The Aircraft Thread!

[cube]

One would have to factor the material used in the construction. Materials are more of a cost factor than simply weight. That being said for commercial aircraft, say the recent increase in MTOW by 6T on the 787-10, it's additional weight gained through structural improvement does generate a price increase. One could argue the customer is simply paying for the additional performance as well.

As I stated before, it is not valid to simply say "it is more expensive because it is better" after decades of technology advancements.

 

[Glideslope]

As I stated before, it is not valid to simply say "it is more expensive because it is better" after decades of technology advancements.

I agree with the premise of your argument. However, todays reality is airlines will pay more for an airframe with "increased capabilities/advancement" to meet their needs. The 787-10 for example is receiving the 6T MTOW increase to pull orders from the A359. Is this relevant to the entire industry? Not really. It is however very relevant to the airlines looking to fill this segment, and Boeing will recover the costs through pricing. Even with the heavy discounts given off list prices. Just as Airbus will with their NEO line and increases in the A359 MTOW.

So, I understand your view. It's a valid argument. I simply have not seen any sign of it ever becoming part of either A or B's business model.

 

[cube]

I agree with the premise of your argument. However, todays reality is airlines will pay more for an airframe with "increased capabilities/advancement" to meet their needs. The 787-10 for example is receiving the 6T MTOW increase to pull orders from the A359. Is this relevant to the entire industry? Not really. It is however very relevant to the airlines looking to fill this segment, and Boeing will recover the costs through pricing. Even with the heavy discounts given off list prices. Just as Airbus will with their NEO line and increases in the A359 MTOW.

So, I understand your view. It's a valid argument. I simply have not seen any sign of it ever becoming part of either A or B's business model.

Well, I was talking more about military gear.

 

[Glideslope]

Well, I was talking more about military gear.

Ah, my apologies. Now your discussing Defense/Contractor Politicos and Corruption. I’m no longer in that world, and will remain silent.

 

[cube]

How can you discontinue the A380 when people don't care about boring tubes?

No other plane is worth a connection.

 

[Glideslope]

How can you discontinue the A380 when people don't care about boring tubes?

No other plane is worth a connection.

It's is hard to see the A380 as anything but a failure with the end of orders by carriers. I do see downstream benefits being quite valuable.

Businesses leverage tech and project management as important parts of the value proposition they can sell to customers, and delivering a project of the A380’s scale does give confidence. That value may well have got some deals over the line that may not have without the key learnings and changes implemented over the past 20 years at the company.

Businesses spend big money on ‘transformation’, which often seems the buzz word of the year so often, but none of it comes cheap.

It may have been an expensive lesson, but I wouldn’t overlook just how it has changed Airbus to become far more agile in its approach and delivery.

 

[cube]

It's is hard to see the A380 as anything but a failure with the end of orders by carriers. I do see downstream benefits being quite valuable.

Businesses leverage tech and project management as important parts of the value proposition they can sell to customers, and delivering a project of the A380’s scale does give confidence. That value may well have got some deals over the line that may not have without the key learnings and changes implemented over the past 20 years at the company.

Businesses spend big money on ‘transformation’, which often seems the buzz word of the year so often, but none of it comes cheap.

It may have been an expensive lesson, but I wouldn’t overlook just how it has changed Airbus to become far more agile in its approach and delivery.

It is as much of a failure as Concorde was.

Both were undermined by the US.

 

[cube]

Is it flying wing time?

 

[Glideslope]

Is it flying wing time?

Depends on the public acceptance. I don’t see pax getting into the inner wing of an aircraft anytime soon. The travel experience IMO would be similar to a Subway. Just can’t see it.

 

[a2jack]

https://www.defensenews.com/global/...blames-spatial-disorientation-for-f-35-crash/

 

[a2jack]

More Max News.https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ensions-cast-pall-over-air-show-idUSKCN1TH0GT

 

[cube]

Depends on the public acceptance. I don’t see pax getting into the inner wing of an aircraft anytime soon. The travel experience IMO would be similar to a Subway. Just can’t see it.

The Flying-V concept has windows.

 

[A.Goldberg]

It is as much of a failure as Concorde was.

Both were undermined by the US.

How did the US undermine the A380? No US carrier ever gave much interest to it. Making a super jumbo was considered big a gamble from the start. Boeing opted not to do it, Airbus did. They took the chance, it didn’t work out.

 

[bunnspecial]

Boeing opted not to do it, Airbus did. They took the chance, it didn’t work out.

Why would Boeing have been interested in the first place?

By the time the A380 made it to market(I remember seeing one of the early flights of it in Paris in June 2005-our tour guide was sure to point it out) the jumbo jet market was basically dead from Boeing's perspective. 747 production was already down to a handful of units a year, while its main competitors(the DC-10/MD-11 and L-1011) were effectively gone from passenger service if not already gone.

Boeing gambled on the 777 and 787, and ultimately they were right-I've seen this beaten to death endlessly, but the market wants smaller direct flights and not humongous people-movers with multiple connecting flights.

The A380 made sense in very, very limited markets but few wanted to spend the money to upgrade terminals to handle them-especially when those upgrades meant that you could handle fewer flights overall.

Plus, Airbus never managed to deliver on a freighter. UPS is STILL buying new 747 freighters, and that's not counting the piles of them that they have in service along with MD-11s(I work a few miles from UPS WorldPort, and see both aircraft on a daily basis, although it's not uncommon for me to drive by the airport and see UPS MD-11s lined up 3-4 deep on the taxiway).

If Emirates hadn't gone all-in on the A380, I don't know that it would have ever been even a remotely viable product...

 

[Huntn]

It is as much of a failure as Concorde was.

Both were undermined by the US.

How so? For the Concord, the long established limit was no supersonic flight over the Continental US, this rule was not made to hinder the Concord. I also know of no limits on the 380 except, some (most?) existing airports were not built to accommodate it, serious issues as it’s wings so wide as to impede adjacent taxiways.

 

[cube]

Yes, it was the US government who undermined the Concorde by not allowing supersonic travel over their territory:

- Concorde first flew in 1969
- The FAA proposed the ban in 1970
- The US government cut Boeing's funding in 1971
- Ban in 1973

For the A380, no US airline ordered it and the dominant lessors would not buy it.

 

[cube]

A321XLR announced

 

[Glideslope]

How so? For the Concord, the long established limit was no supersonic flight over the Continental US, this rule was not made to hinder the Concord. I also know of no limits on the 380 except, some (most?) existing airports were not built to accommodate it, serious issues as it’s wings so wide as to impede adjacent taxiways.

The market dictated the end of the 380 just as it has with the 748i. Modern twins have the range and ETOPS reliability in 2019 to fill any route and be profitable. Passengers want direct flights, and they will pay for it.
[doublepost=1560772834][/doublepost]

The Flying-V concept has windows.

Only in the leading edge that I have seen. Still like riding in a subway underground.

 

[cube]

Only in the leading edge that I have seen. Still like riding in a subway underground.

 

[Glideslope]

Why would Boeing have been interested in the first place?

By the time the A380 made it to market(I remember seeing one of the early flights of it in Paris in June 2005-our tour guide was sure to point it out) the jumbo jet market was basically dead from Boeing's perspective. 747 production was already down to a handful of units a year, while its main competitors(the DC-10/MD-11 and L-1011) were effectively gone from passenger service if not already gone.

Boeing gambled on the 777 and 787, and ultimately they were right-I've seen this beaten to death endlessly, but the market wants smaller direct flights and not humongous people-movers with multiple connecting flights.

The A380 made sense in very, very limited markets but few wanted to spend the money to upgrade terminals to handle them-especially when those upgrades meant that you could handle fewer flights overall.

Plus, Airbus never managed to deliver on a freighter. UPS is STILL buying new 747 freighters, and that's not counting the piles of them that they have in service along with MD-11s(I work a few miles from UPS WorldPort, and see both aircraft on a daily basis, although it's not uncommon for me to drive by the airport and see UPS MD-11s lined up 3-4 deep on the taxiway).

If Emirates hadn't gone all-in on the A380, I don't know that it would have ever been even a remotely viable product...

The lack of an A380F is something I'll always wonder about. Cargo facilities/airports would have faced the same challenges as pax terminals/airports in servicing such a beast. If it went forward would it have been enough to persuade cargo carriers to forgo 747 conversions, or the 748F? Probably not as air cargo was not not increasing rapidly enough at the time of the decision to kill it, and the massive cost overruns of the 388 were mounting as well.
[doublepost=1560773637][/doublepost]

Yes, that's the leading edge?

 

[cube]

The lack of an A380F is something I'll always wonder about. Cargo facilities/airports would have faced the same challenges as pax terminals/airports in servicing such a beast. If it went forward would it have been enough to persuade cargo carriers to forgo 747 conversions, or the 748F? Probably not as air cargo was not not increasing rapidly enough at the time of the decision to kill it, and the massive cost overruns of the 388 were mounting as well.

Carriers did order the A380F. They just cancelled when it got delayed.

Yes, that's the leading edge?

It does not look very different from a regular widebody. People do sit in the center.

 

[Glideslope]

Carriers did order the A380F. They just cancelled when it got delayed.


It does not look very different from a regular widebody. People do sit in the center.

That is my primary issue. I would have no interest in being seated at the trailing edge, or center main body. Even on something as wide as a 380 you still have the sensation of windows on each side of you.

I see the flying wing as an efficient “Cattle Transport,” not an aviation experience. Will some be unaffected by the experience and simply want to go from point A to B? Probably.

Will it become reality in my lifetime? I hope not.

 

[cube]

That is my primary issue. I would have no interest in being seated at the trailing edge, or center main body. Even on something as wide as a 380 you still have the sensation of windows on each side of you.

I see the flying wing as an efficient “Cattle Transport,” not an aviation experience. Will some be unaffected by the experience and simply want to go from point A to B? Probably.

Will it become reality in my lifetime? I hope not.

I hope it becomes reality soon because it should reduce CO2 emissions.

 

[Huntn]

Yes, it was the US government who undermined the Concorde by not allowing supersonic travel over their territory:

- Concorde first flew in 1969
- The FAA proposed the ban in 1970
- The US government cut Boeing's funding in 1971
- Ban in 1973

For the A380, no US airline ordered it and the dominant lessors would not buy it.

I’m not an expert on this, but my impression was that supersonic flight was already limited to military restricted flight space so the rules were not made to undermine the Concord. I think more of a problem for it was the exorbitant fare, and it’s small capacity. It was not commercially viable and it flew as long as it did as a status airplane.

The 380 had extensive issues and delays, with tons of orders from US cargo carriers ending up cancelled, so I would not describe either of these cases as the US undermining them.

 

[cube]

I’m not an expert on this, but my impression was that supersonic flight was already limited to military restricted flight space so the rules were not made to undermine the Concord. I think more of a problem for it was the exorbitant fare, and it’s small capacity. It was not commercially viable and it flew as long as it did as a status airplane.

The 380 had extensive issues and delays, with tons of orders from US cargo carriers ending up cancelled, so I would not describe either of these cases as the US undermining them.

I did not say that the US undermining them was the only reason for the failures.