Boring airliners?

In article , Cub Driver wrote:
It doesn't replace the 777 but the 757, the last one of which was
finished yesterday, and the line is now closed.

What will we do for our excess wake turbulence now!

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

More like there aren't enough people near Columbus who want to go to London
and, more importantly, not enough people in London want to go to Columbus.
Only one Buckeye fan over here, you see. :-)

Shawn
"john smith" wrote in message
...
ShawnD2112 wrote:
Boeing reckon people will buy more point-to-point tickets, which won't
support larger airplanes but would be commercially viable with smaller
and more cost-efficient aircraft. It could finally open up that
long-ignored Columbus OH - London route that's been languishing
unexploited for so long!

FYI... here in Columbus Ohio we discussed that issue 15 year ago.
It is an ATC problem getting the aircraft up to altitude Columbus to
Europe and getting them down Europe to Columbus. The flight paths interfer
with with Clevland, New York and Detroit operations.

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 at 14:16:28 in message
, Dean Wilkinson
wrote:

Boeing addressed the 737 problem by redesigning the yaw damper system and
retrofitting it in the field, so bringing this up to defend the flaw in the
A300 is a non-sequiter argument. The fact remains, the A300 has a design
flaw of some kind that needs to be fixed. If Airbus wants to try to sweep
it under the rug, they are just going to wind of killing more people. They
need to proactively investigate the design and determine what is wrong, the
come up with a real fix. Tapping on the tail doesn't cut it...

Can you give a reference that shows where the 'flaw' in the A300 design
is?

There are three principle factors in an in-flight structural failure.

1. The design requirements. These are laid down by aviation
authorities, not designers. If these are wrong or insufficient
then they need revising for all aircraft of that class.

2. The designers who must meet those requirements and convince the
aviation authority that design and testing shows that these
requirements are met.

3. Those who fly and operate the aircraft and must see that all
maintenance training and operation are within the design limits.

If there is a flaw in which category is it? Over the years there have
been crashes in which all of the above have been in error. You cannot
design, build and operate an aircraft which is proof against _all_
errors or mistakes whether accidental or deliberate.

--
David CL Francis

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 at 06:55:00 in message
, Cub Driver
wrote:

The sensitivity is very different, however. When I lived in England, I
was startled to find a range of books called Cheap Editions, and the
place where I got my teeth fixed part of the Health Scheme. To an
American, cheap meant shoddy, and scheme meant something close to
crooked.

The National Health Service I think you will find it is called.
--
David CL Francis

Dylan Smith wrote:

... in which case why the planet of hell are all the pundits discussing
the A380 and 7E7 as head-on competitors?

I didn't know they were. The articles I've read all pit the A380 against the 747.

If that is the case their roles are completely orthoganol.

Agree.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 16:00:38 +0200, Stefan
wrote:

I'll always remember that American who proudly stated: Hey, I'm
certified! in a British environment. He earned big amusement and never
understood why.

Then there was the gent (batman?) who asked the Fulbright women: "What
time shall I knock you up in the morning?"

The question remains: Why should Airbus care about the connotations
their name causes in the USA when their main market most probably will
be Europe, Arabia and Asia?

Wow. Same reason why Boeing should care what it calls its planes in
Europe, despite the fact that it is a much smaller market than the
U.S. A sale is a sale.

Airbus is indeed a terrible name. People seem to have accepted it,
though. Of course most people don't have the faintest idea what
airplane they're flying on, neither manufacturer nor model.



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 00:00:04 GMT, David CL Francis
wrote:

The National Health Service I think you will find it is called.

True, but everyone in Manchester called it the Health Scheme.

When I came home from England, I was drafted, and in time I was sent
overseas. We had to get our teeth fixed up first. By luck of the draw
I got the colonel in charge (one avoids high-ranking officers in the
army medical corps: why would a good dentist stay in the service?). He
drilled out one of my British fillings, then called all the
lieutenants and captains around him (leaving a room full of GIs with
their mouths propped open). "Look at this!" he cried. "Red mercury! I
haven't seen that since the 1930s!"

This was all some time ago, of course.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 14:22:41 -0000, Dylan Smith
wrote:

... in which case why the planet of hell are all the pundits discussing
the A380 and 7E7 as head-on competitors? If that is the case their roles
are completely orthoganol.

Yes, it's the A350 that's the would-be 787 Killer. (I wish you would
stop calling it an E. That was a very stupid, and happily very
temporary, move on Boeing's part.)

The 380 competes with the 747, which must make Boeing very nervous.
Crikey, the poor old 747 is a third of a century old.

Given the success of the 787, one wonders whether the A350 will ever
get off the ground. Perhaps planes have gotten so expensive now that
Airbus will concentrate on building busses, and Boeing on building
streamliners.



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

I prefer my airliners boring.

If I want excitement I'll try for a ride in a Pitts.

Speaking of over-water flights, we'll all chip in for fuel if you fly to
Pinckneyville.

- John Ousterhout -


Dylan Smith wrote:
Now the A380 is surely a marvel of modern engineering, as is the Boeing
7E7 (787? Dreamliner?).

But fundamentally...it's yet another tube with wings with two or four
engines on pylons below the wings. I'm really disappointed that Boeing
dropped the Sonic Cruiser, a much more interesting proposition.

I'm also wonder what the point of the 7E7 is - surely the
midsize longhaul jet market is already adequately served by the 777?
Could they just not make incremental improvements to the 777 in the same
way they've done with the 737 for years?

Although they are intended for different markets, they are competitors
in that each company has spent so much on development that they have
literally 'bet the company' on the success or failure of the A380 and
the 787.

Each manufacturer believes that every Airline sale of the newest models
will also include many of their other aircraft -- ones that have already
been amortized and are making a profit.

- John Ousterhout -


Dylan Smith wrote:
... in which case why the planet of hell are all the pundits discussing
the A380 and 7E7 as head-on competitors? If that is the case their roles
are completely orthoganol.