean, i guess you could say that any airplane would do that under a particular circumstance. But I believe the catch to this was that it occurred at semi-major combinations of the two factors, and where another airplane would remain structurally sound, the airbus would start to fail.

 

[cronxeh]

I personally would never fly in that thing. Not even if you paid me to. Let's see.. 555 people in one big fat ass airplane with big exposed fanblades on engines and enormous fuel consumption.. oh and those pesky annoying terrorists too

 

[Spectre32]

I personally would never fly in that thing. Not even if you paid me to. Let's see.. 555 people in one big fat ass airplane with big exposed fanblades on engines and enormous fuel consumption.. oh and those pesky annoying terrorists too

Actually he makes a very good point. All of airbus's systems and layouts are virtually the same, it's one of there key selling points. Like in 9/11 the terrorists chose B757 and, 767 b/c they are very similar to fly and the instrumentation is identical to each other. With the amount of fuel that thing carries and it's "ease" of learning how to fly, it would make a landmark for a terrorist to take one over and do whatever they want with it. Not to mention you can now fly just about to anywhere in the world with one.

 

[ohwilleke]

Boeing still has the whole defense side of there business that booming. All airbus has is it's commerical airliners.. .. plus let's not even get into Boeing Space stuff.

Is it? IIRC, Boeing failed to win the prime contract for either the F-22 or the F-35. There are no other fighter contracts on the horizon, and there are no serious development efforts underway for a new U.S. bomber either.

Boeing is second bannana to Lockheed Martin in the defense sector and is primarily pitching modifications for military use of the 737 (it just won a 737 based anti-submarine patrol aircraft contract) and the 747 (in cargo and tanker and anti-ballistic missile laser configurations).

I'd say Boeing is pretty much in a 7E7 or bust situation.

 

[Sh0t]

Boeing = pentagon queen.

Subsidies galore.

 

[Spectre32]

Is it? IIRC, Boeing failed to win the prime contract for either the F-22 or the F-35. There are no other fighter contracts on the horizon, and there are no serious development efforts underway for a new U.S. bomber either.

Boeing is second bannana to Lockheed Martin in the defense sector and is primarily pitching modifications for military use of the 737 (it just won a 737 based anti-submarine patrol aircraft contract) and the 747 (in cargo and tanker and anti-ballistic missile laser configurations).

I'd say Boeing is pretty much in a 7E7 or bust situation.

While all of this is true... you comapred it to LM... not airbus... which is what were all talking about. In additon the the LM statements, LM was either JSF or bust. They, just have been slightly better than boeing, mainly because there operatioans are not as broad as boeings, or at lest they are not producing commcerial airplanes(Boeing already dominated them in that field a long while back). So, they have more time to and perhaps more resources to donate to these contracts. Also boeing makes <2/3 of the rockets that put sat's into orbit. Also keep LM was also the company that screwed up the conversion of those units on that Mars orbitaor cause it to slam into the desert, not so long ago. I'm not really bashing LM caus ei mean christ, look at there skunk works program and what came out of that, but I'm just tossing some more fuel into the fire... anyways BACK TO AIRBUS!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Within five years, Boeing as we have known it will not exist.

Now where is my Kung Pow Chicken?

 

[hitssquad]

Also, i heard something about airbus and there use of composite parts.

Boeing's forthcoming 777 will also rely on composite parts.
http://www.google.com/search?q=boeing+777+composite