Warbird Information Exchange

Well, when the customer calls up and says 'we want a heavy duty 4X4 3/4 ton pickup and nothing more' then switches the reqs around to show they really now want a Class 4 truck, if you've spec'ed to the request while the opposition is diddling the customer to accept something bigger, you better react in a positive manner. or you'll be the next Studebaker.

Also donot forget, the 'trip' was certified with the folding wing option approved, just because a customer has yet to order the airplane with that option, every one off the line has all the forgings installed so that, if some day, another customer wishes that installation, Boeing AOG can do it.
It's called narrowing the option field to cover all the bases. And I'll bet a buck to the hole in a Dunkins that the USAF reserve has more pilots qualled on 757/767/777 than on 330's.

Plus the 330, as I've stated previously, is too slow for part of the inventory, yet can't go slow enough for other parts of the inventory, and is really slow in a break away situation, and has had crew survivability issues pointed out by the customer (that would be the USAF).

Also keep in mind that the Government has filed a WTO action against AIRBUS over subsidies from European Governments and U.S. law prohibits purchasing anything from a nation under WTO actions or constraints. (might point that out to your Congerssional Reps).

And, the 330 has yet to get even close to the 'trip's range and record time aloft let alone the hours on the 23 1/2 hour flight running for many hours @ altitude with one GE in the bag as planned by Boeing and GE to prove the reliability of the CF-90 (really cool motor!!!).

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

ah yes but the A330 [RAAF KC-30] is flying as a tanker - no KC-777 as yet. Why did the KC-45 get selected by the USAF using your logic??

and yes Japan has KC-767 without hoses and Italy still doesn't have the KC-767 without a boom!

_________________
..defeat is never an option!

OD,

Please go back and re-read everything thats been posted on this subject before.

The Japanese KC was a certification nightmare as the Japanese wanted the airframe to be everything in one neat package, tanker, box hauler, and-oh, yeah- 100% certified as a part 121 passenger carrier.

The Italian airplanes are in the state they are in because AERONAVALE keeps screwing the airplane up, to keep the Italians from flying the aircraft until it is completed, Boeing has had to cut big holes in the cabin doors. Boeing is running into the same 'eh, who cares abouta you drawings anyway?' attitudes with the 46-48 sections of the 787 being done in Italy. Boeing sends a constant stream of trainers to Alenia to try and correct production problems like horrible and non airworthy countersinks in the skins for fasteners (repairing damage on a CFRP panel is several magnatudes more difficult than metal and you don't just smear some filler on the holes and make them better and the airframe is made in complete barrel sections, not conventional sheets). The trainers ask 'are you using the scrap material we send to setup your countersinks before you approach the airplane structures?' The reply goes something like this 'youa stupeed Americans, we area fine Italian craftsmen (walk around a $500K Ferarri and look at just how unsymetrical the car is and how poor the fit and finish of panels), we do our countersink setups on the airplane not on some stupido scraps, by the way, it'sa 1:45 on Friday, you have a nice weekend eh? I see you....9, 9:45 ona Monday ciao'.

Ask anyone who has worked as a contractor @ AERONAVALE about what a blindfolded goat rope that place is to work in and for.

We've already been over the Australian purchase of the 330 so do some background reading on whats gone before, one thing tht does stick out (easy now JDK) is that the Aussies will probably not be utilizing their tankers as much as the USAF does as far as cycles and duty times nor in as many places as the USAF flies to all the time.

The KC-45 initial "WINNER" is continuing to be shown as pure political meddling by some mebers of Congress and incredable pressures being exerted by NORGRUMBUS on the USAF, DoD, and the previously mentioned Congressional members who see huge gains politically from getting new jobs in their states, tho I still don't think the French workers will permit their airplane to be shipped by sea to be assembled in Alabama and can't fathom where the duely elected members figure that will raise 49000 jobs, you don't need near that many folks to install rugs and consoles in what will quite likely be a 'flown-in' airframe.

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

Inspector,
Thanks for the facts and analysis. I don't think things are going to get easier for this project, only more difficult. And personally, I think Airbuses are junk....

_________________
REMEMBER THE SERGEANT PILOTS!

Thanx Forgotten Field.
Speaking from the point of view of a very long time A&P Mechanic, if you've ever seen an AIRBUS with it's clothes off (in check) you wouldn't get on one. They are absolutely designed to be thrown away after X amount of years and are built right up to 'so what can ya give me for about 91-92 Million?'.
Bear in mind also that the rudder hinges on the 330 (AF 447) that broke up are rolled CFRP material, so with enough stress they would probably unroll like Pillsbury Crescent rolls.

And, with it's 6 wheeled mains, a 'trips' footprint is actually a little less than a 767-400's.

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

With enough stress, anything will break. When you design something that needs a computer controlled rudder limiter to prevent structural failure, you have to accept the fact that the limiter may fail. I've never seen an electronic controller (or stereo, cell phone, I-Pod, radar detector, light bulb, voltage regulator, transistor radio, laptop, etc.) with a zero percent failure rate, so I see that design concept as problematical.

I don't think the rudder was missing. The photos I saw showed the vertical torn from the tailcone, but portions of the bulkheads from the tailcone were still attached. Clearly a different failure mode than the one where the vertical snapped of cleanly at the fuselage connection joint.

You'are probably a very good aviation expert to be the first peope to know what happen on AF447... It's a shame that you are not part of the invistigation team.

Also, if Airbus only made sugar, can you explain to us why they sell plane for so long. Do you think that all operator of Airbus airplanes are completly stupide ?

Seriously you driven for Boeing and it's your right but you "all against Airbus" position is infantile, simplistic, completly unfair and go to racism.

Have a good 4th July and a good week-end. I will come back in a few day to read the next.

_________________
Sorry for my bad English:-(

In the world of flight controls, Airbus seems to prefer letting the computer do the work and have the pilot there merely to monitor the systems, while the Boeing (and Douglas) methodology is to let the pilot fly the plane and use the computers to ease the pilot's workload. The question that needs to be aswered in my mind is if Airbus' method has saved more aircraft (and consequently lives) by preventing pilot error compared to the pilot's inability to take direct control of the aircraft in the event of a flight control system fault and the resulting accidents from that. I know that many pilots would disagree with the Airbus methodolgy because, well, they are pilots and like to be in control- rather than like Homer Simpson sitting in a chair watching some dials at the nuclear powerplant.

Both ways have their merits, but the Airbus way is newer and makes the seat of the pants flyers suspicious. Maybe all aircraft will end up that way as the systems evolve, or maybe that method will be abandoned in favor of the old way. In either case, flying in an airliner is dramatically safer than it was even 15 years ago. The state of the art is advancing, even if all we learn is what NOT to do!

I'm struggling here to make the connection as to how my statement of opinion makes me a 'racist'? I wasn't aware of any differences in our basic genetic makeup, pehaps you meant xenophobic instead?

Iclo, I'm very sorry if my statements seem to upset you, and yes, I tend to lean towards seeing my Government buy Military hardware from companies here in the U.S. as opposed to buying from an outside source that could affect the flow of parts and engineering by the simple expediant of a change of National leadership along with a shift in attitude by that new Government, or a political decision made by the management of the supplying company deciding that the USAF gets no parts or support because the U.S. General in charge of the program parts his hair on the right side.

One big reason that AIRBUS sells so many aircraft is the pricing and the beyond 'friendly financing terms' prvoided by AIRBUS to either keep a customer in their airplanes. or to entice an airline 'on the fence' to perhaps switch over and start using A3whatevers instead of somene elses product. It's the same tactic used by every seller of goods around the world 'Buy the new 2010 BELCHFIRE V-13 and get 986 months interest free financing'. Why do you think there are so many 'infomercials' on late night television selling interesting but essentially useless crap for 'ONLY $19.95?'

In the U.S., carriers that use AIRBUS' tend to be those in financial desperate straits or marginal profitables who grab at new airplanes that are cheaper and are available 'right now' because AIRBUS moves the line along so everyone has a job, and the aircraft stack up out in the back lots.
Those carriers tend to not be around for very long (exceptions would be USAIR, NWA/DELTA, and UAL) or are still skating along on the edge of the ice like FRONTIER and a few other, smaller carriers.

From the standpoint of what is long term safe and what is marginal safe, I'll take a Boeing overbuilt part any day over a part designed to minimums or a price/material bottom line by engineers hounded by bean counters who only see the bottom line and usually know enough about an airliner to unerstand that where they usually sit, the seats are fewer in number, wider, and theres a choice in what the ptomaine of the day is.

So perhaps I am a bit pro Boeing, after all, I really like my job as a contractor with them and the bi monthly direct deposits keep me and the cat from sleeping in the car.

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

I'm struggling here to make the connection as to how my statement of opinion makes me a 'racist'? I wasn't aware of any differences in our basic genetic makeup, pehaps you meant xenophobic instead?

Iclo, I'm very sorry if my statements seem to upset you, and yes, I tend to lean towards seeing my Government buy Military hardware from companies here in the U.S. as opposed to buying from an outside source that could affect the flow of parts and engineering by the simple expediant of a change of National leadership along with a shift in attitude by that new Government, or a political decision made by the management of the supplying company deciding that the USAF gets no parts or support because the U.S. General in charge of the program parts his hair on the right side.

One big reason that AIRBUS sells so many aircraft is the pricing and the beyond 'friendly financing terms' prvoided by AIRBUS to either keep a customer in their airplanes. or to entice an airline 'on the fence' to perhaps switch over and start using A3whatevers instead of somene elses product. It's the same tactic used by every seller of goods around the world 'Buy the new 2010 BELCHFIRE V-13 and get 986 months interest free financing'. Why do you think there are so many 'infomercials' on late night television selling interesting but essentially useless crap for 'ONLY $19.95?' If the 737 is such an inferior product then expalin why the order backlog is about 3 1/2 years on an airplane that is on a day and a half cycle? Expain why AIR FRANCE is one of the biggest customers of 777's.

In the U.S., carriers that use AIRBUS' tend to be those in financial desperate straits or marginal profitables who grab at new airplanes that are cheaper and are available 'right now' because AIRBUS moves the line along so everyone has a job, and the aircraft stack up out in the back lots.
Those carriers tend to not be around for very long (exceptions would be USAIR, NWA/DELTA, and UAL) or are still skating along on the edge of the ice like FRONTIER and a few other, smaller carriers. The list of
stratups' in the U.S. (and elsewhere) that have been ploweed under is long and growing and most of them use or used A320's because the finacing was 'right' and the airframes were available 'now' and you need to get at the end of a very long line to purchase a good, used 737 let alone a brand new one.

From the standpoint of what is long term safe and what is marginal safe, I'll take a Boeing overbuilt part any day over a part designed to minimums or a price/material bottom line by engineers hounded by bean counters who only see the bottom line and usually know enough about an airliner to unerstand that where they usually sit, the seats are fewer in number, wider, and theres a choice in what the ptomaine of the day is.

So perhaps I am a bit pro Boeing, after all, I really like my job as a contractor with them and the bi monthly direct deposits keep me and the cat from sleeping in the car.

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

I'm struggling here to make the connection as to how my statement of opinion makes me a 'racist'? I wasn't aware of any differences in our basic genetic makeup, pehaps you meant xenophobic instead?

Iclo, I'm very sorry if my statements seem to upset you, and yes, I tend to lean towards seeing my Government buy Military hardware from companies here in the U.S. as opposed to buying from an outside source that could affect the flow of parts and engineering by the simple expediant of a change of National leadership along with a shift in attitude by that new Government, or a political decision made by the management of the supplying company deciding that the USAF gets no parts or support because the U.S. General in charge of the program parts his hair on the right side.

One big reason that AIRBUS sells so many aircraft is the pricing and the beyond 'friendly financing terms' prvoided by AIRBUS to either keep a customer in their airplanes. or to entice an airline 'on the fence' to perhaps switch over and start using A3whatevers instead of someone elses product. It's the same tactic used by every seller of goods around the world 'Buy the new 2010 BELCHFIRE V-13 and get 986 months interest free financing'. Why do you think there are so many 'infomercials' on late night television selling interesting but essentially useless crap for 'ONLY $19.95?' If the 737 is such an inferior product then expalin why the order backlog is about 3 1/2 years on an airplane that is on a day and a half cycle? Expain why AIR FRANCE is one of the biggest customers of 777's.

In the U.S., carriers that use AIRBUS' tend to be those in financial desperate straits or marginal profitables who grab at new airplanes that are cheaper and are available 'right now' because AIRBUS moves the line along so everyone has a job, and the aircraft stack up out in the back lots.
Those carriers tend to not be around for very long (exceptions would be USAIR, NWA/DELTA, and UAL) or are still skating along on the edge of the ice like FRONTIER and a few other, smaller carriers. The list of
stratups' in the U.S. (and elsewhere) that have been ploweed under is long and growing and most of them use or used A320's because the finacing was 'right' and the airframes were available 'now' and you need to get at the end of a very long line to purchase a good, used 737 let alone a brand new one.

From the standpoint of what is long term safe and what is marginal safe, I'll take a Boeing overbuilt part any day over a part designed to minimums or a price/material bottom line by engineers hounded by bean counters who only see the bottom line and usually know enough about an airliner to unerstand that where they usually sit, the seats are fewer in number, wider, and theres a choice in what the ptomaine of the day is.

So perhaps I am a bit pro Boeing, after all, I really like my job as a contractor with them and the bi monthly direct deposits keep me and the cat from sleeping in the car.

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

I'm struggling here to make the connection as to how my statement of opinion makes me a 'racist'? I wasn't aware of any differences in our basic genetic makeup, pehaps you meant xenophobic instead?

Iclo, I'm very sorry if my statements seem to upset you, and yes, I tend to lean towards seeing my Government buy Military hardware from companies here in the U.S. as opposed to buying from an outside source that could affect the flow of parts and engineering by the simple expediant of a change of National leadership along with a shift in attitude by that new Government, or a political decision made by the management of the supplying company deciding that the USAF gets no parts or support because the U.S. General in charge of the program parts his hair on the right side.

One big reason that AIRBUS sells so many aircraft is the pricing and the beyond 'friendly financing terms' prvoided by AIRBUS to either keep a customer in their airplanes. or to entice an airline 'on the fence' to perhaps switch over and start using A3whatevers instead of someone elses product. It's the same tactic used by every seller of goods around the world 'Buy the new 2010 BELCHFIRE V-13 and get 986 months interest free financing'. Why do you think there are so many 'infomercials' on late night television selling interesting but essentially useless crap for 'ONLY $19.95?' If the 737 is such an inferior product then expalin why the order backlog is about 3 1/2 years on an airplane that is on a day and a half cycle? Expain why AIR FRANCE is one of the biggest customers of 777's.

In the U.S., carriers that use AIRBUS' tend to be those in financial desperate straits or marginal profitables who grab at new airplanes that are cheaper and are available 'right now' because AIRBUS moves the line along so everyone has a job, and the aircraft stack up out in the back lots.
Those carriers tend to not be around for very long (exceptions would be USAIR, NWA/DELTA, and UAL) or are still skating along on the edge of the ice like FRONTIER and a few other, smaller carriers. The list of
startups' in the U.S. (and elsewhere) that have been ploweed under is long and growing and most of them use or used A320's because the finacing was 'right' and the airframes were available 'now' and you need to get at the end of a very long line to purchase a good, used 737 let alone a brand new one.

From the standpoint of what is long term safe and what is marginal safe, I'll take a Boeing overbuilt part any day over a part designed to minimums or a price/material bottom line by engineers hounded by bean counters who only see the bottom line and usually know enough about an airliner to unerstand that where they usually sit, the seats are fewer in number, wider, and theres a choice in what the ptomaine of the day is.

So perhaps I am a bit pro Boeing, after all, I really like my job as a contractor with them and the bi monthly direct deposits keep me and the cat from sleeping in the car.

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

I'm struggling here to make the connection as to how my statement of opinion makes me a 'racist'? I wasn't aware of any differences in our basic genetic makeup, pehaps you meant xenophobic instead?

Iclo, I'm very sorry if my statements seem to upset you, and yes, I tend to lean towards seeing my Government buy Military hardware from companies here in the U.S. as opposed to buying from an outside source that could affect the flow of parts and engineering by the simple expediant of a change of National leadership along with a shift in attitude by that new Government, or a political decision made by the management of the supplying company deciding that the USAF gets no parts or support because the U.S. General in charge of the program parts his hair on the right side.

One big reason that AIRBUS sells so many aircraft is the pricing and the beyond 'friendly financing terms' prvoided by AIRBUS to either keep a customer in their airplanes. or to entice an airline 'on the fence' to perhaps switch over and start using A3whatevers instead of someone elses product. It's the same tactic used by every seller of goods around the world 'Buy the new 2010 BELCHFIRE V-13 and get 986 months interest free financing'. Why do you think there are so many 'infomercials' on late night television selling interesting but essentially useless crap for 'ONLY $19.95?' If the 737 is such an inferior product then expalin why the order backlog is about 3 1/2 years on an airplane that is on a day and a half cycle? Expain why AIR FRANCE is one of the biggest customers of 777's.

In the U.S., carriers that use AIRBUS' tend to be those in financial desperate straits or marginal profitables who grab at new airplanes that are cheaper and are available 'right now' because AIRBUS moves the line along so everyone has a job, and the aircraft stack up out in the back lots.
Those carriers tend to not be around for very long (exceptions would be USAIR, NWA/DELTA, and UAL) or are still skating along on the edge of the ice like FRONTIER and a few other, smaller carriers. The list of
startups' in the U.S. (and elsewhere) that have been plowed under is long and growing and most of them use or used A320's because the finacing was 'right' and the airframes were available 'now' and you need to get at the end of a very long line to purchase a good, used 737 let alone a brand new one.

From the standpoint of what is long term safe and what is marginal safe, I'll take a Boeing overbuilt part any day over a part designed to minimums or a price/material bottom line by engineers hounded by bean counters who only see the bottom line and usually know enough about an airliner to unerstand that where they usually sit, the seats are fewer in number, wider, and theres a choice in what the ptomaine of the day is.

So perhaps I am a bit pro Boeing, after all, I really like my job as a contractor with them and the bi monthly direct deposits keep me and the cat from sleeping in the car.

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

WHOOPS! sorry 'bout that multiple posting while editing

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

The Inspector: thanks for your message. Sorry if my message was a bit unfriendly, too

I understand and respect your position even though we not share the same.

I understand your support to Boeing. I'm not a huge fan of Airbus plane, and beeing a computer scientist myself, I'm not for that electronic or computer take the lead on the "real pilot". (I see so often perfect program starting bugging without reason )

Personnely, I think that in that current economical troubles the best way to save money are the cooperative way between differents countries. The US manufacturer are huge provider of military equipement and I think that would be normal that sometimes the balance work and European industry could made business on the other side of the Pond.
It's what happend when the USA sell F-16 to Belgian, Dutch, Norwegian air Force and the European industry gained part to manufacture in exchange.

Definitly, Best regards and I hope that ours difference of opinion will not prevent us to be friend on this forum and have friendly and interesting discussion.

_________________
Sorry for my bad English:-(