Petition the Air Force Tanker Contract

[ableone]

Sure, but Boeing still considers usability and functionality to be far more important than limiting automation.

Actually you have it backward. The airbus has more "usability and functionality" because of its FBW control system.

The airplane can be flown right to its limits immediately and held there indefinitely. The Boeing's can not.

 

[ableone]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EM0hDchVlY

I don't care how the autopilot is set up. An airplane should do as it's told. I hope that Airbus changes what their system allows / doesn't allow the pilots to do in a military aircraft.

Ableone,

The conversation was specifically about durability and quality of aircraft. My friend was an A&P for AW and said they had a nosewheel collapse on an A319 and they wrote the plane off. He had said that some 737's had suffered worse damage and were repaired.

Again, basing your opinion on what one guy said and presenting it as a fact does not make you look intelligent.

Yes an AWA A-320 suffered a nosewheel collapse and the aircraft was written off. You just left out everything else that happened between these two events.

You seem to believe that the aircraft was parked out on the ramp, its nosewheel collapsed and the airframe shattered.

Actually the airplane departed the runway at a high speed and an engine dug into the dirt, twisting the wing spar. This accident also happened to rip off the nose gear but that has little to do with why the aircraft was totaled.

With respect to "how the autopilot is set up". I think what you meant to say was how the flight control laws are set up.

The airbus does exactly what the pilot tells it to do. In a conventional airplane the pilot commands attitude in order to achieve a desired flight path. In the airbus the pilot simply commands flight path and the control laws command the attitude required to achieve that flight path.

The flight control logic allows the airplane to be safely flown right to its aerodynamic limits and to be held there.

An Airbus can outperform a Boeing because the pilot can immediately command maximum performance by moving the controls to the stops and holding them there.

Maybe you missed it but the F-16, F-22 etc utilize the same type of flight control logic.

 

[ableone]

When you look at which airplane is more durable, has a longer service life, and is more controllable by our pilots, Boeing wins. I will take a Boeing over an airbus any day, I don't want some computer telling me it can do my job better than I can. The level of automation that airbus uses is just plain dangerous in a military environment.

Yes, the A300 did start production in 1972, but ended production less than a year ago. How many are still flying around from 1972?

Oh airline expert please explain to the uninformed how you reached these factual conclusions.

The Boeing is more controllable? Really? Please explain.

It is more durable? Has a longer service life? Really? Back that one up.

"That level of automation is dangerous in a military environment"

Really? You better tell the Air Force to get rid of all their F-16s, F-22s and cancel that dangerous JSF as well.

 

[Oh-ryan]

A lot can happen in 14 years. 14 years ago the CRJ-200 was a good airplane...

You're right. Let's forget all about the first 36 years and focus on the next 14. See you in 2022!

 

[Oh-ryan]

Well they are not all 36 years old, most of them are much newer, the most recent one is about 7 months old

The newest KC-135 is 43 years old.

Agreed. I am sure there are plenty 20 somethings and 30 somethings still around. The point is that the company only started cranking out airplanes in 1972. It's hard to say if any of their planes will be flying for 50+ years. So far so good though (as proven with the A300 design).

 

[bagasticks]

Many of you naysayers and "buy American" folks are forgetting that we would already be operating the 767 if the uppers in Boeing hadnt f'ed the football in '03. 2 went to prison and CEO resigned. . . . . Now they cry Foul about unfair comepetition ? ? ? ?IF this contract gets suspended. . . .yet again. . . . we'll be flying the mighty 135 another 43 years. . . I feel sorry for the hardworkers on the line at Boeing but not one bit for the upper management/goevernmaent officials that corrupted and stunk this deal up back at it's inception. . .

The A330 will be capable and I trust the Generals make the decisions, that share my uniform far more than any agenda by a union/political party. . .

 

[Bavarian Chef]

Many of you naysayers and "buy American" folks are forgetting that we would already be operating the 767 if the uppers in Boeing hadnt f'ed the football in '03. 2 went to prison and CEO resigned. . . . . Now they cry Foul about unfair comepetition ? ? ? ?IF this contract gets suspended. . . .yet again. . . . we'll be flying the mighty 135 another 43 years. . . I feel sorry for the hardworkers on the line at Boeing but not one bit for the upper management/goevernmaent officials that corrupted and stunk this deal up back at it's inception. . .

The A330 will be capable and I trust the Generals make the decisions, that share my uniform far more than any agenda by a union/political party. . .

Only in the Air Force is "sharing uniforms with Generals" NOT fraternization.

 

[jke406]

It's hard to say if any of their planes will be flying for 50+ years.

I don't think current aiframes have been engineered to last for 50 years.

As anyone who has flown one will tell you, planes like the B-52 and KC-135 were ridiculously over-engineered, and their long service life is a byproduct of that over-engineering. a 50-year lifespan was not a design requirement when they were built.

Computerized design has made it possible to engineer and build an airplane that will last "x" flying hours or "y" cycles...without excessive "slop," which would only cost more money.

I doubt if the military today would spend money on an airplane designed to last 50 years, no matter who it was built by.

 

[highsky]

SAID BY THE GUY THAT DOESN'T HAVE TO FLY THE AIRPLANE. Are you serious?

No, I haven't flown tankers. I see you haven't either. I have spent 12 years in the Air Force refueling behind them, and as such have developed an impression of their capabilities and limitations.

Huh? You need to layoff the sauce. Are you typing your posts on an US-made computer? Do you watch TV on a US-made Zenith from 1974? Ever listen to an MP-3 player? Watch a DVD, VHS? Maybe even take digital pictures of those kids of yours?

Yes, I do all of those things. Believe me, if I had a choice, which I don't anymore, I wouldn't.

Well if you do, you are a willing participant of the global economy. It is completely unavoidable. The answer is not for people to buy inferior products -- it's for the American companies to make better products.

Good for you. You teach those pesky and foolish union American workers a lesson and don't buy their "inferior" products. Tell the 100,000 UAW Americans that have been laid off in the last year that you're not about going to buy their crap and support their inflated wages when you can get something foreign that's better. Tell that to their families too. Tell that to all of the vendors and lenders who depend on those people for a living. Have you heard of the "Trickledown Theory?"

Then, don't cry foul when all of those people don't feel like supporting your union and high wages. Don't be surprised when they have no sympathy for your working conditions or compensation. As in, "F___ all you high priced primadonna pilots. Bring on the low cost carriers. Go Skybus!" Seriously dude, you're in the wrong business to be making those assertions.

Unfortunately today, we don't have a choice to support American workers with many things, such as "computers, TVs, MP3s, DVDs, and VHSs."

However, with cars and airplanes, we do have a choice. How does it do America a favor to watch these two stalwart industries fade like the aformentioned?

BTW -- some Hondas and Toyotas are made in the US. Big Mercedes plant in Alabama even. Those are Americans building them. How does that fit into your Pre-League of Nations isolationist bizarro philosophy?

The real profits are going overseas, where all the executives, engineers, and major shareholders live and pay taxes.

They place their plants in the U.S. simply to avoid U.S. import tariffs and create the illusion to Americans that we are buying American. Just check out their advertising. They make a big deal about that. They aren't fooling me.

Look, for this argument, the most important point is our national security. If the crap really hits the fan in this world, in the end, the only people we can totally count on is ourselves. It's foolish to hamstring ourselves by supplying our national defense with foreign products. Especially for a program as enormous and important as our air-refueling capabilities. What if we need replacement parts, etc. in the future, but the supplying country is at odds with our foreign policy objectives; then what happens?

Take for example Iran. They bought a lot of F-14s from us back when we were friends. Now we don't sell them any parts, rendering their aging F-14s impotent. Would you like the same thing to happen to us in reverse? Do you really think we can count on the Germans and French to "watch our six" and support us on ALL of our foreign policies in the future? Have they done it so far???

 

[highsky]

Many of you naysayers and "buy American" folks are forgetting that we would already be operating the 767 if the uppers in Boeing hadnt f'ed the football in '03. 2 went to prison and CEO resigned. . . . . Now they cry Foul about unfair comepetition ? ? ? ?IF this contract gets suspended. . . .yet again. . . . we'll be flying the mighty 135 another 43 years. . . I feel sorry for the hardworkers on the line at Boeing but not one bit for the upper management/goevernmaent officials that corrupted and stunk this deal up back at it's inception. . .

That's the sad thing about it. Boeing had it in the bag. They didn't need the coercion, bribery, or whatever. A FEW people there f_____ up. That shouldn't reflect the ethics and values of the rest of the company.

The A330 will be capable and I trust the Generals make the decisions, that share my uniform far more than any agenda by a union/political party. . .

Just like the C-17? Politics and generals, unfortunately, aren't mutually exclusive.