C17 v A400M
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C17 v A400M
Would be interested to get the 'front ender's' opinion on the merits of the Airbus against the C17 in the Tac role. The C17's capability in the Strat role is undisputed, will the A400M cut the mustard?
Lupus Domesticus
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A400 = Airbus = frequently fall out of sky for no readily explained reason.
C17 = Boeing = very seldom do this.
No contest, really.
BW's own sneaky suspicion: Airbus = made by Europeans. This not good. Machines should be made only by Yanks, Poms, Swedes and Japs.....Europe should stick to making things it is good at, ie food, wine, and love.
Yes, I know the Germans are an exception. There is one to prove every rule.
Hope this doesn't earn me a reprimand. If it does I apologise and I won't do it again.
C17 = Boeing = very seldom do this.
No contest, really.
BW's own sneaky suspicion: Airbus = made by Europeans. This not good. Machines should be made only by Yanks, Poms, Swedes and Japs.....Europe should stick to making things it is good at, ie food, wine, and love.
Yes, I know the Germans are an exception. There is one to prove every rule.
Hope this doesn't earn me a reprimand. If it does I apologise and I won't do it again.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The A400 bunch has spent a lot of time looking around the J. If they do as we suggested and go for the same radar and a similar flight deck then in terms of getting the load to where it needs to be the a400 might well prove superior. Obviously in terms of the load the 400 will not be a match for a c-17 – but then is that the sort of load you’ll want to airdrop on a regular basis?
ADUX
Who can tell? At the moment we'd be comparing the ACTUAL performance of the C-17 against the CLAIMED performance of the A-400. Manufacturers are remarkably consitent in exaggerating the abilities of their yet to be built steeds!
As my thoughts go, the C-17 is simply TOO big for the full tactical role. By the time it's dropped all onto a massive DZ you'd need a load of vehicles just to collect it all again! (Similarly, as far as I'm concerned, the C-130 is too small to carry the loads that are wanted.) Leaves the A400 filling a niche, if it's ever built. Will it be any good? Almost undoubtedly
!
BW - the German's ARE the exception proving the rule as they're the ones delaying procurement!
Who can tell? At the moment we'd be comparing the ACTUAL performance of the C-17 against the CLAIMED performance of the A-400. Manufacturers are remarkably consitent in exaggerating the abilities of their yet to be built steeds!
As my thoughts go, the C-17 is simply TOO big for the full tactical role. By the time it's dropped all onto a massive DZ you'd need a load of vehicles just to collect it all again! (Similarly, as far as I'm concerned, the C-130 is too small to carry the loads that are wanted.) Leaves the A400 filling a niche, if it's ever built. Will it be any good? Almost undoubtedly
!BW - the German's ARE the exception proving the rule as they're the ones delaying procurement!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Propulike - you make a valid point about the C-17 being a vulnerable (and costly) asset. The A400M might well represent a good compromise. However don't dismiss the role of the C130 - not all operations require half the army to be airdropped behind enemy lines in one go. If current trends are anything to go by there will be an increasing need for drop smaller loads of specialist troops. What we need is a well-balanced and economical AT force with strategic capabilities as well as tactical - but this isn't going to be achievable with just one ac type. Personally I don't think that even 2 aircraft types will provide what we need and I'd rather see:
-a few C-17s
-a dozen A400Ms
-and lovely J models as far as the eye can see.......
-a few C-17s
-a dozen A400Ms
-and lovely J models as far as the eye can see.......
Last edited by RoboAlbert; 20th Oct 2002 at 17:20.
Like the idea of 3 types, but can't help thinking this is where we always go wrong. The political infighting of MODwould give us a fleet of (dependant on timescale):
Nimrod MRA4
VC10/Tristar/FSTA
ASTOR
C17
C130J
A400M
E3D
HS125
BAe146
Nimrod R
Canberra
And thats inn 2Gp alone. The infrastructure costs of this diversity will be huge. Complete lack of commonality in AT/AAR/CSAO etc (think thats the new buzzword) for aircrew, engineeers and logistics. Surely, we need to standardize on less airframe types.
At least the FJ mates will only have GR4, EFA and F35 eventually. The there's the RW world too!
No wonder we're always broke for cash!
Nimrod MRA4
VC10/Tristar/FSTA
ASTOR
C17
C130J
A400M
E3D
HS125
BAe146
Nimrod R
Canberra
And thats inn 2Gp alone. The infrastructure costs of this diversity will be huge. Complete lack of commonality in AT/AAR/CSAO etc (think thats the new buzzword) for aircrew, engineeers and logistics. Surely, we need to standardize on less airframe types.
At least the FJ mates will only have GR4, EFA and F35 eventually. The there's the RW world too!
No wonder we're always broke for cash!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: roughly near Everleigh DZ
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C-17 vs A400M
Er... the C-17 exists, and works.
propulike. - Albert is as big as you want to go for the full tac role -trust me.
If we're still looking at dropping a brigade then it's 130s for the 300lb retarded meat bombs and 17s for their wagons and guns, for how much longer? don't know, but even Belgium has a Para Regt plus we've got a lot of brass with para wings and red berets.
Personally I think it's an allweather day/night strip capability that we need whether its natural surface for Albert or something a little larger for our heavier 4 jet friends, if ,of course the contracts chaps included "getting it slightly dirty" in the lease agreement.
A-400M, - too big to be a Herk, too small to be a C-17 and er doesn't exist yet...... unless?
propulike. - Albert is as big as you want to go for the full tac role -trust me.
If we're still looking at dropping a brigade then it's 130s for the 300lb retarded meat bombs and 17s for their wagons and guns, for how much longer? don't know, but even Belgium has a Para Regt plus we've got a lot of brass with para wings and red berets.
Personally I think it's an allweather day/night strip capability that we need whether its natural surface for Albert or something a little larger for our heavier 4 jet friends, if ,of course the contracts chaps included "getting it slightly dirty" in the lease agreement.
A-400M, - too big to be a Herk, too small to be a C-17 and er doesn't exist yet...... unless?
Blue Wolf,
You really are a bit of a clot, aren't you? All those atomic tests in the Pacific have obviously addled your brain....
Your absurd contention that "Airbus = frequently fall out of sky for no readily explained reason." is not supported by the stats and may even be actionable. Whereas the claim that "Boeing = very seldom do this" seems to be gently contradicted by the many various 737 rudder incidents and 747 fuel tank explosions.
As for the thought that Europeans can't make aeroplanes, tell that to the companies who produced the Caravelle, Concorde, Fokker F27 and F28, Mirage III, Mirage Deux Mille, Falcon, CASA 101, the Macchi MB326 and 339, etc. etc. And that's ignoring the workmanlike but more than merely adequate Atlantic, Transall, CASA 212, etc. As compared to the Japs whom you hold up as a great example of modern plane-making......?
You're right about the C-17 to an extent, however. It's a great aeroplane (though a Boeing product only through industrial consolidation) while the jury must be out on the A400M because it remains to be proven. But it's probably not affordable enough to be able to fulfill all the requirements, and in a UK context the real choice may be between more C-130Js and new A400Ms.
You really are a bit of a clot, aren't you? All those atomic tests in the Pacific have obviously addled your brain....
Your absurd contention that "Airbus = frequently fall out of sky for no readily explained reason." is not supported by the stats and may even be actionable. Whereas the claim that "Boeing = very seldom do this" seems to be gently contradicted by the many various 737 rudder incidents and 747 fuel tank explosions.
As for the thought that Europeans can't make aeroplanes, tell that to the companies who produced the Caravelle, Concorde, Fokker F27 and F28, Mirage III, Mirage Deux Mille, Falcon, CASA 101, the Macchi MB326 and 339, etc. etc. And that's ignoring the workmanlike but more than merely adequate Atlantic, Transall, CASA 212, etc. As compared to the Japs whom you hold up as a great example of modern plane-making......?
You're right about the C-17 to an extent, however. It's a great aeroplane (though a Boeing product only through industrial consolidation) while the jury must be out on the A400M because it remains to be proven. But it's probably not affordable enough to be able to fulfill all the requirements, and in a UK context the real choice may be between more C-130Js and new A400Ms.
Lupus Domesticus
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello Jacko old chap! It 's been too long, it really has. Or maybe that should be not long enough....
Anyhoo.
My reference to Japs was to machinery making in general, and not specifically to aircraft, as is obvious to anyone actually reading the post with the intention of taking the meaning at face value, rather than twisting it out of context in order to prop up some spurious argument.
Mitsubishi were always hopeless at building planes, weren't they? And did you mean to include Concorde in "Jacko's All-Time Big List of Aeroplanes Built with French Involvement Which Have Never Crashed", or was that a slip of bias?
As for stats; it remains my contention that the ratio of crashes due to non-external causes to aircraft hours flown is considerably more favourable to the Boeing company than it is to Airbus Industries.
Actionable? I do beg your pardon my good sir, but who is being a clot?
Nuke tests...well, who can say. Maybe you're right. What's your excuse? Perhaps all those years of eating British beef....but then that could account for me too...
Anyhoo.
My reference to Japs was to machinery making in general, and not specifically to aircraft, as is obvious to anyone actually reading the post with the intention of taking the meaning at face value, rather than twisting it out of context in order to prop up some spurious argument.
Mitsubishi were always hopeless at building planes, weren't they? And did you mean to include Concorde in "Jacko's All-Time Big List of Aeroplanes Built with French Involvement Which Have Never Crashed", or was that a slip of bias?
As for stats; it remains my contention that the ratio of crashes due to non-external causes to aircraft hours flown is considerably more favourable to the Boeing company than it is to Airbus Industries.
Actionable? I do beg your pardon my good sir, but who is being a clot?
Nuke tests...well, who can say. Maybe you're right. What's your excuse? Perhaps all those years of eating British beef....but then that could account for me too...
'C17 v A400M' rather misses the point. It's like 'British beef' v. 'New Zealand lamb' - both very fine but not the same thing!
C17 is an excellent aeroplane but rather too big to replace C130K on a one-for-one basis. C130J is too slow and too small for many strategic applications, in my view, whereas A400M promises to be an excellent compromise if only the Tchermans would stop contemplating their navels and commit to the programme as they've always intended. It will be a veru Gucci aeroplane, 100kts TAS faster than the C130J and able to cruise at M0.7 in the mid-30s. It'll have a very state-of-the-art flight deck, something even Boeing admit that Airbooooos are very good at. Plus if it was fitted with 2 AAR pods it would have an AAR capability very close to that of the VC10....
Airbus v Boeing - ask Easyjet why they've gone for the A319 rather than more 737s? Right horse for that course!
Oh - and if you don't service an aeroplane properly, take-off well over your RTOW, suffer an engine failure near V1 and your FE shuts the engine down without being ordered whilst it's still producing thrust, then any aeroplane will be likely to crash whether Boeing, Airbus or Concorde.......
C17 is an excellent aeroplane but rather too big to replace C130K on a one-for-one basis. C130J is too slow and too small for many strategic applications, in my view, whereas A400M promises to be an excellent compromise if only the Tchermans would stop contemplating their navels and commit to the programme as they've always intended. It will be a veru Gucci aeroplane, 100kts TAS faster than the C130J and able to cruise at M0.7 in the mid-30s. It'll have a very state-of-the-art flight deck, something even Boeing admit that Airbooooos are very good at. Plus if it was fitted with 2 AAR pods it would have an AAR capability very close to that of the VC10....
Airbus v Boeing - ask Easyjet why they've gone for the A319 rather than more 737s? Right horse for that course!
Oh - and if you don't service an aeroplane properly, take-off well over your RTOW, suffer an engine failure near V1 and your FE shuts the engine down without being ordered whilst it's still producing thrust, then any aeroplane will be likely to crash whether Boeing, Airbus or Concorde.......
Go back and check the stats. Even if you exclude early model 737s they have a poorer record than their Airbus equivalents. The 747 does worse than the A330/340, etc. etc. Even with creative recording which blames every 737 rudder hardover on pilot error, and every fuel tank ka-boom on missiles fired by the US navy or by little green men
Beagle makes the point about Concorde, though I didn't think we were talking about aircraft which had never suffered an accident (is there a single Boeing type which would qualify, I wonder?).
I was merely pointing out that the Europeans who you despise (too liberal for you, perhaps?) have succeeded in producing some great, and commercially successful aircraft, both historically (as have Boeing) and more recently (ditto).
The Japanese, on the other hand, haven't exactly set the world alight with the quality of their indigenously designed aeroplanes since about 1942. Indeed I'm hard pressed to think of a Japanese aircraft programme that has even broken even - perhaps the YS-11? In the F-2, your beloved Mitsubishi have done an excellent job in producing an F-16 clone at roughly triple the cost, however, I have to admit!
And Hectorus, the current Boeing product line is pretty slim, while production figures are modest (there's an airline recession, in case you hadn't noticed) and without levels of support and subsidy which have attracted the interest of the WTO, Boeing would be deeply mired.
The point was that we should not knock the A400M simply because of its parentage. Indeed technically and technologically, its Airbus heritage might be expected to make it a superior aircraft. In recent years, Airbus have pushed the technology forward while Boeing have been over-conservative and risk-averse. There are grounds for knocking the A400M, of course, not least because of the partners seeming inability to actually get the programme moving.
Beagle makes the point about Concorde, though I didn't think we were talking about aircraft which had never suffered an accident (is there a single Boeing type which would qualify, I wonder?).
I was merely pointing out that the Europeans who you despise (too liberal for you, perhaps?) have succeeded in producing some great, and commercially successful aircraft, both historically (as have Boeing) and more recently (ditto).
The Japanese, on the other hand, haven't exactly set the world alight with the quality of their indigenously designed aeroplanes since about 1942. Indeed I'm hard pressed to think of a Japanese aircraft programme that has even broken even - perhaps the YS-11? In the F-2, your beloved Mitsubishi have done an excellent job in producing an F-16 clone at roughly triple the cost, however, I have to admit!
And Hectorus, the current Boeing product line is pretty slim, while production figures are modest (there's an airline recession, in case you hadn't noticed) and without levels of support and subsidy which have attracted the interest of the WTO, Boeing would be deeply mired.
The point was that we should not knock the A400M simply because of its parentage. Indeed technically and technologically, its Airbus heritage might be expected to make it a superior aircraft. In recent years, Airbus have pushed the technology forward while Boeing have been over-conservative and risk-averse. There are grounds for knocking the A400M, of course, not least because of the partners seeming inability to actually get the programme moving.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: South Lincs
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle --- think you'll find Easyjet chose not on the "right horse for the course" but much more on the nasty old subject of money (or at least estimated deltas in vfm over time). 
Airbus has given them almost 50% off the "windscreen" price for the A319s and a sweetheart deal on the support package. I think with the strong competition on the low cost market it was purely price that drove the purchase. Clearly both are extremely capable aircraft that could fulfill the role.
Airbus has given them almost 50% off the "windscreen" price for the A319s and a sweetheart deal on the support package. I think with the strong competition on the low cost market it was purely price that drove the purchase. Clearly both are extremely capable aircraft that could fulfill the role.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackonicko,
Yes I had noticed that there is an aviation recession, and have watched with keen interest the machinations of Airbus versus Boeing in the sales field, and observed the crass commercialism of the sales tactics.
A recent airline order which dumped a well established Boeing fleet in favour of a replacement Airbus fleet was indicated to have been made, “not on the technical merit of the aircraft, but simply because of the financial advantage offered.”
Many years ago a similar campaign was waged with BAC versus Boeing, and in that example the Boeing product overcame political pressure favouring British Preference, because it was a commercially superior product.
It was an eye opener to compare the professional sales technique of Boeing, with the “Old boy network” of BAC, and which professionalism was matched by the operational performance of the aircraft.
The current recess which you mention could well mean the death of either of the last two major airframe manufacturers, and if that does come to pass, we as an industry will be in a parlous state, as indeed will be the world’s economy.
I repeat, and quote:-
”Just how many of your quoted European aircraft types are current, AND commercially viable?”
Caravelle, Concorde, Fokker F27 and F28, Mirage III, Mirage Deux Mille, Falcon, CASA 101, the Macchi MB326 and 339, etc. etc. And that's ignoring the workmanlike but more than merely adequate Atlantic, Transall, CASA 212, etc.
Regards,
HectorusRex
Yes I had noticed that there is an aviation recession, and have watched with keen interest the machinations of Airbus versus Boeing in the sales field, and observed the crass commercialism of the sales tactics.
A recent airline order which dumped a well established Boeing fleet in favour of a replacement Airbus fleet was indicated to have been made, “not on the technical merit of the aircraft, but simply because of the financial advantage offered.”
Many years ago a similar campaign was waged with BAC versus Boeing, and in that example the Boeing product overcame political pressure favouring British Preference, because it was a commercially superior product.
It was an eye opener to compare the professional sales technique of Boeing, with the “Old boy network” of BAC, and which professionalism was matched by the operational performance of the aircraft.
The current recess which you mention could well mean the death of either of the last two major airframe manufacturers, and if that does come to pass, we as an industry will be in a parlous state, as indeed will be the world’s economy.
I repeat, and quote:-
”Just how many of your quoted European aircraft types are current, AND commercially viable?”
Caravelle, Concorde, Fokker F27 and F28, Mirage III, Mirage Deux Mille, Falcon, CASA 101, the Macchi MB326 and 339, etc. etc. And that's ignoring the workmanlike but more than merely adequate Atlantic, Transall, CASA 212, etc.
Regards,
HectorusRex
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
You mean as opposed to heavy American political pressure - such as recently applied to Taiwan to ensure that a proportion of their latest order went to the 747-400F? Everybody does this.
Lupus Domesticus
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko my dear fellow,
Tiresome though it is I have checked the stats yet again, and they are reasonably clear.
http://www.airdisaster.com/statistics/
"Go back and check the stats. Even if you exclude early model 737s they have a poorer record than their Airbus equivalents."
It doesn't seem to matter how I read the facts, the 737 comes out on top of anything in an Airbus equivalent.
A330, A340 and 777 don't appear in the figures because they have yet to be around long enough to record any fatals.
For the record, I don't despise Europeans, either for being too liberal or for any other reason. In fact I owe half my lineage to what is popularly regarded as one of the most liberal of European countries.
I do struggle however to retain even a facade of respect for anyone who replaces informed, reasoned and reasonable argument with unnecessary and pointless personal attacks; and replaces fact with opinion in the hopes that no-one else will have the records at their fingertips.
I'm curious, also, as how any military aircraft project can be said to have "broken even"?
BEagle is right about Concorde of course, and every statistic which mentions it is anomalous almost by definition.
Maybe the bottom line is this; there is perhaps no ideal candidate anywhere in the world, either in, or soon to be in production, which will provide a one-aircraft solution to all strategic and tactical military airlift requirements; and that being the case, it is possible that a combination of C-17 and C-130 (or C-130J) will provide as good a compromise as any.
Tiresome though it is I have checked the stats yet again, and they are reasonably clear.
http://www.airdisaster.com/statistics/
"Go back and check the stats. Even if you exclude early model 737s they have a poorer record than their Airbus equivalents."
It doesn't seem to matter how I read the facts, the 737 comes out on top of anything in an Airbus equivalent.
A330, A340 and 777 don't appear in the figures because they have yet to be around long enough to record any fatals.
For the record, I don't despise Europeans, either for being too liberal or for any other reason. In fact I owe half my lineage to what is popularly regarded as one of the most liberal of European countries.
I do struggle however to retain even a facade of respect for anyone who replaces informed, reasoned and reasonable argument with unnecessary and pointless personal attacks; and replaces fact with opinion in the hopes that no-one else will have the records at their fingertips.
I'm curious, also, as how any military aircraft project can be said to have "broken even"?
BEagle is right about Concorde of course, and every statistic which mentions it is anomalous almost by definition.
Maybe the bottom line is this; there is perhaps no ideal candidate anywhere in the world, either in, or soon to be in production, which will provide a one-aircraft solution to all strategic and tactical military airlift requirements; and that being the case, it is possible that a combination of C-17 and C-130 (or C-130J) will provide as good a compromise as any.
A rather well-done site, I'll admit, but one that looks as though it was produced in a spotter's back bedroom.
I tried to look for some evidence to support your original contention that: "Airbus = frequently fall out of sky for no readily explained reason." and found none. There is no evidence of either any undue frequency nor of any lack of explanation for those accidents that have occurred. And before getting mired in argument about detailed stats, that was the crux of your original post.
The statistics presented are inadequately analysed and inadequately weighted and factored. Despite the points made by BEagle, with which you agree, Concorde appears from these statistics to be about twelve times more dangerous than (say) the A300.
Of the 'events' listed for the A320, one killed three people, and one killed two - whereas they are treated (in these statistics) in exactly the same manner as accidents which kill the entire complement of an aircraft. A tendency to run off the end of runways while landing is unacceptable and deadly serious, but it may not be quite as serious as the kind of rudder problems that have caused several 737s to be lost with everyone aboard.
In other words stats based on events per 10,000 flying hours may be less reliable or less useful than stats based on passenger fatalities per passenger mile. But though such figures would show the A320 to be safer than the 737, I will admit that any statistics are open to misinterpretation and misuse.
Just as there is no data on the 777, the data on the 737 and the A320 (for example) cannot be directly compared. At an early stage in its career, an aircraft type will almost inevitably suffer a higher accident rate, which should reduce and stabilise as operating experience is gained and as technical problems are resolved. But more importantly, the statistics will be skewed because the sample is too small, and while the flying hours amassed by the A319, for example, are still so very low, a single accident would make it (apparently) the most unsafe aircraft in the world. As it is, however, it's nominally safer than the 737, as is the A321. One can't simply compare accident rates during the first 1,000,000 flying hours, either, since accident rates differ with time, and it wouldn't be fair (for example) to compare the A340 with the Boeing Stratoliner.
With regard to the YS-11 breaking even it wasn't a military programme, though a handful were sold to military operators.
Like you I "struggle to retain even a facade of respect for anyone who replaces informed, reasoned and reasonable argument with unnecessary and pointless personal attacks".....
Like: "Airbus = made by Europeans. This not good. Machines should be made only by Yanks, Poms, Swedes and Japs.....Europe should stick to making things it is good at, ie food, wine, and love. Yes, I know the Germans are an exception."
I'm also slightly intolerant of people who deliberately misrepresent what I say. I didn't present Concorde as an example of an aircraft that has Never Crashed, only as an example of a successful aircraft, like the F27, F28 etc.
I thought I remembered previous posts by you on things like the war on terror, the Middle East etc. which were characterised by a contempt for liberal attitudes, which is why I asked the question. Do I owe you a grovelling apology, then?
I tried to look for some evidence to support your original contention that: "Airbus = frequently fall out of sky for no readily explained reason." and found none. There is no evidence of either any undue frequency nor of any lack of explanation for those accidents that have occurred. And before getting mired in argument about detailed stats, that was the crux of your original post.
The statistics presented are inadequately analysed and inadequately weighted and factored. Despite the points made by BEagle, with which you agree, Concorde appears from these statistics to be about twelve times more dangerous than (say) the A300.
Of the 'events' listed for the A320, one killed three people, and one killed two - whereas they are treated (in these statistics) in exactly the same manner as accidents which kill the entire complement of an aircraft. A tendency to run off the end of runways while landing is unacceptable and deadly serious, but it may not be quite as serious as the kind of rudder problems that have caused several 737s to be lost with everyone aboard.
In other words stats based on events per 10,000 flying hours may be less reliable or less useful than stats based on passenger fatalities per passenger mile. But though such figures would show the A320 to be safer than the 737, I will admit that any statistics are open to misinterpretation and misuse.
Just as there is no data on the 777, the data on the 737 and the A320 (for example) cannot be directly compared. At an early stage in its career, an aircraft type will almost inevitably suffer a higher accident rate, which should reduce and stabilise as operating experience is gained and as technical problems are resolved. But more importantly, the statistics will be skewed because the sample is too small, and while the flying hours amassed by the A319, for example, are still so very low, a single accident would make it (apparently) the most unsafe aircraft in the world. As it is, however, it's nominally safer than the 737, as is the A321. One can't simply compare accident rates during the first 1,000,000 flying hours, either, since accident rates differ with time, and it wouldn't be fair (for example) to compare the A340 with the Boeing Stratoliner.
With regard to the YS-11 breaking even it wasn't a military programme, though a handful were sold to military operators.
Like you I "struggle to retain even a facade of respect for anyone who replaces informed, reasoned and reasonable argument with unnecessary and pointless personal attacks".....
Like: "Airbus = made by Europeans. This not good. Machines should be made only by Yanks, Poms, Swedes and Japs.....Europe should stick to making things it is good at, ie food, wine, and love. Yes, I know the Germans are an exception."
I'm also slightly intolerant of people who deliberately misrepresent what I say. I didn't present Concorde as an example of an aircraft that has Never Crashed, only as an example of a successful aircraft, like the F27, F28 etc.
I thought I remembered previous posts by you on things like the war on terror, the Middle East etc. which were characterised by a contempt for liberal attitudes, which is why I asked the question. Do I owe you a grovelling apology, then?
...and aren't we Europeans too? I always had the impression that a minor and unimportant part of any Airbus type known as the "wing" was made in the UK...
BTW, the A330, A340, and 777 haven't been in service long enough to record any fatals - wot? things can go wrong on the first flight and on the last as well. A bit like leaving out your worst 3 batsmen to get the team average up.
BTW, the A330, A340, and 777 haven't been in service long enough to record any fatals - wot? things can go wrong on the first flight and on the last as well. A bit like leaving out your worst 3 batsmen to get the team average up.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'm sure all of this has been covered before somewhere? The only two pennies worth i'll add is that the C17 performed admirably flying into and out of Kabul for the period between Feb and Jul this year.
Here is one question to ponder and it links nicely to issues search as 'Blairforce 1' et al . When MoD decides to replace the ageing and decrepid HS125 and BAe 146 of 32(TR) Sqn what should it choose? Had a nose around a Royal Netherlands Air Force Gulfstream IV today, what a marellous bit of kit and i believe the GV is has even further range by around 2,000 nautical miles. Shame we did not choose this for ASTOR, oh blasphamy, that would have been the logical and sensible choice.
As sangiovese said how many multi-engine types do we want to operate? My suggestion would be as follows:
ASTOR (Bombardier GE)
Nimrod MR4a
C17 (by them and use them to their full capability including Tac AT)
C130J
FSTA (Airbus or Boeing)
Bombardier GE (HS125 and BAe 146 replacement, if we have in one form get it in another to minimize servicing costs etc.... as it wil do 5,000Nm with Max payload)
Here is one question to ponder and it links nicely to issues search as 'Blairforce 1' et al . When MoD decides to replace the ageing and decrepid HS125 and BAe 146 of 32(TR) Sqn what should it choose? Had a nose around a Royal Netherlands Air Force Gulfstream IV today, what a marellous bit of kit and i believe the GV is has even further range by around 2,000 nautical miles. Shame we did not choose this for ASTOR, oh blasphamy, that would have been the logical and sensible choice.
As sangiovese said how many multi-engine types do we want to operate? My suggestion would be as follows:
ASTOR (Bombardier GE)
Nimrod MR4a
C17 (by them and use them to their full capability including Tac AT)
C130J
FSTA (Airbus or Boeing)
Bombardier GE (HS125 and BAe 146 replacement, if we have in one form get it in another to minimize servicing costs etc.... as it wil do 5,000Nm with Max payload)
One could further reduce the proliferation of types by using the A400M instead of the -130J and in place of the MR.Mk 4 - and perhaps even to fulfill some of the FSTA requirement.
The Bombardier GE may also be in the frame as the PR.Mk 9 replacement and as the next generation Elint platform for 51 Squadron, if the RAF shifts from its present emphasis on onboard 'manual' analysis by human operators, as other Elint practitioners have done or are doing.
The Bombardier GE may also be in the frame as the PR.Mk 9 replacement and as the next generation Elint platform for 51 Squadron, if the RAF shifts from its present emphasis on onboard 'manual' analysis by human operators, as other Elint practitioners have done or are doing.