Airbus v. Boeing

[Metro752]

Hey Everybody,
I'm always defending the Airbus among my CFI friends, they all seem to be Anti-Airbus. Yes, we all have seen the Air France A320, the soft-limits, the weird noises (whatever that means), yada yada yada. I thought I'd take it to a higher audience what do you guys/gals think and why. Airbus or Boeing?

My vote is Airbus

WHY do you like Airbus? Because it's European like the car your daddy bought you?

It's FRENCH, when was the last time you saw a NICE FRENCH car?

 

[TrafficInSight]

Having a huge majority of my flight time in fly by wire airplanes, I have never seen the system do anything other than what was advertised. In fact, not only have I never seen it but the flight control system has never failed in the life of the F-16. It is an outstanding system and it may not have any manual reversion but it is quadrupal redundant. Every once in a while an over eager Lt will put a Viper out of control by assaulting the limiters in both pitch and bank at the same time. I doubt this is a problem in the Airbus because they don't do a lot of BFM. I have also never seen or heard of any problems in the black jet either.

The F-16 had a problem with wire chafing in the early days and there is at least one crash of an F-117 related to a clog in the pitot system confusing the computers. I don't claim to be an expert in either subject, however.

And the YF-22 prototype... but I think that probably doesn't count.

anyway, I don't think it would be in such widespread use if it wasn't pretty damn good.

 

[Guitar rocker]

Having never flown an Airbus, I won't comment on the airplanes themselves. I will say this, Airbus has an advantage in coorporate culture. Airbus as a company seems willing to invest in the future, develop new airplanes, provide good customer service, and basically do whatever it takes to get the customer and keep the customer happy. Boeing has not developed a new airplane since the 777, and despite all the talk of the sonic cruiser and a more efficient 250 seater, I'll believe it when I see it. McDonnell Douglas got into the rut of continually updating an old design. At some point, you can't overcome the fact that you are selling a 40 year old design. I think Boeing is heading down that path, and if they are not careful, it will be the death of Boeing Airliners.

Do what it takes to keep the customer happy? You DID see what Singapore Airlines did with their continued delay of their A380 order? Along with that, Quantas and other airlines followed suit. Overall, Airbus took a 15 billion hit with their delays and promises of that A380.........oops, lets not forget that new A350 which is now going to take at least a few year hit in it's attempt to compete with the 787. And there are partners in Airbus that want out as well.

Perhaps Boeing will go through the same pains in it's promised delivery dates of it's new 787....time will tell. I think that the smaller but much more efficient aircraft is the way to go. So many airports out there can handle these types of aircraft....not so for that A380. Even the A340 is going to become an aircraft of the past.... this day and age, who wants a plane that has 4 engines when you could have a 777 with 2 engines that can fly even further than that A340? So much for any cost savings when yah got two more engines out there that are drinking fuel and need to be maintained as well.

Airbus had better do something quickly to keep it's customers happy. It will cost them one way or another at this point.

 

[wrxpilot]

Do what it takes to keep the customer happy? You DID see what Singapore Airlines did with their continued delay of their A380 order? Along with that, Quantas and other airlines followed suit. Overall, Airbus took a 15 billion hit with their delays and promises of that A380.........oops, lets not forget that new A350 which is now going to take at least a few year hit in it's attempt to compete with the 787. And there are partners in Airbus that want out as well.

Uhh... I think that guy wrote his comment 4 yrs ago (the thread is from '02).

 

[Junkflyer]

Airbus are short term aircraft. Boeing are long-term aircraft. How many 20 year old Airbus planes do you see flying? There are a lot of classic 74's still going and even DC-8's still flying. Airbus's crap out after a few years because they are not designed for the long haul. They are disposable airplanes.

 

[TrafficInSight]

Airbus are short term aircraft. Boeing are long-term aircraft. How many 20 year old Airbus planes do you see flying? There are a lot of classic 74's still going and even DC-8's still flying. Airbus's crap out after a few years because they are not designed for the long haul. They are disposable airplanes.

FedEx has quite a few that were built in the early 80's.

 

[skygirl1968]

Uhh... I think that guy wrote his comment 4 yrs ago (the thread is from '02).

LOL...nice!

I work for an airline based out of DEN that recently transitioned to an all Airbus fleet. We fly 318/319 and will soon be getting 320's...there were previously a few 737's in the fleet. The pilots, mechanics, and engineers all seem to like the Airbus products a lot better (yes, I did some asking around). Biggest thing that the pilots mentioned was that they liked not having to do differences training.

(personally, I like looking out the window and seeing the little animals painted on the winglets )

 

[time builder]

LOL...nice!

I work for an airline based out of DEN that recently transitioned to an all Airbus fleet. We fly 318/319 and will soon be getting 320's...there were previously a few 737's in the fleet. The pilots, mechanics, and engineers all seem to like the Airbus products a lot better (yes, I did some asking around). Biggest thing that the pilots mentioned was that they liked not having to do differences training.

(personally, I like looking out the window and seeing the little animals painted on the winglets )

Those Frontier 737-200's were junk, anything new and plush looks better than those. Just give it a few years, they'll be like the old L1011's, with all their fancy, but maintenance deferred equipment.

 

[Guitar rocker]

Uhh... I think that guy wrote his comment 4 yrs ago (the thread is from '02).

Thanks dude, I wasnt even looking at that....

 

[kevdog]

Airbus are short term aircraft. Boeing are long-term aircraft. How many 20 year old Airbus planes do you see flying? There are a lot of classic 74's still going and even DC-8's still flying. Airbus's crap out after a few years because they are not designed for the long haul. They are disposable airplanes.

There are a bunch of 15-20+ year old airbi flying around:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?...P&photo_nr=13&prev_id=1041608&next_id=1036378

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?...b_vq QRFP&photo_nr=1&prev_id=&next_id=1063967

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?...FP&photo_nr=2&prev_id=1063540&next_id=1062433

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?...P&photo_nr=26&prev_id=1049514&next_id=1049092

For 1/3 the price of a Boeing product, is a 20+ year disposable airplane bad?

 

[wrxpilot]

Thanks dude, I wasnt even looking at that....

No worries, I've done the same

 

[Gorilla]

McDonnell-Douglas! The DC-3, DC-6, DC-10, F-15, etc, those are man-planes.

Oh wait, they don't exist anymore. :erm:

 

[nwa_contrails]

For a second there I thought I was at airliners.net. What a f*cking stupid post.

Bitter much?

 

[CL60]

797

Boeing to take on Airbus with 1000 seat giant 797 Blended Wing plane



Boeing is preparing a 1000 passenger jet that could reshape the Air travel industry for the next 100 years.







The radical Blended Wing design has been developed by Boeing incooperation with the NASA Langley Research Centre.



The mammoth plane will have a wing span of 265 feet compared to the 747's 211 feet, and is designed to fit within the newly created terminals used for the 555 seat Airbus A380, which is 262 feet wide.

​

The new 797 is in direct response to the Airbus A380 which has racked up 159 orders, but has not yet flown any passengers.



Boeing decided to kill its 747X stretched super jumbo in 2003 after little interest was shown by airline companies, but has continued to develop the ultimate Airbus crusher 797 for years at its Phantom Works research facility in Long Beach, Calif.



The Airbus A380 has been in the works since 1999 and has accumulated $13 billion in development costs, which gives Boeing a huge advantage now that Airbus has committed to the older style

tubular aircraft for decades to come.



There are several big advantages to the blended wing design, the most important being the lift to drag ratio which is expected to increase by an amazing 50%, with overall weight reduced by 25%,

making it an estimated 33% more efficient than the A380, and making Airbus's $13 billion dollar investment look pretty shaky.



High body rigidity is another key factor in blended wing aircraft, It reduces turbulence and creates less stress on the air frame which adds to efficiency, giving the 797 a tremendous 8800 nautical mile range with its 1000 passengers flying comfortably at mach .88 or 654 mph cruising speed -- another advantage over the Airbus tube-and-wing designed A380's 570 mph. The exact date for introduction is unclear, yet the battle lines are clearly drawn in the high-stakes war for civilian air supremacy

 

[Checklist]

Leave fries to the French. Americans know airplanes. As a side note I will always back a product stamped with made in the USA, What other reason do you need.
Bon Vouage Frenchy

 

[woutlaw]

According to Homer Simpson, they are actually "cheese eating surrender monkeys".

Jim

It was actually Groundkeeper Willie who called the French 'cheese eating surrender monkeys.' (http://www.answers.com/topic/cheese-eating-surrender-monkeys)

But the point is well taken. <grin>

(I love the French, actually. Good folk and treated me well as I've staggered about from pub to pub. I know nothing about their airplanes and care even less. But the food rocks.)

 

[time builder]

CL60, you make me laugh. Bud light ought to make a commercial for you: Real men of Genius "here's to you: mr. Aviation industry tabloid man, when others are satisfied with reporting the facts, you go a step beyond, with your wild imagination you wow the gullable public..."

(oh, and the A380 cruises at mach .93, you might have sounded legitmate otherwise, that and why Long Beach???? Hehehehe you make me laugh like napoleon dynamite doing his report on our friend and ally nessie)

 

[CL60]

(oh, and the A380 cruises at mach .93, you might have sounded legitmate otherwise, that and why Long Beach???? Hehehehe you make me laugh like napoleon dynamite doing his report on our friend and ally nessie)

Actually, the posted article refers only to a generic 570 MPH for the Airbus. The official Airbus website states that the A380's MMO, (not cruise), is .89.


"why Long Beach???"


Boeing Integrated Defense Systems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Boeing Integrated Defense Systems (Boeing IDS), based in St. Louis, Missouri, is a unit of The Boeing Company, responsible for defense and aerospace products. It a consolidated group consisting of the following acquired companies:

• Boeing Helicopters, formerly Boeing Vertol and Piasecki Helicopter
• Hughes Satellite Systems
• Hughes Helicopters
• The St. Louis-based McDonnell division of the former McDonnell Douglas Company
• The former North American Aviation division of Rockwell

IDS also controls the Phantom Works research group, inherited from McDonnell Douglas, which will report directly to IDS chief Jim Albaugh.
Facilities

• Decatur, Alabama
• Mesa, Arizona
• El Segundo, California
• Palmdale, California
• Long Beach, California
• Macon, Georgia
• St. Louis, Missouri
• Wichita, Kansas
• Ridley Park, Pennsylvania
• Houston, Texas

Although the Blended Wing concept has been around for quite some time, it is, (in my opinion), probably not going to become a reality for most professional pilots flying today.

 

[time builder]

Although the Blended Wing concept has been around for quite some time, it is, (in my opinion), probably not going to become a reality for most professional pilots flying today.

Oh, so this is merely conceptual, probably not going materialize. Thanks for clarifying.
I can see concepts and plans being made in Long Beach, but not additional heavy aircraft manufacturing. Have you ever been there? The C17 manufacturing is crammed in there as it is.

 

[CL60]

Bwb

time builder

Oh, so this is merely conceptual, probably not going materialize. Thanks for clarifying.
I can see concepts and plans being made in Long Beach, but not additional heavy aircraft manufacturing. Have you ever been there? The C17 manufacturing is crammed in there as it is.

The blended wing body design is still being scrutinized for civilian/military high density seating utilization however has been a reality in other military applications for a while. NASA: "The basic concept for a blended wing body was first developed decades ago and variations of it have been used in the famous B-2 bomber (a blended wing) and the lesser-known YB-49 (a pure flying wing from the 1940’s)." There are also several other current military testbed BWB aircraft.

Most aviation insiders believe the civilian BWB will be a reality in the relative future however there are technological as well as traditional barriers to overcome first. My guess is that some future generation of civilian pilots will be lucky enough to experience this leap in the evolution of aviation design.

NASA.gov has some great illustrations of what a BWB airliner will probably look like.