Sponsor Message:
Travel Polls & Prefs Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Is The A350 A Modern Day Caravelle?  
User currently offlineStirling From Italy, joined Jun 2004, 3943 posts, RR: 22
Posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 11873 times:

Back in the 1960s the French had a winner on their hands, an aircraft that went on to sell 298 frames, the Caravelle.

Then, production stopped.
SUD-Aviation (Aerospatiale) had set the standard for short range jet aircraft, copied by no less than the world's top airframe builders; Boeing, Douglas, BAC, even Tupolev.
What happened?
Boeing went on to sell 1800 of it's competing 737 classic model, Douglas 1000 of theirs, BAC just 235 (if only they could have swapped out the RRs for some PWs like those on all other competing Western designs), and finally the Tu134 which was bought in significant numbers by Aeroflot and Warsaw Pact nations.

Here's my theory.....And I believe we have case of History Repeating Itself before our very eyes.

Now think back to the late 1960s and early 1970s, what else was BAC-Aerospatiale involved in?

You answered right if you said the Concorde.

The two builders were so caught up in the Supersonic Saviour of Transportation (The SST), that very little attention was given to the bread-and-butter designs that were doing something the Concorde was not....putting currency in the bank.

The BAC product the 1-11, could be considered by then standards as a moderately succesful aircraft, American, Braniff, Mohawk, and Aloha bought theirs new...and according to some unconfirmed research, was said to be able to turn a profit with just 15 of its seats filled.
But those engines.
If it were to grow, and compete, like the 737-100 had into the 737-200, and the DC-9-10 into the -30...it would need a new engine, but the Tay was still at least 20 years away.
However, they could have placed the same engines used by the 737 and DC-9, but the engineering required was all tied up in the Concorde.

The French with the Caravelle, had a similar story. Let's just forget that it was one of the most elegant designs ever to fly, looking at the Caravelle was in the same league as looking at other French classics, like actresses Capucine, Brigette Bardot, or Catherine Deneuve!
But they weren't just good to look at....they were great aircraft, an order by the largest airline in the free world says much about your product.

So what went wrong here? Like a beautiful French starlet, she was thin and lean...hampered by inadequate storage space and passenger capacity for the world's growing hungry airlines. But it wasn't all bad, Air Inter sent the girl to school to learn how to land free of pesky pilot control...beating comparable systems on the competition by some 2 to 3 years.
However in the early 70s when the 737 and DC9 were coming into their own, the final Caravelle rolled off the line bound for Sterling.

Aerospatiale discussed the idea of a third engine like the 727 which was doing it's own small part in redefining what a medium short range aircraft should be....The X210, a three engine Caravelle could have come to life, if it were not for the same reasons that condemned the BAC 1-11. The majority of Aerospatiale resources were tied up in the Prestige jet, rather than the profits jet.

So here we are, four decades later, can you see any parallels to current events?

The A350....imagine where it would be today if the A380 were not being developed. I am not arguing the validity of the behemoth, because of the fact it has over 100 firm committments, there is a market for the airplane.

I can see the A350 when it comes out, as being a superior product to the B787, by the simple fact Airbus (descendant of Aerospatiale) will have had more time to assimilate, evaluate, and implement technology that the B787 will bear to the market. Being last is not always a bad thing....however, when it means the competition has a 500 plane headstart before either take to the skies is not good either.

Just like it seemed in those days (for those of us who were around at the time), I can't help but have a modicum of deja vu when it comes to the A380. I cannot wait for this aircraft to enter service. The B787 while a stunning aircraft, will be lost on 90% of the population. To most people it will be no different than the current stable of B767s, A330s, and B77s.
But the A380! This aircraft will get even the casual observer excited!
Just as the Concorde did in the 1970s....
While the Americans sat back and cranked out the 737/727 and the DC9, some of the biggest brains in aerospace were taking a giant leap forward in technology. Where did it get them? Well, that I will leave up for debate.

We've come full circle...The Concorde and A380 are masterful pieces of engineering, but with hindsight being as it is 20/20....30 years down the road when just 250 A380s are in service, and only a few more A350s, will we be able to say the A380 was worth it? to Airbus?, to Europe?, to the state of Aerospace?, especially at the expense of the everyday, everymans, world beating A350?


Delete this User
94 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29661 posts, RR: 84
Reply 1, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 11763 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The A380 program has drawn a good deal of resources at all stages of it's life-cycle. And Airbus certainly underestimated the underlying strength of the 787 concept when it was first announced.

However, it does appear that Airbus management understands the risks and if the EU governments won't let them adjust to answer them, will open the coffers as needed to answer them.

As for the A350X, I see no reason why it won't be a great plane, perhaps the equal of the 787 overall, but I don't see it being intrinsically superior to the 787. Engine technology will not have advanced much at all between their respective EIS' and it remains to be seen which CFRP production process proves the more compelling one.


User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5925 posts, RR: 34
Reply 2, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 11658 times:

Quoting Stirling (Thread starter):
So here we are, four decades later, can you see any parallels to current events?

No...

The 737 was a flop intially, the B2707 was being developed at the same time as Concorde, the 747 had tremendous intial problems with the JTD9s and delivery, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineMX757 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 628 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 11615 times:

Oh Boy! I can see this turning into an A vs B thread real fast! box 
I'm taking cover!  boxedin   white 



Is it broke...? Yeah I'll fix it.
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 11585 times:

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 2):
the 747 had tremendous intial problems with the JTD9s and delivery, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

No, it didnt, its a myth propagated here on a.net. The 747 engine problems were resolved in a few weeks, delivery was not really affected.


User currently offlineSparkingWave From South Korea, joined Jun 2005, 668 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 11347 times:

[quote=Stirling,reply=0]I can see the A350 when it comes out, as being a superior product to the B787, by the simple fact Airbus (descendant of Aerospatiale) will have had more time to assimilate, evaluate, and implement technology that the B787 will bear to the market. Being last is not always a bad thing....

It would be a good thing if Airbus was using innovative technology on the A350XWB, but compared to the B787, it is not. This airplane is great because it's wider than other Airbus aircraft. But it's a 777-wannabe, pure and simple. It's definitely NOT going to be a 787 beater. And being last is not a bad thing for who, Airbus or Boeing? After all, the latter will have a better 777 when the A350 comes out, whenever in time that will be.

SparkingWave ~~~



Flights to the moon and all major space stations. At Pan Am, the sky is no longer the limit!
User currently offlineZRH From Switzerland, joined Nov 1999, 5564 posts, RR: 37
Reply 6, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 11265 times:

At the moment this is quite a silly statement. It is really not yet time to say anything. The EIS is often not too important. It depends on the aircraft and the needs of the airlines. Example: the 777 came after the 340 but is more successful.

User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5925 posts, RR: 34
Reply 7, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 11052 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 4):
No, it didnt, its a myth propagated here on a.net. The 747 engine problems were resolved in a few weeks, delivery was not really affected.

Resolved in only a few weeks? Delivery not really affected? Well, seeing that you now set the record straight on A.net, perhaps you can correct the following, among many others, as well that are propagating the "myth"! A conspiracy perhaps?  Wink

Flight tests between February and December revealed several problems, the most significant with the engines, which were underpowered for the increase in weight and size that had occurred since earlier designs. The engine problem hadn't been solved by the time the plane entered service in January 1970, and airlines experienced one delay after another because of engine troubles. At one point early in 1970, Boeing had some 30 planes parked at its plant that could not be delivered until Pratt & Whitney had corrected the deficiencies of its JT-9D engine. It took a year before the engine problems were solved. In the meantime, too little money was coming in, the country was experiencing an economic recession, and new orders were drying up. The company almost went broke.

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/es...ay/Aerospace/Boeing_747/Aero21.htm


"Delays and cancelled flights soon gave the 747 the nickname "Dumbo Jet", the flying white elephant. At the beginning of the 70s problems with the engines went so far that up to 30 completed Jumbos had to be stored in Everett with concrete blocks instead of engines under their wings."

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRheft/FRH9904/FR9904e.htm



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineStirling From Italy, joined Jun 2004, 3943 posts, RR: 22
Reply 8, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 10992 times:

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 7):
The engine problem hadn't been solved by the time the plane entered service in January 1970,

Maybe some of my fellow geezers will remember the inaugral passenger flight from JFK...that big nose pressed up against the glass of the terminal, not going anywhere.
Someone will better know specifics that first flight was many hours late....but at the time, people did not get so worked up, after all, it was the world's largest passenger airplane; something worth waiting for.

However, to say the 747 entry into service was smooth sailing, is an attempt at rewriting history.

Quoting ZRH (Reply 6):
At the moment this is quite a silly statement.

Which one in particular?

So, the A380 IS NOT deverting away resources from the A350 program?
Let's pretend the A380 did not exist, would the A350 be at the same stage it finds itself in today?
Resources is more than just money, in aircraft development, it is more closely associated with brain power....and from where I sit, the best brains at Airbus are all involved in making that first delivery.

It is certainly correct to say the A340 was offered first, and is now being usurped by the 777....however, how big of lead was it actually? Because even while the A340 was being rolled off the line, the 777 had blue-chip orders from airlines such as United and British Airways.
How many blue-chip orders can the A350 claim today?

I will remain by my conclusion, the A380 program is the Concorde program 30 years on. The A350, still without a firm design being offered, is the Caravelle, and the BAC 1-11, Fine aircraft in every way, if not a little ignored by their makers.

But you are correct in that a lot can happen between now and the EIS of all the aircraft in question.

To me, it looks like another case of seeking prestige for the sake of practicality.



Delete this User
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 10928 times:

SUD-Aviation had a shortage of everything, their factories destroeyed, no money, no people etc. They still build the best aircraft of it's time.

Airbus is the #1 aircraft builder and they have sold 100 A350 6 years before its first EIS, so any comparison seems far fetched IMO.

Is The Dreamliner A Modern Day Starship?

Sure somebody can come up with some nice comparisons, but quiet useless IMO.


User currently offlineBbobbo From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 183 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 10863 times:

Quoting Stirling (Thread starter):
I can see the A350 when it comes out, as being a superior product to the B787, by the simple fact Airbus (descendant of Aerospatiale) will have had more time to assimilate, evaluate, and implement technology that the B787 will bear to the market.

1. EIS for the A350 will be 5 years after the 787. Will technology have changed that much in 5 years to give the A350 that much more of an advanced product?

2. A 2013-EIS A350 might be more advanced technologically than a 2008-EIS 787, but will it more advanced than a 2013-EIS 787? Keep in mind that Boeing will be continually refining the 787 after EIS, incorporating new technologies where possible. Same goes for the 777.

Quoting Stirling (Reply 8):
I will remain by my conclusion, the A380 program is the Concorde program 30 years on.

Maybe not quite the financial disaster the Concorde was. But it remains to be seen how many A380s end up getting delivered. I think the analogy is fitting, though.


User currently offlineTeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23
Reply 11, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 10814 times:

Quoting Stirling (Thread starter):
I can see the A350 when it comes out, as being a superior product to the B787, by the simple fact Airbus (descendant of Aerospatiale) will have had more time to assimilate, evaluate, and implement technology that the B787 will bear to the market.

This nonsense is being repeated far too often. It assumes that technology advances in some linear fashion, which it certainly does not. What new technology is coming available now that was not incorporated in the 787? What new technology may come available in the next few years that cannot be fitted to the 787 (an aircraft specifically designed for such retrofits)? From what we know so far, the A350 fuselage is an inferior application of CFRP construction, despite Airbus arguments to the contrary.

Quoting Stirling (Thread starter):
Being last is not always a bad thing...

Hmmm...has there been a case of two contemporary designs where being last was a good thing? Name one. scratchchin 

Quoting Keesje (Reply 9):
Airbus is the #1 aircraft builder and they have sold 100 A350 6 years before its first EIS,

The airlines that placed those 100 orders did not expect 6 years to EIS, and likely would not have placed those orders had they known.

Quoting Stirling (Reply 8):
However, to say the 747 entry into service was smooth sailing, is an attempt at rewriting history.

Attempting to make the B747 EIS look more problematic than it actually was is also rewriting history. More important is that it ignores the decades of advancement in project management; we should expect better execution today than we did 40 years ago.



Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 10766 times:

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 11):
Hmmm...has there been a case of two contemporary designs where being last was a good thing? Name one.

777 and A340.


User currently onlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6482 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 10734 times:

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 11):
Hmmm...has there been a case of two contemporary designs where being last was a good thing? Name one.

Comet/Nimrod vs. 707/DC-8.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 10717 times:

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 11):
Attempting to make the B747 EIS look more problematic than it actually was is also rewriting history. More important is that it ignores the decades of advancement in project management; we should expect better execution today than we did 40 years ago.

Some time ago there was a senior here remembering large parts of the first 3 747s had to be rewired due to poor configuration control. Maybe projects before 1997 look good because there are no internet sources to prove the contrary?

I think some folks should wait a bit with cashing in on good project management claims until the 787 really is entered into service  Wink

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 11):
From what we know so far, the A350 fuselage is an inferior application of CFRP construction, despite Airbus arguments to the contrary.

I think this statement requires extensive, well documented back-up, or else it is just ..


User currently offlineTeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23
Reply 15, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 10700 times:

Quoting Stirling (Thread starter):
So here we are, four decades later, can you see any parallels to current events?

The A350....imagine where it would be today if the A380 were not being developed. I am not arguing the validity of the behemoth, because of the fact it has over 100 firm committments, there is a market for the airplane.

You premise is that had the A380 not been built, the A350 would have been started sooner. Given that, I heartily agree that Airbus would be better off.

But that wouldn't have happened. Airbus truly underestimated the market response to the B787. Those 100 firm orders were for the A330+ version, not the A350XWB now proposed. There was no prospect that lacking the A380, Airbus would have offered an all-CFRP XWB years earlier.

Your Caravelle analogy simply doesn't work. Caravelle was in production, and advancement of the design was hindered due to the distractions of Concorde. In the current situation, the A380 is built and I doubt that there will be substantial resources dedicated to advancement of that design from now on. The focus will be on A350...so if anything, we might argue that the future of the A380 is cloudy because Airbus will dedicate resources to the A350 - not the other way around.



Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 10690 times:

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 11):
From what we know so far, the A350 fuselage is an inferior application of CFRP construction, despite Airbus arguments to the contrary.

In reality we dont know. Both methods have their pros and cons. Only time will reveal.


User currently offlineStirling From Italy, joined Jun 2004, 3943 posts, RR: 22
Reply 17, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 10621 times:

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 11):
Hmmm...has there been a case of two contemporary designs where being last was a good thing? Name one

The Japanese and the semiconductor developed by Bell Labs.
First is good, being better is best.
The 727 and every other medium-haul airliner launched before it.

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 11):
What new technology is coming available now that was not incorporated in the 787? What new technology may come available in the next few years that cannot be fitted to the 787

Five years is a very long time in aerospace and aviation.
Just look at the engines of the 707s coming off the line in 1960, and then in 1965.
Engine technology is the most fluid, and one of the most direct variables in the operating cost of an aircraft.

If I were to agree with your statement, that would mean we have reached the peak of turbofan engine design and no improvements can be made from here on out.

One thing I don't hear much about is the A350 wing....has it reached its design limits?



Delete this User
User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 10625 times:

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 7):
At one point early in 1970, Boeing had some 30 planes parked at its plant that could not be delivered until Pratt & Whitney had corrected the deficiencies of its JT-9D engine. It took a year before the engine problems were solved. In the meantime, too little money was coming in, the country was experiencing an economic recession, and new orders were drying up. The company almost went broke.

Oh dear, this urban legend once again.

The severe business set-back/contraction Boeing Commercial Aircraft experienced in the early-seventies was mostly attributable to the cancellation of the American SST program, and a moderate economic recession in the North American economy which hit the airline industry particularly hard, leading to a severe decline in orders, as well as order cancellations, across all product lines. Not the ramp-up of 747 production per se. In fact, so many people left the Puget Sound region to look for work elsewhere because of job cuts at Boeing and its local suppliers, that two local real estate agents put up a billboard reading "Will the last person leaving Seattle — Turn out the lights."



If anything, Boeing's ability to deliver 165 747s to 27 airline operators between December 1969 (month of "type" and "production" certification) and December 1971, despite significant "teething" problems with the JT9D engine, was most likely a source of much needed positive cash flow and contributed to the company's ultimate recovery.


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 10611 times:

Quoting Stirling (Reply 17):

One thing I don't hear much about is the A350 wing....has it reached its design limits?

What do you mean? It was announced at the industrial launch (the latest one  Smile ) that the A350 wing would be composite, just like the A400M wing.


User currently offlineTeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23
Reply 20, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 10490 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 12):
777 and A340

B777 wins most basically due to the decision to use 2 engines vs. 4. It wasn't better by being later, per se.

Quoting N328KF (Reply 13):
Comet/Nimrod vs. 707/DC-8.

Sort of, but there was almost a decade between the Comet I and the Dash 80...more like two generations of aircraft than contemporaries.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 14):
I think some folks should wait a bit with cashing in on good project management claims until the 787 really is entered into service

I remain skeptical of the 787 making scheduled EIS, although less so as it approaches. I'll agree with you that nobody should be counting the chickens yet.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 14):
I think this statement requires extensive, well documented back-up, or else it is just ..

It's been debated in several threads, Keesje. The Airbus design looks to be heavier, yet they claim it will be much lighter. I still call shenanigans, and am entitled to my opinion as are you.

Quoting Stirling (Reply 17):
The 727 and every other medium-haul airliner launched before it

Probably the best argument posted so far, but then consider the DC-9 which came in response (and the B737 as well). The 727 held it's own against later designs.

Quoting Stirling (Reply 17):
Engine technology is the most fluid, and one of the most direct variables in the operating cost of an aircraft

Best argument to be made, by far. The counter is that the 787 is designed to accept new engines in the future, so any significant advancement available to the A350 is equally available to the B787. I don't see an advantage to be later in this case.



Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4493 posts, RR: 14
Reply 21, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 10429 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

ooh, if it has those nifty windows like the Caravelle it would be great! I remember two trips on a TG and CI caravelle in the 60s!

User currently offlineBbobbo From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 183 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 10338 times:

Quoting Stirling (Reply 17):
Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 11):
What new technology is coming available now that was not incorporated in the 787? What new technology may come available in the next few years that cannot be fitted to the 787

Five years is a very long time in aerospace and aviation.
Just look at the engines of the 707s coming off the line in 1960, and then in 1965.
Engine technology is the most fluid, and one of the most direct variables in the operating cost of an aircraft.

But you didn't answer TeamAmerica--in those 5 years, what technology will the A350 have that can't be incorporated into the 787?

Quote:
If I were to agree with your statement, that would mean we have reached the peak of turbofan engine design and no improvements can be made from here on out.

I don't think he said that at all. What he said was this:

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 11):
It assumes that technology advances in some linear fashion, which it certainly does not.

I think what he's trying to say (and which I agree with), is that there may be minor technology advances from year to year, but major technology advances are more spread apart.

For example (and I'm just making these numbers up), engine efficiency doesn't necessarily improve 1% every year. Rather, it's constant for maybe 7-8 years, and then there's a technological breakthrough that allows efficiency to increase 5-10% in one fell swoop.

So, the question is, "Is there some big technological breakthrough on the horizon that will be incorporated on the A350 that cannot be incorporated into future iterations of the 787?"

If the answer is yes, then the A350 has a chance of being a much superior airplane compared to the 787.


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 10307 times:

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 20):
B777 wins most basically due to the decision to use 2 engines vs. 4. It wasn't better by being later, per se.

The engine technology (high thrust engines) for two engined operations at that weight was not available when the A340 was designed, but it was available by the time the 777 was designed. This also led to ETOPS 207 certification.

It was a twin precisely because it came later.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 10127 times:

Quoting Bbobbo (Reply 22):
"Is there some big technological breakthrough on the horizon that will be incorporated on the A350 that cannot be incorporated into future iterations of the 787?"

It's more simply: Ask the airline what they don't like on the 787 & don't do it on the A350.


25 Planemaker : What urban legend once again, specifically?
26 TeamAmerica : This is worthy of a thread of its own (probably has been). Would Airbus have built the big twin, or was it their intent to go with 4 engines all alon
27 RichardPrice : At the time the A340 was conceptualised it was to be a quad for ETOPS reasons - and we are talking about the start of the 1980s. The 777 was both a q
28 N328KF : Ten years? The Comet first flight was in 1949, and entered service in 1952. The 367 had its first flight in 1952, and the 707's first flight was in 1
29 AndesSMF : IIRC, the A340 was built as a 4-holer because at the time there was no engine with sufficient thrust available to make it a twin with the required ran
30 FlyDreamliner : Superior? What technologies are planned to be incorporated to A350 not in 787? So far it isn't certain it will have bleedless engines, and its implem
31 BoomBoom : I think this statement requires extensive, well documented back-up, or else it is just ... Actually, the exact opposite seems to be happening. Boeing
32 Bbobbo : 1. Assuming that there will be anything the airlines don't like. It's not a given, since the 787 was designed with a lot of customer input to begin w
33 RichardPrice : The A350 wont have bleedless engines, but its far from the holy grail of technologies some would have you believe. Again, thats citing opinions on he
34 Jacobin777 : That's only partially correct....by the time the A345 and A346 were available/offered, the 777's had already been built and flying....its the A343 wh
35 RichardPrice : Yes, but at that point, a move to a higher thrust twin would have required a substantially higher cost redesign than the stretches to the -500 and -6
36 BoomBoom : Again, that's citing opinions on here from certain people - you have no idea of the sophistication...
37 RichardPrice : Wow, you are on fire tonight, thats several comments you have tried to turn around against people. Its also not an opinion, bleedless technology is *
38 Post contains images Leelaw : That the 747 program nearly bankrupted the Boeing Co in 1970-71. When in fact the Everett assembly line was actually a major source of positive cash-
39 EI321 : The A340 was officially on offer since 1986. Ok I'll explain the A340 design history as it is often misunderstud on this site. Some guys even seem to
40 BoomBoom : Too bad Airbus stopped innovating after the A320, now they're way behind...
41 RichardPrice : Wow, you really REALLY *are* on fire tonight, go BoomBoom! Do you have a cheerleading squad as well?
42 Jacobin777 : It was only a matter of time with oil starting to move up that "the writing on the wall" was blatantly clear..To make matters worse, Airbus started t
43 RichardPrice : Hundreds of millions on an update is considerably better than multiple billions on a blank page redesign for a market that had already taken signific
44 Post contains images Jacobin777 : Which they have no one to blame but themselves... 777's were brisk from the word go....and besides a smaller period in the early 2000's, Airbus has h
45 Alessandro : I doubt that we´ll see a big leap technical compared like the TU-104 to the Caravelle, surely the B787 and A350 are interesting designs yet to fly, b
46 Sllevin : I think the analogy fails because Caravelle's real downfall was aerodynamic -- much like the Comet (from which the Caravelle's cockpit came!), a very
47 Post contains images TeamAmerica : Good point. To be consistent, we really shouldn't consider these aircraft in the same generation. Although they do compete, they are not contemporary
48 Osiris30 : I'm just going to say this then bow out of this thread, because... well I don't want to be in another flame war. Time between EIS is not what is all
49 RichardPrice : While I agree to a certain extent, consider this - try and name the last time a brand new engine model was built from scratch. RR Trents all share a
50 AirbusA6 : The A380 didn't delay the A350. The A350 wasn't needed until the 787 starting selling in large numbers, as until that time Airbus already had the best
51 Jacobin777 : ..but the A380 has taken away critical resources (time, money, skills,etc) from the A350 project......
52 Osiris30 : My point was that at best the 350 would have a slight incremental improvement in engine efficiency, that is easily offsetable in other areas of the d
53 Post contains images Glideslope : No, the Caravelle was a much nicer looking airframe.
54 Wrldwndrer : I don't understand this thread. So what if it is ?!?! History is to be learnt from, and doesn't have to repeat itself. Airbus has smart people. Let th
55 Post contains images Autothrust : Yeah, like the A330 wich slaughtered the 767, Superfan Idea wich failed because IAE, Airbus making the A340-500, Boeing the 777LR, Airbus making the
56 Post contains links Planemaker : That isn't an urban ledgend... or somewhere, Boeing or someone respected, would have debunked it by now. Please show me one. Instead that "urban lege
57 Post contains images Glideslope : No, they chose to ignore the concept. Open the coffers? Ah yes, the 12-15 Billion Bail Out. I almost forgot about that. What a great compilation of R
58 Post contains images PlaneHunter : Source: a.net rumour? And the "MANY" areas are...? There are even worse screw ups in these days which not only cost money... PH
59 Jacobin777 : Complete rubbish..another A.net myth....Since 1989, both the B767 and A330 have sold close to the same amount. Yes, the A330 doing much better this y
60 AirbusA6 : The A380 should have been in service well before the A350 design work needed to start...that it isn't is a reflection on Airbus engineering/project m
61 MIAMIx707 : I guess it's likely the A350 would be selling more if they weren't tied up on the A380. But I think the problem has been that Airbus didn't exactly k
62 Post contains images Jacobin777 : Its still Airbus...does it matter if the goalkeeper didn't block an easy shot or the striker didn't make a easy goal? At the end of the day, its one
63 Osiris30 : Why is everyone so transfixed on that.. the 777 is a bigger rival to the 747 than the 380 has been, or is likely to be. Who cares if Boeing had 30-50
64 Post contains images Dougloid : The A380 is Airbus' crazy aunt in the upstairs closet.
65 DrExotica : I know very little about the Caravelle (other than it had funky windows). _Why_ do some (e.g., Keesje) consider it the best aircraft of the time? Spe
66 Post contains images Jacobin777 : ..
67 Post contains images Leelaw : If you haven't read it already, I'd suggest Joe Sutter's book published earlier this year: It's a good read and certainly corrected a lot of my own m
68 Post contains images Osiris30 : Fantastic book!
69 Stirling : But that is precisely my point....had Aerospatiale not been so caught up in Concorde development....would not they have had the resources to address
70 Post contains images WingedMigrator : The biggest one I can think of is getting rid of hydraulics altogether. Also, while the 4-panel construction method is often characterized here as a
71 Osiris30 : (Force) Pound for (Force) Pound they are hard to beat though.. Especially if they are small self-contained systems rather than aircraft wide.
72 Post contains images Keesje : Maybe United will order A350s too..
73 Post contains images Dougloid : Stranger things have happened. It's amazing what companies will do if they have to report to a board of directors and stockholders. A cautionary note
74 Post contains images Jacobin777 : I'm not even so sure if its even worth the investment effort..especially if sales of the Big Beast lag Do you mean Peoria, IL?
75 Leelaw : A la: "Will it play in Peoria?" ...i.e., will the concept be accepted/embraced by a mainstream ("middle-american") audience.
76 Post contains images Jacobin777 : ahhh..got ya'.. ...thanks..
77 Dougloid : Pretty much. Peoria's the penultimate mittel Amerika city. I think what the REAL Donald was getting at was "how's it going to do out in the field?" H
78 Post contains images Valcory : Very interesting,the 767 is late 70'S early 80'S technology time to moved on.
79 Post contains images Jacobin777 : I figured what he meant by that comment (connotation) but I was quite curious if it was Peoria, IL in particular... Thanks for the info!
80 EI321 : Dont forget that the A330 is fundamentally a 1980s redesign of a 1970s aircraft.
81 RichardPrice : Not really, the A330 uses the same fuselage width for tooling purposes, but its anything but a redesign of the A300/310 series.
82 Valcory : Yeah but the A330 was Airbus third twin engine widebody The 767 is Boeing first twin twin engine widebody.
83 Post contains images MIAMIx707 : Damn it I wish I had seen a Caravelle! Crying
84 Valcory : So you are saying the cockpit and fly by wire system are from the A300/A310
85 EI321 : I trust you understand the word 'redesign'?
86 Valcory : Sure i do the question is do you understand the word redesign??????
87 Valcory : I have work on A300/310 and A330 and they are totally different airplanes.Now when i taxi An A330 and an A320 i can see the similarities as soon as i
88 EI321 : What the hell is your point anyway??? The A330 concept started life in the late 70s, it was initally known as the A300B9. Both it and the A340 are de
89 Viscount724 : The Dash 80's first flight was July 15, 1954, not 1952. The project was launched in 1952.
90 Post contains images RIX : - so far, they can't even just copy what Boeing already did, even having 5 years more. I can't remember anything more weird than A350 "rib cage". - o
91 Stirling : One thing I have always wondered.... Does the A330 sit lower than the A300? Call it an optical illusion or an old man just losing his eyes, it appear
92 Post contains images RIX : - a very interesting point! I don't know whether I agree totally or partially - well, nothing that "critically important" there so I'd have to say wh
93 Post contains images Stirling : I don't know either. I am not an aeronautical engineer. (But I play one on A.Net!) To answer the question..."What would make the A350 superior to the
94 Post contains images Planemaker : I don't think that is a fair coin toss. There could never have been a choice between the A380 and the A350. Most new/upgraded models have been reacti
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What Is The Best Time Of Day To Travel? posted Sun Aug 27 2006 00:46:51 by Pizzaandplanes
What Is The Shortest Commercial Intl Flight posted Sat Mar 10 2012 08:34:50 by TLV1900
What Is The Longest Serve Route (years) posted Sat Feb 4 2012 01:40:33 by kl692
What Is The Best Terminal At Heathrow? posted Fri Jan 6 2012 23:16:20 by UAL747
How Is The Ride On An A340/330? posted Tue Jan 3 2012 21:13:55 by 747400sp
NYC-HNL What Airline/routing Is The Best? posted Wed Dec 21 2011 07:40:40 by Jerseyguy
What Is The Differece Between DL 757 And 737-800 posted Tue Aug 2 2011 09:57:36 by Blueman87
What Is The Best Seat In AA's 777 First posted Fri Dec 17 2010 17:36:51 by highaltitude777
UA664/973: Is The 747 Off For Good? posted Tue Dec 14 2010 23:42:49 by cactus742
What Tpac Product Is The Best To KIX From The US? posted Sun Dec 5 2010 15:20:56 by 787PDX