Boeing's going nut ?

[car_owner]

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2003/q4/nr_031013g.html
:confused:

[747FOCAL]

It shows just how stupid Boeing management is by globalizing the 7E7. Helping foreign companies learn how to build a revolutionary airplane so they can turn around and help Airbus do it is insanity. :mad:

[Anti Skid On]

Boeing [NYSE:BA] will dramatically reduce the time to move components of its new 7E7 passenger plane to final assembly from suppliers by adopting air transportation as its primary method of parts delivery

Like Airbus who already ship the wings from Wales to Toulouse by air - if you can't beat them, join them! (That's why they made the Super Guppy out of the A3something or other (can't remember, someone will know, but it is a weird looking thing!)

[seacue]

Boeing has had major subassemblies built overseas for years. Look at where 777 assemblies originate.

This is partly to share the financial risk. Boeing has to please its bankers, which further limits the depth of its pockets.

[stormin norman]

Its not suprising.
When they thought of the Sonic cruiser, it was dead in the water before it even hit the drawing board.Boeing used to have the edge in innovative thinking but not anymore,now the 707
that was ahead of its time !

[Wizofoz]

I disagree.

By comitting to the A380 airbus is building just another aircraft, but bigger, in a market where no-one was really screaming for such an aircraft. Don't get me wrong, it will fly and it will sell, but in numbers to make it profitable? By sticking with it's "one flight deck fits all" policy, Airbus is actually commiting all it's furture aircraft to 80's compatible technology.

Now look at the 7E7. THIS is a cutting edge technology aircraft. Composite airframe, no bleed engines, 8500NM range at 30% cut in DOCs.

It may not be bigger or faster, just potentially much more profitable.

If you were an airline exec, which would YOU prefer?

[Caslance]

Now look at the 7E7. I have - and it doesn't half look like an A330!:ok:

[Volume]

And how is Boeing going to name this Plane ?

Jumboluga ;)

[CR2]

Anti Skid On Its the Beluga, a converted A300-600.

pics (http://www.airbustransport.com/)

[BahrainLad]

By sticking with it's "one flight deck fits all" policy, Airbus is actually commiting all it's furture aircraft to 80's compatible technology.

Oh come on. The 777 cockpit is based on the 747-400, and is very advanced. The 7E7 is likely to have a similar cockpit to the 777 because it's what airlines want: commonality.

But commonality doesn't exclude innovation. It's as much about the way systems work as what the cockpit actually looks like.

Pray, how can you say that this (A380 cockpit) (http://membres.lycos.fr/airbus/a3xx_poste.jpg) is 80s technology?

It may look similar to this (A340) (http://www.airliners.net/open.file/429009/L/) but rest assured it's right up to date.

Also, the A380 will make extensive use of new materials in construction (including an increased use of GLARE than previously planned).

The big problem with the 7E7 is that most of the op. cost improvements come from the engine technologies. Now, engine manufacturers are not going to torpedo potentially 50% of their sales by exclusivising this technology to Boeing, so what's to stop Airbus hanging these new engines off an A330 (already a highly efficient airframe). Bang goes Boeing's advantage........

[superspotter]

Wizofoz, you talk utter bo*****s!!

"By comitting to the A380 airbus is building just another aircraft, but bigger, in a market where no-one was really screaming for such an aircraft. Don't get me wrong, it will fly and it will sell, but in numbers to make it profitable? By sticking with it's "one flight deck fits all" policy, Airbus is actually commiting all it's furture aircraft to 80's compatible technology.

Now look at the 7E7. THIS is a cutting edge technology aircraft. Composite airframe, no bleed engines, 8500NM range at 30% cut in DOCs."

Nobody wants the A380? Is that why its selling worldwide?
Thats a brilliant statement!! Sticking with a one flight deck policy is the wrong way to go!! I think you mean that you are pissed off that Boeing didnt think of it!! Better sticking to 80's compatible technology that 60's technology............Take yourself off down to an American truck dealer and have a look inside their wagons.They look great from the outside but sit yourself inside one and have a look around at the awful ergonomics straight from the 50's!! Is that how Boeing build their aircraft?
Also just take a look around you in the street, funny isnt it how all american cars these days look very european!! But look under the surface at the awful finish, bolts sticking out ready to pierce your scalp if you happen to stick your head in the boot/trunk like I almost did!! Wouldnt get that on a euro car!!

Lets face it, Boeing is a dead duck! Oh how it showed itself up announcing the Sonic Cruiser, basically throwing its dummy out of the pram because it was usurped by Airbus.Is the 7E7 going to go the same way as Sonic?? Cutting edge technology eh? Composites eh? I wonder...........who was using composites first before Boeing had even heard of them??

Boeing really need the 7E7 to work because there current products are not wanted any more are they? The 757 about to disappear, the 753 was a really good seller! The 747's drying up, they are getting desperate offering a 717-300!! How about that for 60's technology!! I think I'll shut up now!! I just get sick and tired of all the homophobia on here!





:sad: :sad: :sad: :sad:

[WelshFlyer]

Dose anyone know if this new bird will be fly-by-wire?

WF.

[Wizofoz]

ERR...

Just wondering if anyone thinks I actually owe superspotter a reply to his insulting, rude and pointless rant, or is not liking HumVees somehow equating to Boeings being rubbish stupid enough to shoot itself in the foot?

[747FOCAL]

Wizofoz,

I hate to be the one to tell you, but the 7E7 still has a huge chance that it will become a phantom and never see the light of day. I have my issues with the A380 as well and do not think it will be a profitable aircraft for 15-20 years, the 747-400 Special Freighter will see to that(you could get 4 of those for the price of 1 A380).

Now to the "innovations" on the 7E7....... All composite airframe, uggh, just ask the Starship people how smart that is. Even now the FAA has real issues convincing themselves their and Boeing's long range failure prediction techniques is sound. We could easily end up producing an airplane that is a throw away 10 years from now. Worse yet, we build the equivelent of square windows and have a few hull failures in flight and bye bye company in these days of litigation.

Bleedless engines.......are nothing new. GE been doing that for years. :rolleyes:

A380 will set records in many ways. It will be a great package freighter. It will suck as an outsized freight hauler because you will cube out before you cum out. I have said this before, but I believe the A380 will also, if it passes PAX evac, set a record for the most people killed after the crash and may be the first aircraft that kills several people during one incident where they deploy the slides for a minor reason and the people on the upper deck pile on top of each other at 30 miles per hour.
:(

[Wizofoz]

super spotter, read 747FOCALs reply and learn how to carry on a civilised debate whilst not sounding like a prat.

747, it may well be as you say, though knowledge of composites has come a long way since the Starship. Indeed rayethon has stated the the starship was worth it for the leasons learned and now applied on the Premier 1 and Hawker Horizon, both all-composite fuselages and certified.

I agree that the 7E7 (will it be the 787 do you think?) is risky, simply because it IS cutting edge. As such, though, my tip is that if it works it will put Boeing firmly in front of the race (not that it was ever anywhere else IMHO!).

[747FOCAL]

Wizofoz,

Thanks for the props(as he tips his hat). I think you have read some of what I have with your comments about Raytheon and their lessons learned.

One thing that we should add though is the fact that the Premier 1 and the Hawker have metallic wings and the 7E7 is proposed to have composite wings and nacelles. Ask Southwest what they thought of their composite nacelles on the 737. :{ I really think you need some metal(at least the main spar) in a wing until our prediction capabilities mature. :8

You are correct though, if Boeing pulls it off, the 7e7 will be the new tentpole. :ok:

[squarkident]

Looks to me like a 747 with one of those aftermarket "VW camper van" things stuck on the top. Hardly innovative;-)

[Onan the Clumsy]

Wasn't that tail that fell off the 767 over Queens a composite tail?

I mean I know it's because the FO was practising his Arthur Murray dance routine on the rudders and they'll probably never listen to 1940s big band music, so there won't be any hand jive on the ailerons and it'll probably be ok.

Now THAT's talking b0ll0cks.


Still, the tail WAS a composite right?

[Golf Charlie Charlie]

Onan, it was an A300-600R, not a 767. But, yes, it was a composite vertical stabiliser.

[Torquelink]

Wizofoz- just because the displays look similar doesn't mean they are. The A380 will have very lightweight, low power, low heat, thin flat panel lcd displays showing similar, standard, symbology to the CRT displays in earlier family members. When a new format standard is agreed (if ever) it can easily loaded onto any family member. That way the aircraft flight decks will remain pretty much up to date.

And as for crew commonality, Boeing is talking about a differences course between the 7E7 and the 777 of about the same duration as between the A320 and A340.

[Wizofoz]

Hi Torque,

I certainly wasn't suggesting that crew comonality was a bad idea! I'm not certain it is as big a selling point as Airbus (or, for that matter Boeing with 757/767) would like it to be, but obviously it is an advantage. I've just felt that while Boeing can use a clean sheet and be as inovative as they like (if the end result can be made backward-compatible all the better), Airbus are constrained to make rather convential aircraft in order that they can be made to look (display wise) and fly like their previous products.

I feel they have made a huge commitment to an aircraft that will cost a LOT to develop, and does anyone think they'll ever sell 2000 of them, or even 1000?

[ATC Watcher]

Wizo , you said the 7E7 will have 30% reduction in DOC , but compared to what ?
The direct opponent of the 7E7 is the A330, an aircraft that is already advanced.
Airbus is claiming "only" 17% reduction in DOC between the A380 and the 747-400. 8% of those are due to the engines ( which the competition will be able to get as well later ) large part of the rest is due to the size difference .(the bigger the size, the lower the DOC / ton ot pax )
Difference in airframe technology between the 2 is 35 years .
Diference in airframe between the 7E7 and the A330 is 10 years. and for the same size/pax nrs.
the numbers do not match at all... and Boeing knows it as well.

I guess the 7E7 will join the sonic cruiser. A real pity because
the 767 is not selling very well anymore, ( understatement :hmm: )and it is not good to have a single manufacturer in the end.

[mutt]

We have the 7E7 sales team showing up in a couple of days, have they actually managed to get any airlines to order this aircraft yet?


Mutt.

[747FOCAL]

I think a few Japanese airlines have tenatively ordered a few.

[Lu Zuckerman]

I’m a great supporter of Boeing and after working on the design of the A-310 I am a detractor of Airbus technology however regarding composites on any aircraft they have a very serious problem. Here is an example. During the production of a 767 which has a composite fin an overhead crane carrying a large jig hit the fin with a glancing blow. They went up to inspect the damage and found the surface to be slightly abraded and they (QC) were going to just pass if off. One of the technicians went up into the fin and found that the skin had “oil-canned” in about 8-10’ and sprung out again to the static position. However when being pushed inward quite a few stiffening members had been separated from the inside of the skin breaking the bond between the stiffeners and the supporting external skin.

Here is another problem discovered on the V-22. The methodology specified by the Navy required the use of specific repair compounds and the repair was to be verified by X-ray examination. The bonding turned out to be opaque to X-rays and the repairs could not be verified. Also because of the manufacturing technology large composite airframe parts must be returned to the manufacturer for re-manufacture in the same jigs and autoclaves that are used to produce the structural members. If a large section such as a composite spar suffers damage the aircraft must be grounded until a new wing can be installed. Granted, composites are stronger than their metal counterparts but when a metal part is damaged it can be repaired on aircraft. If a composite part fails it must be repaired off aircraft.


:E

[GrantT]

I didn't think ordering has begun just yet, i could be wrong though.