Il-96 and A340
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've got a report that I helped write whilst at Hatfield, but done in the context of the various Airbus Industrie (as it was at that time) partners' Future Project teams, dated March 1976 with an aircraft called the A300-B11 with 4 CFM 56 (or P&W JT10) which eventually became the A340.
What's the date of the IL-96, or 86 for that matter.
What about the A340-500 and -600? Why exclude the latest versions?
BTW - Airbus is NOT French. It is European and Airbus UK and many, many other companies that supply Airbus are British and very much integral to today's Airbus. The Brits are very significant partners within Airbus. Name any aircraft that flies without wings or fuel systems or many other elements such as some of the people who market, sell and support the product?
Today, in the order of two wings per working day are leaving the line in Chester/Broughton for the A320 Family alone.
Wake up and smell the coffee - or should I say tea?! Great Britain is a very successful aviation nation.
Saman
What's the date of the IL-96, or 86 for that matter.
What about the A340-500 and -600? Why exclude the latest versions?
BTW - Airbus is NOT French. It is European and Airbus UK and many, many other companies that supply Airbus are British and very much integral to today's Airbus. The Brits are very significant partners within Airbus. Name any aircraft that flies without wings or fuel systems or many other elements such as some of the people who market, sell and support the product?
Today, in the order of two wings per working day are leaving the line in Chester/Broughton for the A320 Family alone.
Wake up and smell the coffee - or should I say tea?! Great Britain is a very successful aviation nation.
Saman
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: NE Surrey, UK
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Il96 and A340
Chorned...
I suggest you consult one of the online wiki sites about these two aircraft types. You'll see from their vastly different backgrounds and gestations that any concept of one being a copy of the other is rather a "non-flier"!
I suggest you consult one of the online wiki sites about these two aircraft types. You'll see from their vastly different backgrounds and gestations that any concept of one being a copy of the other is rather a "non-flier"!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Estonia
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's the date of the IL-96, or 86 for that matter.
Il-96 first flight 1988, entry into service 1993.
What about the A340-500 and -600? Why exclude the latest versions?
A340-300 wingspan 60,3 m, MTOW 276,5 t
A340-500 wingspan 63,5 m, MTOW 380 t.
Pretty obviously the A340 new generation with a bigger wing and far bigger MTOW comes to a different niche, and is not competing with Il-96. While A340-300 is.
Theoretically, yes. But if you go to Toulouse, or Chateauroux, or anywhere in the French Government up to the highest levels, and you will find a mindset that Airbus is primarily French, and all the others involved are a level below. They just perceive it as a reorganised Aerospatiale with funding by others.
Where is Airbus HQ ? Main assembly centre ? Main flight test centre ?
Where is Airbus HQ ? Main assembly centre ? Main flight test centre ?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHBM thanks for your comments. In fact, I do go to Toulouse quite a lot since that is where I live and work in an international company. Of course, in the plants you name, all located in France, the over-riding feeling is French. In Hamburg and Bremen and Stade it is overwhelmingly German. Don't be too surprised if I tell you that in Filton and Chester it tends to be very British whilst the Spanish plants are convinced Airbus is Spanish!
In order to better demonstrate our multi-nationalism perhaps we should have multiple HQ - there might be some criticism in terms of efficiency however; do our flight testing in the North of Europe in poorer weather conditions and with more congested airspace.
As to the final assembly plants; that die was set way back when the UK government pulled out of Airbus and decided that the government funds (in those days that was allowed!) should go into Rolls-Royce to make an engine for the Tristar. Hawker Siddeley (thank heavens) stayed in with their own Private Venture money but as a then junior partner having a Final Assembly Line was a non-starter. But a trip to Hamburg will soon show you that TLS is not the only FAL. To my knowledge the only major components 'made' in Toulouse are the engine pylons and the Assembly line work accounts for only about 4% of the manufacturing work.
Certainly having the HQ in France does give the HQ of the company a French feeling but if it were in any of the other countries it would be accused of being German, Brit or Spanish. In reality, it's pretty international.
In order to better demonstrate our multi-nationalism perhaps we should have multiple HQ - there might be some criticism in terms of efficiency however; do our flight testing in the North of Europe in poorer weather conditions and with more congested airspace.
As to the final assembly plants; that die was set way back when the UK government pulled out of Airbus and decided that the government funds (in those days that was allowed!) should go into Rolls-Royce to make an engine for the Tristar. Hawker Siddeley (thank heavens) stayed in with their own Private Venture money but as a then junior partner having a Final Assembly Line was a non-starter. But a trip to Hamburg will soon show you that TLS is not the only FAL. To my knowledge the only major components 'made' in Toulouse are the engine pylons and the Assembly line work accounts for only about 4% of the manufacturing work.
Certainly having the HQ in France does give the HQ of the company a French feeling but if it were in any of the other countries it would be accused of being German, Brit or Spanish. In reality, it's pretty international.
