Boeing 747-8F

[John Witt]

Boeing's latest iteration of the 747 made its first flight today. Man, is that ever a big airplane: 250 ft long and 224 ft wingspan. The B-36, for those of you old enough to know what it was,  was about 185 ft long and 230 ft wingspan.  A really nice looking ride and only about a year late -- much better than the 787.   

Congrats to Paul Walker, Pete Ferguson, Howard Rush (ret), and all the other Boeing troops. Means a lot to the Seattle area.

John W

[Ron Merrill]

Whats good for Boeing, is good for the country. Way to go!!!!!! y1Ron.

[Paul Smith]

It would be good for our well-connected friends at Boeing to get one of the prototypes to test fly over to the WC in Hungary.

[Howard Rush]

Just got this:

[pat king]

The 747 is still my favorite as a passenger. The %#@*$ Airbus airplanes are appropriately named as far as being a passenger. I guess they are OK to fly if you don't mind the total fly by wire. Congrats on all the work to get the latest 747 in the air, it is good for the USA!

Pat

[Douglas Ames]

The 747 is still my favorite as a passenger. The %#@*$ Airbus airplanes are appropriately named as far as being a passenger. I guess they are OK to fly if you don't mind the total fly by wire. Congrats on all the work to get the latest 747 in the air, it is good for the USA!

Pat

aka- "Scarebus"
I prefer to work on Boeing's products, good old fashioned USA engineering.

[Peter Ferguson]

It would be good for our well-connected friends at Boeing to get one of the prototypes to test fly over to the WC in Hungary.

No prototypes. we deliver the test airplanes.... eventually; Is there any particular manuever you would like them to do? How about a 6 laps inverted with 400 passengers aboard.

[skyshark58]

How about a couple of nice slow rolls out over Lake Washington just for old times sake!
                                                                                                                 Mike

[John Witt]

Great photo, Howard. Thanks.

John W

[Elwyn Aud]

Does the 747 hold the record for length of time in production?  I think the Beech 18 was produced for 33 years.

[Paul Smith]

It would be good for our well-connected friends at Boeing to get one of the prototypes to test fly over to the WC in Hungary.

No prototypes. we deliver the test airplanes.... eventually; Is there any particular manuever you would like them to do? How about a 6 laps inverted with 400 passengers aboard.

I thougth a nice manover would be taking the North American F2 teams there & back.

[Peter Ferguson]

Does the 747 hold the record for length of time in production?  I think the Beech 18 was produced for 33 years.

Thats kind of a tricky question Depends upon the defination of the model. The 737 has been in production longer but its not the same 737 as the earlier models, just as the 747 now is not the same as the earlier models. So you have to be specific to the model when you talk about production length. I would think the Cessna 172 would hold some sort of record, its been around awhile without much variation.

[BillLee]

Howard, that's a great picture. I've made it my desktop back ground.

Notice that  this (test)?) plane doesn't have any windows other than the ones right begind the cockpit. Will this particular plane end up as some sort of cargo aircraft or something?

Bill

[EddyR]

The big advantage this plane has over new Airbus is it will be built in Cargo and Passenger versions. Airbus is a passenger only plane. Also the 747-8 is much quieter and gets 17% better fuel economy than the 400. It took off and landed at 152 knots at 630.000 lbs. It is maxed out at 975,000 lbs. One big selling point has been that it would fly like the earlier versions so pilot training would be shorter than a new design. I liked the shot with the remanufactured T-33 on each side.
Ed

[Tom Niebuhr]

Looks like wing tip technology has changed.

[Paul Walker]

Howard, that's a great picture. I've made it my desktop back ground.

Notice that  this (test)?) plane doesn't have any windows other than the ones right begind the cockpit. Will this particular plane end up as some sort of cargo aircraft or something?

Bill

Yes Bill, the first -8 versions will be cargo planes only. They are working on the passenger version as we speak.

[Bill Adair]

Paul,

Great looking airplane!

I was on the 777 program at Boeing, and was lucky enough to get a test flight on one of the UAL test airplanes. The roll out of the 777 was spectacular, and a highlight of my career at Boeing.

People can say what they want about Airbus, and I won't mind - as long as it's all bad!  

Won't knowingly fly an Airbus airplane ever again, and have been known to go the long way around on trips, just to avoid them! Bad enough that they are inferior to Boeing airplanes in every way, but when I found out the mostly right handed pilots are having to fly with their left hand was the killer for me.

Now they are falling out of the sky, because Airbus found a cheaper way to attach the vertical stabilizers!

Bill (former Skyraider)

[Ted Fancher]

I'm curious to know what people find objectionable about the 'buses as passengers.  I've got a few thoughts about them from a pilot's perspective but the few I've flown on as a passenger have been quite comfortable and quiet.  Or is it just an ideological thing, re the French/English collaboration?

They did do a lot of innovative stuff (perhaps with a lot less contemplation and testing than is customary at Boeing) in terms of operational costs, etc.  Dumping 'em cheap on the market via government subsidies always rubbed me the wrong way.  I don't recall the US taxpayers picking up the tab to cover Boeing's discounts to their customers.

I will say Boeing's new big bird is gorgeous in the air.  Although I enjoyed flying the -757 the most of any of the Boeings (sort of like you own personal ME-262 but with more power), the -400 was the best airplane for its mission I've ever flown.  Power to spare, handled like a plane half its size, an autoflight system that paid huge dividends for a fatigued crew after 12 to 16 hours in the air faced with a near zero/zero approach or stormy conditions; plus quiet and comfortable flight and cabin crew rest areas (aft cockpit for the pilots and below decks for the cabin attendants) that made it possible for the humans to support all the things of which the airplane is capable. I imagine the -800 will be just another step in the "Queen of the Fleet" direction.

Wish I could fly one.

Ted

p.s.  Did any of you watch the PBS program "Fly Cheap" last night?   If you want to know what the dirty little secrets of the current air transportation industry are that was a good primer.  This country has got to get itself back on a sound financial footing and then come to grips with what's happening to an industry beset by red ink.  I read several thousand reports a year from the industry (as an analyst at the NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System [ASRS]) and the sort of things you'll see in that PBS special are far from isolated cases.  I will only say this: guys like Paul and Howard and the rest of the wizards at Boeing (and, yes, at Airbus, Embraer, etc. to be fair) are carrying the industry's water in terms of safety with the magnificent airplanes they give the airlines.  If the systems these aircraft provide are properly utilized by the flight crews they cover up a lot potential shortcomings in the overall operation.  The margins, however, are getting whittled at both ends in the current financial malaise and it is unlikely to change until the atmosphere for charging what it costs to do the job right becomes viable. 

Sorry.  That show last night made me see red because I knew exactly what they were going to say for months...as did pretty much anyone in the business that didn't have their heads firmly implanted in the sand.  It'll be interesting to see what if anything is produced by the talking heads in the Senate and House hearings.  I've seen nothing coming out of either the legislative or executive branches that shows any hint of making the marketplace for business and employment brighter--quite the opposite, in fact.  Jeez, Fancher.  Shut up!  Sorry.

 

[Steve Helmick]

MY objection to AirBus planes started with having to dodge all the overhead TV screens...a problem for folks taller than the average Frenchman. During the ground checks prior to blastoff, there were the most awful mechanical groans...from the flaps, I think. Rode in a 757 for part of the same trip. Maybe more cramped seating, but otherwise a nicer plane. Flew Seattle/Denver/Boston & back in May 2000 on UAL in bluebird weather. I could see trucks and cars on the roads from 32,000'. I don't recall the pilot's names, but it warn't Ted or David.

DC-9's have made some dents in my cabeza...the entry/exit door frame. The best ride I had in an airliner was a Qantas 747SP, from Sydney to Honolulu and onward to San Francisco. Nice beer, free! The takeoff from Honolulu was just amazing...full load of passengers with all their vacation plunder...a "holly crap" climbout and the pilot racked it up on the right wingtip directly over the big volcano. And off to California we go. Lots of performance is a big comfort to me.

I rode in an F-27 from Sea-Tac to PDX for my late cousin's wedding...didn't see anything but clouds the whole trip, which is disconcerting. I didn't like the plane, either, but I had more time to study it than normal, because of no scenery. I rode a DeHaviland Dash 8 to/from Edmonton...wrong plane for the trip, no leg room for me, but nice performance, nice weather, interesting view from 3,000'. The vacuum packed brownie was awesome...   A DC-9 or 737 would have been better for the trip to Eddie.  Steve

[Bill Adair]

Ted,

My first flights were on an Airbus A300, and I realize that was one of their first models.

It was noisy enough to bother many of the passengers, and me in particular. The overhead storage bins rattled loudly enough to make passengers worry about them falling! Other creaks and groans were heard from other internal structures. The cabin temperature controls were unable to keep the passenger compartments warm, and all the blankets and pillows on board were not enough to keep passengers comfortable! Many of us complained to the cabin crew, but the return flight Atlanta to Denver a week later was just as frigid.

Fast forward to a trip from Seattle to Boston that I routed via Memphis if I recall, specifically to avoid Airbus airplanes. The leg from Memphis to Boston had the scheduled aircraft pulled for maintenance, and a newer Airbus (321?) was provided. I tried to get another flight on a Boeing aircraft, but that meant spending the night there to do it. My teen aged (at the time) granddaughter accompanied me on this trip, so staying overnight was not practical.

The 32X was a nice new airplane, and had no structural noises like the A300, plus it had a comfortable cabin. During takeoff I glanced over at my granddaughter, and her eyes were as big as saucers! She had also noticed the strange engine noises, that had me worried. I've driven early farm tractors that made similar grinding gear noises, but not nearly as loud!  

Boeing tests their new airplanes almost to the brink of destruction, but Airbus does them one better. Look up the number of Airbus test airplanes lost during flight testing! That alone should tell people that their very best pilots can't always recover from their flight control software failures!

I also love the 757/767 series, and visit family in Maui regularly, via Hawaiian. They are using older 767s, but have Airbus A330s on order to replace them. I will be looking for another airline, when that happens.  

Bill

[pat king]

Ted,
My first experience with Airbus airplanes was when American switched from 747s to Airbuses on the Miami-Caracas and back flights. As a 6' 250 LB guy the 747 was very comfortable in Business. Business class in the Airbus was crowded and exhibited about the same level of creature comforts as a Greyhound Bus. My overall impression of the airplane was it was cheap in every bad sense of the word.
The 757 and 767 are nice airplanes, but even first class in them is, in my estimation, no better than Business class upstairs in a 747.

Pat

[Ted Fancher]

Ted,
My first experience with Airbus airplanes was when American switched from 747s to Airbuses on the Miami-Caracas and back flights. As a 6' 250 LB guy the 747 was very comfortable in Business. Business class in the Airbus was crowded and exhibited about the same level of creature comforts as a Greyhound Bus. My overall impression of the airplane was it was cheap in every bad sense of the word.
The 757 and 767 are nice airplanes, but even first class in them is, in my estimation, no better than Business class upstairs in a 747.

Pat

Thanks, guys.

My Airbus exposure has been limited to reasonably new A319s and 20s on moderate length trips.  I don't have any negative memories (but Steve, I'm only 5'7" tall so I might not encounter the same "level" of problems as you!).

I'm well aware of the early issues with the fly by wire systems.  Again, however, I read a lot of reports and problems of the "what's it going to do next?" variety are pretty few and far between.  Largely, I believe, because although older guys such as myself who grew up with round dial airplanes needed a lot of "remedial" training to get rid of outdated notions and techniques, the still remaining old timers are well acquainted and adapted to the new technology and the newbies have grown up with it and don't know any other way.

The issues we're starting to see now are more of the aging fleet variety which afflict every fleet eventually.

Ted

[Bill Heher]

I ride a 2-3K miles a month for business- across all airlines ( cheapest fare -  Finance Dept. # 1 directive). Before this gig I was an A&P and  worked in Engineering for a couple airlines. My opinon is that the A319 / 320 series are safe comfortable Greyhound Busses in the sky- ironic name huh- Air Bus!  I didn't like the overhead monitors either, but they are going away as airlines go to seat back systems, you can't charge to watch an overhead monitor either.

AirBus Pre-filght and start /taxi do produce a lot groans, whines etc from the center wing / wheel wells. Flap moving, hydraulic pumps and bypass valves etc. I have re-assured many a nervous seatmate that it was no problem- normal sounds, but they still don't like it. In flight they are o.k.
 
I sleep as good on an Airbus as I do on a DC-9, or a 737-757,  I sleep on most flights. But I tend to enjoy it more on a Boeing. I have worked with Boeing Engineering on various issues- as well as numerous O.E.M. and top tier repair shops. The Boeing guys were top notch - and knew their stuff, and no language barrier with the guys doing the designing and the men on the line keeping things flying. That alone makes me feel beter.

Wide bodies are another story- I love 747/767. A 757 is fine- and I like the fighter jet roll and take-off, but a 747/400 or a 767 is like a big powerful sports sedan. Smooth, powerful and able to carve a nice corner with a feeling of confidence. Lots of air, enough lavatories and room to move around the cabin a bit- about as good as it gets for us common folk.

Now- the RJs, EMBs and other 40-80 seat rides. I'll take a Dash-8 Q400 over a coach seat in jet on up to 200/300 miles, after that it doesn't matter, there just isn't enough seat in most of them to keep me from getting sore / numb in the lower half. Anything over 3 hrs gets kind of brutal.

My wish list -
 Allcheck bags free, anything bigger than a backpack / overnight bag is checked. Stuff that goes in the overhead bin is $10-20.
A full can of soda / water and more than 1/2 a handful of pretzels. 
If you take up more than a coach seat- either upgrade to Business- or pay for the seat next to ya- the middle one!

Oh yeah- and model boxes up to 60" X 24" x 12" with airplanes in them fly free!!!!

[Peter Ferguson]

What Steve may have inadvertantly noticed is that the floor is higher in the fuse on AB airplanes compared to BA models. This has another side effect, if you have a window seat; your head is closer to the curvature of the upper lobe so you will feel a bit more crowded. You don't notice this if you are in an isle seat. I'm flying a 330 to Bangkok this weekend , I requested an isle seat.

[Robert Jones]

The 747 is still my favorite as a passenger.

I love the 777's as well. My first flight on one was from Tokyo to Okinawa. Felt like we never left the ground! Real smooth.

[David M Johnson]

I had to send a copy of the photo to my Dad.  He was one of the flight test crew on 747 # 1 and was in flight crew training for the -400 He really loved that airplane and the men who developed it.
David Johnson
AMA 872951

[Douglas Ames]

[quote author=Bill Adair link=topic=15997.msg146403#msg146403 date=126583696
Now they are falling out of the sky, because Airbus found a cheaper way to attach the vertical stabilizers!

Bill (former Skyraider)
[/quote]

I could comment first hand on that but I might get fired...

[Greg Howie]

 the scare bus needs to adjust there operation window for the speed limited rudder travel . Its a huge rudder to slam back forth back forth some 12 times to form an isolation that riped the rudder OFF !. Full travel at 300 knots with full travel in less than one second is a problem. Numbers may vary but you get the idea . that rudder will travel as fast as you can shove the peddles and its too big to do that at speed

The aircraft crashed after takeoff from John F Kennedy airport in New York, and after a three-year investigation the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined that rudder inputs by the pilot after wake vortex encounters were aggressive, but also highlighted sensitivity of the A300's rudder controls.

 I flew out of Denver with a spare engine in the front pit. When I saw that thing going in I was very uncomfortable . First off the cargo stops are mostly there and operational most of the time. sometimes not. the thought of that thing moving on take off roll bothered me . Anyways it climbed like a home sick angle out of Denver. I was impressed. Still I could not help but to think about the expansion joints in the floor. A after thought for sure to keep it from buckling. The thing doing a gear swing flops around like a flounder, I thought it might fall off the stands. Nothing bends like this airplane the A 300 . There is just a giant cut out for the gear then howled out for the hydro Bay and ac packs . That's where all the heat is next to the leaking center fuel tank. Fuel dripping out of the wing root , but there is an acceptable limit ,Gees .

 As for the aluminium this piece of junk is made out of is not like aircraft I have dealt with its porous and corrodes through like something i have never seen . Entire beams stringers seatracks decomposing to the point they need to replace 50% of them .

 Next the brakes they have fans mounted on them to aid in cooling so they will not catch fire . I cant believe thatwas part of the original design. .There airbus's in inferior to the 747 in almost every way I can think of .  The 747 is hands down the most bullet Proof aircraft ever built.

[Clancy Arnold]

I have experienced flying on an AirBus, model 320 I think, four flights in 7 days.  Indianapolis to Chicago, Chicago to Spokane and return.  Four flights in four different aircraft of the same model.  They all had the same problems, about every 5 to 10 minutes the whole airframe would shudder.   After four flights I spoke to the pilot and told him the airplane must be in pain.  He asked why I thought that.  I told him that I think it must be built wrong and is trying to shed the wings to ease the pain.

Clancy

[Jim Pollock]

Hey Ted,

Has anyone ever figured out what happened to that British Airways or Air France flight from Brazil to France in an AB 330?  I think that was the intended route anyway.  It just disappeared into the Atlantic in the convergence zone.    I don't think they ever found a single person on that flight and very few parts of the plane.

Jim Pollock    

[Pinecone]

Does the 747 hold the record for length of time in production?  I think the Beech 18 was produced for 33 years.

Not even CLOSE.

Cessna 172 and 182 - 1956 to present.
C-130 Hercules - also 1956 to present


The winner is:


Beech Bonanza - 1947 to present, so currently 63 years.

[SteveMoon]

As a Flight Attendant for 20 years now, originally Northwest and now Delta (holy crap don't get me started on Dleta)
I feel qualified to jump in here on the Airbus/Boeing discussion. I've worked and flown on just about all of them.

First of all, Airbus making the A320 family's fuselage about 6" wider was pure genius at it's simplest. Six little inches
is all it took to make this a much easier plane to work as a FA and much more comfortable plane for passengers than
a coparable 737. Also, the galleys are quite a bit larger, with much more storage area. This is huge. Prior to engine
startup though, the hydraulic pumps do make a lot of whining noises and this does garner some strange or concerned
looks from the passengers sometimes. We have A320s in our system now that are 20 years old and still going strong.

How about the 757. Ouch! My most hated plane from the standpoint of working it, or riding on it. Incredibly narrow aisle,
narrow seats with very little legroom. The 757 looks great from the outside, looks great on the ground but it is awful
as a passenger or FA, especially the 757-300. Ours hold 224 pax with ONE aisle. Uggggh.

On the other hand the 767 is a nice plane. Much more comfortable than the 757 and with two aisles is easy to work.
We've had Airbus A330s for several years now, and I really like this plane. The seats are comfortable, the galleys
have plenty of room and being a modern plane has all the goodies for the pax such as seatback video and headrests
with wings (in coach). Like the A320 family it is easy to work and is comfortable for the pax. We replaced our DC-10s
with the A330, wow what a step up. The DC-10 was a flying jalopy. Lights flashing in the cabin, busted this, busted
that, 5 seats across the middle. The most uncomfortable plane I've ever been on.

Ahhh, the 747, my all-time favorite. We've had them with seating configs from 398 - 454. The 400 is the king, but the
200 was my favorite. Very logically laid out and for a plane with so many people on it, still quite comfortable. I'm going to
Manila in a couple of weeks and I still get a kick out of getting on the 747.


Jim P: They did find about 20 - 30 bodies from the AF A330 crash, and of course, bits and pieces of the plane. It is
believed that there was a problem with the speed indicator, that it may have frozen over. But, I don't know if there
has been a definite cause cited.

Later, Steve

[Jim Pollock]

Thanks for the update on the AF plane Steve,
I hope they do figure out exactly what caused it.  I suppose that flying into severe turbulence at too high a speed could certainly cause a plane that size to break up in flight.  I hope the French figure out how to heat their pitot tubes so they don't ice over.

Jim Pollock 

[Greg Howie]

I saw this picture of the rudder in one piece that they recovered. I would bet it came off before the crash . Planes do not fly with out rudders . this picture looks similar the the American  A 300 crash

[john e. holliday]

Greg, have you ever seen pictures of the B-17 during the war years.  No telling how many came back without rudders,  half stab gone and maybe two engines out.  I beleive the ones we seen go down was mainly the demise of the flight crew.  Then there is the story of a B-52 on routine mission loosing part of its rudder.

[Ted Fancher]

Hey Ted,

Has anyone ever figured out what happened to that British Airways or Air France flight from Brazil to France in an AB 330?  I think that was the intended route anyway.  It just disappeared into the Atlantic in the convergence zone.    I don't think they ever found a single person on that flight and very few parts of the plane.

Jim Pollock    

Jim,

I don't think there's been a final report on that accident.  To the best of my recollection the information available seems to point toward some flight deck "magic" anomalies including loss of autoflight and auto throttle functions and a reversion to a flight mode known as "alternate law" as opposed to "normal law".  (I'm not fluent with Air Bus language so I can't speculate on what impact that would have on the flight crew--we've got a couple of USAir veterans who handle any technical airbus reports).  There were also faults in at least one ADIRU (AB lingo for an inertial reference unit) and a number of other technical glitches including the oft reported problem with the Air Data System and a pitot tube providing inaccurate readings.

The above coupled with a serious weather system (I expect it was in the vicinity of the Subtropical Convergence Zone in the vicinity of the equator...that would be the right sort of route for it) and--my speculation from memory here--navigation issues from the disrupted systems seem to point to a combination of turbulence, loss of system functionality and loss of situational awareness (perhaps related to airspeed control), etc. as contributing to the final loss of control.

The event is being investigated by the BEA (as I understand it, sort of the French version of the NTSB) and I don't routinely research anything there.  BEA stands for something like the Bureau of Enquiry and Analysis or something like that.  A google search would probably find some more accurate information.

Ted

[Ted Fancher]

Greg, have you ever seen pictures of the B-17 during the war years.  No telling how many came back without rudders,  half stab gone and maybe two engines out.  I beleive the ones we seen go down was mainly the demise of the flight crew.  Then there is the story of a B-52 on routine mission loosing part of its rudder.

Hi Doc,

There is a significant difference between the -17 era airplanes and the Airbuses.  The buses are fly be wire airplanes and don't have the aerodynamic stability built into them that was part and parcel of early aviation designs.  The primary reason for developing these sorts of systems was to allow further aft centers of gravity which reduces the download on the tails required for stability on forward CG airplanes.  This removed the "dead weight" of the negative lift of the tail from the load the wing has to carry and reduced fuel costs significantly.  A great idea but one that obviously needs to be addressed with some subtlety. Such airplanes pretty much need the control surfaces and the avionics that control them to maintain stability.  

There is also the issue of some degree of "fragility" of the rudders as noted with the Airbus crash out of JFK shortly after 9/11.

Ted

[Andrew Tinsley]

Hallo,
     
  I am not a pilot, nor in the Industry, just a satisfied customer on both Boeing and Airbus planes. As a passenger, I can see little difference between the aircraft that people praise or roundly condemn! If the Airbus was so bad, it simply wouldn't sell, so draw your own conclusions.
  As far as Ted's comments on unfair government subsidies. Boeing made and still make I believe, a large number of transport and refuelling planes for the USAF. Up till quite recent times, there has been no chance of foreign firms getting a slice of this pie. I think that may go some way to redress the claim of unfair subsidies. I may be totally wrong on this one and if so, I am sure that Ted will put me right.

Andrew.

[Balsa Butcher]

Am I wrong here but didn't the Airbus lose its entire vertical stab AND rudder? Big difference between that and "just" losing a rudder. 

[Clancy Arnold]

I did a Google search for Air France A330 crash.

There is a complete report up to the latest information on the crash of Flight 447.

Very interesting in that it appears, per the report, from the condition of the recovered rudder that the aircraft was in a level flight condition at a steep angle of descent when it hit the water.  What ever that means.  Maybe Ted can explain "level flight" and "steep descent" at the same time. 

Very interesting read and references to other accidents of a similar nature.

I recommend you all read it and then you can have a better understanding of what happened.
Clancy

[Bill Heher]

Hallo,
     
  I am not a pilot, nor in the Industry, just a satisfied customer on both Boeing and Airbus planes. As a passenger, I can see little difference between the aircraft that people praise or roundly condemn! If the Airbus was so bad, it simply wouldn't sell, so draw your own conclusions.
  As far as Ted's comments on unfair government subsidies. Boeing made and still make I believe, a large number of transport and refuelling planes for the USAF. Up till quite recent times, there has been no chance of foreign firms getting a slice of this pie. I think that may go some way to redress the claim of unfair subsidies. I may be totally wrong on this one and if so, I am sure that Ted will put me right.

Andrew.

Andrew- it is true that Boeing builds various Cargo / Tanker / Transport aircraft for the US military - but they are  not on " no bid - no competition" basis. When the US had multiple airframe manufacturers they all competed for contracts, and we have also had non-US made aircraft in our inventory at various times. Boeing also has joint ventures with many companies / countries to produce sub-assemblies and parts for their aircraft.

Now that consolidation  / economic competition has basically made the world into a " 2 stop shopping" trip for anything larger than a Regional jet the fact is  - Airbus is able to, and does bid on US  military contracts.

I for one do not support having a foreign " Entity" ( a Govt, Corporation, consortium, whatever) being in a position to impact the United States with respect to the use and movement of our armed forces. I can easily foresee a situation where the US - (after buying equipment from a foreign party), is subject to attempts to by said foreing parties or their government to change it's stance on some issue- or face the possibility that the planes / widgets / whatzzitts will stop working, and won't come back on-line until we meet some condition that was never part of the original purchase agreement.   I know from my point of view- " If it's a Boeing- it will be going!".

[Ted Fancher]

Hallo,
     
  I am not a pilot, nor in the Industry, just a satisfied customer on both Boeing and Airbus planes. As a passenger, I can see little difference between the aircraft that people praise or roundly condemn! If the Airbus was so bad, it simply wouldn't sell, so draw your own conclusions.
  As far as Ted's comments on unfair government subsidies. Boeing made and still make I believe, a large number of transport and refuelling planes for the USAF. Up till quite recent times, there has been no chance of foreign firms getting a slice of this pie. I think that may go some way to redress the claim of unfair subsidies. I may be totally wrong on this one and if so, I am sure that Ted will put me right.

Andrew.

Hi Andrew,

It's clearly a matter of perspective, I suppose. 

The biggest difference I can see is that the US Government "buys" US built airplanes to supply the needs of our armed forces in the defense of the country and its citizens.  This is among the three "clearly proper" functions of a government, i.e. the physical protection of its citizens: 1. from foreign aggression and, 2. from unlawful acts of other citizens (the third being the adjudication of  disputes between those citizens).  In other words, the US Government is a "customer" which pays the going rate for airplanes to fulfill a necessary function of their existence.

To me that is different from a government paying some share of the costs of the production of a product so that "other" consumers (the world's airlines) are economically predisposed to purchase those products because they are (artificially) less expensive than the (unsubsidized) competition.  Now, had England and France provided their bottom line incentive by buying Airbuses configured to function in similar form there would be no disagreement. They chose the different route instead.  From a Eurocentric point of view I can certainly understand the attractiveness of doing so, as the expectation was that, over time, the boost to Airbus' bottom line in the short term would allow them to gain a foothold in a world wide marketplace at tax payer expense rather than the consortium's.  That's pretty much how it has played out.

From a strictly laissez-faire capitalist point of view, however, doing so was playing sort of fast and loose with the "rules"--of which, of course--there are few in the international marketplace.

It is what it is, however, and from a purely practical point of view Airbus has made quite an impact on the air transportation industry by being much more aggressive in technological advancement than the more cautious competition.  There is, of course, some room for discussion as to whether initially all the "progressive" steps they undertook were as completely vetted as might have been desired.  That's sort of what the current discussion is about.

Ted

p.s. I share Bill's conviction that to the greatest degree possible nations should self support the tools necessary for their defense and for the exact reasons he articulates. 

[Brett Buck]

Very interesting in that it appears, per the report, from the condition of the recovered rudder that the aircraft was in a level flight condition at a steep angle of descent when it hit the water.  What ever that means.  Maybe Ted can explain "level flight" and "steep descent" at the same time.  

   I think I can figure that one out - wings level, but nose down, i.e. it wasn't rolled or yawed to any great extent.

    I guarantee they didn't try too hard to find the data recorders on that one. Made a show of it, but I think they were quite happy to have that one go unexplained. BTW, for a fly-by-wire, and given that it's an Airbus, I would expect that it had adaptive control, i.e. it changed it's control response based on the sensed dynamic pressure. Iced over pitot tube  = anomalously low dynamic pressure = high gain control system. Too much gain = unstable. Very similar to Mike Adam's X-15 crash, although in that case it determined the "Q" from  the IMU rate and altitude - which showed it at a much lower dynamic pressure that it really was. That's why no one wanted to use the phrase "adaptive control" for about the last 45 years.

     My guess, from 25+ years of analyzing controls problems with minimal data, it iced up the pitot tube, the gains went too high, it went OK until it started getting knocked around in turbulence, and then went unstable, and at some point (probably on a stall recovery) it pulled the wings off. Then it was a kingfisher job into the ocean.

   Of course this analysis could suffer from the "if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail" phenomenon.

      Brett


p.s. when I was writing, it all seemed pretty familiar - this ssw discussion:

http://www.clstunt.com/htdocs/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=302103&mesg_id=302103#302560

appears to predict what might happen if an Airbus pitot tube freezes over.

[Paul Smith]

The fight recorder, a tape recorder in an ammo box, is 1960 technology that should have been replaced by 1990.

In 2010, a satellite uplink to an offboard date recorder is where the airlines should be.  Maybe they're not so sure they want the real reasons documented.

[Howard Rush]

It is what it is, however, and from a purely practical point of view Airbus has made quite an impact on the air transportation industry by being much more aggressive in technological advancement than the more cautious competition. 

I wouldn't characterize Airbus's way of doing things as more technologically advanced than its competition.  Airbus airplanes do appear to pilots to be more different it their operation from, for example, a 707 than do modern Boeing airplanes.  The 777 has a big control column and wheel in front of the pilot and has throttle levers that move when the engine thrust changes, just like the old days, whereas Airbuses have sidesticks in place of columns and autothrottles that don't backdrive the throttle levers.  Does this mean that Airbuses are more up to date, or did they just take the easy way out?  The 777 is a fly-by-wire airplane.  It could have used a video game joystick, but Boeing chose to retain the column and wheel because its pilots recommended them after evaluating sidesticks.  In the case of the autothrottle, it's hard to make an authrottle that minimizes control inputs the way a pilot would.  To backdrive the throttle levers to show the pilot what the autothrottle is doing while not continuously wiggling them is nontrivial.  It's easier not to have the autothrottle move the throttle levers, but it deprives the pilot of awareness.  The above is merely my opinion, based on my recollection from many years ago. 

[Bill Adair]

Well put Howard. 

No one else seems to think that flying an Airbus with your left hand is a problem (for right handed pilots).

I have trouble brushing my teeth with my left hand, and that ain't near as complicated! 

Add to that, the fact that the Airbus autopilot system does not instantly relinquish control to the pilot in an emergency. As far as I know, it still requires the pilot to select manual mode on their version of a Mode Control Panel. Try finding that button (or knob) instantly, with high G levels, or in a panic with any amount of impaired vision.

So we have throttles that don't always throttle, brakes that don't always brake, control sticks that don't always control, and vertical stabilizers that don't always stabilize. What more could one ask for in technological advances? 

Thanks very much, but I'll fly cross country and back on Boeing, to avoid even a short flight in and Airbus.

Bill

[Steve Thomas]

No one else seems to think that flying an Airbus with your left hand is a problem (for right handed pilots).

Hi Bill, that's because when it comes to the right handed/left handed thing, there's no difference between a Boeing and an Airbus.  The thrust levers are still in the middle, so the guy in the left seat is using his left hand for the flight controls and his right hand for the engines - regardless of whether the jet was built in Seattle or Toulouse.

As for the rest of it: Lets's just say I could be earning more flying an A330 or an A380, but I'm still getting around in the good old 767.  I want my thrust levers to move, and I want to be in charge of the jet, not the other way around!  (On the other hand, I'd prefer a stick to a wheel - given that proviso on who is in charge of the jet.)  Qantas had a very nasty A330 incident about 18 months ago, where the jet twice severely pitched nose-down, even after the autopilot was disconnected and the pilot was trying to fly manually.  Not a nice feeling, to have full backstick with a nose-down pitch rate and a windscreen full of earth...  It was attributed to a faulty air data computer which should have been 'voted out' but for some reason wasn't, and resulted in quite a few injuries in the cabin.  Fortunately the guys were able to regain control and got the thing down safely.

Interesting to hear Brett's opinion on how hard they tried to find the Air France flight recorders.  I thought exactly the same thing, but figured I was just getting cynical with middle age.

[Ted Fancher]

I wouldn't characterize Airbus's way of doing things as more technologically advanced than its competition.  Airbus airplanes do appear to pilots to be more different it their operation from, for example, a 707 than do modern Boeing airplanes.  The 777 has a big control column and wheel in front of the pilot and has throttle levers that move when the engine thrust changes, just like the old days, whereas Airbuses have sidesticks in place of columns and autothrottles that don't backdrive the throttle levers.  Does this mean that Airbuses are more up to date, or did they just take the easy way out?  The 777 is a fly-by-wire airplane.  It could have used a video game joystick, but Boeing chose to retain the column and wheel because its pilots recommended them after evaluating sidesticks.  In the case of the autothrottle, it's hard to make an authrottle that minimizes control inputs the way a pilot would.  To backdrive the throttle levers to show the pilot what the autothrottle is doing while not continuously wiggling them is nontrivial.  It's easier not to have the autothrottle move the throttle levers, but it deprives the pilot of awareness.  The above is merely my opinion, based on my recollection from many years ago. 

Don't get me wrong, Howard.  I'm a huge Boeing fan and feel that their approach to "progress", if that is the right word, was a wiser and more pragmatic solution.  The best example I can think of was their "piecemeal" approach to fly by wire systems; going a step at a time with spoilers, then autothrottles, etc. before going the full magila with the 777.  They have always taken a step by step approach to these things improving each subsequent advancement with the experiences of the previous technologies.

Airbus, on the other hand, moved rapidly in an attempt to set themselves apart from the competition (and paid some price for it in terms of events and discussions such as the one we're having now).  Combined in part with the subsidies they came to the table early on with an airplane much lighter by virtue of the fly by wire and extensive use of composites, etc.  which made them economically attractive from both a purchase price and operational costs.  In addition, their design decision to operate the airplanes with further aft CGs to reduce tail download and increase payload commensurately was, I think, a quantum leap in the genre (you can correct me if I'm wrong on this).  Once again, a significant reduction (in large scale terms) in operating costs by increasing specific fuel consumption.  Of course, doing so made the aircraft more demanding of technology for stability and flyability. 

Again, this has proven to have been the unexpected second sharp side of the sword for them--this thread, again, having been bolstered by discussions of some shortcomings in the technology.

No, I'm a very big Boeing fan who has admired and profited personally and professionally from the equivalent of the third pig's strong brick house.  As somebody else noted, "Boeing is always going" (with the noted current delays in the 787 delivery...although the decision to insure the thing is right before putting it in service was, once again, the right thing to do.)

The foregoing was a "lay" pilot's observations.  Feel free to straighten me out if I've confused my facts, Howard.

Ted

[john e. holliday]

This right hand and left thing makes think about when I was still working.  My relief, who was left handed because I would have our position at the CRT set up for me.  I am right handed.  So one day I just left everything the way he had it.  In no time at all I was doing everything left handed except for writing.  I have had several people ask me if I was left handed because of the way I use the computor mouse.

[Jim Pollock]

I used to put the mouse on the left side of the computer screen, well, because I am left handed, footed and so forth. My wife is right handed and put it on the right side of the screen.  Well, I got tired of moving it so just learned how to maneuver it right handed.  It really wasn't a big deal.  I still haven't learned how to throw or kick right handed or footed though!

Jim Pollock