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

[FredGarvin]

...lighten up a little huh.

I was hardly getting worked up about what was said. I think you're a bit touchy today. I was actually thinking I was being light hearted when I wrote that.

This is not about Europe vs USA.

Actually I do think this was started as a Europe vs. USA thread. However that is a mute point.

So the guy got his info wrong, hardly a punishable offence.

I have no issues with Europe vs. USA as long as both sides present factual data, which, in this thread, has been very lacking in certain poster's cases. This last one happens to be yet another example. If you don't have an issue with people spouting bogus claims then so be it. However, I prefer to call BS when I see it. Especially when the desired result is to try to take a pot shot at a person, business or country for that matter.

...you seem very Pro Boeing, perhaps more than an engineer should be.

Of course I am pro Boeing. I am an American and I flew one of their helicopters for quite a few years in the Army. I also can appreciate that company's history and what it has done. I believe a lot of comments made here on the part of the Airbus folks show a lack of respect to the engineers who came before me and have done some incredible work. It just happens to be for an American company. I would feel the same way if it were the other way around.

This is the first forum I have ever joined because it looked like a group of serious people having adult conversations about real things.

For the most part this forum is. However, I think making completely false statements for the sole basis of supporting comments like "Europeans simply make better products,that is it !" is hardly what I would call mature.

Man...I put way more into this reply than I intended.

 

[Wardw]

Well Fred, it's obvious I touched a nerve or you would not have wasted so much space defending your position. Although I fail to see why being an American makes you pro Boeing. As an electrical engineer and also a pilot, I don't care who makes the product, nor where it comes from. Quality is paramount and both Boeing and Airbus make fine products, neither of which I would hesitate to fly in. Be happy.

Ward.

 

[spender]

Wrong. Thanks for playing.

http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=16834

I'm right, this is just renamed westland augusta three engines helicopter,same one Canadian search and rescue and coast guard uses.
It will be assembled in USA from some american made parts but whole helicopter was designed at the height of cold war by Europeans.

 

[Spectre32]

Well Fred, it's obvious I touched a nerve or you would not have wasted so much space defending your position. Although I fail to see why being an American makes you pro Boeing. As an electrical engineer and also a pilot, I don't care who makes the product, nor where it comes from. Quality is paramount and both Boeing and Airbus make fine products, neither of which I would hesitate to fly in. Be happy.

Ward.

I see were fred is comming from, I mean i rather see beoign airplanes int he sky rather than Airbus, but i do like airbus more. With boeing making the new 787 series, it will allow them to better compete int he market. Also, were protective of boeing b/c it's a massive staple in holding jobs in a wide spread area. Chicgo, Seattle, St. Louis are all areas that boeing impacts. Also, I mean were not comparing apples to apples here. Boeing makes a lot of other things other than commerical airplanes, so really It's not approate to say that Airbus is making a better product. Because Airbus is so specilazied, there products should be better, than boeing. I mean that's just basic micro-economics right there. If airbus was making the rest of the AE stuff that boeing was, then we could have a better argument.

 

[Spectre32]

I'm right, this is just renamed westland augusta three engines helicopter,same one Canadian search and rescue and coast guard uses.
It will be assembled in USA from some american made parts but whole helicopter was designed at the height of cold war by Europeans.

Excellent work, but guess who is building it.. LM... soo it's being made from a US company.. which was the whole reason everyone got all fired up. It's plain knowledge. Who cares if the euopeans designed it during the cold war. LM put there own engineering touches on it.

 

[spender]

LM put there own engineering touches on it.

What engineerenig touches ? installing sofa on board for GW Bush ?

 

[Wardw]

Excellent work, but guess who is building it.. LM... soo it's being made from a US company.. which was the whole reason everyone got all fired up. It's plain knowledge. Who cares if the euopeans designed it during the cold war. LM put there own engineering touches on it.

I believe that LM are "assembling" the machine rather than building it. The fact that the donks are from GM and other systems from OEMs doesn't mean LM are "building it". LM are listed as prime contractor, not manufacturer.

I see your point though Spectre32 but in Australia for instance, I still know old soldiers from ww2 who will not buy a Japanese car, understandable, but stupid, I would buy a Japanese car over GM or Ford anyday. Why, they are just better made, (in my humble opinion, please no hate mail from the GM Ford motorheads).

Nationalism thinly desguised as patriotism is a recipe for disaster.
At the end of the day they are both making the same thing, a passenger airliner, with two wings, seats, and maybe even a pilot or 2 (at least for now).
It makes perfect sense that if one manufacturer comes up with a better way to roll the wheel, others would follow implementing it, ie FBW, composites etc, this makes the sky safer for all, could you imagine what it would be like if Airbus had tried to patent its FBW systems. And the cross polination of info from engineers sharing this type of information makes the sky even safer.

And moreso, I think that airline choose one supplier over another for a myriad of reasons, depending on the style and structure of the Airline, its routes and probably many more factors that I know nothing about. The pie is big enough for all.

 

[FredGarvin]

Give credit where credit is due. That is all I am saying. New kids on the engineering or pseudo-engineering block need to learn that lesson.

 

[Wardw]

I have asked the moderators to consider putting an entry for skype usernames into the profile section.
What do people think. The possibilities are endless. It would be possible to host a chat on specific subjects at set times with one person moderating so as to avoid people speaking over each other. If we act grown up, limit the numbers in any conversation and don't get too personal, this could be an interesting way to take really interesting debates one step beyond into madness.
Does anybody remember madness.

 

[spender]

Europeans are highly sucsessful in launching sattelites by Ariane rockets,leaving USA far, far behind.
As to the helicopters; US coast guard uses French Dauphins.

 

[derrickwayne1960]

...
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. ...

whole new and different cockpits Do you mean differnet cockpit layouts between differnent models?

 

[spender]

Airbuses from small to the biggest A380 have the same cockpit layout,with some small additions for the big one,but otherwise everything looks the same and is much more easy for pilot to cross train and all that stuff.It is also kinda cool and futuristic to see Joystick operated planes(all airbuses have joystics like F-16 instead of yokes).

 

[z-component]

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

Now where is my Kung Pow Chicken?

Do you mind explaining this, Ivan?

 

[tarunjot]

Boeing is never going to stay behind in this race..and A380 might be the biggest of em all but Boeing is the king of the airplane brood.. can't question their supremacy.
The 7E7 is here! Any match?? Its unique not only aesthetically but keeping in mind its fuel efficiency.. As they say, don't make the fuel tank bigger, rather work over the efficiency!
Wait and watch.. what boeing has in its kitty next!

 

[stoned]

Airbus also has started work on similar plane to the 7e7.

 

[scavok]

The A380 will be good for major hubs, LAX, Midway, JFK, Heathrow, etc. They'll also be excellent for international flights.

But the two major advantages to the A380 are also the two biggest flaws. It relies on the hub n' spoke system. NOBODY likes the hub n' spoke system. People like direct flights. Embracing a business plan that nobody likes, is not good business.

The second problem is that it will only be profitable for long flights with full airplanes. This means that there will only be a few routes are profitable. The 787 will be profitable on the same routes, as well as thousands of short and medium routes.

Right now, traditional airlines like Delta, United, Continental, US Airways, are all in serious financial trouble. On the other hand, airlines that focus on direct flights between cities, and not on the hub n' spoke system, are pulling in huge profits. Airlines such as Southwest, Jetblue, etc.

The 787 embraces the business plan of these airlines. It's small enough to land on just about any runway for jets, very fuel effecient, and requires much less maintainence due to use of composites. Meaning that direct flights will be even more profitable for airlines.

The A380 will have a market to fill, it will replace the 747 as airlines need them replaced, and I have no doubt that it will be profitable, but I don't think that it will be as large of a success as the 787.

Airbus also has started work on similar plane to the 7e7.

The A350 is just an A330, a 15 year old airplane, with new generation engines. Engines that were designed for the 787 no less. The 787 is a brand new airplane built from the ground up. Unless they can make the A350 very, very, cost competitive, or bribe some politicians, there's no reason to buy the A350.

Europeans are highly sucsessful in launching sattelites by Ariane rockets,leaving USA far, far behind.

Not really. The Ariane rocket program is excellent and is no doubt at the forefront of rocket technology, but I have no idea where you get the notion that the USA is "far, far behind."

The Ariane 5 ECA is capable of bringing 9,600kg to GTO. The new Boeing Delta IV Heavy is capable of 13,130kg to GTO. The Lockheed Martin Atlas V Heavy is capable of 12,650kg to GTO.

I can't find any figures on the Ariane 5's performance to LEO, but the Space Shuttle is capable of 27,000kg. As a comparison, the Delta IV Heavy is capable of 23,000kg.

http://www.arianespace.com/site/launcher/launcher_sub_index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Delta_rocket_evolution.png
http://www.ilslaunch.com/newsarchives/newsreleases/rec29/

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.

They're "second banana" to Lockheed Martin, but you couldn't be more wrong about "7E7 or bust."

http://www.boeing.com/ids/flash.html
Just click on the "products a-z" and see all the defense things that they produce.

And the 747 anti-ballistic missile laser is absolutely incredible, I don't know why you would downplay that.

 

[1123581321]

you are really pissing some yanks from across the ocean off, so cool it, have a smoke, and don't get too cocky, boeing is no where near dead, and who needs super large aircraft anyway, where will it land?

Fibonacci

 

[stoned]

we all know europeans make very good automobiles and whole bunch of other mechanical thingy's, so i think airbus will beat boeing in the long run.

 

[gschjetne]

I keep being annoyed by all the boring 737's flying overhead. But the reason for its success is its versatility and efficiency. It can be used everywhere, from short domestic flights to medium haul international, and I think that's what the 787 project aims for as well. Like it has been said, the A380 will only make a profit at a few routes.

I still prefer Airbus, though, but that's just my euro-patriotism ;)

 

[hitssquad]

A380 safety hazards

http://www.aviationfirejournal.com/pdf/3.pdf

--
Sharing of information is key to the development of tactics and procedures for large scale operations like major aircraft crashes, or any large scale incidents. One of the issues I would like to present in this editorial is the use of composite materials (or “man made mineral fibers”) that are being more widely used in both the new A-380 and the Boeing 7E7 “Dreamliner.” Although composite parts were first used by Airbus 20 years ago, they have never been used as extensively as in the new Boeings, with most of the fuselage, wings and tail made of the materials.

An interesting news article recently published has aircraft manufacturers arguing about the hazards of composite materials in a post-crash accident or fire. Being a September 11th on-site rescue / recovery worker, I cannot begin to tell you about all the conflicting reports issued regarding the safety of the air quality at “Ground Zero.” It is only now, three years later, after more definitive analysis, that they are telling us about the extreme toxicity of the air that we were breathing. It is not a pretty picture, and the effects have already been seen and remain to be seen. even in my case.

Australia has conducted research and planning regarding the postcrash hazards of composite materials, however even their own “experts” tend to down play the health hazards. My point is that we have all known for years that composite materials are bad stuff when involved in a fire. If some of the more definitive study and analysis reports were looked at more closely, such as the Acute Respiratory Toxicity of Advanced Composite Materials produced by U.S. Naval Health Research Center Detachment, there would be no question in anyone’s mind as to the dangers of these materials.

The fire services and ARFF are now facing a two-fold problem — the fire fighting and evacuation problems of ultra-large aircraft such as the A380, and the post-crash fire hazards of composite materials in these and other new aircraft. It’s time that we take a closer look at developing procedures on how we are going to operate and protect ourselves, rather than wasting time listening to those that are arguing that there are really no problems to begin with.

WILLIAM MULCAHEY
--