CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 89
PostPosted: Wed May 26, 2004 7:23 am
 


If you are able to buy an airplane, would you buy an AIRBUS or a BOEING?

AIRBUS A340-600
Image

AIRBUS A380
Image

BOEING 747-400
Image

BOEING 777
Image


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 356
PostPosted: Wed May 26, 2004 2:58 pm
 


I may be just a we bit biased here ...but Boeing.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 19817
PostPosted: Wed May 26, 2004 3:28 pm
 


I would buy a Bombardier Global Express.

But to answer your question, I would buy an Airbus. They now have more market than Boeing with less MTBF (Main Time Between Failures) per airframe.

Plus they understand better their customers/market. They are now building a Full two deck bird; the A380. Boeing approch is that, if it sells well, they might take their biggest 747 and had beds in the smaller portion of the 2nd deck. Their initial answer to Airbus initiative was that they had a Hypersonic plane on the drawing board. They released some drawings and then drastically changed it. Their first drawing look like some plane from a distant future, and now it just look like another Boeing.

-M-


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 3152
PostPosted: Thu May 27, 2004 4:06 am
 


The European company Airbus are making the largest jet airliner ever. It will have about 550 seats (compared to Boeing 747's 450) and it will also have casinos in it, shops, and even stand-up bars! It will enter service in 2006 and will become more dominant in the skies that the Boeing 747.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 19817
PostPosted: Thu May 27, 2004 5:22 am
 


Do you have much info on the A380, like a launch date???

I have been keeping an eye on the project. I have been on the Airbus site and they have some info but no launch date.

-M-


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 3152
PostPosted: Thu May 27, 2004 5:38 am
 


The Airbus A380 - known for many years during its development phase as the Airbus A3XX - will be the largest airliner in the world by a substantial margin when it enters service. Currently under construction, first flight is scheduled for 2005, with deliveries to start in 2006. Launch customers include Emirates Airlines, Singapore Airlines, Air France, Qantas, Virgin Atlantic, Korean Air and ILFC.




Configurations
The new Airbus will initially be sold in two versions: the A380-800, with the ability to carry 555 passengers in three-class configuration for 8,000 nautical miles (14,800km), and the A380-800F dedicated freighter to carry 150 tonnes 5,600 miles (10.400km). Power is provided by a choice of Rolls-Royce Trent 900 or Engine Alliance GP7200 engines. Airbus intend to continue their well-established policy of making cockpit layout, procedures and handling characteristics as similar to other Airbus aircraft as possible: this reduces crewing and training costs and increases safety (as crew only have to learn a single set of procedures for many different types). The passenger version will consist of a full double decker configuration.

History
In the years prior to the decision to begin the project, both Airbus and arch-rival Boeing had spent a great deal of effort on considering the very large airliner market. Although both manufacturers issued varying statements from time to time, the unspoken but clear consensus was that there was probably room for one maker to be profitable in the 600 to 800 seat market segment, but not two. Both were conscious of the graphic illustration of the business risk involved in splitting a niche market provided by the simultaneous debut of the Douglas DC-10 and the Lockheed Tristar: similarly sized tri-jet widebody airliners, either one of which would have profitably filled the gap between the Douglas DC-8 and the Boeing 747 if only the other one had not taken half its market. Having seen first Lockheed and then Douglas run into financial difficulties and be forced out of the air transport industry, Airbus and Boeing were very conscious that the decision to build a 600-seat airliner could not be taken lightly.
Neither manufacturer could afford the enormous capital cost of developing an all-new airliner, especially one of A380 size, unless there was a reasonable expectation of having exclusive access to the market segment - and yet neither could afford not to develop a 600-seater if the other did. To do nothing would be to cede market leadership to the competition.

The initial advantage was with Boeing. Boeing's 747, although designed in the 1960s, had been kept up-to-date and was larger than Airbus' largest jet, the A340. For many airlines, the extra size of the 747 made that type a "must buy" for their highest density routes, and the cost advantages of fleet commonality were an incentive to buy smaller Boeings as well. There was room to stretch the 747-400 and still retain reasonable seat-mile costs, while the A340, as an already-stretched version of the twin-jet A330, was approaching its upper limit.



Mock-up of the A380 flight deck.
After years of design studies and airline surveys, Airbus finally made the decision to go ahead with the $US10.7 billion A380 project in 1999. The design strategy was carefully crafted. Merely by being very large, the A380 could achieve much better seat-mile costs than any other aircraft (just as the 747 had done in 1969). Because the A340 wing was too small to be efficient at the sort of gross weights required for a 600-seater, an all-new design was needed. Given that the cost of starting from scratch was necessary in any case, Airbus chose not to select a wing that would be optimally efficient at around the 600 tonne maximum gross weight of the A380, but to aim it at the 750 tonne class instead. In doing this they sacrificed some fuel efficiency (because the A380 wing is too big for it) but the sheer size of the design coupled with the incremental advances in technology over the years still allows Airbus to claim 15% better economics than a 747 or an A340. The payoff for Airbus is that it will be a relatively easy task to make still bigger versions of the A380 which will reach their optimum cost-efficiency somewhere around the 700 to 800 passenger mark - close to twice the size of a 747-400.

For Boeing, the announcement of the A380 was a major blow: already faced with heavy expenditure to replace the aging mid-sized 767 line, Boeing were then placed in the awkward position of having to replace their flagship 747 as well, or else cede market leadership to Europe. Boeing's first action was to announce the Sonic Cruiser concept - a 767-sized near-sonic aircraft that would compete on speed instead of size and economics, but a general lack of market interest has seen this project cancelled. Boeing has announced a plan to replace the 767, but their intentions in the over 400-seat market remain unknown.

Despite the cyclical downturn that first gripped the airline industry in 2001, the A380 has been ordered by nine airlines so far. Perhaps more significantly, Airbus holds a substantial order from the giant aircraft leasing company IFLC, which indicates that industry analysts expect airline demand for aircraft in this size class to be strong in the later years of the decade. Current firm A380 orders stand at 103, including 17 freighter versions. Break-even is estimated to be around 250 to 300 units. Emirates have ordered over 42 of these airframes.

Initial publicity, particularly from the airlines which have ordered it, has stressed the ability of the A380 to provide increased room and comfort, with open space areas to be used as relaxation space, bars, duty free shops, and the like. Historically, the same type of prediction has always been made when a new, larger aircraft is announced - the 747 is an obvious example - but the economics of airline operation are such that the extra space is nearly always used for additional seating. Given the history of the air transport industry to date, the key change that the A380 will bring to travellers is not extra comfort or lavish in-flight facilities, but more of the same difference that the 747 made - more seats and lower seat-mile costs.


http://www.fact-index.com/a/ai/airbus_a380.html
_______________________________________________________________________

According to this website, the first A380 is scheduled to take flight in September of 2004 and may enter commercial service as early as October of 2005.

http://www.aircraft-info.net/aircraft/j ... rbus/A380/

Formerly known as the A3XX, Airbus' double-decker passenger jet, the A380, will be the largest airliner ever built. Lengthwise, it would nearly stretch from goal line to goal line of a football field while its wing tips would hang well beyond the sidelines. Three full decks will run along the entire length of the plane. Upper and main decks will serve as passenger areas, and will be connected by a grand staircase near the front of the plane and by another smaller staircase at the back. Although the lower deck will be reserved primarily for cargo, it could be outfitted for special passenger uses such as sleeper cabins, business centers or even child care service. In a one-class configuration, the A380 could accommodate as many as 840 passengers. The more likely three-class configuration will still offer an unprecedented 555 passenger seats. Either way, the A380 would offer 30% - 50% more seating than its direct competition, the Boeing 747-400.

Although the A380 will be able to fly a distance of over 10,000 miles, the plane's usefulness will not be limited to long-haul flights. For instance, many flights within Japan are among the highest in passenger capacity and would be well suited for A380 service, despite their short distances. Whatever the flight distance, a new breed of engines will be required to lift the plane's 1.2 million pounds into the air. Rolls Royce and GE/Pratt & Whitney are both working on engines to provide thrust that will max out at 75,000 pounds. By comparison, the first American jet airliner in service, the Boeing 707, was powered by only 10,000 pounds of thrust.

As amazing as it will be for this behemoth to take off into the air, the A380 faces significant challenges on the ground as well. To integrate into existing airports, the A380 must fit the standard airport-docking plan. The plane's nearly 262-foot wingspan meets this requirement by about 18 inches. Its outer-most engines, however, would hang just beyond the standard 150-foot runway width, requiring upgrades at many airports. The plane's weight will be distributed to 20 landing gear wheels, actually producing less weight per wheel than the 747. The cockpit location, between the main and upper decks, is designed to give pilots a vantage point on the runway similar to that of current airliners.

Due to recent technological advances, Airbus claims the A380 will be a more efficient plane than its rival, the 747. Airbus states the A380 will use 20% less fuel and will fly quieter, cheaper and more environmentally friendly than the 747. Airlines seem to be impressed. So far, ten carriers have declared their interest in the plane, placing options to order a total of 66 planes. The first A380 is scheduled to take flight in September of 2004 and may enter commercial service as early as October of 2005.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 3152
PostPosted: Thu May 27, 2004 5:41 am
 


Image


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 19817
PostPosted: Thu May 27, 2004 5:58 am
 


Thank for the info. I also added those web sites to my favorites.

Also, I have been reading on the Typhoon. I wish Canada would get rid off their F-18, A model and purchase it. Maybe Canada would not be some token presence in any theater and taken a little bit more seriously when deployed.

Funny that most sites talk about Boeing and Airbus, but what about Bombardier, they are now the 3rd largest company.

Anyway, what about you, which one would you pick?

-M-


Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 89
PostPosted: Thu May 27, 2004 10:24 am
 


-Mario- -Mario-:
Anyway, what about you, which one would you pick?


The A340-600. :D :D :D

Image


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 8157
PostPosted: Thu May 27, 2004 10:41 am
 


-Mario- -Mario-:
Also, I have been reading on the Typhoon. I wish Canada would get rid off their F-18, A model and purchase it.

I think Canadas' millitary has a long list of required equipment before we buy a new fighter.

The Hornet is no slouch, the f-18 can accelerate vertically. You can stand it on its ass in slow flight, punch the throttle, and pick up speed whilst traveling straight up!

Aren't too many aircraft with that capability!!

Nothing wrong with the F-18, also nothing wrong with having only one type of fighter to stock parts/do training for... (cheaper that way).

When the hell is there ever air to air combat anymore anyway?


Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 89
PostPosted: Thu May 27, 2004 12:19 pm
 


Robair Robair:

Nothing wrong with the F-18, also nothing wrong with having only one type of fighter to stock parts/do training for... (cheaper that way).


That's why, some countries have only one type for air/air and air/ground-missions. One plane for all missions. That's what the Eurofighter Typhoon will be. Some weapons of the Eurofighter: ALARM, LGB, Harpoon and AMRAAM.

Image

Comparable Dassault Rafale from France:

Image


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 19817
PostPosted: Thu May 27, 2004 1:16 pm
 


Almost all today's planes are better than the F-18. Everybody is bying or have bought the Typhoon or the Saab Gripen. Canada is one of the few countries that will upgrade their f-18. The only countries with the A model is us, Spain and Australia. I know that Spain started to receive some Typhoon and Australiais upgrading. But what sets us appart is that the complete upgrade will take ten year. I think that will be done in three phases. That means that each bird will have to go to the contractor three times in the next ten years. And when I ment that we should buy the Typhoon, I ment that we should sell all of our F-18s. And you are right there is a few items that we should replaced first, for exemple the SeaKing. But the F-18 is already 25 years old (really next year but still) and by the time it is done upgrading of a standard good enough for today, it will be 35 years old. Why not save our money and buy new now.

And ya the A340 is a nice bird... Still I would like an Global Express though!

-M-


Offline
Newbie
Newbie
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11
PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2004 9:27 am
 


I just have to say that the CF-18 simply looks sharper than the Typhoon.

That said, I wouldn't put high-performance fighter aircraft high on any list of military purchases. First let's get actual real-life desert camouflage uniforms, if we're going to be fighting in the desert ...

Then there's the crappy Iltis, which will soon be replaced by the equally crappy G-Wagen. Something with armour might be nice.

What about leasing the F-18C or E from the US? That might be an economical stopgap until (10-12 yrs from now) we invest in new fighters...


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 19817
PostPosted: Wed Aug 11, 2004 8:18 am
 


mingless mingless:
I just have to say that the CF-18 simply looks sharper than the Typhoon.

That said, I wouldn't put high-performance fighter aircraft high on any list of military purchases. First let's get actual real-life desert camouflage uniforms, if we're going to be fighting in the desert ...

Then there's the crappy Iltis, which will soon be replaced by the equally crappy G-Wagen. Something with armour might be nice.

What about leasing the F-18C or E from the US? That might be an economical stopgap until (10-12 yrs from now) we invest in new fighters...

I think that our government is waiting for the F-35. What I don't like about it, it's a single engine. We refused to purchase the F-16 for that reason.
Our soldiers are finally starting to receive their Desert Camos. For the Iltis replacement, we had purchase those trucks from BC. No offence to BC, but, we purchased those BC trucks for the price of an Hummer. 100 grand for those piece of crap. They are worth shit. Now they are replacing those trucks with a Mercedes trucks. Hope we are finally upgrading to a better vehicule. At least the Iltis did what it was supposed to do. BTW, those Mercedes trucks are supposed to be mine resistant.
Now back to the Typhoon, a great looking bird (in my opinion). We should put out a contract between the Rafale and the Typhoon (Maybe russians too). The F-18 E model is too big, Ironic since it is now almost as big as the Arrow. Renting the C model could be a viable idea if there is not too much stress damage on those birds. We were (are?) looking into selling our surplus F-18A to Checkoslovakia (or one of those eastern countries).


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1433
PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2004 11:04 am
 


SeaLynx SeaLynx:
Robair Robair:

Nothing wrong with the F-18, also nothing wrong with having only one type of fighter to stock parts/do training for... (cheaper that way).


That's why, some countries have only one type for air/air and air/ground-missions. One plane for all missions. That's what the Eurofighter Typhoon will be. Some weapons of the Eurofighter: ALARM, LGB, Harpoon and AMRAAM.

Image

Comparable Dassault Rafale from France:

Image


Isn't that the same thing the new f-34 or whatever is going for?

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/jsf/

Also, the f-18 is still suppose to be a great fighter to have, otherwise I don't see why the US would still use it with their large inventory of planes. I mean as far as dogfights go, I would think that the f-22 is pretty good for that.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  1  2  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.