Author Topic: Airbus 380 -- Another Concorde? (Read 4275 times)

Skydancer · « **Reply #105 on:** January 21, 2005, 12:30:14 PM »

What I'd really want is faster! I'don't care how big the thing is if its slow. It doesn't matter about the size if you still have to spend hours on the bloody thing. A bigger Concorde that's the ticket! That thing was the best and one of the most beautifull things ever made.

Oh and for all you "if it ain't american its crap" types, just remember that without us plucky little heath robinson type brits there would even be a jet engine!

beet1e · « **Reply #106 on:** January 21, 2005, 12:30:53 PM »

LOL Furball! We're going to get into trouble, you know!

Here's a pic of an American concept plane, rival to the A380.

Chairboy · « **Reply #107 on:** January 21, 2005, 12:32:36 PM »

Funny guy. The guppy and super guppy are pretty neat planes for carrying bulky but light cargo, like upper rocket stages.

Rude · « **Reply #108 on:** January 21, 2005, 03:58:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
I just love it when American conservatives call liberal Europeans backward. The irony is oh so sweet.

It's only because we look at decades of you turds playing catch-up with us and whining all the way through it.

Rude · « **Reply #109 on:** January 21, 2005, 04:00:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gixer
Why?

~~...-Gixer~~

~~because every knee will bow...even yours~~

Rude · « **Reply #110 on:** January 21, 2005, 04:14:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dowding
Jealousy is a beautiful thing.

Nuke, the Boeing big wing is 33% more efficient than the A380 but has never flown. Wow, that is quite an achievement!

Has nothing to do with jealousy....it has to do with folks from afar beating their chests about an unproven product and company....when airbus has half the accomplishments of Boeing, then I'll look at them differently....until then, it's cheap talk.

straffo · « **Reply #111 on:** January 21, 2005, 04:48:41 PM »

Nevar you would do something like chest beating ....
But it's exactly the how look like your post ...

What Airbus has to proove btw ?

Fishu · « **Reply #112 on:** January 21, 2005, 05:25:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Rude
Has nothing to do with jealousy....it has to do with folks from afar beating their chests about an unproven product and company....when airbus has half the accomplishments of Boeing, then I'll look at them differently....until then, it's cheap talk.

It has nothing to do with beating chests, its about the markets.
You can't sell an expensive plane, if the buyers do not know of its capabilities.
Boeing and Airbus works exactly alike with the marketing.

Funny thing is that american plane manufacturers were proven to have exagerated performance of their planes already prior to WWI.
French and brits were the unfortunate customers to realise this.

Black Sheep · « **Reply #113 on:** April 24, 2005, 02:17:36 PM »

Does anyone remember or have pics of that Russian prototype that was a military transport with 6-8 engines in the rear, 2 in its canard, flew at a alt of about 10-50 ft. over water, had a good range and could carry something like 800 troops and supplies? Just curious.

Schaden · « **Reply #114 on:** April 24, 2005, 03:02:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
You may not be a conservative, but I think you're slightly delusional.

Isn't that pretty much the same thing?

Bodhi · « **Reply #115 on:** April 24, 2005, 03:14:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
Every single one of your points distill down to seat cost per mile, Dinger.

ding ding ding

Dago · « **Reply #116 on:** April 24, 2005, 03:37:44 PM »

The Boeing 7E7 Dreamliner was renamed the 787 a little while ago.

dago

DamnedRen · « **Reply #117 on:** April 24, 2005, 03:41:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Rude
Has nothing to do with jealousy....it has to do with folks from afar beating their chests about an unproven product and company....when airbus has half the accomplishments of Boeing, then I'll look at them differently....until then, it's cheap talk.

Actually they're twice as good as Boeing. Better fuel economy, distance, more carrying capacity. They can land on standard runways. They're short coming is they need a bit more taxi and parking space. However, american airports are clamoring to build parking and taxiways for them.

IMHO,the bottom line is money. I seem to remember in the '70's when Boeing told you how they would build it for you not how you wanted it. They got a big head and it's caught up to them. If you can buy, bigger for cheaper and get more bang for the buck the shareholders aint gonna care where you bought them.

Our Company is as USA as the day is long and we have orders in for 10-380's. In my last job I was detailed to figure out how we were gonna fit them on our ramps.

Ren

rshubert · « **Reply #118 on:** April 24, 2005, 04:05:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
the bigbus has not flown yet , only one is built and it has not flown yet, no one has "bought" any yet because there are none to buy yet, they have just put in orders for the bigbus.

i think i used "yet" to many times.

i have flown on both boeing and airbus, they are both ok, but i hate flying , it's like a bus ride with no scenery but faster, and we don't even want to talk about going through "securety".

does airbus still glue on their tails?

There was an article in FLYING magazine about that crash. It seems that NOBODY ever thought that the pilot would use full rudder under those conditions, and the FAA and EAA requirements for structural integrity don't factor it in. Ouch.

Chairboy · « **Reply #119 on:** April 24, 2005, 04:43:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Black Sheep
Does anyone remember or have pics of that Russian prototype that was a military transport with 6-8 engines in the rear, 2 in its canard, flew at a alt of about 10-50 ft. over water, had a good range and could carry something like 800 troops and supplies? Just curious.

Google 'ekranoplan'