Boeing's going nut ?
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?
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?
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
)and it is not good to have a single manufacturer in the end.
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
)and it is not good to have a single manufacturer in the end.
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
