SchorschThe financial power of either A & B is larger than of all remaining manufacturers put together.
But apart from that they can muster a great deal of experience and are able to assemble very powerful engineering teams.
Design, manufacturing & certifying aircraft is not an easy task, and smaller manufacturers may easy bet the shop doing so, especially as they leave state-of-the-art designs (which Embraer or Bombadier never did).
SchorschIt wasn’t reverse engineered, it basically IS a DC-9. The fuselage is identical and was meant to be so as AVIC had tooling and experience in manufacturing the DC-9 (or MD-90).
The engine is CF-34 (same as A-10!), which limits it in growth potential.
The wing is modified with supercritical profile.
Nobody should expect too much from that aerodynamic-wise, but it allows a thicker and lighter wing with more volume.
In the end: it is not innovative, but it still is a useful aircraft. The last part is hard to say for me as I prefer the over-engineered Euro-tech solutions. However, the ARJ-21 – despite being yesterdays’ design – still is in one league with the E-Jets.
SchorschNew single aisle will largely depend on configuration questions (prop/fan, turbofan; high/low wing, design Mach number and range, to some extent passenger count). Very interesting indeed. Basically even Embraer could catch this market, but never underestimate the lead A&B have.
SchorschAirbus and Boeing won’t be the only players in that particular contest, either.
I may remind that there were other contenders before: MDD, BAe, Fokker.
So, generally nothing new.
SchorschThere is a vital difference between the 787 and the 380. So Airbus won’t make any profit on the 380, but they have an otherwise more or less healthy portfolio and they will survive. Boeing on the other hand has bet the farm on the 787, and unlike back in the 1960’s with the 747 it does not look good now, because the major product segment of the company is out of business, whereas back then the 747 was a – costly and risky, but still – add-on to their portfolio, and if they’d really gone bust MDD or someone else would have taken over. Now it is not only a multi-level break down of Boeing as a company and the only commercial airframer left in the U.S., it is also the break down of NASA as the agency that should have done the basic research 10 years ago! (They are only doing it now with a modified Dornier!!) The 787 is the manifestation of the structural crisis of the whole U.S. aerospace complex.
Boeing has basically B777 as a strong product which will make good profits until the A350 establishes. The B737 will most likely not sell as good (profit-wise) as the A320 series.
The B767 is dead as real cash generator (if it wasn’t for KC-X the line would be closed by now).
The B747-8 only sells as freighter. Not bad, but not the big volume product.
Boeing didn’t bet the farm financially, I mean that caused this whole hiccup. But I see your point: if the B787 continues to struggle and finally comes out worse than expected (performance-wise), the business case turns into a nightmare and Boeing will be in second place for quite a long time.
The big market will be the A320/B737 replacement. There nothing is determined.
SchorschMore interesting when they achieve EASA and/or FAA certification.
SchorschGuam is only vulnerable if a strike occurs with nuclear weapons, at which case I think it doesn’t matter too much anyway anymore.
Apparently the basis for all this is a conflict versus China.
Australia is not that great, either, as it may be unwilling politically.
How about Rabaul or Truk?
SchorschI personally think that the 787 is the right aircraft at the right time, the success of the order books just proves it is what the airlines want. The aircraft has a lot of potential. It’s downfall has been poor management from the start and that is exactly what is crippling the program. I am positive that once the initial teething problems are solved, another great Boeing product will shine through.
The aircraft is positioned right and the risk is much lower than for the A380. The B787 is the consequence of linearly extrapolating the trend.
The problem is that Boeing was led by flawed management, and I don’t see any trend towards better leaders which have the standing in the company. Traditionally Boeing programs were led by Chief Engineers, who were the most influential people.
At the moment Boeing rapidly loses reputation, at a much faster pace than Airbus did with the A380 at any time. This might backfire when Boeing proposes the next new aircraft. If Airbus somehow achieves the A350 certification and first delivery on time (on time = planned EIS plus 6 month), Boeing is in trouble (like Airbus was after the A380 when the B787 seemed perfectly on track).
SchorschToo much anti-Boeing/anti-Airbus crap in this topic to wade through it all – I did look, but obviously just missed 124
I don’t think anyone really wants to see a program like the 787 delayed and delayed – or worse, fail. Most of the rhetoric is, if we’re honest, not really against the program but rather is Airbus fanboys winding up Boeing fans, after Boeing fanboys wound up Airbus fans over the A380 fiasco. Teams “loyal” to rivals taunting each other, as in football – that’s all.
Andy
The problem is that the willingness to discuss (rather than report) the problems is missing. This thread is a joke. I understand that forums either have aviation enthusiasts or aviation experts as contributor. Here we apparently rely on the first kind, which makes great discussions when it comes to liveries and seat color, but fails as soon as we dig a little deeper.
SchorschFeces from a bull Schorsch, and I think you know it.
Perhaps we should all laugh at Airbus over their many incarnations of ths A350, all of them explicitly hyped as the answer airlines wanted, yet neither prospered. The current incarnation is also far from rock solid.
Perhaps we should also laugh at the delays to the A380 project? I mean, we were told there was no problem, and then a 6 month delay was announced. We were then told again, there was no problem. Again another 6 month delay was announced.
And lets have a good chuckle at the blatantly over optmistic sales forcasts.The list is endless, yet, we do not laugh. But according to you, we should.
Your comments are lame and miss the point.
I know many people affiliated with Boeing who make tougher comments than me, and I really don’t understand how someone can defend/accuse a company if he/she is not directly on the payroll. Childish.
People who understand the technical side of aircraft (like me) see significant differences if either
– a production problem occurs (like with the announced stop at Alenia, which I don’t take too serious) or the wrong fasteners.
or
– a structural design problem occurs at the very heart of the primary structure few weeks before first flight and only slightly above Limit Load
That are two entirely different things, the severity is entirely different and the consequences, too.
Note that Boeing isn’t even at a point yet where it can be hit by A380-like problems (which were – at least as delivery delays were considered – production problems). In the end I give a s##t about the A vs B thing, I just fear that the company formerly know as Boeing has forgotten how to design and certify aircraft.
SchorschI do agree with you Paul.
I’ve followed this thread and at times have realy had to bite my tongue. There are a select few here at appear to be getting pleasure out of the setbacks the 787 is having.
Now, we all know my views on Airbus and in particular the A380.
I may be against it and continue to be genuinely aggravated at the project as being a complete flop (which I strongly believe it is), but I do not derive any pleasure from any failure, be it Boeing, Airbus, the Russians or Brazillians or anyone in the Aviation business.
Considering the considerable propaganda and hail the B787 and its way of designing and manufacturing gained, the complete downfall of this management-imposed system now only deserves irony. Normally one should not be glad about others failing (we Germans call it “Schadenfreude”), but if the one in question did make big show and implied he knew the answer to all future problems, yes, some Schadenfreude is definitely justified.
The B787 (and not necessarily individuals or groups at Boeing) is the best example how not to handle an aircraft program, and how you make yourself the biggest idiot of all times:
First
– announce the revolutionary aircraft
– give it a dumb name
– announce a schedule that is “revolutionary”
– create a manufacturing system never heard of
– show off with orders and projected production rates that makes your competition nervous
Then
– fail to meet any technical deadline
– slowly concede that your design isn’t so much better after all
– continue failing to meet new and newest deadlines
– scrap the whole production plan
– stop selling the aircraft
– while doing the latter, just fail the next (self-imposed) deadline
I actually don’t know (apart from a crash) how a program could be worse.
Some simple minded people might call me anti-Boeing, when other recognize I am anti-mess-it-up-management.
SchorschThe German language cought my attention, so I only read half of the subtitles.
The movie (in Englisch: The Downfall) is highly recommendable, and you can find some parts of this “Führerbunker-mentality” in modern management.
SchorschAs much as I can understand people thinking this guy’s a hero, I’d like to think the vast majority of people flying 777’s would be able to do the same in similar circumstances!
Paul
Correct, his actions were according to the situation. 80-95% of the pilots would have done similar, those who f##k it up get called idiots (which is quite often not reasonable, either). The line is difficult to draw, in the end there are many very good pilots sitting in the aircraft, and fortunately they never have a chance to prove it.
SchorschAccording to reports in Seattle based newspapers the chance increases that the B787 doesn’t fly at all this year. The official line at Boeing still is that a modification needs one month and should start in August. However, “official Boeing statement” has lost some of its value, the information policy seems to be oriented on North Korean standards.
SchorschOne question: how can a satellite track a ship on open ocean?
I could think of infrared, but there are clouds from time to time.
Sign In
