Posted on 11/29/2010 6:32:17 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
The earliest of those went into production when?
You’re 100% correct. I think the problem is that Boeing outsourced the engineering — much harder to coordinate across timezones/languages/countries. If Boeing had engineered themselves and shared production worldwide (which they’ve done on other commercial and military aircraft), they’d likely be in much a better position with planes in the hands of customers today.
Beechcraft Premier I - March 2001
Yes, you have a point, but to make it you have to really distort what I was saying. Of course there is a strategic competition between two different route structure models, hub and spoke and point to point. it is also true that generally the 787 is well suited to point to point routing strategies and the A380 maybe better suited for hub and spoke.
It is also true that the 787 can and almost certainly will be used to fly hub and spoke routes, just as the A380 is used today to fly point to point, as Melbourne-London.
That said, the two planes are not direct competitors; they are simply too different. The A350 will be a competitor to the 787 - and the 777 as well.
As I said in the other thread from a few days ago...First of all, this guy Baker is a hack whos trying to outdo airlines like Emirates, who between them have ordered enough airplanes to saturate the market several times over. He needs to worry about where the millions of passengers are going to come from that will keep his airline in business along with the plethora of airlines in his backyard that have all gone on buying sprees in the last decade. He expects airlines like the European nationals and Qantas to just lay down for him....that was also a main reason for his diatribe. And secondly, he has always been an Airbus man...go ahead and order some more A380s, there certainly hasnt been any problems with that model of late...not to mention it too was severely delayed, just as the A350 will be.
The stuff has been around for twenty years.
We still have issues with metal fatigue and metal fabrication to this day, and will for a hundred years. No one is suggesting we don’t use metal.
Hawker 4000 is carbon, supposedly 1/3 less in weight, which I am led to believe is important in aircraft.
How long have helicopter blades( an important part, somewhat stressed ) been composite? 20-30 years?
They’ll get it down. It is just a matter of time, money and application. Somebody has to go first, learn the curve, and reap the benefits.
Weight is important - higher weight = higher fuel costs, etc.
I have no idea about helo blades. I’m a fixed-wing guy, personally.
While I am a pretty smart guy, I am ALWAYS amazed at the wealth of knowledge at the fingertips of the collective Freeperhood! Thanks for the info, FRiend.
That’s the whole thing about open society and open communication. Knowledge is dispersed. It does exists. The less obstacles to communication the better, quicker the communication. This is why the Japanese corporations tried to make the 5-7 only layers of management between the floor worker and the CEO. As opposed to the GM model of a labyrinth of corporate offices, staffs, agencies, with convoluted flow charts of decision making.
This is why the MSM is dying. Why get news from a near failed journalism student talking head that couldn’t change a spark plug when we citizens can talk amongst ourselves, openly, honestly, and one, a few, have the information about that thing, at that moment? For FREE! ( Free is good. Free people, free society, free( near free ) information! ).
So, thanks for the discussion. See you around the threads.
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.