SchorschDon’t look at the airline, look at the bank behind it that gives the loan.
Maybe a French one, uh-oh.
SchorschThis is a stupid argument , airbus has also many other customers that are doing great buisness , are expanding every year , covering markets . The entire US carriers are down right now irrespective of boeign or airbus . AA , DL , NWA , UA are all doing quite badly and have been doing so since post 911 . Its the oversaturation of players that is causing this , there needs to be consolidation . Most of the US carriers that I have traveled on (Barring CO which has good service) are no where comparable to the class and service of some of the succesfull carriers out there . That is the reason why . There is over capacity , and the Low revenue PAX means that the airlines are making losses or doing very badly .
Exactly, the slight (dis)advantage of DJAHD’s aircraft doesn’t make somebody bankcrupt. If Airbus sells discounted aircraft to failing airlines, it would actually help the airline. If failing airlines turn to Airbus because of lower prices, Airbus can hardly be blamed for it. If somebody switches from Farmer Joe’s to Walmart for his daily nutrition, Walmart can harldy be held responsible for his financial downfall.
People, it is he Budlite that makes airlines going out of business. Sure.
4. Its a shame that anyone can reference a crash in which many people died in, shall we say, such an eiskalt manner.
Oh mein Gott. Why don’t you start thinking before posting a pointless thread? Then you can avoid my eiskalt manner.
SchorschTom, I’m quite sure that Schorsch has forgotten that over 260 people lost their lives in that crash, otherwise I strongly doubt that he would have been so flippant about it.
RIght, Schorsch?
Actually there were 265 people, 260 on the aircraft and 5 on the ground.
I consider myself to be quite familar with the issue, and some actions by AA may lead to the apparently wrong conclusion that they really wanted to lose an aircraft. Just like flight AA191.
SchorschAhem…. I think I’m correct in saying that American Airlines are the only large US airline never to have operated under Chapter 11? (Although they’ve come damn close at times)
I seem to recall them operating a fair few A300s over the years.
Original premise of thread shot down in flames – let’s move on. 😎
At least they crashed one. Maybe an attempt to prevent bankcruptcy?
Schorschi know this belongs in the civil aviation thread, but while were on the subject on UDF’s, you might want to read this 😉
about the unducted fan, i would like to point out that it is likely to make a surprise return, Easyjet wants to create its own aircraft by 2015, the Ecojet 😮
Please don’t take this marketing/image effort to serious. EasyJet is not famous for aviation engineering, like Boeing will not start running an airline. The thing visible in the picture is nice designer’s job, put I guess any engineer in the Airbus FPO or Boeing Phantom Works will point out the top ten flaws and no-gos in the design.
But seeing the reaction to this thing, I would say EasyJet hit the trench.
The wing-body connection looks funny. They should have taken some more looks at airliners.net to grasp how it looks in reality.
SchorschBTW: Sweden manages to do the same things without barbed wire (keeping people in), free press, multiple political parties, rights to travel…plus decent cars…no polluting two-stroke Tabrants.
Barbed wire is for loosers only, people in GDR were given better arguments to harvest the fruits of socialism (click).
SchorschThe more things change the more they stay the same…..memories of Eastern ordering A300’s and then failing and then PanAm ordering A310’s 10-15 years later and then failing. One can trace the failed U.S. carriers by their big Airbus orders. In fact, can anyone name a large U.S. carrier that has ever ordered/operated large numbers of Airbus widebodies and not gone out of business?
No doubt AI gave them a great deal up front, and then will really twist the knife when it comes to parts and support. But in the meantime everyone puts on a happy face, the employees at AI have work, and the USAirways people get new airplanes. Most of them probably don’t have any idea about the history and what it portends.
When you look for one real similarity for ALL airlines in North America that went bankrupt at any point in time: the ordered at least one American aircraft.
Another similarity: they served Coke Light on their aircraft.
Pick the reason you like more. It is equally relevant for the downfall of any airline like the crap you wrote above.
SchorschOh poor Scorsch. The poor German doesn’t like the fact that Boeing is stomping Airbus’ backside. There is a reason for that. Try and figure it out.
I seriously doubt Airbus would even survive without constant government aid.
The unfortunate truth is that
LOL! I find anything that comes out of Airbus as suspect.
I like it when people close their post with the criptic acknowlegdement of their doubtful state of mind and a proof of their clear unwill to enter an adult-like discussion. Why don’t you just write: “Don’t know s##t, please put me on your ignore list.”
P.S.: It is astonishing how English-speaking people have problems with writing the letters S C H O R S C H one after another, as that representing my nick- name.
SchorschUDF has a big advantage for military applications. It is loud.
In a certain speed range, it might be more efficient than either a conventional turboprop (because it omits the weight, drag and complexity of gearbox) or a high-bypass turbofan (because it omits the drag of the duct, and has higher bypass). It would, however, be louder than either turboprop (higher speed and tip speed) or high-bypass turbofan (no duct to confine the tip noise).
And it does not need to be a cargo aircraft. A bomber replacement of Tu-95 might do well with UDF…
But different to other engine technologies no impulses will come from military users. Large turbo-fan engines were first developed for military applications, as were turbo-props. If civil aircraft use UDF and it is matured, manufacturers will exploit this technology if it fits the specs.
The Tu-95 was never really used as a bomber.
SchorschYes, read the article.
Unducted fans fill the small gap between a normal turbo-prop and a high-bypass turbo-fan. If any application is thinkable, it would be cargo aircraft.
When we look at two cargo aircraft, the C-17 and the A400M, we further expect the A400M to be close by its predicted speed (which is normally the case), we see a gap of about M0.06 (C-17: 0.76 or 440kts, A400M: ~0.70), which equals roughly 65 km/h. I don’t think that for such small speed gap any technological risk will be taken.
For aircraft like the C-130 with lower speed capability a turbo-prop remains the best propulsion system.
If civil aircraft will start using UDF (which I doubt) and technology can be taken “off the shelf” in 10 years, military applications might be possible, but for no military application the UDF is of essential necessity.
SchorschGood post!
–
And Schorsch? Seriously, your posts just WREAK of a “Arg! I hate Boeing, because they’re going to beat Aibus!” type vibe. lol
Come on man, seriously. Give it credit. 🙂
Do you KNOW how many revolutionary inventions were scoffed at by people for hundreds of years, yet the inventor pressed on and did it in the end? It’s people with such negative, biased emotions that hold technology from further advancement! Don’t be like those people from the past; open your mind. Stop letting your anti-Boeing emotions blind you. 😉
I just remembered why I decided to stop posting in the civil aviation section of this forum. It is just too pathetic.
So, good news everyone, you can continue to twist your reality without any disturbance from my side.
SchorschI would suspect that the devices you mention are to prevent lateral flow of air to the wing-tips causing a break down in airflow and loss of lift as higher pressure air below attempts to join the low pressure air above. One result of such are the wing tip vortices seen as vapour trails.
Basically, yes. In effect they work like extra span, thus increasing the aspect ratio. They do not add anything to lateral stability. The fact that crobato stayed short of an answer can be interpreted accordingly, I guess.
SchorschThe question is for altitude. Most 1980s aircraft will have issues detecting an A10, due to low level flight and relatively low IR-signature. Visual identification is also difficult. I guess normally they advice fighter pilots never to descent below 3000ft, with threat mostly coming from AAA and MANPADS 10000ft will be the appropriate altitude.
You can ask the same question for Tornado IDS versus ‘modern’ fighter.
Even if you don’t have great radar/missiles to knock her down without getting close, the A-10 needs to do what… turn one (maybe 2) tight flat 360, and your basic MiG-21/F-5 (or equivalent) falls out of the sky while trying to keep with it.
apples and oranges… the A-10 was never meant to dogfight, but give it the ‘winders and if someone wants to come down and dance, she’ll make a bigger mess than originally planned.
In this arena radar is only of little help. Any fighter pilot whos tries to outtun an A10 needs to attend basic tactics lessons again. Don’t play to their rules, stay up, keep your energy and be sure each time he points his nose at you that you are 2000ft above and 1 mile away, so his sidewinder goes nowhere.
SchorschDepends highly on the attacker. A skillful, well informed fighter pilot will bring himself in a situation where he can conrol a fight and don’t let der A10 get a shot.
On the other hand, if a fighter gets low and slow or is on a2g mission, an A10 might get a shot. I think the GAU-8 is not really a useful weapon: probably no approriate gun-sight, too much punch and too low rate of fire.
The enemy might be the A10’s pilot best friend. Over hostile territory a fighter might find it too risky to get in the range of his own AAA, where tank crews will fire irregardless.
SchorschYou need to check some Boeing 737s lately. The one I just flew in recently had blended/bended wingtips, pretty long and upward too, I might say.
The wingtip devices do not add any lateral stability. the B737 was laterally stable before, and these rather fragile extension (only one or two odd meters behind the center og gravity) don’t do nothing. Google for “winglet” and check what it is all about.
Sign In
