Airbus and Boeing products running behind schedule

[kjvegas 2]

This is a Stupid Post, Who gives a shit what kind of plane it is? As long as the plane doesn't crash on the way to my destination, it is a good plane.

 

cheers

kj

[btm1735 232]

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

 

You seem to miss my point. If it can't be done a computer, it can't be done. What are they going to do, get a bunch of Germans and French to go back to pencil and paper. Fuck gobal warming, we will hit an Ice Age first before the plane gets delivered if that is how it goes. This plane is tech wonder??? They can't even get their CAD systems to talk to each other.

 

Being a small manufacter in the midwest of the US, I have had my bit of Engineer Arrogance. Engineers for large companies (Boeing included) tend to have no idea how to actually build anything and when it goes wrong point at the other guy. Example is that I made a rubber spring that fit with some metal parts that the made a prototype. We made 20 some odd of these protos. They said my rubber was the problem. Actually the problem was that they didn't have any tolernces on the metal components. Opps, but the funny part was that I was a green 22 yo that was out on a sales call. I was with no less than 8 engineers and I saw the problem with my own eyes, bare eyses and took a micrometer to prove it.

 

Engineer Arrogance cost us that customer because I dared to tell them that the problem was with their design. Not the only time it has happened. I can give you a long list of them. Thing is that they will run a project into the ground before they admit they where wrong.

 

My guess is that they will be working out the bugs in this "Revoltionary" plane for sometime to come. While Boeing just might if they are lucky play the KISS (keep it simple stupid) deal and make the Toyota Camry of passanger jets while the EU gets stuck with a boondoggel. I would make that bet on the stock market but you never know when the EU is going to bail them out.

[wacmedia 277]

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.

 

Hi,

 

A sensible balanced post, must be European ?

[wacmedia 277]

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).

 

Hi,

 

Well done jasonbalmer for trying to educate Scalawag in the finer points of the aviation industry. With your help and other posters like Cheshire Tom and Indisicpline we may get him to understand a little in the end.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Hi,

 

Well done jasonbalmer for trying to educate Scalawag in the finer points of the aviation industry. With your help and other posters like Cheshire Tom and Indisicpline we may get him to understand a little in the end.

 

wacmedia,

 

You'll have noticed that the majority of scally's posts are just links to the same old crap that is spewed out all over the internet by Nationalistic Yanks.

 

The argument about whether Airbus receives subsidies is really a mute issue when compared to the well-documented insitutional corruption that is part of Boeing. The only reason the EU taxpayer nonsense is such an issue in the US at the moment is because EADS is bidding for a massive Pentagon order for air-to-air tankers. The trouble for Boeing is that EADS has the much better product (the A330 v the 767) so the only way to take on EADS is to try and get them disqualified from the bidding process, which is what is going on now and is the sole reason for the current US WTO action against Airbus. In short, Boeing (and its political supporters) wants any company that is subject to WTO action to be disqualified from the bidding process. That's what scally refers to as a level playing field.

 

Funnily enough, Boeing had previously all but secured the contract until it was discovered that the cost had been inflated by a few billion dollars which let EADS into the bidding (and led to a USD600m+ fine, a fired CEO and jailed Pentagon procurement official etc etc). At the end of the day that extra couple of billion would have been footed by US taxpayers and went straight to the profits/dividends of the company.

 

So you can expect to see a lot more ranting from across the Atlantic over the next few months as the bidding process comes near to its conclusion. Unfortunately, that's the way US business works and they have a public that is happy to swallow the whole charade hook, line and sinker as so ably demonstrated by the likes of scally and BigD.

Edited December 21, 2006 by CheshireTom

[Samsonite 181]

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).

Interesting, but I haven't found anything on the Internet that supports the theory that the Boeing 777 is inherently unstable. Can you please provide a link to this information.

 

 

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.

Again I can find nothing that supports your claim, but I did find this,

 

"Boeing and Airbus differ in their FBW philosophies. In Airbus aircraft, the computer always retains ultimate control and will not permit the pilot to fly outside the normal flight envelope. In a Boeing 777, the pilot can override the system, allowing the plane to be flown outside this envelope in emergencies."

 

Which is consistent with Boeing's known application of FBW technology.

If you can provide documentation to the contrary I would like to read it.

Thank you.

[btm1735 232]

wacmedia,

 

You'll have noticed that the majority of scally's posts are just links to the same old crap that is spewed out all over the internet by Nationalistic Yanks.

 

 

Sorry Tom but isn't this a bit of the pot calling the kettle black. We should dress you in a cute little skirt and give you some pom pom's so you can yell "Go Airbus, Yeah team". You are big fucking cheerleader. Nationalistic Yanks??? Anybody with a brain know that this "revoltionary" jet is so fucked up that the only reason their stock is not in the tank is that the big guys with the big money aren't bailing because they know that the EuroUnion will bail out Airbus at the taxpayers expense.

 

The truth is that the airports are setup for 747's, until Airbus can deliver a plane, the Airports aren't going spend the money to deal with the new Airbus. Be real, if you managed an airport would you spend the money up grade for a plane that is as behind schedule as the Airbus. Singapore can buy as many planes as they want, but if LAX doesn't fix their terminals to handle them the way they were designed, you are propably more profitable with a 747.

 

Since you are so into betting, how about $1000 that Airbus will not make their next contractial agreement with their customers for delivery of the fucking plane in question. They will have to re do the contracts and maybe show a profit in 2030. That is if they can see 15 years into the future, oh wait when did they start on this plane?

 

Sorry for profane but as an otherwise wise man, you are such cheerleader you can't see the reality.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

The truth is that the airports are setup for 747's, until Airbus can deliver a plane, the Airports aren't going spend the money to deal with the new Airbus. Be real, if you managed an airport would you spend the money up grade for a plane that is as behind schedule as the Airbus. Singapore can buy as many planes as they want, but if LAX doesn't fix their terminals to handle them the way they were designed, you are propably more profitable with a 747.

 

Sorry for profane but as an otherwise wise man, you are such cheerleader you can't see the reality.

 

btm,

 

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but both LAX and SFO on the west coast have already spent the necessary millions to accommodate the A380. SFO is already complete and LAX will be by mid-2007.

 

Did you mention something about reality.

 

And just to prove how spectacularly wrong you can be:

 

"A380 launch customer Singapore Airlines gave the beleaguered aircraft program a boost yesterday by ordering nine more of the type along with six options, bringing to 19 the number of A380s it has on firm order."

 

As for the other main A380 operator into LAX (Qantas):

 

"Australian airline Qantas ordered eight more A380 super jumbo planes from Airbus, taking its total order for the 550 seat plane to 20, Airbus said on Thursday

 

It follows a decision by Singapore Airlines on Wednesday to order nine additional A380s."

 

 

Maybe them folk at Singapore Airlines and Qantas know something you don't.

 

Since you are so into betting, how about $1000 that Airbus will not make their next contractial agreement with their customers for delivery of the fucking plane in question.

 

Can you lay out your bet in plain English .......... I might just take you up on it.

[Samsonite 181]

In both cases these were not New orders.

Qantas converted eight of its 12 options and that was announced in October.

Singapore Air firmed up a follow-on order for nine additional A380s announced this last July.

Edited December 22, 2006 by Scalawag

[CheshireTom 1,377]

In both cases these were not New orders.

Qantas converted eight of its 12 options and that was announced in October.

Singapore Air firmed up a follow-on order for nine additional A380s announced this last July.

 

I'm sure they confirmed the options so that they appeared as orders in this year's order book. You know how these sad guys on the internet are always accusing them of counting options as orders.

[Samsonite 181]

Post a picture of your legs and let us run a poll on whether or not you should buy a long or short AirBus cheerleader skirt.

 

To get back on Topic, i.e., the Boeing 787, here is a very interesting, IMHO, article about the company that makes the molds for the 787 fuelage.

 

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boei..._janicki17.html

Edited December 22, 2006 by Scalawag

[CheshireTom 1,377]

"Boeing acknowledged this summer that one prototype fuselage section had to be scrapped after a Janicki-built mandrel leaked.

 

Mike Bair, 787 program chief, insisted Janicki wasn't at fault. Bair said the glitch occurred as Boeing and Janicki experimented with different resin mixes to make the composite plastic more durable.

 

In addition, Peter Janicki said, a supplier substituted ingredients in the resin used to make that mandrel without notifying him. Janicki has so far shipped eight mandrels, and that was the only problematic one.

 

"It was painful for Boeing and certainly painful for us," Janicki said of the incident. "It's a great way to build an airplane. But it's new. And you don't do something new perfect every time."

 

That must be comforting for anybody contemplating flying on the aircraft anytime soon.

[BigDUSA 71]

"Boeing acknowledged this summer that one prototype fuselage section had to be scrapped after a Janicki-built mandrel leaked.

 

Mike Bair, 787 program chief, insisted Janicki wasn't at fault. Bair said the glitch occurred as Boeing and Janicki experimented with different resin mixes to make the composite plastic more durable.

 

In addition, Peter Janicki said, a supplier substituted ingredients in the resin used to make that mandrel without notifying him. Janicki has so far shipped eight mandrels, and that was the only problematic one.

 

"It was painful for Boeing and certainly painful for us," Janicki said of the incident. "It's a great way to build an airplane. But it's new. And you don't do something new perfect every time."

 

That must be comforting for anybody contemplating flying on the aircraft anytime soon.

 

 

That's why they call it the prototype stage of development. Long way aways from the flying it with paying customers stage.

[Samsonite 181]

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

"It was painful for Boeing and certainly painful for us," Janicki said of the incident. "It's a great way to build an airplane. But it's new. And you don't do something new perfect every time."[/i]

 

That must be comforting for anybody contemplating flying on the aircraft anytime soon.

Why didn't you include the last two paragraphs of that section of the article, Tom? Maybe you didn't read that far and just grabbed the first negative thing you could find?

Here, to refresh you memory:

 

"He said prying the mandrel away from the fuselage after the leak took immense force — "If that had been an aluminum airplane, we would have permanently destroyed it."

 

But the composite plastic "looked like it had not been touched... I have never seen a structural material that was as tough and indestructible as what they are building that airplane out of."

 

Quoting out context is really pathetic, Tom. I'm disappointed, but at this point, not surprised. No wonder you and Wacky seem to get along so well.

[wacmedia 277]

Funnily enough, Boeing had previously all but secured the contract until it was discovered that the cost had been inflated by a few billion dollars which let EADS into the bidding (and led to a USD600m+ fine, a fired CEO and jailed Pentagon procurement official etc etc).

 

Hi,

 

So, in a nutshell, corruption and backhanders. the American way.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

That's why they call it the prototype stage of development. Long way aways from the flying it with paying customers stage.

 

To be precise it was part of the pre-production prototype and not a long way away at all from flying it with fare-paying pax ............... and they achieved 87.5% reliability. Simple as that.

 

Still dreaming of relocating to LOS?

[BigDUSA 71]

Still dreaming of relocating to LOS?

 

 

The "dream" is getting much closer then Airbus is to delivering the 380. BTW, I don't care if Airbus or Boeing metal gets us to LOS as long as it get's us here.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

BTW, I don't care if Airbus or Boeing metal gets us to LOS as long as it get's us here.

 

Nice to see we agree on something.

[wacmedia 277]

At the end of the day that extra couple of billion would have been footed by US taxpayers and went straight to the profits/dividends of the company

 

Hi,

 

You are un-American.

[Samsonite 181]

The first composite front section of the new Boeing 787.

Notice the men working underneath the nose section.

The aircraft is much larger than I thought.

Story here:

Edited February 22, 2007 by Scalawag

[cowboy 0]

[it was painful for Boeing and certainly painful for us," Janicki said of the incident. "It's a great way to build an airplane. But it's new. And you don't do something new perfect every time."[/i]

 

That must be comforting for anybody contemplating flying on the aircraft anytime soon.

 

I have often thought about writing a management book and calling it "management by mistake". The best and most effective managers understand that to develop talented and effective managers and future leaders means that you have to let them take risks and to sometimes make mistakes. Poor managers demand perfection. The usually result is to disable the talent that work for them.

 

Someone earlier made a comment about the validity of the posters knowledge of the aircraft industry. I served more than 25 years of the commercial airline subcommittee. I have toured the plants of douglass, lockheed and some boeing subcontractors. I have gotten to see the design facilities. It really is amazing. And as for the validity of the posts I haven't seen anything in thise thread by BigDUSA that is off base. And those of you that have seen the postover the years know that BigD and I don;t often agree on things.

 

The original 787 was to be delivered almost 2 years after the 380. Now it look like it might be a race. I had heard that there might be a 3-way deal for United to send 747 to fedex(via boeing) and order 787 on a plane by plane replacement. But so far I have heard many rumors abot united buying 787's and they have not happened. So my sources about United must be getting unrealiable. ( but I still can't help but wonder why the airline that participated directly in the design of the 787 hasn't ordered any)

 

BTW someone pondered if the original 747 was designed using computers or completely by pen and paper. They answer is mainframe computers were used by not nearly anywhere to the extant of today or even 10 years ago.

Edited February 22, 2007 by cowboy

[wacmedia 277]

The original 787 was to be delivered almost 2 years after the 380

 

Hi,

 

Like comparing apples and oranges or whatever saying American's use. The big challenge is designing a plane to challenge the Airbus A380. I was reading a theatre review the other day and it ended "creating farcical liftoffs of a stock script which could otherwise have felt as clunky and dated as a 747" When your mentioned by the theatre reviewer in such a manner your time is really up.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

cowboy,

 

So my sources about United must be getting unrealiable. ( but I still can't help but wonder why the airline that participated directly in the design of the 787 hasn't ordered any)

 

There is the small matter of United and Chapter 11 that may have influenced the fact that it hasn't ordered any 787s!! LOL.

[wacmedia 277]

cowboy,

There is the small matter of United and Chapter 11 that may have influenced the fact that it hasn't ordered any 787s!! LOL.

 

 

Hi,

 

 

[Emil 0]

I heard that the US Air Force will soon be ordering one so that they can chauffeur Speaker of the House Pelosi and her entourage back and forth from San Francisco and DC.