Airbus and Boeing products running behind schedule

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Where you there in Doha attending the Asian Games? My TGF loves watching the SEA Games, Olympics, and the Asian Games when the Thai are involved and I don't complain as I enjoy watching and am glad shes not into the Thai soaps. I'm really impressed with the eye-foot coordination of that sport they seems to excel in, which is like volleyball only that they use their head and feet to contact the ball.

 

Emil,

 

I've been working on the games since March but only managed to attend the beach volleyball ........ The Thais done well and were only eliminated in the semi-finals after an over-ruled call at match point. I watched the sepak takraw on the box and am still amazed athe co-ordination and agility ......... hopefully it will get into the Olympics next time round.

[Indiscipline 6]

I agree that American companies tend to go with a vendor that can deliver state of the art performance on time and on budget. Companies tend to get a fair hearing with US based business as we tend to be more bottom line oriented. I also agree that Airbus 380 is a revolutionary aircraft that will be sold at a loss to many customers that got burned by the two year delay. Maybe Airbus should have used the Dassault CAD/CAM program and saved themselves a boat load of cash. O wait what do they care the EU taxpayer is footing the bill for all the delays.

 

 

Hi BigD,

 

intresting discussion so far. I have some insights on both plan programms, so here are some

comments.

 

Airbus is using Dassault Systems Software for the digital Product and manufacturing engineering as well!!

Unfortunatly, there is no Software available today, that can simulate the electrical harness assembly with the needed accuracy and Airbus was endeed using different software in France and Germany for this task.

 

At least the A380 is flying and will pass all neccessary tests as scheduled.

 

From a technical point of view, the 787 is the more revolutionary airplane than the A380, because it`s the

first airline, with a major parts of the fuselage being done with composits. This is also a risk.

 

I have my doubts, that there will be no delays in the production with the 787.

Especially the Italian Partner has problems keeping up with the manufacturing simulation.

If one partner fails, the whole programm will be delayed.

 

We have to wait ans see how it will go on.

 

Greets

[Hub 203]

[quote name='CheshireTom' date='Dec 17 2006, 10:23 AM' post='410889'

 

 

 

Tom:

 

I must admit that last pic distracted me sufficiently to forget about the EU's poor attempts to stifle free trade.

 

As our tastes tend to run the same in women, I would love to find those two in LOS....maybe Ratchada

 

Enjoy your long vacation after the games - I still have an outside shot at a March trip if we need to switch schools for the boy.

 

Hub

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Hub,

 

The problem with the free trade question is that both the US and the EU have probably got legitimate cases to take forward to the WTO and the likely outcome is that both Boeing and Airbus would be found to have received unfair subsidies. The two options from there are that both the US and EU ignore the likely WTO rulings or they comply and the cost of aircraft soars or development stall.

 

Got to admit that the Chinese and Japanese chicks were a cut above the Isaan lovelies ........

[Guest speedbonnieboat]

The silence on the uptake by Scalawag re Cheshire Toms acceptance of Scalawags bet............is.......

 

deafening

 

 

 

 

Big D - Isn't it strange how some threads pan out, I mean did you ever reckon on hot volleyball pics forming part of the reply ?

[Samsonite 181]

The first aircraft is currently due to be delivered to Singapore next year ......... when is irrelevant, only that it will be delivered at some point.

I don't waste my breath on scalawag/samsonite any more but I'm quite happy to take his cash. I'm sure he will confirm how he wants to lodge his part of the bet.

The first A380 is suppose to be delived to Singapore Air in October of 2007, almost 2 years late.

How nice of you Tom to allow them to be late again. I sure the people at Airbus appreciate your approval and will take you up on your kind offer.

 

Hub,

Tom stopped responding when I answered his question on the structure (ownership) of Airbus/EADS. During the recent fiasco it was revealed by the press that 63%, almost two thirds of Airbus/EADS, is owned and controlled by the various governments involved and their surrogates. In the near future you will see that figure rise both on the German and French sides of the ledger.

 

 

The 380 and 787 threads are just an excuse for some bitter Yanks to have a go at Airbus ....... apparently because they think its unethical to spend taxpayers money on assisting employment that results in the production of a commercial aeroplane.

Apparently, taxpayers money is meant to be squandered on military aircraft which can then be used to bomb other countries back to the stone age. Just a small difference in perception of what constitutes ethical.

Ah, Tom, now we get down to it as you reveal your true political agenda. You're a Socialist? So it is Socialism vs. Capitalism in your view?

 

"...taxpayers money is meant to be squandered on military aircraft..."

 

Loosely put, Yes! A resounding YES!

I wouldn't expect you to have read it, but if one were to read the U.S. Constitution, you would find that (Oh, My Buddha! ) the U.S. is a Capitalist country, not a Socialist country and I make no apologies for that. None what so F***ing ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The U.S. Government is suppose to provide for the protection of our country and our interest. It was NEVER intended for it to become a socialist welfare state as have so many of our European Allies.

Edited December 17, 2006 by Scalawag

[CheshireTom 1,377]

scalawag,

 

Stop avoiding the issue ..........let's see the colour of your money.......... ain't that how capitalism works? I've said I'll put up my USD 5k with MM next week; just let us all know how you are going to lodge your cash. I promise that not one cent of mine will come from EU taxpayers.

 

In true socialist style, I promise to put all of my winnings into the Jesters' Care4Kids appeal. How about you?

[Samsonite 181]

Money is not the issue, but you might want to read this before you put any real money on the table:

 

http://www.pattayatalk.com/forums/index.ph...mp;#entry411019

Edited December 18, 2006 by Scalawag

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Money is not the issue, but you might want to read this before you put any real money on the table:

 

http://www.pattayatalk.com/forums/index.ph...mp;#entry411019

 

I'm well aware of the Airbus issues ......... now how are you going to lodge your cash?

[Samsonite 181]

So, you want me to put up $5,000.00US, on a bet that "sometime" as in "anytime" in the future, Airbus will finally deliver an A380? Maybe not next year, maybe not even in 2008, but anytime they get around to it?

 

Not a chance.

 

You should shave your legs and get some You would make a great bar-girl.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

So, you want me to put up $5,000.00US, on a bet that "sometime" as in "anytime" in the future, Airbus will finally deliver an A380? Maybe not next year, maybe not even in 2008, but anytime they get around to it?

 

Not a chance.

 

You should shave your legs and get some You would make a great bar-girl.

 

scalawag,

 

You offered the bet, I simply took it up.

 

Tom

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Tom.

 

As an impartial (well, not really, as you know I would cover you in almost any situation) observer, you are starting to sound like a bit of a financial bully with ill-defined charitable references thrown in.

 

After many here have been burned previously with similar charitable promises (silk cut cigarette appeals come to mind ), who could blame those that are sceptical?

 

Dearie me ........... sceptic septics!

 

Unlike the Silk Cut appellant, I would have taken great delight in actually posting some evidence and nice pics of me actually handing over the BMs cash. And, of course, MM would have had his hands on my cash anyway.

 

The USD 2.5k (assuming the USD doesn't slide much more) was chosen since it would just about cover platinum sponsorship (100k Baht) with Jesters and I would have received a nice certificate.

[wacmedia 277]

The USD 2.5k (assuming the USD doesn't slide much more) was chosen since it would just about cover platinum sponsorship (100k Baht) with Jesters and I would have received a nice certificate

 

Hi,

 

If the dollar falls much further they will be using $100 bills to light their Silk Cuts.

[Samsonite 181]

scalawag,

You offered the bet, I simply took it up.

Tom

You took it as a bet.

I was using the definition number 2, below.

I still think there is a good chance the project will be canceled. If it were a private company, not, by extension, a "government department" they never would have started the A380.

At this point, without an additional major influx of government (taxpayer's) money, they won't be able to do both the A380 and the A350. If they pull the A380 out of Hamburg there will be major political fallout between the Germans and the French. The odds are not strongly in your favor.

 

odds (ŏdz)

pl.n.

1. A certain number of points given beforehand to a weaker side in a contest to equalize the chances of all participants.

 

2. a. The ratio of the probability of an event's occurring to the probability of its not occurring.

b. The likelihood of the occurrence of one thing rather than the occurrence of another thing, as in a contest: The odds are that she will get the nomination on the first ballot.

 

3. Games. A ratio expressing the amount by which the stake of one bettor differs from that of an opposing bettor.

 

4. An amount or a degree by which one thing exceeds or falls short of another: won the contest by considerable odds.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

scalawag,

 

Since you are into definitions you need to read a bit further ........... You asked if anyone would like to "take odds"

 

 

Idiom: take odds

 

To accept a bet.

 

You need to brush up on your English skills, mate.

 

 

The A350 is being developed with "risk-sharing" partners ......... in line with the 787. What this means is that the joint developers can accept any amount of government cash (as the Japs, Italians etc are doing) and claim the main stakeholder isn't receiving a subsidy (as Boeing is doing). A little bit disingenious I admit but it does create a level playing field.

Edited December 19, 2006 by CheshireTom

[btm1735 232]

intresting discussion so far. I have some insights on both plan programms, so here are some

comments.

 

Airbus is using Dassault Systems Software for the digital Product and manufacturing engineering as well!!

Unfortunatly, there is no Software available today, that can simulate the electrical harness assembly with the needed accuracy and Airbus was endeed using different software in France and Germany for this task.

 

There is no software avaiable today that can simulate the blah blah blah... Reread that and think about what you just said. What? are they going to do it on paper ? Just a bit a news to you, if it can't be designed on computer, then it can't be done. They promised a plane that if we go by what you say, wasn't fully designed and can't be.

 

Really I believe you are just wrong. My understanding of the situation is that the software is outdated and the French and German's software doesn't play well together. When the situation gets sorted, then they can go forward until the next problem. If you are right and I am wrong, then the situation is much worse than I thought.

[Indiscipline 6]

There is no software avaiable today that can simulate the blah blah blah... Reread that and think about what you just said. What? are they going to do it on paper ? Just a bit a news to you, if it can't be designed on computer, then it can't be done. They promised a plane that if we go by what you say, wasn't fully designed and can't be.

 

Really I believe you are just wrong. My understanding of the situation is that the software is outdated and the French and German's software doesn't play well together. When the situation gets sorted, then they can go forward until the next problem. If you are right and I am wrong, then the situation is much worse than I thought.

 

 

Sure there is Software, to simulate the elecrical harness behaviour, but not 100% accurate.

(BTW comptersimulation is never 100% accurate). Unfortunatly the wiring is very difficult to simulate.

Just to give an example: If you have to bend the harness (you always have to do this , the accuracy of the point, where the harness will brake, cannot be predicted accurate enough. It might be working in the computer, but not in real life.

 

The reason, why everytting is done digitally in the computer today is to shorten the product development process and therfore to save money in the engineering process and in addition to reduce prototyping costs.

That doesn`t mean, that you couldn`t engineer a plane without computer software such as CAD systems.

Best example is the Boing 747, totally engineered on paper, maybe with some 2D CAD support. As we all know, the plane is flying and was a great success.

 

The Airbus problem is, that they have set up the whole production system based on a false computer model and that the wiring is simply not manufacturable. At least 90%of the electrical harnesses wil be assembled manually by workers. In the A380 case they cannot reach some parts of the harness because of the Plane design. There are other issues too, which are not mentioned in the articels. This leads to a complete reengineering of major parts of the plane and a new setup of the production line.

 

I still have my doubts, that the 787 will not run into similar problems, that may cause a delay.

Well we eill find out soon

 

Greets

[Samsonite 181]

..................

That doesn`t mean, that you couldn`t engineer a plane without computer software such as CAD systems.

Best example is the Boing 747, totally engineered on paper, maybe with some 2D CAD support. As we all know, the plane is flying and was a great success.

....................

Thoughtful response.

The original 747, as were all planes before it and many after, was designed the "old fashion way" with paper, pencils, and slide rules.

It was designed in the mid 1960s and I not sure if even primitive CAD was available at that time. Anyone know? The PC sitting on your desktop or even your laptop, is many, many times more powerful than the mainframe computers of that time.

The 777, designed almost 25 years later, was the first airliner designed totally on a computer and a prototype was not built. It went straight from the computer to production.

Over the years Boeing has converted most, if not all, of the both the 747 and 737 engineering to digital and each new series has all the latest available technology built into them, e.g., new wing designs, engines, latest avionics (flight controls), etc., etc., etc.

[wacmedia 277]

I still have my doubts, that the 787 will not run into similar problems, that may cause a delay.

Well we eill find out soon

 

Hi,

 

Indeed we will.

[torrenova 644]

And don't they use the cost plus basis for US military planes. Therefore having no realistic budget and allowing the company to wallow and absort taxpayers cash as it has no real incentive to reduce costs ?

[wacmedia 277]

And don't they use the cost plus basis for US military planes. Therefore having no realistic budget and allowing the company to wallow and absort taxpayers cash as it has no real incentive to reduce costs ?

 

Hi,

 

No, no no. You've got it wrong. All the American posters on here will tell you that they are a company who get no tax payers dollars or State Aid.

[Samsonite 181]

No, no no. You've got it wrong. All the American posters on here will tell you that they are a company who get no tax payers dollars or State Aid.

Once again you jump in and dazzle us with your painfully obvious lack of knowledge on the subject.

Boggles the mind.

Edited December 20, 2006 by Scalawag

[wacmedia 277]

Once again you jump in and dazzle us with your painfully obvious lack of knowledge on the subject

 

Hi,

 

Errr. Surely some mistake ?

[Indiscipline 6]

Guys,

 

settle down.

My view is: Both, Airbus and Boing are fundet somehow with state money.

I have no problem with that! Every industrialized country in the worls is spending state money on future technologies, which they are rating key for the further welth of their country. Big examples here are

Biotech, Computerscience, Nanotechnologies. Nobody complains about it, cause it makes sence.

State money spent e.g. for a plane program, cannot be spent somewhere else. So, where ist he problem.

BTW. Japan is by far the biggest funder of key technologies with government money and are doing well.(And nobody complains!)

 

Next. I wish both, Airbus and Boing success! Because there is nothing worse than a monopoly.

Or do you think that Boing would be forced to develop the 787, if the wouldn`t have lost market share in this segment against Airbus. In the end, we, as the enduser will benefit from more fuel efficent, faster planes.

So to say, the state funding of plane programs will safe us money we can spend in our fantasy land, that is LOS.

 

Wish you all a great christmas!

 

Greetings

 

P:S 11 more days for me, then I`m back in Pattaya

[jasonbalmer 2]

Oh, and BTW, did you know the A380 is not inherently stable? It is not unstable, but it is not stable. What that means is it cannot be flown without the computers doing some of the work. This has been done with military fighter aircraft, but it has never been done with a commercial aircraft carrying passengers.

 

Not so ... The Boeing 777 is intentionally unstable (without the flight control computer) in pitch. This confers substantial weight savings (range or payload improvement) albeit at the expense of system complexity. (We supply the 777 flight control electroincs).

 

With Boeing aircraft, the pilot has the last word and can take control away from the computer. With the A380 the pilot cannot fly the plane without the computer. Given Airbus' record with their early fly-by-wire system, I'll wait a while before getting on a A380...if they are ever delivered.

 

In Boeing flight control systems the pilot can command manuevers up to (and beyond) the limits of the aircraft. Doing so is met with tremendous physical resistance from the flight controls as a means of indicating to the pilot that he is reaching the design boundaries. But he is in no way taking control away from the flight control computer; the artificial stabilization provided by the computer remains in effect throughout his commanded manuever no matter how "out on the map" it goes.

Edited December 21, 2006 by jasonbalmer