Boeing stretches battle lines - special report on new 747-8

Flight International Online ^ | 25 November 2005 | Andrew Doyle

[Loud Mime]

...and then there's the suits concerning the newer runway for Airbus.

This is getting interesting.

[True Republican Patriot]

A Big Factor will be that the 747-8 will use existing airports, and not require new oversized runways Taxiways and Terminals, all of which are required by the A-380 Flying Beast.

[Prophet in the wilderness]

Well, Singapore airlines is not to very happy with the 6 month delay and performance problems, and other technical problems with the A-380, and those orders that were not firmed up, could those orders possibly go to the 747-8I ?
If the A-380 runs into more delays, that will be the final straw that broke Airbuse's back ?
Just imagine those airlines that ordered the A-380, then learning of those problems with the A-380, and are sitting on the fence, and now has a new option in the new 747-8I-8F.

[Prophet in the wilderness]

One thing to remember, their economies are in serious trouble there in the EU.
Germany is facing 14- 15 % unemployment.
Keep that in mind when Airbus needs more subsidies to trow down the tubes to keep Airbus afloat.
Isn't socialism grand ? NOT !!!!

[Chode]

i've said it before, if you built brandy new DC-3's today with all new avionics etc., they would sell...

[Prophet in the wilderness]

THE BOEING 747 ...

THE ORIGINAL JUMBO JET ....

STILL A MIRACLE

[Pukin Dog]

If I had to guess, I dont think you will ever see a Singapore A-380 flying regular routes.

[Paleo Conservative]

I believe the technical term would be "piss poor reliability". C-5s break down over half the time. That means every other mission is cancelled or delayed due to maintenance issues. Reminds me of the old joke...You're on an Air Force base and see three C-5s, two of which are sitting on jacks. What can you deduce from this sight?

It isn't designed as a passenger plane. Even if the tooling still existed, no airline would pay a premium price for a plane that is primarily designed as an military over-sized cargo plane. The kneeling landing gear just adds weight and gives no advantage to a passenger airliner. The high wing puts the engines at the level where the passengers would be sitting making the cabin noisier. Lockheed wanted to make a civilian over-sized cargo version, but no one was interested back in the early 1970's or later in the late 1980's when the 50 C-5B models were built.

Of the surviving 126 C-5's 110 of them will undergo the Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) and later the Reliability Enhancement and Re-Engining Program (RERP). The C-5 was a victim of the Vietnam war. Congress underfunded programs to fix the C-5's problems and buy spare parts. The AMP and RERP programs will solve those problems using of the shelf commercial technology like the same CF6-80-2 engines used on what will be over 700 747-400's and hundreds of 767's. There are so many thousands of these engines that there should be no problem getting parts and service from the commercial sector for years to come. Several test C-5B's and one C-5A have already undergone the AMP part of the modernization program which puts a modern glass cockpit based on avionics processors used in the 777. The upgraded C-5's will be called the C-5M regardless of whether it is an upgraded A or B model. I'm not quite sure what the designation for the 2 upgraded C-5C's will be. The upgrades will improve the reliability so they will be available at least 75% of the time but possibly even 85% like the C-17 and other Air Force transports. It will increase the maximum takeoff weight while decreasing the runway length needed to take off fully loaded. The improvement in fuel economy will decrease operating costs by 34% per hour and 44% per ton mile. The first C-5M has just had its new engines mounted.

Here is an article about the first C-5M which just had its new eingins installed.

C-5 upgrades a bit more clear for Robins visionaries (Links to photos)
Macon.com ^ | Wed, Nov. 16, 2005 | Gene Rector

Posted on 11/23/2005 10:21:14 PM CST by Paleo Conservative

[Prophet in the wilderness]

[namsman]

I'm sure it does. Every large, swept-wing aircraft is subject to dutch roll. A yaw damper is the only way to control it.

[TeddyCon]

FACT: Airbus also underpriced their birds in order to outsell Boeing five years in a row because Airbus' "investors", i.e. several European countries, already had next year's Airbus' life support check in the mail.

"As of right now, Boeing leads Airbus for 2005, and it will take a clean sweep by Airbus of the three remaining contracts before year end if Airbus is to surpass Boeing this year."

Well if the business that was done at this year's Dubai Air Show was any indication of who will outsell whom for the remainder of this year, I wouldn't worry too much about Airbus' hitting the trifecta.

"Aitbus has been more than just a competitor.You lack facts on this issue."

True. Airbus Has been more than just a competitor.

It has been a joke based on a euro-marxist business model that now has to raise the prices of its birds in order to actually start making some money, and not simply doing what they do for cost.

So who the hell needs facts when he is certain that Airbus' four years of having outsold Boeing were hollow victories, since the fact was that the ghost of ol' Karl was gonna leap up and bite em' square on the ass sooner or later anyhow?

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

I hate the centralized, Marxist underpinning of Airbus just as much as you do. I just pointed out that you were factually incorrect since Airbus beat Boeing five years in a row, regardless of whether the competition was fair or not.

[TeddyCon]

Fair enough - and yes, I was. lol

[DennisR]

Yeah - Airbus bit the big one on their idiotic decision to pour about $16 billion into a plane they will be lucky to sell 500 of. Airbus building the modern-day version of the Concorde is akin to Howard Dean being chair of the DNC - the opposition could not have thought up anything better if they had tried. :)

[Paleo Conservative]

I hate the centralized, Marxist underpinning of Airbus just as much as you do. I just pointed out that you were factually incorrect since Airbus beat Boeing five years in a row, regardless of whether the competition was fair or not.

A lot of that change had to do with the slow down of Boeing deliveries and new orders after 9-11 caused a serious decrease in passenger air travel especially in the US. Airbus didn't slow down its lines.

[freedumb2003]

I find it amazing that a 1960s design like the 747 can be economically viable today. It really shows the quality of the original design

The designs that came out of the 60's and 70's continue to operate and astound:

• SR 71 Blackbird (c 1966)
• F-15 Eagle (c 1973)
• F-14 Tomcat (c 1972)
• F-16 Falcon (c 1976)
• F-10 Thunderbolt (c 1976)
• B-52 StratoFortress (c 1955!)

Of course the very, very latest (F-117, F-22, F-35) finally can surpass these, but not by that much. The bulk of our aerial superiority lie in these 20-30 year old designs and of course, more importantly, the 20-30 something year old pilots, the best in the world, who fly them.

[cynicom]

Answer...The base only has two sets of jacks.<p.

Years ago we called such acft, "ramp roosters" and "hangar queens".

[HereInTheHeartland]

I want one.

[Batrachian]

Your right, but I'm referring to commercial designs where economics are everything. The examples you cited are all excellent designs, but economics plays a much smaller role.

You know why they can't come up with a fighter that's significantly better than the F-15? Because the pilots couldn't stand the gees. The avionics and stealth of the F-22 is far superior, but the performance can't be. They would have to remove the pilot altogether, and that's in the cards. As for the B-52, they had a replacement for it in the 1960s, the B-70 Valkyrie, which was awesome, but it was canceled in favor of investing in ICBMs.

[freedumb2003]

Can you point me to some links about the 380 runway suits?

I was researching and saw lots of plans, or I guess plans-to-plan and didn't see anything on how these airports will pay (or be paid) for the runway reinforcements or new gangplanks.