Now many of us here agree commonality is part of todays aviation industry.
Some think it plays a bigger part than others. There are also those who beleive it is a key factor in aircraft sales.
Well above all these so many here claim Airbus had the upperhand over Boeing because they started the commonality race.
I beg to differ, it was not Airbus, nor Boeing… in actual fact it was McDonnell Douglas, as far as I can tell.
The DC2,3,4,5 and 6 all has common parts, such as cockpit windows and fuselage sections. Internaly there were commonalities with fittings and cockpit instruments.
Later on the DC-9 series had many varients ending with the MD-90. All had the same tails, noses, cockpit windows and fuselage cross sections. There wings were more or less the same.
Finaly you have Boeing, its critics are quick to point out the 737 uses 50s technology in its fuselage. Yet when they argue about commonality, they neglect to mention this.
Boeing, have cleverly used the same nose and fuselage cross section from the mid 1950’s to the present.
The 737 NG flighdeck has many similarities with the 737-200 series. Not because Boeing don’t want to modernise, but to keep an element of comminality.
You can take a windscreen out of a scrapped 707 or 727 and fit it into a brand new 737NG is you so wish!
Taking it further, the 757,767 and 777 all share the same flightdeck windows.
Infact the 777 has the same cockpit fuselage section as a 767.
So contrary to popular belief, commonality has been around well before Airbus came along. They may have successfully taken it to another level but they didn’t start it.
Airbus is not the only manufacturer with commonality 😉 and they certainly are not alone.
By: Bmused55 - 23rd March 2005 at 20:45
Careful, just because something fits doesn’t mean it’s compatible. Unless the “powers that be” sign off on parts being used interchangebly between manufacturer types then they can’t be mixed no matter how simple the part.
Our windows have a placard that states it may be used for both the EMB-120 and 145. I’m not saying that Boeing didn’t bother to cross-certify parts but I’d be hesitant to assume that parts from a 40 year old Boeing are permitted to fit a 4 year old Boeing. Boeing probably didn’t even bother with such certification knowing that no operator would have a fleet that incompassed both the 707/727 and the newer 737NG or 777. Even if they did have both it probably wouldn’t be for very long (ie Continental phased out the 727’s as the 777’s came online).
It was a statement designed to show that the parts are virtualy identical. Not that you’d actually do that.
I should have made it a bit more obvious that I didn’t mean it in a literal sense.
By: Bmused55 - 23rd March 2005 at 20:45
Careful, just because something fits doesn’t mean it’s compatible. Unless the “powers that be” sign off on parts being used interchangebly between manufacturer types then they can’t be mixed no matter how simple the part.
Our windows have a placard that states it may be used for both the EMB-120 and 145. I’m not saying that Boeing didn’t bother to cross-certify parts but I’d be hesitant to assume that parts from a 40 year old Boeing are permitted to fit a 4 year old Boeing. Boeing probably didn’t even bother with such certification knowing that no operator would have a fleet that incompassed both the 707/727 and the newer 737NG or 777. Even if they did have both it probably wouldn’t be for very long (ie Continental phased out the 727’s as the 777’s came online).
It was a statement designed to show that the parts are virtualy identical. Not that you’d actually do that.
I should have made it a bit more obvious that I didn’t mean it in a literal sense.
By: Whiskey Delta - 23rd March 2005 at 20:37
You can take a windscreen out of a scrapped 707 or 727 and fit it into a brand new 737NG is you so wish!
Careful, just because something fits doesn’t mean it’s compatible. Unless the “powers that be” sign off on parts being used interchangebly between manufacturer types then they can’t be mixed no matter how simple the part.
Our windows have a placard that states it may be used for both the EMB-120 and 145. I’m not saying that Boeing didn’t bother to cross-certify parts but I’d be hesitant to assume that parts from a 40 year old Boeing are permitted to fit a 4 year old Boeing. Boeing probably didn’t even bother with such certification knowing that no operator would have a fleet that incompassed both the 707/727 and the newer 737NG or 777. Even if they did have both it probably wouldn’t be for very long (ie Continental phased out the 727’s as the 777’s came online).
By: Whiskey Delta - 23rd March 2005 at 20:37
You can take a windscreen out of a scrapped 707 or 727 and fit it into a brand new 737NG is you so wish!
Careful, just because something fits doesn’t mean it’s compatible. Unless the “powers that be” sign off on parts being used interchangebly between manufacturer types then they can’t be mixed no matter how simple the part.
Our windows have a placard that states it may be used for both the EMB-120 and 145. I’m not saying that Boeing didn’t bother to cross-certify parts but I’d be hesitant to assume that parts from a 40 year old Boeing are permitted to fit a 4 year old Boeing. Boeing probably didn’t even bother with such certification knowing that no operator would have a fleet that incompassed both the 707/727 and the newer 737NG or 777. Even if they did have both it probably wouldn’t be for very long (ie Continental phased out the 727’s as the 777’s came online).
By: Bmused55 - 23rd March 2005 at 14:05
Airbus mignht havve started it but they are doing it better than anybody else when it really counts. NOW.
Indeed.
As I said they took it a lot further.
By: Bmused55 - 23rd March 2005 at 14:05
Airbus mignht havve started it but they are doing it better than anybody else when it really counts. NOW.
Indeed.
As I said they took it a lot further.
By: SHAMROCK321 - 23rd March 2005 at 14:02
Airbus mignht havve started it but they are doing it better than anybody else when it really counts. NOW.
By: SHAMROCK321 - 23rd March 2005 at 14:02
Airbus mignht havve started it but they are doing it better than anybody else when it really counts. NOW.
By: Bmused55 - 23rd March 2005 at 13:12
An intersting piece, which I don’t think anyone would disagree with. HOWEVER, the main reference to commonality in the Airbus Vs. Boeing argument is based up on the cockpit instrumentation/layout and handling characteristics which leads to common type ratings for pilots and allows schedulers/crewing staff the maximum flexibility. Any Airbus pilots out there will probably be more discript about this.
The 757/767 can share a common type rating, but essentially Airbus crews can fly all Airbus types with only relatively simple conversion courses.
I presume you are coming from the angle of maintenance etc, but I think that most commonaility references are with regards to cockpit crews and operations (this even affects the equipment used and the way staff are trained for ground handling).
I’m guessing that in reality you know what commonality people are refering to, but as I say a nice little piece anyway.
My point is Airbus did not start all this.
Of course theres a lot more to it. I was merely stating the case to the point of who originaly started it off.
By: Bmused55 - 23rd March 2005 at 13:12
An intersting piece, which I don’t think anyone would disagree with. HOWEVER, the main reference to commonality in the Airbus Vs. Boeing argument is based up on the cockpit instrumentation/layout and handling characteristics which leads to common type ratings for pilots and allows schedulers/crewing staff the maximum flexibility. Any Airbus pilots out there will probably be more discript about this.
The 757/767 can share a common type rating, but essentially Airbus crews can fly all Airbus types with only relatively simple conversion courses.
I presume you are coming from the angle of maintenance etc, but I think that most commonaility references are with regards to cockpit crews and operations (this even affects the equipment used and the way staff are trained for ground handling).
I’m guessing that in reality you know what commonality people are refering to, but as I say a nice little piece anyway.
My point is Airbus did not start all this.
Of course theres a lot more to it. I was merely stating the case to the point of who originaly started it off.
By: rdc1000 - 23rd March 2005 at 13:10
An intersting piece, which I don’t think anyone would disagree with. HOWEVER, the main reference to commonality in the Airbus Vs. Boeing argument is based up on the cockpit instrumentation/layout and handling characteristics which leads to common type ratings for pilots and allows schedulers/crewing staff the maximum flexibility. Any Airbus pilots out there will probably be more discript about this.
The 757/767 can share a common type rating, but essentially Airbus crews can fly all Airbus types with only relatively simple conversion courses.
I presume you are coming from the angle of maintenance etc, but I think that most commonaility references are with regards to cockpit crews and operations (this even affects the equipment used and the way staff are trained for ground handling).
I’m guessing that in reality you know what commonality people are refering to, but as I say a nice little piece anyway.
By: rdc1000 - 23rd March 2005 at 13:10
An intersting piece, which I don’t think anyone would disagree with. HOWEVER, the main reference to commonality in the Airbus Vs. Boeing argument is based up on the cockpit instrumentation/layout and handling characteristics which leads to common type ratings for pilots and allows schedulers/crewing staff the maximum flexibility. Any Airbus pilots out there will probably be more discript about this.
The 757/767 can share a common type rating, but essentially Airbus crews can fly all Airbus types with only relatively simple conversion courses.
I presume you are coming from the angle of maintenance etc, but I think that most commonaility references are with regards to cockpit crews and operations (this even affects the equipment used and the way staff are trained for ground handling).
I’m guessing that in reality you know what commonality people are refering to, but as I say a nice little piece anyway.
Sign In
March 23, 2005 at 12:44 pm