Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Airbus Naughty, Says WTO
DOD Buzz ^ | 3/23/2010 | Colin Clark

Posted on 03/23/2010 9:25:34 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld

Boeing’s biggest supporters roared out of the gate Tuesday after the World Trade Organization issued a final ruling that Airbus enjoyed unfair subsidies from European governments.

“Enough is enough. For too long, workers in Washington state have had to fight an uphill battle. Instead of competing just with Airbus, they’ve been forced to compete with the deep pockets of European governments that supply Airbus with illegal launch aid,” Sen. Patty Murray of Washington said in a statement. Then she aimed straight at the tanker competition. “It’s clear that the A330, the very plane Airbus would offer our military, has received illegal subsidies that have hurt American workers. Now’s not the time to delay this competition further. Especially not for a company that is undercutting our workers. It’s time to stop bending over backwards to meet the demands of an illegally subsidized foreign company and to move forward with providing America’s military with an American-made tanker.”

(Excerpt) Read more at dodbuzz.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: a330; aerospace; airbis; airbus; airrefueling; boeing; eu; europe; kcx; refuelingtanker; tanker; wto

1 posted on 03/23/2010 9:25:34 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove
Oh My!


2 posted on 03/23/2010 9:34:07 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ( Tagline lost -- anyone seen it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

LOL


3 posted on 03/23/2010 9:34:28 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld ("I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution."-Dr.Wernher Von Braun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove

I lived in a Seattle suburb for a few years in the late 80’s and early 90’s. The Boeing people’s mantra was “Buy American!!!!” Of course, they were all driving Nissans and Toyotas and Subarus to Starbucks while they said that. “Buying American” only means one thing to those people; Boeing.


4 posted on 03/23/2010 9:34:36 PM PDT by Bernard (One if by Land, Two if by Sea, Three if by Government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bernard

I know some Boeing people and that comment is true.


5 posted on 03/23/2010 9:35:40 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld ("I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution."-Dr.Wernher Von Braun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove

A Democrat worried about jobs? Yea right.


6 posted on 03/23/2010 9:37:26 PM PDT by AFreeBird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove
“Enough is enough. For too long, workers in Washington state have had to fight an uphill battle. Instead of competing just with Airbus, they’ve been forced to compete with the deep pockets of European governments that supply Airbus with illegal launch aid,” Sen. Patty Murray of Washington said in a statement.

Box of rocks Murray has a problem with socialism?

7 posted on 03/23/2010 9:40:20 PM PDT by freespirited (I'm against a homogenized society because I want the cream to rise. --Robert Frost)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove

Indeed, start with that idiot former Boeing Chairman Phil COndit, now disgraced in kickback schemes, who, before 911 said that we do not need a US flag in Wall Street, it’s all happy global customers now.


8 posted on 03/23/2010 9:53:38 PM PDT by JudgemAll (control freaks, their world & their problem with my gun and my protecting my private party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Bernard

All hypocrisy aside, that A330 is a real piece of crap, though.

What we need bad is a new design, like a flying wing fuel tank or that UAV box-wing concept refueling 4 aircrafts at a time.


9 posted on 03/23/2010 9:56:08 PM PDT by JudgemAll (control freaks, their world & their problem with my gun and my protecting my private party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove

“....the World Trade Organization issued a final ruling that Airbus enjoyed unfair subsidies from European governments.”

Well, DUH! How long has it taken the WTO to come to this startling and timely decision? Seriously, this has been known for a couple of decades. Fortunately, most folks didn’t need to wait this long for an industrial group to make it “official”. I think that maybe one or two people in the industry were unaware of this, but that figure may be a little high.


10 posted on 03/23/2010 9:58:59 PM PDT by Habibi ("It is vain to do with more what can be done with less." - William of Occam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Habibi
“Well, DUH! How long has it taken the WTO to come to this startling and timely decision? Seriously, this has been known for a couple of decades.”

What other people think of the decision:

Airbus, in its own statement, said that the WTO had rejected 70 percent of the U.S. claims in the subsidy case. Airbus also said that the European “reimbursable loan mechanism” was found to be a legal part of any relationship between government and industry.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/mar/24/wto-rules-airbus-unfairly-subsidized/

And still the counter claim is pending. I think, we should wait to reach any conclusion until we self can read the case. I don't trust people like Sen. Patty Hurray.

11 posted on 03/24/2010 1:02:58 AM PDT by MHalblaub ("Easy my friends, when it comes to the point it is only a drawing made by a non believing Dane...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JudgemAll

Tankers should be simple, reliable and proven technology. Save the high tech for aircraft that have to face the enemy head on.


12 posted on 03/24/2010 1:10:45 AM PDT by MediaMole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MediaMole
“Tankers should be simple, reliable and proven technology. Save the high tech for aircraft that have to face the enemy head on.”

That would rule out the KC-767NewGen with the 75 % bigger LCD displays, with the yet to build 6th Gen boom, with the wing pod issue, with the strange cargo handling, ... .

13 posted on 03/24/2010 2:38:31 AM PDT by MHalblaub ("Easy my friends, when it comes to the point it is only a drawing made by a non believing Dane...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative; magslinger

airbusted ping


14 posted on 03/24/2010 3:08:11 AM PDT by Tainan (Cogito, ergo conservatus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MHalblaub

What strange cargo handling?


15 posted on 03/24/2010 5:42:51 AM PDT by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MHalblaub

That would rule out the Airbus A330 as it is all computer driven. LCD displays are jsut that they replace analog.. At least with the KC-767 you can take over full manual control. Unlike the Airbus,


16 posted on 03/24/2010 6:03:18 AM PDT by cmdr straker (Buy American save Jobs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo
“What strange cargo handling?”

From the current SRD:

“3.2.3.3.2 No major reconfiguration, such as removing aircrew seats, barrier net, aircrew rest facilities, or other peripherals, should be required to load or unload the KC-X main deck cargo compartment. (NON-MANDATORY)”

I can't imagine why this shouldn't be mandatory except for the fact a KC-30 got no problems and a KC-767 got problems with this feature.

Maybe the short 767-200 fuselage got some problems due to the space between the tip of the left side engine or wing root, the cargo door, the crew compartment and the permanent seating for 15 crew members. So each time a KC-767NG loads or unloads cargo some semi-permanent features have to be removed first.

Distance nose to wing root for -300 is about 60 ft. For a -200 it's about 45 ft. So a -200 is about 15 ft shorter in front of the wing. Distance between forward door and wing is about 25 ft for a -200. Cargo door is about 12 feet width. There is not much space left.

17 posted on 03/24/2010 7:12:49 AM PDT by MHalblaub ("Easy my friends, when it comes to the point it is only a drawing made by a non believing Dane...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: cmdr straker
“That would rule out the Airbus A330 as it is all computer driven. LCD displays are jsut that they replace analog.. At least with the KC-767 you can take over full manual control. Unlike the Airbus,”

That feature is called direct law on an Airbus. The flight control is certified by FAA. Your 767 would also fall out of the sky without computer support.

Here you can watch fully manual controlled Boeing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E21byPXR1ek

18 posted on 03/24/2010 7:24:48 AM PDT by MHalblaub ("Easy my friends, when it comes to the point it is only a drawing made by a non believing Dane...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MHalblaub

horse hockey


19 posted on 03/24/2010 7:25:55 AM PDT by cmdr straker (Buy American save Jobs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MHalblaub

That feature is called direct law on an Airbus. The flight control is certified by FAA. Your 767 would also fall out of the sky without computer support

Boeing continued to the chose conventional control systems for its 757 and 767 aircraft but Airbus Industries went ahead and introduced digital fly-by-wire in its A320 airplanes. It was only on the Boeing 777 that the Company finally decided to introduce the digital fly-by-wire controls. Thus, this concept which is basically the result of wanting to put a man on the moon, have today become an accepted part of modern aviation design.

Although the Boeing 777 and the Airbus 320 series and later, adopted this new concept, there are slight differences in their applications. Airbus has taken a much different philosophical approach to using computers than Boeing. The European airplane maker designed its new fly-by-wire jets with built-in protections or hard limits.

The Boeing Company, on the other hand, believes pilots should have the ultimate say, meaning that on the Boeing jets, the pilot can override onboard computers and their built-in soft limits. The issue is, should pilots or a computer have the ultimate control over a commercial jetliner as the plane approaches its design limits in an emergency? There were strong arguments by pilots on both sides of the debates. Some pilots were of the opinion that computer protection of the A320 is very good whereas other pilots support the Boeing philosophy that they must have the final say in controlling the airplane

the 767 has FULL OVER RIDE.. when you hit the autopilot disc switch or apply a certain amout of pressure on the YOKE it disconnects giving the pilot full CONTROL


20 posted on 03/24/2010 8:02:46 AM PDT by cmdr straker (Buy American save Jobs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MHalblaub
But the permanent load master crew seating, lav, and protective netting are all forward of the cargo door, so none of that needs to be reconfigured or removed for loading. As far as I can see, the KC-767 should meet 3.2.3.3.2.

See page 17 of this powerpoint document.

21 posted on 03/24/2010 8:03:25 AM PDT by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: MHalblaub

can’t imagine why this shouldn’t be mandatory except for the fact a KC-30 got no problems and a KC-767 got problems with this feature.

Maybe the short 767-200 fuselage got some problems due to the space between the tip of the left side engine or wing root, the cargo door, the crew compartment and the permanent seating for 15 crew members. So each time a KC-767NG loads or unloads cargo some semi-permanent features have to be removed first.

What a load or horse crap.. you really stretching it. A K loader let alone a easylift fits right in the area between the door and wing eng area. if anything the A330 with its nose down attitude is more of a problem.


22 posted on 03/24/2010 8:05:57 AM PDT by cmdr straker (Buy American save Jobs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo
See page 17 of this powerpoint document.

According to the drawing on the button “Up to 97 patients” it seems the cargo door is located quite at the wing root right in front of the second column of pallets.

I can see on these three images just some standard galleys behind a standard cockpit. Within the cockpit section I can't see the place for the Aerial Refueling Operator (ARO) station nor the required seat for the ARO instructor or ARO observer (SRD 3.1.1.15f).

I can't see the permanent seating for 15 crew members nor the crew rest compartment. As you can see on picture “Up to 190 passengers” about 12 seats require length of one 463L pallet. (I doubt these seating is already available C-17SeatPallets.pdf)

With crew rest compartment, ARO station and permanent seating you'll reach out with “permanent” configuration well into the second column of the pallets. Right there is the main deck cargo door.

You can compare Boeing's drawings with the space used for crew compartment and ARO station with Australian KC-30:
http://blog.sandglasspatrol.com/index.php/noticias/40-militar/479-arabia-saudi-adquiere-otros-tres-a330-mrtt-tankers (1700 x 1200 pix)

23 posted on 03/24/2010 9:17:58 AM PDT by MHalblaub ("Easy my friends, when it comes to the point it is only a drawing made by a non believing Dane...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Bernard

Many Americans are liars. They demand everyone else buy their American product while screaming, “Buy American!”, yet, they buy everything foreign.


24 posted on 03/24/2010 9:20:56 AM PDT by CodeToad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MHalblaub

That particular powerpoint shows the KC-767A for either Italy or Japan (I’m not sure which.) The area forward of the pallets shown is where all the mandatory bits will go. There is a forward door in that area, ahead of the cargo door.

There is also area aft, with it’s own aft door, so perhaps some of the permanent seating for 15 crew will be there, although with a full cargo load, they’d be cutoff from the forward part of the aircraft. (unless they were really skinny...)


25 posted on 03/24/2010 10:15:58 AM PDT by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: cmdr straker
“the 767 has FULL OVER RIDE.. when you hit the autopilot disc switch or apply a certain amout of pressure on the YOKE it disconnects giving the pilot full CONTROL”

Here is a good post by Zeke: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/3018977/
Also a good read is: http://www.seattlepi.com/business/boe202.shtml

Is there a real direct control on 767? Can you tell me how a B767 is controlled without any computer or electricity? Even CVR and FDR go offline without electricity.

“Some pilots were of the opinion that computer protection of the A320 is very good whereas other pilots support the Boeing philosophy that they must have the final say in controlling the airplane”

You may ask this Chesley Sullenberger what the A320 did when the engines lost thrust.

“Thus, this concept which is basically the result of wanting to put a man on the moon, have today become an accepted part of modern aviation design.”

On the A380 several controls can be operated as backup via direct driven electrical actuators in case of loss of hydraulic oil.

“The European airplane maker designed its new fly-by-wire jets with built-in protections or hard limits.”

There are no hard limits except those disrupting the aircraft (about 2.5 g). For military purpose you may set the force limit to 3.0, 3.5 g or even 4.0 g. It's also no problem to fly an Airbus at direct law. So it's no problem to fly e.g. a barrel roll but most passengers won’t like such stunts.

Do you know how the fly-by-wire system works on a C-17? Hint, it’s not a Boeing design.

26 posted on 03/25/2010 1:59:09 AM PDT by MHalblaub ("Easy my friends, when it comes to the point it is only a drawing made by a non believing Dane...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: MHalblaub

Here is a good post by Zeke: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/3018977/
Also a good read is: http://www.seattlepi.com/business/boe202.shtml

Is there a real direct control on 767? Can you tell me how a B767 is controlled without any computer or electricity? Even CVR and FDR go offline without electricity.

THATS FOR THE 777 not 767 Dumas ever heard of emergency battery power or a RAT.

You may ask this Chesley Sullenberger what the A320 did when the engines lost thrust.

ITS CALLED A RAT RAM AIR TURBINE FOR EMEGENCY POWER most airplanes have one. plus emergency battery power

Do you know how the fly-by-wire system works on a C-17? Hint, it’s not a Boeing design.

Yes its a system derived from the NASA f-8 program made by BAE.


27 posted on 03/25/2010 2:14:46 AM PDT by cmdr straker (Buy American save Jobs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: MHalblaub

Is there a real direct control on 767? Can you tell me how a B767 is controlled without any computer or electricity? Even CVR and FDR go offline without electricity.

Same as any other non FBW airplanes,.


28 posted on 03/25/2010 2:20:40 AM PDT by cmdr straker (Buy American save Jobs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo
“That particular powerpoint shows the KC-767A for either Italy or Japan (I’m not sure which.) The area forward of the pallets shown is where all the mandatory bits will go.”

As you can see from the A330 MRTT picture the ARO station takes quite a lot of space. The station reachs up to the forward doors. All three KC-767 pictures miss this station and the required seating in front of the station. Therefore the crew rest compartment have to be behind the forward doors then looking from tip of the nose.

“There is also area aft, with it’s own aft door, so perhaps some of the permanent seating for 15 crew will be there, although with a full cargo load, they’d be cutoff from the forward part of the aircraft. (unless they were really skinny...)”

On the Australian A330 MRTT the compartment is located on the middle row to keep both aisles free. With 8 economy class seats on both sides with a pitch of 30’’ a KC-767 lose at least the first row of pallets.

Now there is another problem. If the main deck cargo door is located right at the wing root, as it is slightly visible in your pictures, the main deck loader is located right in front of the engine. The loader can't maneuver much without touching the engine. To allow the loader a little space to maneuver I'll would recommend at least 10 ft distance to the engine. Then the main deck cargo door is located right within reach of the crew rest compartment. Due to crew changes during flight the crew rest compartment and the crew seating can't be located aft.

Position 3.2.3.3.2 of the SRD is NON-MANDATORY. I can see no other reason why this shouldn't be mandatory except the favored aircraft got problems. As you can see within the SRD everthing a KC-767 can is mandatory everthing else is a option.

29 posted on 03/25/2010 3:39:07 AM PDT by MHalblaub ("Easy my friends, when it comes to the point it is only a drawing made by a non believing Dane...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: cmdr straker
THATS FOR THE 777 not 767 Dumas ever heard of emergency battery power or a RAT.

I did heard of it. Did you know how an input via yoke is send to the control surface on a B767? Via cable, via direct hydraulic actuator, ... how?

Yes its a system derived from the NASA f-8 program made by BAE.

The Airbus system is also derived from a NASA development. Did you read the links I posted?

30 posted on 03/25/2010 4:56:06 AM PDT by MHalblaub ("Easy my friends, when it comes to the point it is only a drawing made by a non believing Dane...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: MHalblaub

I did heard of it. Did you know how an input via yoke is send to the control surface on a B767? Via cable, via direct hydraulic actuator, ... how

From the Yoke to two parallel sets of flight control components linked together at the forward and aft override mechanisms/linkages and slave cable interconnects. In other words cables pulley’s bellcranks, to a quadrant, then to control rods which are connected to the PCA which is a actuator connected to a flight control surface.


31 posted on 03/25/2010 5:21:44 AM PDT by cmdr straker (Buy American save Jobs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: cmdr straker
“From the Yoke to two parallel sets of flight control components linked together at the forward and aft override mechanisms/linkages and slave cable interconnects. In other words cables pulley’s bellcranks, to a quadrant, then to control rods which are connected to the PCA which is a actuator connected to a flight control surface.”

I found some disturbing article how elevator controls are supposed to work on a 767.

“I rely on God”

Read the section about “Pilot Action Scenario”.

The 767 worked as supposed to do.

32 posted on 03/25/2010 7:07:26 AM PDT by MHalblaub ("Easy my friends, when it comes to the point it is only a drawing made by a non believing Dane...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: MHalblaub

PILOT ERROR and failure to take command. not the planes fault.


33 posted on 03/25/2010 7:14:03 AM PDT by cmdr straker (Buy American save Jobs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: cmdr straker
“PILOT ERROR and failure to take command.”

No. RELIGION ERROR.

34 posted on 03/25/2010 10:29:17 AM PDT by MHalblaub ("Easy my friends, when it comes to the point it is only a drawing made by a non believing Dane...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson