Ship 741The MiG-25/31 did that since the 60s or over 40 years ago as the recce birds of the F-4 did.
Do you have a pic of a flight-suit from a F-22A pilot doing so.
Thanks for that info, I was unaware of that, though I did wonder when I read the article on the F-22 why the pilots didn’t wear pressure suits. No I don’t have a pic and I don’t think I’ve seen that talked about on any threads.
Methinks the F-22 has a lot more endurance cruising at those high flight levels than either the MiG or the Phantom….very high wing area and much more modern engines.
Ship 741Kinda surprised no one has mentioned the F-22.
According to Aviation Week last year, the F-22 has the ability to cruise/loiter at 62-65,000 feet for an extended period of time, and routinely does so. This capability is unique for a tactical aircraft, and when combined with the radar and stealth makes it a very formidable adversary.
A lot of the conversation in this thread seems to be around a zoom capability, or an short time capability enhanced by afterburner, whereas the F-22 seems to have a useful capability to operate in the mid 60’s.
Ship 741The sad thing is that Poland and the Czech Republic have been thoroughly screwed over…..(
Its 1938 all over again. Aren’t liberals from elite institutions supposed to be smart?
Ship 741Surrender.
First the F-22 Cancellation and now this.
An entirely predictable move, and consistent with his overall policy of appeasement.
Lets see now if the Russians and other adversaries immediately stop building new weapon systems.
I wonder if he has ever heard of Neville Chamberlain?
Ship 741See posts 3 and 5 and I never claimed they did!!! My responses were to do with Alaska (which is part of the thread) itself and its past history, which like it or not is there. That has no connection with the Virgin issue and I never claimed that it it did. It was an observation on an airline mentioned in the thread. I wasn’t aware that we were in court ;).
We aren’t. But shouldn’t comments have some relevance to the topic in question? The comments against Alaska seem like a cheap shot to me, and have no bearing on the case.
Ship 741Very competitive, as the “composite illusion” will really be understood in a few years. The B787 has issues to be competitive versus the A330 and Boeing rushed the whole industry into a rather stupid rush of replacing very useful aircraft (B777, A330) before their time was due.
By the way: the A380 uses in many areas the same level of composites as the B787, they just didn’t have management telling them to use it all over, but they used where it made sense.
I wouldn’t expect more than a 3-5% weight saving, which doesn’t justify the business case. The A380 may be running bad lately, but that ensures that Boeing will never build a competing design.
SIA will replace MSN007 by MSN700.
Just want to make sure I understand, you believe the composite 787 with all new GeNX engines won’t be able to compete with the 1993 technology A330, and that the 360-540,000 lb MTOW 787 is gonna kill off the 545-766,000 lb MTOW 777 series? In the wake of the fuel spike of the last few years, the 787 seems like the right airplane at the right time to me. I guess everyone has an opinion, but I can’t say I agree with yours. Seems like the airlines don’t either, with 700ish 787 firm orders still on the books and a healthy backlog still existing on the 777.
I also find it rather interesting that you feel a 3-5% weight savings on an airplane with a 610,000 lb OEW is economically unjustifiable. Especially at a time when the entire A380 program appears to be economically unjustifiable on the basis of sales performance to date. Even Airbus stopped publicly quoting a breakeven airframe figure in 2006, at what was it, some 430 frames?
I’ll buy you a beer when MSN700 rolls off the line, providing I am still alive in 2040. Perhaps the Chinese will have replace Boeing by then and Airbus will have long term competition.
Ship 741You really think Boeing are going to try an enter the VLA-market in 5-10 years time? I say that is a lot of nonsense, they are going to be busy enough with both the 737/757 replacement and the possible 777NG. I cannot see Boeing going any larger than the 747-8. The A380 will be refined over its lifecycle, just like any other aircraft. It will just have the upper-end of the spectrum to itself.
IIRC that was the plan at the time the A380 was launched. I’m not sure if it is now, with the world economy being very soft.
Ship 741The A380s market is definately there, it’s just unfortunate timing for Airbus, as a jumbo happens to be completely useless in a recession when passenger numbers are plumeting. When pax numbers return to their pre-reccession levels (and higher), the A380 should come into it’s own.
When the original VLA argument came up Boeing agreed that there was a market, they just asserted that it was 15-20 years down the road. Almost ten years have now passed since A380 program launch…..it kinda looks like their assertion is coming true. Somehow, admitting that they were correct apparently makes one a “fanboy” on this message board. Somehow, recognizing that Airbus tried to kill the 777ER/LR with their anti-ETOPS arguments also makes one a “fanboy.”
I’m wondering how competitive the A380 will be when Boeing applies all the composite airframe knowledge they are gaining now on the 787 program to their future VLA 5-10 years down the road? If Airbus gains the same knowledge on the A350, its gonna cost an awful lot to rebuild the A380 as a composite airplane….
Ship 741J Boyle….agree completely.
Grey….yep, it happened 10 years ago and that has nothing to do with the thread or the assertion regarding Virgin ownership. The fact that the A380 is selling very slowly is just that….a fact.
I repeat again, if Alaska did do bad stuff 10 years ago, that doesn’t mean that Virgin America isn’t owned by Richard Branson
Finally, nationalism has nothing to do with the claim. It’s U.S. law and whether or not is being complied with.
Ship 741Thanks
I feel someone should point out that article is now almost 10 years old…..and it is full of allegations, not findings. Even if bad findings are produced, they would still be quite old.
It seems rather a stretch to bring up these old allegations in response to the thread starter. I mean, c’mon, everybody knows Richard Branson owns the freaking airline (Virgin). He appears to be trying to get around to law. Why do people always have to attack the person making the allegation instead of answering the allegation? Lets say Alaska did do bad stuff, does that mean Branson isn’t the owner of VA?
Ship 741Not that good me thinks! I seem to remember some pretty dodgy goings on with that carrier and its MDs a few years ago. I’d certainly never fly with Alaska after seeing that Air Crash Investigation programme about them, Frankly I am amazed that the FAA did not shut them down after that mess. :confused:
Please provide details, thanks.
Ship 741Also via Wikipedia….
The A300 was the first twin-engined widebody airliner in the world. It inspired Boeing twins such as Boeing 767 and 777 and paved the way for ETOPS flights.And on Wiki itself (Airbus A300 site)
In 1977, the A300B4 became the first “ETOPS compliant” aircraft – its high performance and safety standards qualified it for Extended Twin Engine Operations over water, providing operators with more versatility in routing. Garuda Indonesia became the first airline to fly A300-B4. By 1981, Airbus was growing rapidly, with over 300 aircraft sold and options for 200 more planes for over forty airlines. Alarmed by the success of the A300, Boeing responded with the new Boeing 767.
I’ve heard a lot of wild claims in my day, but the claim that Airbus or the A300 were trend setters with regard to ETOPS may take the cake for the most outrageous. Truly revisionist history.
The “success” of the A300B4 had very little to do with ETOPS imho. For one thing the airplane didn’t even have the range to make it across the North Atlantic…..the later A300-600’s and A310s could barely make it, and the A310’s were often payload restricted. The A300 was the first twin engine widebody, but as for “inspiring” the 767 and 777, well, that also sounds like wishful thinking to me. But even if it were true, so what? Boeing was also second to market in the DC-9/737 competition, and we know how that turned out.
The attached chart from Boeing shows pretty graphically what a minimal player both Airbus and the A300 series has been with regard to ETOPS. To claim otherwise is simply in variance with the facts.
Ship 741It was Airbus that fought tooth and nail to get ETOPS for the A300 and A310 and won. But they still had 3 crew. IIRC the B767 was the first Twin Lumped/Twin crew A/c to gain ETOPS.
Gosh thats news to me….I always thought it started with TWA in 1985.
From wiki:
The FAA gave the first ETOPS rating in May 1985 to TWA for the B767 service between St. Louis and Frankfurt, allowing TWA to fly its aircraft up to 90 minutes away from the nearest airfield: this was later extended to 120 minutes after a federal evaluation of the airline’s operating procedures.
[edit] ETOPS extensions
In 1988, the FAA amended the ETOPS regulation to allow the extension to a 180-minute diversion period subject to stringent technical and operational qualifications. This made 95% of the Earth’s surface available to ETOPS flights. The first such flight was conducted in 1989. This set of regulations was subsequently adopted by the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA), ICAO and other regulatory bodies.
In this manner the B737, 757 and 767 series and the Airbus A300-600, 310, 320 and 330 series were approved for ETOPS operations. .
Ship 741How do A330 ETOPS statistics compare?
Back when 777 was built, Boeing got the FAA to invent such a thing as “early ETOPS”. And asked the rest of the world to give that. The answer was – no way. From both Europe and Japan. Outside USA, 777 had to earn ETOPS the hard way and fly without ETOPS till it had accomplished it.
When ANA EIS of 787 was anticipated, Boeing asked Japan again. The reply was – still no way. 787 must earn ETOPS the same hard way.
IIRC, the requirements for earning ETOPS are 12 months of non-ETOPS service AND a certain number of flight hours. How big a fleet is needed to achieve those in 12 months?
Unfortunately, Airbus isn’t real forthcoming with ETOPS information/statistics. I’ve searched their website without luck, and even emailed them, without success. One gets the impression that they don’t really support ETOPS, as it has pretty much killed the A340 (even if it has helped the A330), and there are proabably some who would argue it is hurting A380 sales.
The ridiculously conservative requirements by some countries haven’t been found to be necessary based upon actual operations…..where are the crashes? And even though some countries may have waited the 12 months, that didn’t stop them from purchasing large numbers of 777’s, such as Japan…..which coincidentally hasn’t ordered any A380’s.
Ship 741I love the way people chime in on an internet message board to say that airplanes can’t or shouldn’t be compared. I thought that was part of the fun! And it appears to me that the two closest in size are the A330 and B787. The 767 is considerably smaller and the A350 is considerably larger.
I believe the 767-A330-787-A350 can and should be directly compared. I have listed them in a very rough smallest to largest order. It is true that with the 787 and A350 it is very difficult to discern the true OEW (operating empty weight) AT THIS POINT IN TIME due to the fact that they are still in development. Furthermore, differences in BFE (buyer furnished equipment, or airline layout) will dictate differences.
However, in spite of these difficulties with comparison, I believe it is safe to say that the composite airplanes are much lighter than the old aluminum airplanes in general.
Furthermore, the statement was made earlier in the thread that the 3-6% OEW increase was “linear” with fuel burn. Please elucidate further about the use of the term linear in this context, for I believe the effect of a 5% weight increase is much more neglibile for a 500nm leg than a 7000nm leg, and therefore not linear at all. For example, if one puts 1000 extra lbs of fuel on a 500n leg you will arrive at destination with something like 900 lbs (only 100 was lost to engine power settings carrying the other 900). On a 7,000 nm leg the “cost to carry” is closer to 50%…..1,000 extra pounds of fuel added at departure generates only about 5-600 at arrival.
Of course, the program delays have also caused the engine makers to be able to produce a little better burn on the engine, so perhaps some of the overweight condition will be negated. WRT the engines, the big question for me has always been how reliable will these engines be going right into ETOPS service, the engines on the 777 will be tough to match (about 81 shutdowns in 14 million flt hours for the Trent, and about 38 shutdowns in 13-14 million flight hours for the GE90). IFSD numbers quoted from memory from Boeing quarterly ETOPS report, 1st quarter 2009, so they may be slightly off.
Sign In
