SchorschYes but aren’t Airbus currently trying to iron out the problems with the A380 as a complete flying piece that didn’t exist at the development stage you mention above ?
There’s nothing like a finished product as I’m sure the CEO of Singapore Airlines is perhaps uttering as he cries into his Horlicks… 😀
Most problems were already apparent oder became partly apperent before First Flight. But it needs time to do the changes and apply these to all production aircraft. Let’s not forget that today we don’t have any prototypes any more, just first serial aircraft. Hence a time window for real changes is not existant. Boeing promised 30 deliveries in the first 18 month after First Flight. I see some serious risk here.
A general comment: Problems manufacturers have are not delivered to the newspaper the day they occur. I could tell you people funny stories about the A380 and what went/goes wrong. But I am pretty sure that it isn’t any better for Boeing. If Boeing does a Barrel Test and finds a severe structural failure after a test, they will not go to the press and say: “We just found out that our project is not feasible and that we promised to much.”
They will rather do some overtime and re-design it or change mighty “advanced material” against good-ol’ aluminium.
SchorschA-380 cannot pay itself even in next 20 years. it is cost of inputs like labor, metal, energy which goes into input to produce the out put and very little is left for profit margin and its dependence on export.
it is not the point of being rich but the point is economically independent.
I don’t know your country of origin, but here we have to pay for metal, labour and energy (that was different in some parts of the world during some time, but now most successful societies adapted to this principle). The known figures for the cost of the A380-program include all investments, normally they are even conservative. The A380 program produces knowledge and experience every day, much of it useful later on. So with assuming a production rate one can see how long it needs before 250 to 300 aircraft are built. Simpe mathematics. Of course, if they build 15 a year (like current B747 production) it will never pay off.
SchorschYes. The illegal occupation of Iraqi Airpace that occured before the illegal occupation of Iraqi land. Much more noble to steal oil from Iraq than for a country to defend its own airspace from disposable old ex bombers with I suspect equally disposable crews in an effort to find weaknesses in Soviet airspace to plan future bombing raids. Yeah, the west just goes from strength to strength… :rolleyes:
I did not talk about the moralics of the issue. Maybe you can stick to the point. Your particular opinion to Iraq is as interesting as the weather report from Fidschi.
The Soviet occupied Eastern Europe, including a third of Germany, they did that for 40 years, ripping the country of any economical perpective and by the way killing a few. Always good to know that people forget that, which remains after the Second World War (incl. Holocaust) the biggest violation of human rights in Middle Europe.
Ahhh, so I should make only statements of fact with at least two internet links to back up what I say… I am not allowed to post opinion… Nazi.
Like many people you use comparisons with Nazis although you hardly understand the issue. As I said, maybe use the internet to do serious research about Nazis. I had that at school, you obviously not.
Schorschwhat is return on investment for A-380. u spend $15b on develping it and u wont get the return in next 20 years. u build a pipeline and u get all the investment back in 6 months. i think at some point Sukhoi RRJ will compete with smaller 737.
Hmm, the A380 employs more than 10.000 highly skilled people by now. It attracts investments from all over the world (including Asia and USA) and once the investment is made, it will pay off slowly. It is an encouraging project which may change the way of travel (and BTW outclass the An-225 as heaviest aircraft).
Selling oil is nice, but if you don’t have oil? It’s like earning mony with you cute butt, not everybody’s option. History proved that countries with large oil reserves did not transform into winning societies, or if they did, they normally did despite the oil and not because of it. It is like with the cute butt, it helps you some years but … 😀
If production level is kept at 30 ac/year, the A380 will pay of in less than 10 years.
BTW: RRJ is smaller than 737. We will talk about that when the first one has flown is due for certification. RRJ will not really endanger Airbus and Boeing monopoly on large transport aircraft.
SchorschI think some points apply for Soviet like for Western technology: the stuff Iran used was mid 1970s standard, we can assume that some improvement of AD systems was done in NATO. The Soviet Union was never able to really assess Western AD system, unlike in Vietnam, Israel and some other operations vice-versa was possible.
Both sides had the possibility to destroy each others air fields and key installations, it very much dependant on initiative, deployment of units and intelligence.
SchorschHallo.
The lifetime of an airframe is a highly complex issue and the stated numbers are normally contractual numbers, which are sometimes proven, often conservative but sometimes too optimistic.
Life-time is nomrally limited by the structure, of course, every else can be changed.
Like for civil aircraft designers of military aircraft have to assume design missions and set the acceptable load limits. That means, the number of 9G-manouvers and severe gust encounters are guessed, normally taking engineering judgement.
Aircraft that fly outside there assumed load-envelope will crack earlier (example: aggressor F-16 of USN), when handled smoothly an airframe can have a long life.
Hence be always careful with numbers flying around in the net. The questions about those number are:
– is that the minimum achievable design life
– is the airframe garbage after that
– is a structural re-do possible
– what time limits (for example due to corrosion)
SchorschThis is only a half of the truth. It is necessary to enlighten the whole background, not just part of it. Russian aircraft were beaten mainly on acceptable engine noise levels. There is no point for Russian airlines to buy new Tupolev, if they cannot land it anywhere outside Russia. The fact that noise levels were set in order to eliminate possible Russian competition is pretty much beyond any doubt. It was a rather smart move, I must confess…
A B737-200 with Hush-Kit can still fullfil these noise regulations. It was first built around 1970, long before most of the Tupolevs have left the factory. It is like saying: The B727 is as advanced as an A320, it is just this biased noise regulators who don’t want pretty 727 and favor the mighty Airbus company. The inferior engine technology has to be blamed.
SchorschA nice try. 🙂 But pretty much pointless. Unlike with military aircraft, in civilian sector it is customers who make the final decision, not governments or owners. And customers are pretty much washed by media and advertisements who dictate that everything Western is good and everything Eastern is bad. They won’t accept an airline flying Tupolevs because Boeings are ‘best’, they have said on TV.
We are experiencing the same tendences here in Slovakia now. Many companies are offering Russian products (like Night Vision) under different names so that they hide their Russian origin at any cost. Of course, the repacked product marked with ‘Made in USA’ costs at least a double.
I must disagree here after reading with interest the whole discussion. Russian airliners are a completely different thing and should not be taken as prove for or against the quality of military projects.
Civil airliners were always a by-product of military technology in Soviet Russia. We especially see this tendency when it comes to engines (there is a reason why all aircrafts sold come with western engines). In some areas Soviet/Russian industry was innovative and produced reasonable products, but since the beginning of the 80s they could at no time compete with the huge amounts of money spent in western world. The civil aircraft market above 100 seats is one of more than 20 billion USD a year (only new built), additionally there are spares and stuff.
From a technological point of view aircraft may look comparable (but they are not), they are even less attractive when it comes to life-time costs. Most parts have normally shorter life-times, the infrastructure is not well established (spares, MRO). It should be an eye-opener that Russian airlines (who’s customers certainly have no affection for American products) rather buy Boeing than a new Tupolev, and that despite a 40% import tax on aircraft.
When it comes to military aircraft, they normally reflect their owners. Any Russian type is uneffective in Western service, even if capability is comparable.
The Russians can do no miracles, either, they at least never did any in the past time. All successful aircraft were bought with money and time, often a lot of both. Therefore (considering that the reasons for that are either due to complexity or due to the people involved) no significant change can be expected. The only thing that really changed is the buyer, the Russian state, but are we sure that they really changed their procurement policies?
SchorschAnyways…I have my popcorn ready :diablo: just waiting for MLD to show up…and the show can begin. 😀
Didn’t just a T-72 blow up a Leopard II A6? That is a claim maybe from a Russian source. Who has a picture?
Honestly:
The overall quality of the eastern forces was inferior, however, it stillw as effective. Seeing the overall performance of Soviet forces in Afghanistan and the performance of Soviet equipment in Iran-Iraq war, one can say that some weak spots were identified. A frontal attack using superior numbers would most likely end in a desaster for the WP due to the high number of defence weapons. The high number of short-range low payload fighter-bombers would make any offensive job increasingly difficult for the western forces with verey yard they are closing in. The battle-space would be so lead-filled, that any Close Air Support would be nearly suicide.
The entire set-up is like a modern world war I scenario with neither side able to have a usable supremacy and therefore the offensive weaker than the defence.
In the air it is unlikely that WP forces can etsablish anything like air superiority. They did not have the aircrafts for it.
SchorschSchorsh, I have extensivly researched my origional aircrew manual for the F4C/D Phantom and yes this bird can certainly break the sound barrier at sea level complete with wing tanks and ordinance.
Even with four Sparrows, one C/L tank and two wing tanks it is entirly possible to break the sound barrier at sea level (only just!).
This data has been compiled and published by McDonald Douglas themselves to teach new pilots exactly what the plane could do so I regard this as a reliable source of information and proof of REAL performance.
About your engine……take off the gadget called a rev limiter and yes it wll rev at 18000 rpm for a short while before making quite a sizable hole in your bonnet!!!, one good reason why you don’t see many family cars in a grand prix.
Regards
John.
Then I take it. Thanks for the info.
SchorschDespite it’s designation it’s not generally considered part of the “Century Series” nor is the F-110 (F-4). The F-111 should have probably been designated F-13.
Best designation would have been A-(somehting). It never was a fighter. The F-4 would by today standards be F/A-4. The F-105 was more a bomber, too.
SchorschI think very important is the preparation. Normally the USAF would quickly increase its strength by bringing more fighters to Western Europe. Same applies for Soviet Union, although they always had larger parts of their air force stationed in Eastern Europe.
In case the Warsaw pact would act offensive I think losses would mount dramatically. The numerical strength cannot offsets the lower payload-range charactestics of the aircraft used, after all the offensive capabilities are comparable. The average avionics and EW equipment was not the best.
However, if western forces act offensively the losses would be high, too. The WP air defence was strong and any MiG-23 is very difficult opponent over its own territory. 4th generation fighters of the east would not play a significant role.
The quality of the fighting aircraft would be secondary and overlayed by simple wartime circumstances:
– concentration of force
– supply of forces (how many missiles available, etc.)
– loss rate (5% per sortie @ 3 sorties a day would half the number of ac in 4 days)
After all, it would be a pretty destructive mess.
SchorschRussia is not looking for foreign cash for PAK-FA. that is old story. there is a big change in there fortunes and if they manage to build pipelines to Asia by 2009. there is not only 5th generation fighter but another Tupolev bomber is also.only MIG light fighter is for export.
Not to forget about the Tupolev 380, which will challenge the A380 and the Antonov 737, which will rule the single aisle market. I’m waiting. 😀
BTW: Will gas prices level out when this pipeline is ready? Then I would welcome a 5th generation fighter (or whatever).
SchorschScorsch, are you kidding me?
An F-4 set a low-altitude speed record that stood for a very long time in 1960 I believe. It was about 902 mph or so.
The F-4 is quite capable of supersonic speed at sea level, even with a tank attached.
Please confirm that. I think it is rather unrealistic. I don’t know what you know about transonic/supersonic drag increase, but believe me, it is awesome. Clean the F-4 can break the sound barrier at low level.
A speed record says none about real performance. My BMW engine can’t make 18.000 RPM like Ralf Schumacher’s, either.
SchorschAlways good for a surprise. Your last example is the best proof about our claims.
The SU-32FN/SU-34 (T10V) made its first flight December 18, 1993 in Novosibirsk.
The original SU-27IB (T10V) made its first flight April 13, 1990.
The first regiment will be equipped with its complement of SU-34 around 2010.
If those in service than and will field all capabilities is still open to question.(F-15, first flight of prototyp July 27, 1972.
Series from July 7, 1973
F-15E, first flight July 8, 1980.)
Sens,
we should be fair here and admit that the tremendous delay was mostly due to financial shortcomings. The technological challenge was second. Changing requirements, possibly a drain of talented people, did its contribution. Only programs during Soviet Union are a usable benchmark. Actually the same applies for Eurofighter, which was developed at m uch slower pace after the 1989-91 weather forecast change.
On the other hand the requirements of the RuAF are anything else than clear, the target market either. So I don’t see any chances for PAK-FA. It is very important to define well before walking to the drawing board, don’t do A350!
Sign In
