New Airbus practicing.

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by Hornet33
Yeah but what do you expect?? It's a government funded project. The 747 was a private Boeing project and they came in under budget and ahead of schedual IIRC. The A380 has a LOOOOOOOOOOOONG way to go before it can replace the 747.

Wasn't the 747 originally a military project?

[Golfer]

If PanAm was a military then yes.

Juan Trippe wanted a big ol aeroplane and that's what he got.  The first 20-30 airplanes were all to be PanAm airplanes.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Golfer
If PanAm was a military then yes.

Juan Trippe wanted a big ol aeroplane and that's what he got.  The first 20-30 airplanes were all to be PanAm airplanes.

Spot on.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Viking
Airbus is in no risk whatsoever ... that's the beauty of it.

If you consider burdening the already-high-taxed european taxpayer with the R&D costs, then I agree!  Risk takes guts, that what Boeing had in 1969.  Course, I'm very biased since I'm a company man, so...

[Viking]

Hehe

[Ball]

Originally posted by Hornet33
Yeah but what do you expect?? It's a government funded project. The 747 was a private Boeing project and they came in under budget and ahead of schedual IIRC. The A380 has a LOOOOOOOOOOOONG way to go before it can replace the 747.

ummm.. no.

[Angus]

Monty Python invented the A380.
See:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLAamUlu-H8

[DiabloTX]

Originally posted by Nilsen
Are you sure about that? I think you need to think about that one more time before you talk using big words

"The massive cost of developing the 747 and building the Everett factory meant that Boeing had to borrow, and gambled its very existence on the 747's success; had the project failed, it would have taken the company along with it.[7] Initial problems with the JT9D's development forced Boeing to delay deliveries up to year, and as a result up to 30 planes at one time were left stranded at the Everett plant, with the company on the brink of bankruptcy.[8]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747

Psssst, hey Nils...you need to re-read.  Boeing had the airplanes built and ready.  Pratt and Whitney (makers of the JT9D's) was having difficulty with the development of the engines.  Thus, Boeing hit it's mark, P&W came up short on theirs.  Can't fault Boeing on that.  Let's not twist facts...you to Straffo.




That being said, that is awesome video of an beautiful airplane.  I hope one day I can take a ride in one.  One day, maybe.  Just maybe.

[Nilsen]

Originally posted by DiabloTX
Psssst, hey Nils...you need to re-read.  Boeing had the airplanes built and ready.  Pratt and Whitney (makers of the JT9D's) was having difficulty with the development of the engines.  Thus, Boeing hit it's mark, P&W came up short on theirs.  Can't fault Boeing on that.  Let's not twist facts...you to Straffo.




That being said, that is awesome video of an beautiful airplane.  I hope one day I can take a ride in one.  One day, maybe.  Just maybe.

But still.. if we say that the engines has nothing to do with Boeing (im assuming we can then pick the delay of the A380 apart and perhaps find a sub-contractor there that is the cause of any delays or cost overruns.) it still leaves:

""The massive cost of developing the 747 and building the Everett factory meant that Boeing had to borrow, and gambled its very existence on the 747's success""

[DiabloTX]

So Boeing had to gamble it's existence on a plane...that's capitalism.  Considering they didn't expect to sell anymore airplanes after the first 4 years and wound up selling them all the way up to the year 2000 is just proof of Boeings design was robust and profitable.  I don't know what that has to do with Boeing being late and over budget with it's development, they knew before hand it was going to be expensive, thus the known gamble.  The focus of your quote was the JT90's being the reason for the delay for the 747.  Taken in it's entirety yes that would cause the entire aircraft to be delayed.  BUT, it cleary stated that 30 completed airframes were waiting for the engines, a situation Boeing had no control over.

[straffo]

Originally posted by DiabloTX
So Boeing had to gamble it's existence on a plane...that's capitalism.  Considering they didn't expect to sell anymore airplanes after the first 4 years and wound up selling them all the way up to the year 2000 is just proof of Boeings design was robust and profitable.  I don't know what that has to do with Boeing being late and over budget with it's development, they knew before hand it was going to be expensive, thus the known gamble.  The focus of your quote was the JT90's being the reason for the delay for the 747.  Taken in it's entirety yes that would cause the entire aircraft to be delayed.  BUT, it cleary stated that 30 completed airframes were waiting for the engines, a situation Boeing had no control over.

It just mean you should not trust Boing prospective/futures studies division

It just happened their design was the one expected by the market as even their own prediction was false

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by Golfer
If PanAm was a military then yes.

Juan Trippe wanted a big ol aeroplane and that's what he got.  The first 20-30 airplanes were all to be PanAm airplanes.

uhhhh huh

Boeing had already developed a study for a very large fixed-wing aircraft while bidding on a US military contract for a huge cargo plane.[6] Boeing lost the contract to Lockheed's C-5 Galaxy but came under pressure from its most loyal airline customer, Pan Am, to develop a giant passenger plane that would be over twice the size of the 707

[Nilsen]

Originally posted by DiabloTX
So Boeing had to gamble it's existence on a plane...that's capitalism.  Considering they didn't expect to sell anymore airplanes after the first 4 years and wound up selling them all the way up to the year 2000 is just proof of Boeings design was robust and profitable.  I don't know what that has to do with Boeing being late and over budget with it's development, they knew before hand it was going to be expensive, thus the known gamble.  The focus of your quote was the JT90's being the reason for the delay for the 747.  Taken in it's entirety yes that would cause the entire aircraft to be delayed.  BUT, it cleary stated that 30 completed airframes were waiting for the engines, a situation Boeing had no control over.

So an airplane project is not really one project but many smaller projects? Boeing was the contractor and is therefore responsible for the entire project. They knew that new engines had to be developed and should have taken that into considederation. So is it just poor project control then?

Airbus is also following all the rules of "capitalism". The project does not get endless funds from countries that has a stake in Airbus. Its not free and risk free money they get either. Airbus has to deliver just like Boeing did.

[Golfer]

Originally posted by Vulcan
uhhhh huh

And that is to rebute...what?

Or were you trying to say exactly what I said?  Juan Trippe (PanAm) wanted a big airplane.  Boeing built it.

That's what I said...that's what you said????

If you're trying to say that Boeing started its research on large aircraft while bidding on (and losing?) a contract then say it.  That airplane was not a 747.  The 747 was from day one to be a pax airplane with cargo versions added later.


Ahh...wikipedia.  Where those without their own knowledge go to get someone elses.

Read what you quoted.

[Jackal1]

Yea, but does the onboard refrigeration unit keep the ice from melting?













Sorry Angus. I just had to.