Simviation Forums

Nothing really shocking though, apparantly it's over weight, according to Boeing Commercial Airplanes CEO Alan Mulally.
He also added that they now will "focus on achieving a weight-effective structure"...whatever that means.  ;D

A few 787 parts supliers are also behind schedule, but despite that Mulally promised that the 787 wont be delayed.

So the people who flamed the A380 for being over weight, just has to realize that it happens to everybody  :)

I'm not surprised, what you have on the paper is seldomly the exact  same thing ending up on the production line.

The 787 will be fine  :)

I think a 'weight-effective structure' will involve drilling as many holes into suitable parts as posible

JB

This is a good article.  It lists the advantages and disadvantages of each manufacture.  Based on the article, I believe Boeing holds a decided advantage over Airbus, unless they fall on their face with the 787.  What will tell is the big vs medium strategy.  So far, based on advanced sales, medium seems the way airlines are going.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industrie ... usat_x.htm

[quote]This is a good article.

And seriously (or not), when did America ever produce something that was underweight? I mean, the F35 is so grossly obese it can barely take off with an operational load.

LOL British aircraft are built like battleships compared with American types. It's a wonder some of them ever left the ground. With military aircraft it's all the equipment the brass hats constantly ask for that increases the weight. Many a good design has been rendered useless because of this.

It's not exactly an independent source of infomation. I'd be surprised if "USAtoday" can find anything nice to say about Airbus at all.


And seriously (or not), when did America ever produce something that was underweight? I mean, the F35 is so grossly obese it can barely take off with an operational load.

You're awfully dismissive of the article, but you didn't mention anything that would call into question the veracity of the article's contents.  

[quote]

You're awfully dismissive of the article, but you didn't mention anything that would call into question the veracity of the article's contents.

I read most of the artical. It was all about "the airbus is late and the 787 is going to wipe the floor with airbus and boeing is going to win".

So, you read most of the article.  Then you formed a conclusion without knowing all the facts?  

But then again, you still haven't refuted the contents of the article, yet you dismiss the article.  Seems like shooting the messenger because you don't like the message.

So, you read most of the article.  Then you formed a conclusion without knowing all the facts?  

But then again, you still haven't refuted the contents of the article, yet you dismiss the article.  Seems like shooting the messenger because you don't like the message.

Occasionally on this side of the pond we find the message from Seattle and the press rather repetative and boring...

On the subject of Boeing, in todays "Times" they took a full page advert advertising (!) one of their "Airplanes"...

It got me thinking - if the advert was in a French newspaper, I presume it would be in French, so why do they have to impose "American" English in a British publication...

"It's not a plane, it's an aeroplane..."*

Must have been expensive though, a full page spread in glorious color...

*10 pts for the film, the character, and a bonus for the actor...

To be fair that article seems surprisingly unbiased & well researched. IMHO

"It's not a plane, it's an aeroplane..."*


*10 pts for the film, the character, and a bonus for the actor...

Reach for the Sky. Douglas Baders flying instructor. Havn't seen the film in at least ten years so I'm afraid I don't stand a chance on the bonus point.

So, you read most of the article.  Then you formed a conclusion without knowing all the facts?    

But then again, you still haven't refuted the contents of the article, yet you dismiss the article.  Seems like shooting the messenger because you don't like the message.

Quite right. I seriously don't have the time, commitment or energy to read more than a few paragraphs of Airbus bashing by an american publication. Same goes for the reverse. Civil aviation is really not much of an interest for me and I doubt, when the 787 comes out, that i'll be able to tell it apart from any of the other airliners.

[quote]
I'm not surprised, what you have on the paper is seldomly the exact

No US publication is going to find in favour with Airbus. While few European publications will go out and out for Boeing. It's all nationalism.
.

You probably don't have as much exposure to US media as we do on this side of the pond (assuming you're in Europe here).  There's nothing the US media likes more than beating up on US companies.  European companies are always automatically assumed superior to US companies, and Japanese companies are practically god-like.  If you were to listen to the US media, you'd think all US companies are crap, produce crap, treat people like crap, treat the environment like crap, etc.  Maybe they're right (of the three cars in my driveway, none of them are by a US based manufacturer).  

You gotta figure, all those "journalists" have all been turned down for real jobs by real american companies, so they've all got a pretty big chip on their shoulder.  :)

Reach for the Sky. Douglas Baders flying instructor.

Would that be Michael Gough aka "Flying Instructor Pearson"? I cheated. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0049665/fullcredits


OR did Charlie mean Kenneth More who played Bader?

OR did Charlie mean Kenneth More who played Bader?

I couldn't remember whether or not Bader repeated the phrase later on in the film. I get the feeling he did when he took over 242 squadron.