SchorschSteve that may matter to you . Airlines dont give a squat about . All they are bothered about are –
– CASM
– Fuel Burn
– Maintaince cost
– COst
– deliveries
– delaysetc etc
As long as the 748 can compete with the competition on a seat mile basis no one but an armchair CEO will give a damn !
I wouldn’t be too sure about that. Apparently, the costs of operation are the most important matter by a wide margin. On the other hand, when you look at the success of the B787, it is not just about economics.
The A380 has a slight advantage as size does matter, especially when a 80x80x24m A380 waves the airline’s flag on the airport (while a normal passenger can’t see the difference between A300/330/B767/777/787). In the end, I guess most big airlines will operate A380 and B787 in parallel. I don’t think the B747-8 passenger version will be too much success. Boeing knows that it can sell the freighter quite good and reduce profit for Airbus on the 380. If they sell 50 Pax aircraft and 100 freighters, the whole thing was worth the money.
Schorschwill the 747-800 be in compertition with the A380?
i think yes, airlines will want to stcik with what they know. 747-800 can cary 467 people and the A380 can carry 525 people in a 3 class seating plan, what most air lines will do. so really, it’s not that much in it. so i think the 747-800 will stay in the game. it won’t be gone just yet.
what do you think?
If you use the reduced seat count Airbus recently anounced (525), then you should use a proportional value for the B747-8. It seats about 400 in a similar configuration. The A380 will seat about 100 more.
Also remember that A380-800ER and -900 are possible and planned. Some airlines already asked for it. The B747-8 is already on the limit and doesn’t have any growth potential.
The 747-8I becomes a 405-seater under Airbus’s new definitions, compared with Boeing’s standard three-class accommodation of 467 passengers, while the 747-400’s seat count drops from 417 to 370.
If you call new avionics, first fuselage length change since the SP, more or less a new wing (they’ve improved bits here and there, and added raked wingtips) and all new engines and interior (inc flight deck) “tweaking”, then yes.
OK, I think it would be best to ask what the manufacturer calls it, don’t you think?
Boeing calls the B747-8 a version or a modification of the B747-100. That is what is written in the certification (when they get it).
Under previous 747 stretch development studies, such as the 747X of 2001, Boeing had intended to adopt an all-new certification path, but says it will pursue certification for the 747-8I/8F under an amended 747-400 type certificate.
The 747-400 was itself approved as an amendment to the certification of the original 747-100 that was launched in 1966.
“Many of the parts aren’t changing from the -400, and where it is changing the -8 will be evaluated in co-operation with the regulatory authorities in compliance with the latest regulations,” says Boeing, which late last year received US Federal Aviation Administration approval for this plan.
SchorschAnother reason that our vehicles have less fuel economy is because of the US safety standards. A lot of these little midget buggy style cars would not hold up to the US crash safety tests standards.
Aha!
Nice to see that facts do not really touch your opinion.
The highways of this country are filled with dangerous lightweight cars, still death toll is declining each year. Pretty much any car (even these tiny ones) you can buy here makes confortably (means without afterburner noises) 100mph, often more. As you can drive that fast legally, you would expect thousands of deaths. Actually, American highway is unsafer.
In 2005 nearly 5000 people were killed in SUV roll over crashes. These SUVs are the cars you consider safe? Please note: these crashes do not involve another car. (google: rollover deaths or SUV rollover)
I don’t think any car that can be rolled over at reasonable speeds would sell here.
The SUVs in the USA are really a big pain in the ass, from pretty much any perspective (safety, costs, environmental impact). Unfortunately, people start buying them here, too. Maybe somebody comes up with a German solution: an additional tax (while SUVs are very budget friendly: taxes on gas, sales tax, motor vehicle tax).
A little example of the safe cars:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/297315/suv_roll_over_caught_on_tape/
I promise you will never ever achieve such with a Golf (or comparable), no matter which version.
SchorschAnother reason that our vehicles have less fuel economy is because of the US safety standards. A lot of these little midget buggy style cars would not hold up to the US crash safety tests standards.
Aha!
Nice to see that facts do not really touch your opinion.
The highways of this country are filled with dangerous lightweight cars, still death toll is declining each year. Pretty much any car (even these tiny ones) you can buy here makes confortably (means without afterburner noises) 100mph, often more. As you can drive that fast legally, you would expect thousands of deaths. Actually, American highway is unsafer.
In 2005 nearly 5000 people were killed in SUV roll over crashes. These SUVs are the cars you consider safe? Please note: these crashes do not involve another car. (google: rollover deaths or SUV rollover)
I don’t think any car that can be rolled over at reasonable speeds would sell here.
The SUVs in the USA are really a big pain in the ass, from pretty much any perspective (safety, costs, environmental impact). Unfortunately, people start buying them here, too. Maybe somebody comes up with a German solution: an additional tax (while SUVs are very budget friendly: taxes on gas, sales tax, motor vehicle tax).
A little example of the safe cars:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/297315/suv_roll_over_caught_on_tape/
I promise you will never ever achieve such with a Golf (or comparable), no matter which version.
SchorschThe F-16 was the first to have to have it. There is a problem with the seat being reclined so far back, neck problems created by trying to look behind to his “6”. Newer aircraft recline their seats but usually twenty degrees or less. The F-16 reclined at thirty degrees to increased the pilot’s tolerance to high G-forces.
This is great while the pilot is maneuvering and doesn’t have look behind. Flight surgeons for the USAF have stated over eighty percent of the USAF pilots who complain of neck problems are F-16 pilots. The Su-27 was the first Soviet aircraft to have a side stick controller.
The Rafale has the side stick controller but, its most advanced feature is its version of the Synthisized Emersion Research Envirement (SIERE) cockpit. The USAF and French Air Force are both working on different variations of a SIERE cockpit. The USAF is look forward to have the computer respond to voice commands and sensors to read biological responses to aid the computer. The French AF is working towards having hand motions to signal the computer to what command the pilot wants to be initiated.
The F-16 cockpit is actually too small to have the pilot sit upright.
SchorschThe F-18 should have relaxed stability already.
The YF-17 didn’t have it and as far as I know neither the F-18A.
SchorschHow different are these two aircraft, especially the latest varients of each?
At first glance they seem to be very nearly the same size and despite only the Hornet having an attack aircaft designation (F/A compared to the Eagles F) it is not at all unusual to see Eagles carrying A2G munitions as well as A2A.
Are there any roles that one aircraft is particularly suited to that the other struggles to perform as well? I don’t think even carrier borne operations are the preserve of Hornets over Eagles as I’m sure I’ve seen pictures of Eagles on carriers.
The F-18 is half a generation younger.
It incorporates:
– high AOA stability & control by leading edge vortex generators
– AOA-scheduled leading and trailing edge devices
– full authority digital control system (but no relaxed stability)
– multi-role from the start (F-15As were no fighter-bombers)
– more electronics even than F-15C
It lacks:
– variable geometry intakes
In conclusion:
The F-18 is a quite different thing with some heritage to the original LWF specification still remaining even in the E/F-version. The F/A designation doesn’t comply at all with any rule the Navy or Marines ever installed. By all means the F/A-18 is a F, and all credible people will call it F-18.
SchorschThe very first F-16s didn’t have any stick-movement. This was revised after a while. Sidestick works best with command control, in case of the F-16 you have a C*-law in pitch and rollrate-command in lateral. With some speed-scheduled gains you give the pilot a universal control, always allowing him high stick deflections.
Interestingly, the Airbus A320/A330/A340/A380 use quite similar control laws, which is most likely not due to General Dynamics inpuit, but the general conclusion in control design science about the optimum variables to control.
SchorschThe Vincennes kill took place WVR (that Black Sea kill was pretty far out).
Always wondered they didn’t use the 5″ for that, especially since it was known that Iranians operated neither ASM nor PGMs.
The CG-47 class 5″ guns are not cleared for use as AAA. They lack a radar.
SchorschI think German Tornados are limited to four conventional bombs on the middle pylons due to the lack of adequate racks. For the same reason the wing pylons can only support one bomb. Hence the total load out of a German IDS tornado in standard operational configuration is 6 bombs either 500 or 1000 lbs. Interesting to know as some people speculated about CAS missions in Afghanistan. As external fuel is a must for such missions, the Tornado would bring in 4 bombs. Multiplied by the awesome number of 6 Tornados, divided with the sporty downtime of the Tornado, you have an awesome CAS potential of approximately one bomb per hour as daily average.
Schorsch290 passengers in the iranian A300 shot down by USS Vincennes
Shoot that incompetent commander too 😡
You are wrong. In this case we do not deal with incompetence, but a wrong decision. From what I read the amount of information was limited and he didn’t vote for the shot due to incompetence. If this decision was criminal or violates any other set rules is a different question. I am sure that an Iranian court had given him the death sentence. The fact that the American didn’t doesn’t prove he isn’t guilty. Military investigations are often very soft to their own soldiers.
However, in this case where a military missile kills quite a lot of truly innocent citizens we should not judge the individual amount of guilt by the origin of the actual missile. Fact is, however, that the Black Sea incident was incomptence conducting a weapons test (something happened that wasn’t supposed to happen) and the Persian Gulf was misjudgement in a combat-like situation (everything happened exactly as proposed). The fact that so many died shows that air defence missiles in conjunction with large civil aircraft have quite a kill multiplier. One wrong fingerpush, hundreds dead. Unthinkable for pre 1945 people.
SchorschSAM kill and SAM test are two different animals, true, but the technology has been successfully proven on accidnet with the S-200 over the Black Sea out to a range almost equal to the Talos kill of the MiG-21. What was it, 200 innocent passengers dead?
77 died at 4th October 2001 when a Tu-154M was hit over the Black Sea by an S-200 missile. In my eyes one prove of total incompetence of the military commanders. I would have ordered to shot them all.
SchorschSwarm attack, use thousands of IL-2s to take it out. the AD would be overwhelmed, one sector at a time. 😀
The S-400 never works alone, it is part of a system! Maybe this system includes Me-109 with Adolf Galland clones on the stick. You never know what the Russians have for real. They are very knoläschebal.
SchorschSince when you became a F 22 fanboy?:p
Since knowlegdable people from this very site have convinced me that the F-22 will rule the world. 😉
But what about the large killzone of the s-400? for large a/c it’s 400km. What do you think it’s effective range for stealth A/C?
is it more in the range of about 60-80km? And the same for SDB?
I think stealth is a must have if you want to engage this kind of monster. It’s the best ADF system there is!
You don’t have much idea about stealth & SAMs, do you?
And what about electronic attack/jamming?
I would definitely attack the electronics with jam, preferrably using an F-22.
[ATTACH]153589[/ATTACH] + [ATTACH]153590[/ATTACH] = [ATTACH]153588[/ATTACH]
SchorschI would use the F-22 to obliterate the S-400 with SDB and GPS guided munition.
Sign In
