Hi, just a quick question. Does anybody know if there's been any news on whether or not Boeing is going to announce the 797 at the Paris Air Show?

Thanks,
boeing247

well, Airbus has 600 orders, and Boeing has 47. THey probably have to redo the Engines. Did  you see the A-380 that hit the building?

Yeah, I saw that. So do you think they'll be announcing it?

well, Airbus has 600 orders, and Boeing has 47.
Which Airbus and which Boeing?

Did  you see the A-380 that hit the building?
Something is certainly going on with Airbus A380's. Are they jinxed? Surely those pilots knew how much room they needed versus how much they actually had. Not good at all. It makes me want to stay far away from them.

Maybe all the A380 pilots are Boeing employees out to sabotage Airbus!  ;D ;D

The a380s are just to big for today's airports!!!!!!! :'(

If I smash my Hummer while trying to park it in a too small garage, who's to blame? The car?
But I've already set up a letter to Airbus, suggesting to build slender delta wings and Mach 2+ capabilities again. Those things are much easier to park, think about it.  :P

More seriously, I think that those incidents are indeed the worst thing to happen for a manufacturer.
But if there was a general "too big", we would see those happenings more often. The A380 is flying and taxing since years.
I'd say that the rather low number just shows the "usual" outcome of precise or not so precise work on e. g. current ground charts and measurements.
Since other planes don't run into buildings (or at least one can't read about it that often) but sometimes into baggage carts, we're seeing a rather normal operation of such a big plane.
If the size only harms a parking CRJ or a Paris building since starting operations, that's a good overall outcome in my eyes.

Maybe they improve the wings with some more sensors and/or cameras then, to allow the pilots to gain some pre-warning time, but I really doubt that the general "airports are too small for the A380" is a valid statement.
If you look into the history of the 80 meter box definition, you will see that the main driver of preparing airports for bigger planes (as the 747) was Boeing, at the time they were planning to compete in size (which they gave up later since you can't easily stretch a plane without large design works).

Now if there was a huge A380 flying around while all other planes are so much smaller, it would indeed be an exception.
But looking at the 747-8 for example (which is longer as the current A380 and just at the limits of the box size) doesn't give me "oh, she's so small" feeling at all.
And Boeing now does what every dev would do when he can't enhance his product any further than the current state. Promoting the downsides as the advantages.
So, when following Boeing marketing, the 747-8 is just right, the A380 is too big and the 747 is oh so much more efficient.
Well, if you just read the brochures (which airlines usually not use as their main source of information about new buys), you may get that picture.
But, wait, Airbus does brochures too.  :D

The sales of the 747 passenger version aren't that good (that's why it's coming in red now, pleasing the maybe more "open" Asian market), you may guess why. The sales for the 747 freighter are, but since there's no competitor available this shouldn't be too surprising.
They've chosen the right step, to go freighter first since all A380 activities focus on the passenger version and the high sales there will also manifest that movement. Airbus actually can't produce the freighter (although e. g. Fedex had large orders there and was really happy with the plane in concept), their resources don't allow that without dropping on the passenger sales which largely depend on the production rates.
A rather good outcome for both devs, so to speak, and the now real competition focuses on the 787 / A350 sector. That's where a real Boeing against Airbus fight goes on since the planes are in THE main segment of future sales and both are fighting as passenger models.

And, no doubt, the 787 is a great and new plane (from the concept, so no enhanced old school tech) and it also arrives first in the market.
That's a big pro and will be a heavy burden for Airbus to take, although they've already collected quite some orders on the A350.
I think that the duopoly in that sector just continues while the smaller sector gets eaten by the CRJs and Embraers.

dmb201 wrote on Jun 26^th, 2011 at 6:56am:

The a380s are just to big for today's airports!!!!!!! :'(

YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!!!!

Here is a look at the large planes.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Giant_planes_comparison.svg

It is beyond understanding how an Airbus Demo Crew
that knows this airport, runs the wing into a building
during an airshow.  :-?

Lou

I hope those things don't happen to the 747! I'm going on one tomorrow to the UK.  :-/

LOU wrote on Jun 26^th, 2011 at 3:05pm:

It is beyond understanding how an Airbus Demo Crew that knows this airport, runs the wing into a building during an airshow.  :-?

Well, it's also unbelievable that baggage carts get stuck into engines, trained pilots land at wrong airports or forget about deployed groundspoilers when going around, isn't it? Others mix up metric and imperial units and some SW Captain tells the whole frequency about his "personal view on aviation personnel".  ;D
Things happen and as the A380 is in service since some years (and will be for some more, in growing numbers), we can raise an eyebrow on this incident and continue to fly/work/watch because it happened once on how many flights? Thousands.
As long as the investigation doesn't conclude that the plane drove itself into that building I'm pretty ok.

Virgin Atlantic had some nice slogans back in the days as the A340-600 was the longest (and in their understanding biggest) airplane.

Quote:

Slogans Over the years, Virgin has used many slogans, including:    "Mine's Bigger Than Yours" Written on the back of the Airbus A340-600s because they were the longest passenger aircraft in the world[20] The new title of the longest passenger aircraft will be claimed by the Boeing 747-8 when it officially enters passenger service in 2011.

;D  :P



Quote:

Maybe all the A380 pilots are Boeing employees out to sabotage Airbus!

;D Who knows? Lets form a conspiracy rumour.  ;D I think they are trying to make room for their new biggy.
http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/2407/b797900.jpg
(that's what Google returned for the 797 by the way)

Thats funny! ;D I searched, and there's more like that!

It's funny that everybody's photoshopping these giant planes for the 797, when it's been suggested that it will be a small, 737 replacement.

Hey CoolP you must have some Airbus stock or a relative who works at Airbus!
How can you defend an airplane that calls you a RETARD, RETARD every time you try to land the thing.  :P  ::)

I was just pointing out the fact that this plane is large and has only a limited number of airports or places on an airport that it can taxi. This is nothing new, back in the sixties many of the airports had restricted taxi ways for the 707. Sure, an accident can happen anywhere, but to allow the queen of the show access to a taxiway with inadequate wing clearance shows a failure at many levels. But no matter who dropped the ball in not doing a proper survey, the PIC is the one who gets the DS on this one.

Basic pilot training 101 - if you are not sure it will fit, don't go there.

I happen to think that Airbus makes a good product at a good price. I personally don't like some of their computer program logic, but it gets the job done. Boeing has had many design problems over the years. The one I know best was the rudder actuator problem on the 737 and 727. For years, Boeing and the FAA tried to blame pilots for certain crashes when it was later discovered that they were caused by uncommanded full rudder inputs from a poorly designed hydraulic actuator. Deep pockets will always try to pass the blame.

As for the A-380, when you're big, you stand out so you need to be very aware. Big load of people, big news when something goes wrong.

Lou

;D Yes, I think they could sell twice the amount of planes if they would stop that "retard!" thingy. Other planes are more polite though, they just write it on the PFD.

Of course you are right, the thing is big, it raised some attention and it's ugly too. Now do a "usual" mishap in a current 737 and nobody will care, do the same in the whale and the world listens.
Does anybody doubt that the PIC at the airshow crawled under a rock after the building said "ouch!"?
Lets stay on the conspiracy side.  :P I think the pilot was the same as in the A380 against CRJ thing.

Quote:

Basic pilot training 101 - if you are not sure it will fit, don't go there.

Seems like he was sure.  ;D

Media often enough plays a big role in the perception game. The RR engine trouble at the Qantas A380 is solved and RR paid the bill there, but ain't no big headlines then, only sensational things count.


I remember those rudder incidents, Lou. First it was stuck (but gave you a big one to one side before) and then it actually deflected the rudder in the opposite direction as commanded.
Tricky thing and they only came to a solution after a plane eventually landed safely after this happened, so the pilots could tell exactly what happened. All others before crashed with zero survivors and the CVR just had "what was that? Holy s...!! " on it.
And that rudder deflection gets recorded like a commanded one (which it wasn't).

Nobody is happy about the simple "pilot error" conclusion when the guys are dead. And evil to whom evil thinks when it comes to the best conclusion from the manufactures viewpoint, which is just that, "pilot error".
They went straight to this "pilot error" conclusion on quite some DC-10 incidents too until some relatives took the heavy burden of running year long lawsuits (with the costs involved) where unbiased experts (and there are few) had a chance to state their views on e. g. the design of the plane.

But one has to play fair, you can't design a thing going up to 40.000ft at 0.80 Mach to be invulnerable under all circumstances, you can just try to circumvent known or foreseeable stuff.
Running all three hydraulic systems through one vital joint isn't the best idea though.

They later had a NASA developed system ready for daily use which could fly the plane with thrust settings only and all hydraulics disabled.
That system would come at a cost and they then said that it's too unlikely to happen that all three hydraulic systems fail (for whatever reason), so the cost would be too high in relation to the actual use.
Money business, not safety business. It still is and will always be. (Especially aviation) safety always came at a cost of lives, nobody should forget about that.


I think I've hijacked boeing247's 797 thread.  :-[

I think I've hijacked boeing247's 797 thread.
Well, doesn't matter now. The airshow's over and they never announced it.  ;)

Didn't they label that flying wing design as 797 some time ago?


Quote:

The airshow's over

So Paris is flat now.  ;D

The flying wing thing was a hoax. The 797 will be a 737 replacement (well, I suppose that's not set in stone, but it's been said).

Well, the smaller models of it flew, so it was closer to reality than the Boeing SST attempt and maybe even cheaper.

But here's some new stuff about the 787.
The G1000 screen setup finally has arrived at the commercial airliners.
Brace for "sissy" impact, Lou.  :D
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Boeing/Boeing-787-8-Dreamliner/1940289/L/
That must be the most complete flight deck today, together with the A380 one (although the A380 may lack of a "watch your wings!" warning sign  ;D).
I wonder when Boeing gets those Yokes out of the way then, on their FBW birds. At least some smaller setup would be useful.

My last information about the enhancement of the 737 are the same as the one of the A320. Seems like both manufactures aren't interested that much in a revolution in that segment, so maybe the fitting of newer engines and slightly refined wing/fuselage setups lead the way to another 20 years or so.

More carbon-fiber on the aircraft's parts is possible too, but a whole redesign like on the 787 maybe won't come soon as it would raise the cost quite a bit.
Remember, the big two are watching each other closely, so if e. g. Airbus doesn't do much new on their "NEO", Boeing has no need to do it too since the competitive motion is lacking. That's just one downside of that duopoly there.

As long as the Embraers and CRJs of this word stay away from the main 737/A320 segment (which excludes e. g. the 737-600 and the A318), they also don't add much pressure there since sales are good then.

OK! I do love the fancy glass eye candy....BUT! First you have to learn the basic stuff, 'cause when the glass goes down...guess what???? You're back to BASICS!  ;)

Where are the real instruments in this picture when the glass goes down???

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/8051/realiq.jpg

Yup, the only "REAL" instruments are these three. An old style horizon, an old steam driven airspeed dial and a barometric altimeter.

How Cool Is That?  :o

Now try making a low approach on a dark and stormy night on these three bad boys if you don't know the BASICS!!! (Sissy...I think not!) We had to do just that twice a year to keep our qualifications in the "glass" world.

So all you glass/GPS pilots better shoot some BASIC stuff in case the "fancy (sissy) stuff" goes down!  :o

I rest my case!

Lou  ;D

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

StephenL wrote on Jun 25^th, 2011 at 7:30pm:

Did you see the A-380 that hit the building?

Grrr... I haven't had any Wi-Fi or 3G for a few weeks now so I haven't heard. I'm feeling way behind on things. :-/

Lou, did you ever have the LCD screens go down?

Worst I had was one side go down. Some planes can be switched if the actual CRT or glass is not the problem. Every 6 mos we would shoot at least one approach on just the three real instruments. It's a lot of work!

Lou

Now they still have the standby gauges on the modern planes, but they are modern too, so you can superimpose ILS readings or have different view modes there (depends on the model, but there's no map mode or something of course).
But the whole entertainment aspect is lost then!  :'( Although I'm sure that you can connect your iPod somewhere.  :P

Here's the thing in the 787, marked in red.
http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/7421/standbyo.jpg

Didn't know that pilots actually train the standby-flight every few months though. Good to know.

Lou, seriously, would you like to fly the 787 or would you reject the offer?

I saw that Boeing trailer on the pilot training and the first steps (apart from reading the manuals) were done in a better and static flight sim home cockpit setup before going to the D sim.
I think I've heard some of the instructors saying 'and that's the mode where you can see through people's clothes', the student was quite impressed as you can imagine.
'Of course, that's all for security reasons', the instructor continues and the student then said 'sure'.  :P

Sure CoolP, I would love to fly this plane, apart from the glass it is a well thought out plane, but I see they kept the stupid yoke...too bad.

BTW, what's with the windshield wipers?

Lou

I don't think that they are windshield wipers Lou. I think you will find that they are HUD, HUGS or whatever it is that Boeing call them.

I checked up on it at the Boeing web site. They are HUD's. Here is a pic I got from http://www.newairplane.com/787/design_highlights/:

http://i669.photobucket.com/albums/vv58/Markoz958/787_Dual_HUD.jpg

Mark

Markoz wrote on Jun 29^th, 2011 at 2:53pm:

I don't think that they are windshield wipers Lou. I think you will find that they are HUD, HUGS or whatever it is that Boeing call them. Mark

I think Mark's right. Looks like the HUD to me.

Sorry fs_addict.

I updated while you did your reply. :-/ I really hope that Captain Sim add this to their list of aircraft to do.

Mark

The Airbus A380 isn't too big for today's airports, but the two instances of wingtip impact have been caused by flight crew neglegence. The Antonov An-225 has longer wings, anf functions well at a lot of airports. The A380 crew for Air France was taxxing way too fast, and weren't paying attention to their wingtip cameras. The Airbus Demonstration Crew were just showing off, and hurt their own company's plane, they're just full of themselves. My Dad hears Emirates and Air France pilots called their flight number with SUPER in it over the ocean, where it doesn't matter. Anyways, the A380 us big and ugly, and the 747-8 is much better.

As for the Boeing 797; the Boeing 797 will be an all-new thing, with more composites, but I beleive it will be more like the Bombardier CSeries, with an aluminum fuselage, as the full composites aren't as beneficial in a narrow-body configuration as in widebody layout. It will most likely be a narrow-body, however the chance of an all-new midbody layout with 2-2-2 arrangment is there, but we'll see. It will feature a 777/787 style fly-by-wire system; it will most likely by higher off the ground, like the A320 or 757, as to avoid the squished nacelles. It will most likely have the option ot optimise the gains when using biofuels. It will almost definitely have a new nose section, apart from the classic Boeing 707,727,737 look. It will feature a higher pressurization ratio (most likely) to have better comfort and higher humidity abilities, whether or not it is a full composite fuselage. It probably won't have the wing dihedral and flex of the 747-8 and 787, most likely with raked wingtips or winglets (raked winglets?). There will be a longer range model, with ETOPS 210min (why have 330 like the 787? Isn't the point not being too far from land in the twin?). It will have a 99% of being a twin, unless the Boeing 727-500MT (modern technology) comes out [just kidding]. It will have a better flight quality, as result of the fly-by-wire system, and will be able to handle turbulence much better than the A320 series. The 797 will be built at the current factory in Renton, and probably they'll open up the old narrowbody factory at Boeing Field/King County to help get the planes out quickly. If Boeing is smart, they won't outsource so many things outside of the US, but will, like the 787, have many pre-fabricated parts as so they could complete an aircraft in 3-7 days, for production reasons.

The A320neo is an over-hyped plane, based on the old A320 design, which is a rough-riding plane, and, along with the 737NG, is in need of a next generation replacement or update. Although it promises effiency and pilot/fleet integration, and will save the airlines some money, but now that Boeing is running 747-8F's and 737NGs on biofuels, as well as GE, with KLM running commercial flights (overland) with biofules on occaison, their (biofuel's) promise is better than that of higher efficiency for JET-A fuels. Now than Boeing is making their fuels with plants that aren't food (unlike ethanol) the promises are great.

Thats my two-cents. My 797 info are just my personal predictions.

LOU wrote on Jun 29^th, 2011 at 2:11pm:

Sure CoolP, I would love to fly this plane, apart from the glass it is a well thought out plane

Absolutely.

I think I can spot some wipers on that pic too.
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Boeing/Boeing-787-8-Dreamliner/1940322/L/
But I guess until they've found a way to remove dirt and all sorts of "overlay" in a purely electronic or chemical way, they will keep the ol' wipers. The automotive devs hate them too, but haven't got around the downsides of some alternative techniques so far. They've changed the movement here and there, that's all.
So you are mainly driving some rubber over a glass screen, hoping for the wind to push the rubber on that screen to allow some sort of cleaning. If you're not so lucky, you get more mess than before.  ;D

That's a thing we already saw at the first windscreens in history. Brakes every sale related conversation, huh?  ;D


Oh, I almost missed Peter's "analysis" of aviation incidents. Well, opinions a free, aren't they?
But if the main conclusion is that 'crews are so full of themselves' from a guy just watching the pictures (as we all do), you may not only sense some bias.  :P

Peter, just for the protocol. There aren't any "wingtip cameras" on the A380 and if the crews would really adhere to your brilliant observations, why are they flying around since years then, without any CRJs or buildings getting harmed until summer 2011?  ;)

Quote:

Thats my two-cents.

You name it.  :)

Nice insights on break-even numbers, new model techs or any other details, but I really doubt that you have access to any more things than the ones in the press room, especially when talking about both competing manufactures at the same time.
So feel free to guess, assume, suspect and, not to forget, laugh, like other guys are doing it. But don't make yourself more of a knowing guy than others around.
Those are my .. 3 Cents.  8-)
Edited. Thanks for adding the last sentence. Makes your assumptions much better to read. :)

Always feel free to add something useful to the discussion, but if you just enter to give a pure "Boeing up" and clear "Airbus does it wrong" (even regarding their crews in general) "insight", it may not be as useful and convincing as you think. Just sayin'.

Huh, I had been informed by an Airbus pilot that the A380 had wingtip cameras, I guess Airbus said that once, and didn't pull through. As for the A380 incidents, the Air France crew was taxxing too fast, and didn't pay attention; its the pilot's responsibility to make sure his aircraft is safe, if part of his plane contacts something on the ground, that is stationary in these cases, he is at fault. As for the Airbus incident at Paris Air Show, hitting a building like that is unacceptable. The pilot needs to make sure his aircraft is safe, and must see to it that his route of taxxing is acceptable for the aircraft he's flying, and must make the necissary arrangements for the safety of his plane and passengers. That wing, once the wingtip has been torn off, looks like he clipped it with about 15ft of wing, and should have seen the impact coming, its unacceptable. And its true that many pilots like showing off the A380 factor, and its okay, as long as it doesn't get in the way of their piloting skill. As for Airbus being full of themselves, yes the are. They have the largest commercial airliner, an all fly-by-wire lineup, and all these things, so they're full of themselves. Boeing guys were proud with what they got, they don't have an all fly-by-wire fleet, they develop aircraft with their own money, and get stuff done without government subsidies and if anyone, Boeing should be full of themselves with all they've done on their own. Airbus could never have made the A380 without subsidies, or follow it with the A350, or even afford to have created the A320 the way they did.

Frankly, I can only see one guy around "being full of himself" so far.

And since the new tech birds from Boeing actually come with a full FBW setup while the refined and older ones are of course stuck at the gear&pulley tech (which isn't bad at all, but doesn't represent current and weight saving tech), I also wonder on which fact basis you are working.
Do you think that any new Boeing design will come without FBW?

They even took the rather expensive way of also including some of this stuff in the only refined 747-8. The full FBW would have been a full redesign, which is much too expensive to achieve when you are watching the sales expectations and the "win" margins.
Since also having the type rating in mind, the 747-8 remained "old" (equalling in lower type rating efforts necessary when coming from the 747-400), while the newer 777 and 787 concept did not have to keep that status.

The "full of themselves" thingy is fully left to your observation of course. If you think that any of the marketing guys in the business (which includes all devs) wears a white shirt with no stains on it, you are free to think this rather short sighted way (which is my impression) of course.
I actually don't expect a frequent Boeing press only reader to think in any other way. If that's a charming character trait? I don't know.

And, regarding your Boeing press room dependency, this paragraph of yours may show what I'm talking about.

Quote:

they develop aircraft with their own money, and get stuff done without government subsidies and if anyone, Boeing should be full of themselves with all they've done on their own. Airbus could never have made the A380 without subsidies, or follow it with the A350, or even afford to have created the A320 the way they did.

I suggest you'd sit back, take some aviation history lessons, fill in quite some politics and then rethink what Boeing tells the world about their competitor's policy.

I really doubt that you would go ask Microsoft about Apple or Oracle about SAP, so your sticking to biased "news" sources may actually show the very downside of your arguments.  8-)
If you think that there's one good player in the whole big money business of e. g. aviation you are more part of the problem than of any constructive solution in my eyes.

And as I told you before (seems you don't want to listen or just check my words), the Boeing against Airbus subsidies case is running since exactly that time since Boeing realized that the "minor distraction" from the European side actually eats up market numbers.
Talking about decades there and I think that only the "pro" parts are written in that press room of yours. The thing even goes back to the pre Concorde era and you can be very sure that my knowledge there consists more than just some fancy press words.
So maybe you consider at least some evolution on your main sources. Maybe not, it's up to you.  :)

I appreciate your comments, but, as you see, wrong facts usually force some counteracting motion from my side. Sorry for that.

And those camera spots. They have something on the tail, to allow a "safe taxi" (that's Airbus press room text).  ;D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vbFjGko59c
http://www.flickr.com/photos/theorem/2736254754/
There's also something around the gear area I guess, but their wingtips aren't discretely monitored at all. Maybe a thing to come?

The tail cam was available at the A340-600 before and could be included in some retrofit package too, for other models. I don't know if that's already available though.
Since the passengers can normally access these views too, it's at least entertaining.
As you saw, the thing is so ugly and big, it actually makes room.  ;D


But, question to active airline pilots. Could you actually estimate the room for your large wings when it comes down to the last 2 or 3 meters? Where not talking Cessna ratios here.
I mean, the pilots aren't looking out of the side windows all the time, they mainly stick to the taxiway markings and check the ground charts before, where e. g. KJFK writes that some ways aren't sufficient for "Super" or a certain wingspan while others are.
This would mean, that an A380 on the centerline of that taxiway (all those two incidents happened on a straigh portion there, so they could well have been centered) while have enough room for its wings, as stated by the charts and cleared from ATC.

So if those ground charts tell you that you are clear and if the tower/ground guys state your taxiroute in the knowledge of your "bigness", you may not become the pilot which is stuck on the side view, but the normal one being alerted to stick to the centerline or not?

Attention MARK - do not look at this post!  ;)

http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/6869/kangaroo.gif

Well, it is once again making the news.  :-/


Oh oh... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f57NtSAHtyo&feature=player_embedded#

Lou

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

I remember American Airlines had a cockpit cam that passengers could look at the cockpit during takeoff and landing. One day the pilots had to do a high speed abort. A lot of passengers had to do extensive laundry checks when the plane came to zero motion. Yup, that was the end of the cockpit cam!  ;D

Quote:

Superjumbo Damages Tires on Landing

Tires blow because they are 'so full of themselves'.  ;D So Peter was right! Gosh.  :P

;D ;D ;D ;D