Poll

Airbus or Boeing?

Airbus37%37% - 89
Boeing62%62% - 146
Total: 235
spray_and_pray
Member
+52|6461|Perth. Western Australia

nlsme wrote:

spray_and_pray wrote:

nlsme wrote:

I see what you are saying yes, but if the manufacturer still chooses to use said parts, it is then the manufacturers fault. They are contracted with the supplier to stay within tolerances and specs. if a suppliers delivers the defective parts, they actually have to PAY the customer a penalty fee. Wich is up to $3000 U.S.D. per part. So why wouldn't they return the part to begin with. Instead THEY chose to ignore it. Wich puts them to BLAME for putting it on THEIR product. Notice the lawsuit was on Boeing, and not their SUPPLIER. And as for the airbus incident, WHO chose to NOT report the defect, RESULTING IN FATALITIES?
Like I said it is a big airliner 3000USD is not much at all to them considering they sell their aircraft at about 50Million AU+ each. The smaller variants not as much. If they knew a part was defective they simply would have returned the parts or sued the company for selling fauly parts your logic does not work out.
Considering thes aircraft have a 1,000,000 parts, I would say that $3000 a part would be an issue. So yeah, my logic does make since. No, they don't "sue" their suppliers. They are contracted with these suppliers. If the supplier delivers parts out of spec, The SUPPLIER pays the $3000. So, for the manufacturer to put faulty parts on the aircraft (after going through their OWN QUALITY CONTROL), how then is it the suppliers fault. Considering the manufacturer could have VERY EASILY REJECTED SAID PARTS, AND COLLECT THE $3000 per part (BTW the parts usually come in lots of 20 to 3,000[ between $60,000 and $9,000,000 worth of penalties]).
9 million might look big to you but it surely isn't big for an airline company and what we are talking about is 1 system which is used to control the rudder not the whole entire thing an aircraft is made of.
USAFDude_1988
Will fly for food.
+120|6479|Daytona Beach, FL
Why Boeing is better than Airbus...

1. Boeings can fly with severe damage... (e.g. no tail)
B-17:
https://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/photos/tail/tail2.jpg
https://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/photos/tail/stabil5.jpg
https://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/photos/tail/rudder100.jpg
B-52:
https://www.military.cz/usa/air/in_service/aircraft/b52/b52tailless.jpg

Airbuses can't.. (e.g. AAL587 late 2001)
https://www.dinocrat.com/wp-content/587.jpg
...265 people dead because Airbus can't build tough aircraft

2. Boeings look better (e.g. 747-8i vs. A380, 737 vs. A320)

3. Boeing has been in the aircraft industry since the 1910's.. (Airbus has only been around since the mid-70's)

4. Airbus steals Boeing's designs... (they have no choice, since Airbus' engineers have their heads up their asses!)
Boeing 787 final design (released April 2005):
https://softwareforhomes.com/INSURANCE/Images/TravelInsurance-Boeing787DreamLiner.jpg
Airbus A350 final design (5th or so rework after a year of screwing around June 2006):
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a9/A350xwb.jpg
...Where have I seen that before?!

Last edited by USAFDude_1988 (2007-01-22 09:53:50)

nlsme
Member
+48|6385|new york
$9,000,000 is a LARGE BONUS for REJECTING bad parts. The manufacturer DOES NOT pay this, they RECEIVE this. So why not take the money Instead of putting out of spec parts on THEIR aircraft? I would say that is a STUPID move on part of the MANUFACTURER to risk the safety of the aircraft, rather then collect free money!
And $9,000,000 is DEFINATLY a concern to the suppliers.

And i never said that we were talking about every componant of the plane. I said that each PART comes in LOTS (same part 20-3000 times). And it is written into EVERY contract they have with suppliers.
nlsme
Member
+48|6385|new york

USAFDude_1988 wrote:

Why Airbus is better than Boeing...

1. Boeings can fly with severe damage... (e.g. no tail)
B-17:
http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/photos/tail/tail2.jpg
http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/photo … tabil5.jpg
http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/photo … der100.jpg
B-52:
http://www.military.cz/usa/air/in_servi … illess.jpg

Airbuses can't.. (e.g. AAL587 late 2001)
http://www.dinocrat.com/wp-content/587.jpg
...265 people dead because Airbus can't build tough aircraft

2. Boeings look better (e.g. 747-8i vs. A380, 737 vs. A320)

3. Boeing has been in the aircraft industry since the 1910's.. (Airbus has only been around since the mid-70's)

4. Airbus steals Boeing's designs... (they have no choice, since Airbus' engineers have their heads up their asses!)
Boeing 787 final design (released April 2005):
http://softwareforhomes.com/INSURANCE/I … mLiner.jpg
Airbus A350 final design (5th or so rework after a year of screwing around June 2006):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e … 350xwb.jpg
...Where have I seen that before?!
Do you realize you said Airbus>Boeing? I think you meant to say Boeing>Airbus. If I am right , you get karma. As i said earlier, the number of fatalities per jet more than hints that Boeing is a tougher plane. Either that, or the humans involved in the "human error" become total tards with the Airbus. Or maybe people that matter take a lil more pride in servicing the Boeing's. But, I thinks it's Boeing>Airbus.


And the two are TOTALLY different. Look at the cockpit ffs.    /sarcasm

Last edited by nlsme (2007-01-22 09:58:10)

USAFDude_1988
Will fly for food.
+120|6479|Daytona Beach, FL

nlsme wrote:

Do you realize you said Airbus>Boeing? I think you meant to say Boeing<Airbus. If I am right , you get karma. As i said earlier, the number of fatalities per jet more than hints that Boeing is a tougher plane. Either that, or the humans involved in the "human error" become total tards with the Airbus. Or maybe eople that matter take a lil more pride in servicing the boeings. But, I thinks it's Boeing>Airbus.
Yeah you're right.. I'm an idiot.. I meant "Boeing is better than Airbus"...  Of course that could've been interpreted as a sarcastic remark lol.

Last edited by USAFDude_1988 (2007-01-22 09:57:13)

usmarine2007
Banned
+374|6337|Columbus, Ohio
So that makes it the BEST plane, it can fly without a tail or severe damage?  Hate to break it to you, but airlines do not consider that at all.

Last edited by usmarine2007 (2007-01-22 09:59:37)

nlsme
Member
+48|6385|new york

usmarine2007 wrote:

So that makes it the BEST plane, it can fly without a tail or severe damage?  Hate to break it to you, but airlines do not consider that at all.
Good point, but they must agree that Boeing is a better manufacturer. As Boeing jets outnumber Airbus 6 fold.
USAFDude_1988
Will fly for food.
+120|6479|Daytona Beach, FL

usmarine2007 wrote:

So that makes it the BEST plane, it can fly without a tail or severe damage?  Hate to break it to you, but airlines do not consider that at all.
True.. and I never suggested that they should.

They do care about fuel efficiency and that's why the 787 is whipping Airbus' ass. They also care about on-time deliveries... something that Airbus isn't too good at.

Last edited by USAFDude_1988 (2007-01-22 10:04:23)

USAFDude_1988
Will fly for food.
+120|6479|Daytona Beach, FL

usmarine2007 wrote:

zimmer92 wrote:

No. Airbus, for the simple reason that in 10 years, they will be ruling the skies.
You don't think the A380 will hurt them?  But, I do agree.  Many airlines are going with A319's and A320's because they get better financing.
Airbus' short-haul dominance will be short-lived.. just wait until Boeing releases Yellowstone 1 to the public.
Xaurora
Banned
+1|6292

surgeon_bond wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Boeing. Airbus are French. 'Nuff said.
Airbus is actually English, parts manufactured in england/germany/italy/france but assembled in france.
lol
spray_and_pray
Member
+52|6461|Perth. Western Australia
That B52 got its tail ripped off because of winds. The same person who was in charge of that said that the airbus which lost its tail after flying into the jetwake of a larger 747 could have flown without a tail but with very little control. I don't know if you know much about the stall characteristics of an aircraft but there is generally 3. Normal stall aircraft falls both wings lose lift, pilot presses down on the controls then pulls back up only when he goes to straight and level should he apply thrust. Spinout 1 wing loses lift the other one continues to produce it. The aircraft spins pivoting on the wing that has lost lift, procedure apply rudder in opposite direction then follow through with normal stall procedure. Flat spin can pretty much only be acheived when the aircraft loses the tail the aircraft however has to perform a sideways manuver (roll) to get the spinout into action. The aircraft spins depending on where the point of gravity is on it you have lost a tail, procedures.... start praying. You cant get out of a flat spin no matter what you do but the pilots of the A300 which lost a tail could have prevented a spinout. The aircraft had a problem with its rudder but it was also flying through jetwake this would have caused severe turbulence and the possibility of a stall because of the disturbance of lift under the aircrafts wing. The captain applied rudders in all directions until he basically broke it. Stall number 3 he and all others on board were praying for the last few seconds of their lives. Aviation its serious business.
SFR-Rooo
Member
+19|6612|portsmouth uk
just think what the terrorists could make out of the airbus in the right situation?
usmarine2007
Banned
+374|6337|Columbus, Ohio

SFR-Rooo wrote:

just think what the terrorists could make out of the airbus in the right situation?
I assume you are talking about the A380?  I agree that besides 700 to 800 passengers potentially being a logistical nightmare, the potential target of that many people to a terrorist is too much to ignore.  Not sure what Airbus was thinking when they decided to build the A380.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6621|USA

spray_and_pray wrote:

That B52 got its tail ripped off because of winds. The same person who was in charge of that said that the airbus which lost its tail after flying into the jetwake of a larger 747 could have flown without a tail but with very little control. I don't know if you know much about the stall characteristics of an aircraft but there is generally 3. Normal stall aircraft falls both wings lose lift, pilot presses down on the controls then pulls back up only when he goes to straight and level should he apply thrust. Spinout 1 wing loses lift the other one continues to produce it. The aircraft spins pivoting on the wing that has lost lift, procedure apply rudder in opposite direction then follow through with normal stall procedure. Flat spin can pretty much only be acheived when the aircraft loses the tail the aircraft however has to perform a sideways manuver (roll) to get the spinout into action. The aircraft spins depending on where the point of gravity is on it you have lost a tail, procedures.... start praying. You cant get out of a flat spin no matter what you do but the pilots of the A300 which lost a tail could have prevented a spinout. The aircraft had a problem with its rudder but it was also flying through jetwake this would have caused severe turbulence and the possibility of a stall because of the disturbance of lift under the aircrafts wing. The captain applied rudders in all directions until he basically broke it. Stall number 3 he and all others on board were praying for the last few seconds of their lives. Aviation its serious business.
THat is why Airbus sucks.........All Boeing aircraft have a rudder throw limiter system built into the rudder system. the faster you go the less rudder throw you will have. If Airbus designed their aircraft with no such features, than that alone is reason enough to hate Airbus. There should never be that kind of input available to the pilot if there is a chance of structureal failure because of it.

By the way, you can't have a disruption of airflow BELOW the wings, only above the wings. Since that is where lift is generated.

Last edited by lowing (2007-01-24 14:27:30)

Gfinners
Member
+17|6273|Cornwall, England
Airbus, cause 51% of aircraft resources are supplied by Airbus.

Last edited by Gfinners (2007-01-24 14:29:07)

usmarine2007
Banned
+374|6337|Columbus, Ohio

lowing wrote:

THat is why Airbus sucks.........All Boeing aircraft have a rudder throw limiter system built into the rudder system. the faster you go the less rudder throw you will have. If Airbus designed their aircraft with no such features, than that alone is reason enough to hate Airbus. There should never be that kind of input available to the pilot if there is a chance of structureal failure because of it.
Airbus has built in safety logic for all flight control movements.
nlsme
Member
+48|6385|new york

Gfinners wrote:

Airbus, cause 51% of aircraft resources are supplied by Airbus.
51%? I think I have already provided the numbers that show Boeing is 6 times larger? And that doesn't include cargo or military.

Last edited by nlsme (2007-01-25 00:53:34)

lowing
Banned
+1,662|6621|USA

usmarine2007 wrote:

lowing wrote:

THat is why Airbus sucks.........All Boeing aircraft have a rudder throw limiter system built into the rudder system. the faster you go the less rudder throw you will have. If Airbus designed their aircraft with no such features, than that alone is reason enough to hate Airbus. There should never be that kind of input available to the pilot if there is a chance of structureal failure because of it.
Airbus has built in safety logic for all flight control movements.
An A320 that will fly into the trees because the airplane wanted to land when the pilot wanted to go around doesn't seem to logical to me.
usmarine2007
Banned
+374|6337|Columbus, Ohio

lowing wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

lowing wrote:

THat is why Airbus sucks.........All Boeing aircraft have a rudder throw limiter system built into the rudder system. the faster you go the less rudder throw you will have. If Airbus designed their aircraft with no such features, than that alone is reason enough to hate Airbus. There should never be that kind of input available to the pilot if there is a chance of structureal failure because of it.
Airbus has built in safety logic for all flight control movements.
An A320 that will fly into the trees because the airplane wanted to land when the pilot wanted to go around doesn't seem to logical to me.
The Airbus FBW (fly by wire) system in this accident performed exactly as designed and exactly as it should......it took information from the speed of the aircraft, the attitude of the aircraft and computed the angle of attack which would give the highest rate of climb...exactly what you'd need to clear an obstacle.  He was too low for any engine on any airplane to respond in time.

What if it had been a non-FBW aircraft? Some pilots would have dared to pull the plane right to the ragged edge of the stall. Others would not have pulled it even to max L/D. Others again would have pulled it right into the stall.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6621|USA

usmarine2007 wrote:

lowing wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

Airbus has built in safety logic for all flight control movements.
An A320 that will fly into the trees because the airplane wanted to land when the pilot wanted to go around doesn't seem to logical to me.
The Airbus FBW (fly by wire) system in this accident performed exactly as designed and exactly as it should......it took information from the speed of the aircraft, the attitude of the aircraft and computed the angle of attack which would give the highest rate of climb...exactly what you'd need to clear an obstacle.  He was too low for any engine on any airplane to respond in time.

What if it had been a non-FBW aircraft? Some pilots would have dared to pull the plane right to the ragged edge of the stall. Others would not have pulled it even to max L/D. Others again would have pulled it right into the stall.
It wasn't a question of engines. The pilots firewalled the engines, the AIRPLANE decided that fire walling the throttles was not the proper config for what it wanted to, and that was land. Unfortunately it decided to land in the woods.

It was alos never a question of stalling. The aircraft simply wanted to land when the pilot didn't. The airplane won, ( or lost depending on how you want to look at it).

Last edited by lowing (2007-01-25 18:21:07)

usmarine2007
Banned
+374|6337|Columbus, Ohio

lowing wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

lowing wrote:


An A320 that will fly into the trees because the airplane wanted to land when the pilot wanted to go around doesn't seem to logical to me.
The Airbus FBW (fly by wire) system in this accident performed exactly as designed and exactly as it should......it took information from the speed of the aircraft, the attitude of the aircraft and computed the angle of attack which would give the highest rate of climb...exactly what you'd need to clear an obstacle.  He was too low for any engine on any airplane to respond in time.

What if it had been a non-FBW aircraft? Some pilots would have dared to pull the plane right to the ragged edge of the stall. Others would not have pulled it even to max L/D. Others again would have pulled it right into the stall.
It wasn't a question of engines. The pilots firewalled the engines, the AIRPLANE decided that fire walling the throttles was not the proper config for what it wanted to, and that was land. Unfortunately it decided to land in the woods.
The crew had no intention of landing there, as this was a short runway intended for light aircraft, but was making an approach and a lowpass in "dirty" configuration.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6621|USA

usmarine2007 wrote:

lowing wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:


The Airbus FBW (fly by wire) system in this accident performed exactly as designed and exactly as it should......it took information from the speed of the aircraft, the attitude of the aircraft and computed the angle of attack which would give the highest rate of climb...exactly what you'd need to clear an obstacle.  He was too low for any engine on any airplane to respond in time.

What if it had been a non-FBW aircraft? Some pilots would have dared to pull the plane right to the ragged edge of the stall. Others would not have pulled it even to max L/D. Others again would have pulled it right into the stall.
It wasn't a question of engines. The pilots firewalled the engines, the AIRPLANE decided that fire walling the throttles was not the proper config for what it wanted to, and that was land. Unfortunately it decided to land in the woods.
The crew had no intention of landing there, as this was a short runway intended for light aircraft, but was making an approach and a lowpass in "dirty" configuration.
YES, but the airplane had no idea how long the runway was it wanted to land and the pilot could not get a response from the aircraft for a go around. EXACTLY my point.
usmarine2007
Banned
+374|6337|Columbus, Ohio

lowing wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

lowing wrote:


It wasn't a question of engines. The pilots firewalled the engines, the AIRPLANE decided that fire walling the throttles was not the proper config for what it wanted to, and that was land. Unfortunately it decided to land in the woods.
The crew had no intention of landing there, as this was a short runway intended for light aircraft, but was making an approach and a lowpass in "dirty" configuration.
YES, but the airplane had no idea how long the runway was it wanted to land and the pilot could not get a response from the aircraft for a go around. EXACTLY my point.
Ok..we will not agree obviously...but the pilot was too low when he decided to " go around" IMO.
Eagle
Togs8896 is my evil alter ego
+567|6601|New Hampshire, USA
Boeing's joint-strike fighter to rival the F-35

https://bts.boeing.com/history/boeing/images/dvd-9-2.jpg
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/14407/Sig_Pats.jpg
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6621|USA

usmarine2007 wrote:

lowing wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:


The crew had no intention of landing there, as this was a short runway intended for light aircraft, but was making an approach and a lowpass in "dirty" configuration.
YES, but the airplane had no idea how long the runway was it wanted to land and the pilot could not get a response from the aircraft for a go around. EXACTLY my point.
Ok..we will not agree obviously...but the pilot was too low when he decided to " go around" IMO.
We can count this one a draw.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard