The Aircraft Thread!

[Huntn]

Is idea behind that design to allow supersonic flight without a boom?

 

[cube]

Is idea behind that design to allow supersonic flight without a boom?

No, the idea is to consume less fuel.

 

[Huntn]

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

I just responded to what you said and would not describe the US as undermining those aircraft.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/the-aircraft-thread.2128571/page-17#post-27460380

 

[cube]

I just responded to what you said and would not describe the US as undermining those aircraft.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/the-aircraft-thread.2128571/page-17#post-27460380

Well, many people disagree.

 

[Huntn]

No, the idea is to consume less fuel.

Regarding supersonic without the boom, this is interesting, although the commercial aspect maybe limited:

NASA Selects Lockheed Martin Skunk Works® to Build X-Plane
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rel...n-skunk-works-to-build-x-plane-300623514.html

 

[Glideslope]

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

I understand that. Reducing CO2 emissions is critical to our survival.
[doublepost=1560780578][/doublepost]

Regarding supersonic without the boom, this is interesting, although the commercial aspect maybe limited:

NASA Selects Lockheed Martin Skunk Works® to Build X-Plane
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rel...n-skunk-works-to-build-x-plane-300623514.html

View attachment 843399​

Agreed. The Commercial aspect will be non existent in terms of "Mass Transit." I'm looking forward to following this project. Information should be out there as it's not a "Black Project" from my understanding. I've been a lifelong admirer of Lockheed's Skunk Works.

 

[Huntn]

I understand that. Reducing CO2 emissions is critical to our survival.
[doublepost=1560780578][/doublepost]

Agreed. The Commercial aspect will be non existent in terms of "Mass Transit." I'm looking forward to following this project. Information should be out there as it's not a "Black Project" from my understanding. I've been a lifelong admirer of Lockheed's Skunk Works.

View attachment 843401

XR-71, BABY!
I’ve seen several of these, one at Kadena Air Base, taxied by and took off (1980s time frame) It was awesome.

 

[MileHighPilot]

It's is hard to see the A380 as anything but a failure with the end of orders by carriers.

the a380 is nothing more than a ripoff of the MD-12 that they decided not to build due to lack of demand

It is as much of a failure as Concorde was.

Both were undermined by the US.

i wouldnt say the concorde was a failure so much as it was overpriced and consumers werent willing to spend that much money on a ticket
towards the end of the concorde's time it was cheaper to fly on first class with better seats
ive flown as a passenger on both the concorde and the a380 and neither were noteworthy
also neither 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.

the US didnt undermine the a380 there just wasnt the demand airbus thought there was
mcdonnell douglas tried this 10 years earlier with the MD-12 and was unsuccessful
airbus didnt look at the market and made a huge error its their fault not the US

Why would Boeing have been interested in the first place?

boeing saw the market was demanding smaller wide bodies and not large wide bodies so thats what they made
in short boeing adjusted to the market whereas airbus didnt

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 787 was the right jet at the right time unlike the a380
i actually fly the 787 after doing several years on the baby bus and its a dream to fly

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.

again it comes down to airbus not doing the necessary research prior to releasing a product
why would an airport expand their taxiways at a cost to them just for the a380 when virtually every other aircraft can utilize that airport as is

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...

i agree without emirates the a380 would have been nothing more than the MD-12 it was copied from

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.

most airports required wider taxiways and changes to the gate areas
in some airports you can see where the taxiways were enlarged

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

its not the fault of the US government that the concorde was a failure

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

how is it the US governments fault that no US airlines ordered the a380
my airlines alpa contract actually has pay rates for the a380 as does most other airlines in the US
although the pay rates are the same as the 747-400 and 747-8 theyre still listed

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.

twin engine jets are much cheaper to operate on long haul flights than a 3 or 4 engine jet
its why the 787 succeeded and the a380 failed

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.

id say its more the fare than anything
it wouldnt have lasted long if it werent for subsidizing the concorde program
this was before my aviation career but id assume the US airlines were as thorough then as they are now when it comes to introducing a new fleet type
that is why my airline is looking to not receive any of a new fleet type we inherited in a merger because it doesnt make business sense

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.

neither should anyone look at that as the US undermining the a380
airlines cancel orders all the time due to issues and delays and this is no different

I just responded to what you said and would not describe the US as undermining those aircraft.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/the-aircraft-thread.2128571/page-17#post-27460380

Well, many people disagree.

wheres your source that many people blame the US for the failure of the concorde and a380
who are these people
ive been in aviation for 30 years and never heard anything resembling this

 

[cube]

the a380 is nothing more than a ripoff of the MD-12 that they decided not to build due to lack of demand

how is it the US governments fault that no US airlines ordered the a380

twin engine jets are much cheaper to operate on long haul flights than a 3 or 4 engine j

wheres your source that many people blame the US for the failure of the concorde and a380

1. The MD-12 was an idea. The A380 is actually in service.

2. I did not say the US *government* undermined the A380.

3. 4 engines are safer than 2

4. Search the web to see examples of people partially blaming the failure of Concorde and the A380 on the US.

 

[MileHighPilot]

1. The MD-12 was an idea. The A380 is actually in service.

the MD-12 was an idea that airbus ripoffed and created the a380 from

2. I did not say the US *government* undermined the A380.

my point still stands the US didnt undermine the a380

3. 4 engines are safer than 2

not with modern engines
perhaps back in the early day of jets this was true but not today

4. Search the web to see examples of people partially blaming the failure of Concorde and the A380 on the US.

i did but couldnt find anything reputable which is why i asked who these people are and wheres a source that blames the US for the failure of the concorde and a380
like i said ive been in aviation for 30 years and never heard anything resembling this
not even from foreign pilots

 

[cube]

the MD-12 was an idea that airbus ripoffed and created the a380 from

not with modern engines
perhaps back in the early day of jets this was true but not today

i did but couldnt find anything reputable which is why i asked who these people are and wheres a source that blames the US for the failure of the concorde and a380
like i said ive been in aviation for 30 years and never heard anything resembling thi
not even from foreign pilots

1. It is easy to have obvious ideas but not implement them.

2. 4 engines is still better than 2 . See Antarctica.

3. Pilots have shown not to be an objective source when it comes to planes.

 

[Glideslope]

XR-71, BABY!
I’ve seen several of these, one at Kadena Air Base, taxied by and took off (1980s time frame) It was awesome.

View attachment 843418​

Were you with the 44th or 353rd? I was never stationed in Okinawa but stopped over a few times.
[doublepost=1560791330][/doublepost]

1. It is easy to have obvious ideas but not implement them.

2. 4 engines is still better than 2 . See Antarctica.

3. Pilots have shown not to be an objective source when it comes to planes.

When you ask a pilot why they have 4 engines they will respond that there is not enough room for 5.

 

[cube]

When you ask a pilot why they have 4 engines they will respond that there is not enough room for 5.

If there was room for 3, there's actually room for 5.

But I prefer 4 to 5 like I prefer 2 to 3.

 

[hawkeye_a]

I have to say i'm pretty surprised at the discontinuation of the A380. With many carriers EOL-ing their 747s, i thought the A380 came out at the right time. Whats even more surprising to me, is that i heard that some carriers(Singapore Airline maybe?) is already retiring(or planning to) a couple of their A380s?!?! Seems really soon.

While smaller wide bodies are more versatile to seasonal changes in demand, it seemed to me anyway, that the A380 could have been a staple for major hub-hub routes? with the smaller capacity aircrafts relegated to more regional services. Guess i was wrong.

 

[cube]

I have to say i'm pretty surprised at the discontinuation of the A380. With many carriers EOL-ing their 747s, i thought the A380 came out at the right time. Whats even more surprising to me, is that i heard that some carriers(Singapore Airline maybe?) is already retiring(or planning to) a couple of their A380s?!?! Seems really soon.

While smaller wide bodies are more versatile to seasonal changes in demand, it seemed to me anyway, that the A380 could have been a staple for major hub-hub routes? with the smaller capacity aircrafts relegated to more regional services. Guess i was wrong.

SIA only flies young passenger planes. They are retiring those A380 at the end of their 10-year lease.

Air France will also be retiring some when their lease is over.

It seems BA is looking to buy some used ones. Some of their planes are over 20 years old.

 

[Glideslope]

I have to say i'm pretty surprised at the discontinuation of the A380. With many carriers EOL-ing their 747s, i thought the A380 came out at the right time. Whats even more surprising to me, is that i heard that some carriers(Singapore Airline maybe?) is already retiring(or planning to) a couple of their A380s?!?! Seems really soon.

While smaller wide bodies are more versatile to seasonal changes in demand, it seemed to me anyway, that the A380 could have been a staple for major hub-hub routes? with the smaller capacity aircrafts relegated to more regional services. Guess i was wrong.

It's really not the A380's fault. Other than the original wing box issues it's been a very reliable aircraft. There is allot of hate and love for it depending on what sites you participate on. IMO, it's as simple as CASM. When we look back at the 380 it's safe to divide customers into two categories. One wanting the 380 for premium services( large bars, suites, recreation areas etc...) involving a lower PAX count per aircraft. The other was looking to pack 650+ into the aircraft. Now my understanding is that Airbus recommended I believe around 540 in a three class configuration as the most passenger friendly.

The premium configurations were never profitable for the majority of carriers. Most of the standard configuration aircraft flew with around 400 pax. The 650+ pax planes never appeared. The aircraft simply could not meet CASM targets without a new engine option, and we all know what happened with that.

Your point about the Hub to Hub is also something that never developed over the decades. Aircraft like the 773-ER, 789, 787/10, and A359/10 have made point to point possible to almost any destination one could want. People have made the decision that they are willing to pay the prices and sit for 12-14hrs for that point to point flight. The 77X will take it even further when it launches in early 2021.

Large twins are the future. They allow the CASM todays airlines demand. "4 for the long haul" died with the A340. The 380 was on life support from the day it launched. All due to market miscalculations and other factors beyond its control.

 

[Huntn]

Were you with the 44th or 353rd? I was never stationed in Okinawa but stopped over a few times.
[doublepost=1560791330][/doublepost]

When you ask a pilot why they have 4 engines they will respond that there is not enough room for 5.

VQ-1 when it was based in Guam. I can’t discuss it other than to say ELINT.

 

[Glideslope]

VQ-1 when it was based in Guam. I can’t discuss it other than to say ELINT.

 

[cube]

For me it looks like Embraer's order book has dried up quite a bit since selling out to Boeing.

 

[cube]

The "F-21" seems like Tigershark redux.

 

[cube]

HiFly wants to get more A380's.

 

[MileHighPilot]

1. It is easy to have obvious ideas but not implement them.

even ray charles can see the a380 is a copy of the MD-12 design

2. 4 engines is still better than 2 .

if this were true the a340 wouldnt have been the failure it was
newer engines such as the GEnx are better than the rb211 which makes the extra 2 engines unnecessary

See Antarctica.

what does antartica have to do with 4 engines

3. Pilots have shown not to be an objective source when it comes to planes.

do you have a source to back this claim up or is it like your claim that the US is to blame for the concorde and a380 being a failure
at any rate if what you are saying is true if i want to know what investments to make i talk to my mechanic and if i want to know why my truck is having a problem i speak to my investment banker because they would not be an objective source when it comes to investments or cars

When you ask a pilot why they have 4 engines they will respond that there is not enough room for 5.

i know the extra engine is just being ferried but it shows how capable the 747 is

I have to say i'm pretty surprised at the discontinuation of the A380. With many carriers EOL-ing their 747s, i thought the A380 came out at the right time. Whats even more surprising to me, is that i heard that some carriers(Singapore Airline maybe?) is already retiring(or planning to) a couple of their A380s?!?! Seems really soon.

im not surprised
when the a380 was being developed the trend was already shifting to large twins
the 747 will be around for a while it has a great reputation as a freighter

While smaller wide bodies are more versatile to seasonal changes in demand, it seemed to me anyway, that the A380 could have been a staple for major hub-hub routes? with the smaller capacity aircrafts relegated to more regional services. Guess i was wrong.

i could see demand for a large widebody on slot constrained routes such as jfk-lhr or jfk-lax but as has already been stated by @cube Pilots have shown not to be an objective source when it comes to planes

Your point about the Hub to Hub is also something that never developed over the decades. Aircraft like the 773-ER, 789, 787/10, and A359/10 have made point to point possible to almost any destination one could want. People have made the decision that they are willing to pay the prices and sit for 12-14hrs for that point to point flight. The 77X will take it even further when it launches in early 2021.

i think it is the passengers wanting direct flights and not stopovers more than it is the airlines
in just about every industry outside of aviation the hub to hub model works

Large twins are the future. They allow the CASM todays airlines demand. "4 for the long haul" died with the A340. The 380 was on life support from the day it launched. All due to market miscalculations and other factors beyond its control.

i agree that large twins are the future
the a380 is a copy of the MD-12 which was never launched due to lack of demand
yet airbus launched it anyway and is surprised it failed
boeing took the correct approach and released the 787 when it did

VQ-1 when it was based in Guam. I can’t discuss it other than to say ELINT.

was VQ-1 the unit that lost the P-3 to the chinese

 

[Glideslope]

was VQ-1 the unit that lost the P-3 to the chinese

Yes. April 2001. Collided with a J-8II.

 

[Huntn]

even ray charles can see the a380 is a copy of the MD-12 design

if this were true the a340 wouldnt have been the failure it was
newer engines such as the GEnx are better than the rb211 which makes the extra 2 engines unnecessary

what does antartica have to do with 4 engines

do you have a source to back this claim up or is it like your claim that the US is to blame for the concorde and a380 being a failure
at any rate if what you are saying is true if i want to know what investments to make i talk to my mechanic and if i want to know why my truck is having a problem i speak to my investment banker because they would not be an objective source when it comes to investments or cars

i know the extra engine is just being ferried but it shows how capable the 747 is

im not surprised
when the a380 was being developed the trend was already shifting to large twins
the 747 will be around for a while it has a great reputation as a freighter

i could see demand for a large widebody on slot constrained routes such as jfk-lhr or jfk-lax but as has already been stated by @cube Pilots have shown not to be an objective source when it comes to planes

i think it is the passengers wanting direct flights and not stopovers more than it is the airlines
in just about every industry outside of aviation the hub to hub model works

i agree that large twins are the future
the a380 is a copy of the MD-12 which was never launched due to lack of demand
yet airbus launched it anyway and is surprised it failed
boeing took the correct approach and released the 787 when it did

was VQ-1 the unit that lost the P-3 to the chinese

Yes VQ-1. The N.Koreans shot down an EC121 in 1968. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_EC-121_shootdown_incident It was required reading when I was assigned there.

Later after I left, there was a mid air collision between an EP-3 and Chinese fighter, the pilot elected to emergency land in China (the Chinese fighter crashed after the collision).

 

[a2jack]

And here's the bottom line. $$$

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...sales-boss-facing-new-max-storm-idUSKCN1TT1SM