How are these two unrelated animals as you put it? They are simply two different approaches and this forum seems to be about which one an individual would prefer to travel on. The A380 is indeed much more advanced than the B747, but to say it matches the 787 as you seem to have implied is a stretch. The 777 is as advanced as the A380. Airbus have made a mess of the A380 and a larger question is its viability. I am reasonably certain you will see a number of early in service issues with this aircraft just as you did with the 777 and others. Service disruption for an aircraft which carries 250 passengers vs. 500-600 is a different animal! I don't think Boeing are going to make develop a counter to the A380 as they don't see a large enough market. Even if the 747-8 receives a mild reception, it is ok for Boeing and hurts Airbus. The 747-8 has tremendous potential as a freighter and let's see no the A380 - oh wait everyone canceled! There is a significant difference between 747-8 vs. the original version. At the end of the day, it about economics and TCO for the 747-8 vs. the A380 is very compelling. Passenger comfort will be relatively similar. As I stated earlier, this is largely a function of how the airlines choose to equip the cabins.
Boeing is going to focus on a replacement of it's 737 and 777 NOT developing a new competitor to the A380. They may leapfrog A380 with their flying wing concept which certainly seems possible as a freighter and if they can solve the issue of a lack of windows, perhaps this could be a great passenger aircraft as well.
Airbus as a company have a lot of issues to solve right now. Whether by accident or design or a a combination, Boeing seem to have gotten things right with the 787. It will be a great aircraft from every perspective. Point to Point travel with more comfort, fewer people, faster speed.
As for humidity and other comfort factors, I cannot comment on the benefits as I have not experienced them, but all the research (could be marketing) indicates it will make a big difference. After all, why are Airbus touting greater improvements in these areas on their A350 as a selling point. Maybe there is something to it. Airlines are buying the 787 at record pace, can't say the same for A380, but hey the 747-8 has won some orders so I doubt that Geoff Dixon's comments at the launch of the 787 about 'old technology' on the 747-8 have much meaning. On the other hand, Steven Hazy's comments on the A350 (similar animal to the 787) are very relevant which brings me to another point raised by you.
"Whilst the technology does not yet exist to make safe composite tubes
to the A380 diameter or length construction/design will be similar to
the approach taken by Airbus with the A350" - this approach is being rejected and look for Airbus to come up with new design using single barrel composite tube akin to the 787 for the A350.
Interesting that the only one I can click on is the Scarebust A380, I think this poll is a little skewed.
I've worked on buses, Boeings and Douglas' and without a doubt the bus comes in last, Boeings are innovative and mechanic friendly, the A300 is an abortion, 320 is a mechanical failure waiting to happen, quoting a FAA rep on proving runs at my previous job " I didn't have to simulate any failures it did it all by itself". Buses aren't technically advanced they're technically challenged.
Remember - IF IT'S NOT BOEING I'M NOT GOING
A380, Always and forever.
Where's the innovation on it I read some of you ask... How about Glare... nobody talks about it much, but it is a verry impressive material, combining the maintainebility of metal (I'm not convinced of boeing's claim of lower costs in that area... perhaps if they start giving carbon composites away- especially after in 10-15 years, when second grade airlines start flying it - if they can't, there goes your resale value!) with the fatigue resistence of composites. How can any of you claim a black metal design is innovative. Whats the innovation in using a new material if you're not adapting your design to take (any) full advantage of it's characteristics. (I've been to the 787 final assembly line, I know what it looks like on the inside)
Flying point to point - great idea, except that atc and anp are not ready for it. Also the cost of providing custums at all little, local airports - the danger of mixing big airliners with small private aircraft, the inconvienience of having a big, loud aircraft landing at little, peacefull fields (unaccomstumed neigbours). If the point to point thinking behind the 787 starts working, it will change the world... Not nescecarily in the good way.
About the order race... I don't have the facts, but I think that if you start looking at the size of the market, Airbus' 150+ orders in a much smaller market doesn't compare badly with boeings 600+ in a much larger market. Can anyone prove or disprove this with numbers - basically compare the number of flying 747 (a380 market) with the number of flying A330 and B767. If there's a 4:1 relation... airbus did as well as boeing.
The whole concept of the 787 requires the world to change around it to accommodate it. The 380 was built to improve the world we live in.
Finally... I do smile when an 380 flies by, I've yet to smile at the 787.
a380, alwas and forever
A Range Rover to a Mini? What a horrible analogy. A Mini is a far better machine (smaller yes, but it handles better, is faster, more efficient, and far sexier). Same goes for a 787 over that behemoth.
A Range Rover to Mini? What a horrible analogy. Nonetheless, a Mini is a far better machine (it's smaller yes, but it also handles better, is faster, is far more reliable, and is infinitely more sexy). Same holds true for a 787 over the behemoth bus in the sky. If I were to make an automobile comparison, I'd say it's like a Mini to a double-decker British bus.
A Range Rover to a Mini? Not only is this a bad analogy, but it disproves your point. A Mini is smaller yes, but it is far faster, handles better, is more reliable, and is infinitely sexier. A more appropriate analogy might be a Mini (787) to a double-decker London bus!
One analogy above: A Range Rover to a Mini. What kind of comparison is that? A Mini is smaller, yes, but it is also far faster, more efficient, handles better, is far more reliable, and is infinitely sexier. A more apt comparison would be a Mini (787) to a double-decker London bus!
Boeing did it right with the 787. Proof is that FedEx and others are canceling orders for the behemoth "bus" while Boeing has blown away all previous records for pre-first-flight orders. Besides (and as stated above) the Boeing is going to be a far better ride (and cheaper for airlines to operate).Go Boeing. There's a good reason why it's the world's best airline maker.
More space and the novelty of sitting upstairs. Yup A380 gets my vote
A Range Rover to a Mini is an excellent comparison. I think you will find that the top of the range Range Rover is much quicker than a Mini! Mini 0-60 of 7 secs plus whilst the Range Rover does it in 5 seconds! In fact the Range Rover could probably tow the mini to 60 quicker than the Mini could do it itself!
The only time a bloke should travel in a new mini is if a very tasty lady is driving it! Like a Range Rover the A380 is a mans thing not a namby pamby Mini/787!
You really need to get your facts straight. You are lucky to have
visited the Boeing factory and wish I could have the same opportunity,
but your information is really not accurate and I suggest you look at
the information out there on all the areas you have commented on and
gain a better understanding. Materials - please look at the innovation on the 787.Point
to point travel - please look at the airports being connected and
impact on congestion. Have you flown via Heathrow lately.Are you aware of the noise levels of the 787?
I don't see the 787 flying to airstrips and small private airportsOrder race - I don't want to comment as you already acknowledged you don't have the factsAt
the end of the day, it is about economics. I was fortunate enough to
travel on the concorde and it was a brilliant experience. Sadly, the
plane was not economically viable.
It's already been said really. These aircraft weren't built to contend with each other. The A380 was built to compete with the B747-400 and the B787 with the A330.
If airlines want to fly point to point they can do so with A330s (or XWBs) just as easily as they can with 787s. So I dont see why boeing fanatics are pushing point to point so much.
The 744 (or 747-8) have the same problems associated with them flying hub to hub as the A380. The reality is that Airbus felt they couldn't afford to let Boeing have the superjumbo market all to itself because of the prestige and because Boeing could use the profit from that line to help in markets where there is competition. I think the prestige thing is pretty important but not billions of dollars worth and the idea of keeping [cross]subsidies out of aircraft production is far-fetched.
If Airbus was run by an American or anyone who understood that running a company is about making money and not competing for the sake of it they probably would have launched the A330F and already have the original A350 design at market instead of going for the whos got the biggest ****pit contest. Its not too late though. Airbus can still launch the A330F and airlines who aren't in a position to order 787s now will probably go for the newer XWB in the future. There are also airlines out there that operate all airbus fleets who are more or less guaranteed to wait for the XWB
I know this issue is quite contentious, but please can we be respectful of each other and their opinions please. If you are unsure of the rules, please look at them here.
AirSpace - more than just hot air
The A380 would make perfect aerial refueling tanker, just imagine how much fuel it could carry and how long it could stay on station. Its new, it''s modern and in production and by the time the first tankers are introduced into USAF service will be a mature aircraft.
The B787 would be the ideal medium sized tanker that could work as a team with the larger A380. The proposed B767 new gen tanker is an old design using the state of the art flight deck and flight control systems from the B787. So why not forget the B767 and use the B787 the latest design in toto instead of hybriding an ancient design. The B787 is not yet in service and the proposed new gen B767 tanker is still on the drawing boards and therefore is an unproven concept.
The end result would have aircraft using modern state of the art design.that are in production.
Such nasty sour grapes from the Uninventive (or Unmodisch) Supplier of Antiquations, being surpassed yet again by Europe. Your glory days (1950s&1960s) are over USA and none weep for you.The Nazi German aeronautical engineers (Operation Paperclip) you kidnapped (von Braun, Lippitsch, Heinkel etc) are now long dead- and now you have nothing.
Firstly the comparison is entirely flawed as it is compare the A380 which was intended and purposely designed to supersede the 747.Boeing has already thrown in the towel- essentially arguing it cannot compete- as according to Boeing:" emphasis on a smaller midsize twinjet rather than a large 747-size aircraft represented a shift from traditional hub-and-spoke theory towards the point-to-point theory". Thus the 787 is intended to compete with the A320, A340 and Airbus 787-killer: the A350 series.This clearly indicates Boeing cannot compete in the global market and instead has chosen to specialise in the North American domestic market alone- where the well-known US government-corporate corruption regime will give it plenty of honeymoon deals and tax breaks.Boeing claims the 787 will be near to 20% more fuel-efficient than the 767 (note no mention of comparative Airbus fuel efficiency?.Americans cannot accept factual realities: US technology is considered obsolete globally, and most advanced DARPA programs are awarded to European tenderers such as Thales, EADS and EADS CASA, BAe, Krauss-Maffei-Wegmann AG, Carl Zeiss AG and Rheinmetall Borsig AG.Since 2003, Airbus has been DELIVERING many more orders than antiquated Boeing aka "Boe-ring" (more than 51% and growing of all new plane orders).And here is the most ridiculous claim:"Higher humidity in the passenger cabin is possible because of the use of composites, which do not corrode."Nonsense science. Reality: Honeywell is the contracted supplier to both Boeing and Airbus- so the issue of humidity etc has nothing to do with either Beoing nor Airbus- but the US company Honeywell.LED Lighting:- sorry Airbus A320 already has in 2003Compare to the Airbus A320 launched 1988:first fully digital fly-by-wire flight control system in a civil airliner.fully glass cockpit rather than the hybrid versions found in aircraft such as the A310, Boeing 757 and Boeing 767.first narrow body airliner with a significant amount of the structure made from composites.ECAM (Electronic Centralized Aircraft Monitoring) concept, which is included in all Airbus aircraft produced after the A320. This system constantly displays information concerning the aircraft's engines, as well as other key systems such as flight controls, pneumatics and hydraulics, to the pilots on the two LCD displays in the centre of the flightdeck.ECAM also provides automatic warning of system failures and displays an electronic checklist to assist in handling the failure.first to use LCD glass cockpitfirst to offer digital Head-up displays are available.2003 A320 Enhanced programme:- flight attendant touchscreen LCD communications controls-LED cabin light sources instead of halogen and fluorescent bulbs-Electrically powered backup braking systems, improving upon the older design using reserve hydraulic pressure-laser beam welding during constructionA380 efficiency compared to 787 incompetence:- Airbus organized four teams of designers, one from each of its EADS partners: Aérospatiale, DaimlerChrysler Aerospace, BAe, EADS CASA for proposals in 1992.A380 configuration finalised 2001,2002- A380 wing box component manufactureDevelopment cost €11 billion2005 27 April maiden flight- all systems fully functional.2006- first trans-Atlantic2006- 8 of the 16 exits blocked, 853 passengers and 20 crew left in 78 seconds, less than the 90 second required earning European Aviation Sfaety Accreditation- more STRINGENT than US FAA.The A380 is airborne and in service.The A380 uses latest technology, fibre otics controls, above military levels of control reduncancy- and of course the Made In Europe quality guarantee.May 2009 A380 carried 1.5 million passengers during 41 thousand flight hours & 4200 flights.Let cold figures speak for themselves:Airbus 2009 orders: 271, 2008 orders: 777 Boe-ring 2009 orders: 142, 2008 orders: 662 Airbus 2009 DELIVERIEs: 498, 2008: 483Boeing 2009 DELIVERIEs: 481, 2008: 375Frequent delays to the Airbus A380 program caused several customers to CONSIDER cancelling their orders in favour of the refreshed 747-8.NONE cancelled- some REPEAT orders for the A380.Airbus A380= 202 orders+ growing waiting list airborne as of 2007.Boeing: 747-8F : 78 orders, 747-8I: 28 deliveries scheduled for 2010 and 2011.A350: all-composite wings common to all three variants.Area: 443 m2 (4,770 sq ft)= largest wing ever produced for a single-deck widebody aircraft.Geometric wingspan= 64.8 m or 4.5 m (15 ft) greater than that of the A330.Same span but greater area than as 777-200LR/777-300ER,A350 31.9-degree sweepA350XWB= 53% composites, 19% Al/Al-Li, 14% titanium, 6% steel and 8% miscellaneous.Boeing 787, 50% composites, 20% aluminium, 15% titanium, 10% steel and 5% miscAirbus expects 10% lower airframe maintenance cost & 14% lower weight.Summary: Airbus A340 has slightly less levels and A350 will have greater levels of composite than 787.Airbus composite wing: More than 4,000 hours of low- and high-speed windtunnel testing has achieved final configuration on time at Maturity Gate 5- 17 December 2008.Engine: RR Trent XWB. Failing this EADS Germany and SNECMA (France) already have suitable replacementOrders:from 2006-2010- A380 530 firm orders787: 577Passengers:A380: 525 / 644 / 853787-8l: 467A350-800: 270 A350-900= 314787-9= 263, 787-10= 310Dimensions: (length height wspan metres)A380 73 x 24,1 x 79,8787l: 76.4 x 19.5 x 68.5A350: 60.7; 67; & 74 x 17.2; x 64.8787: 63; 68.9 x 16.5; 17 x 60.1CabinwidthA380: 6.58m (21'7")787-8= 6.1m (20.1')A350- 5.59metre (18ft4in)787 5.49m 18ftLD3 containers:A380: 38747-8: 36A350-800 28, A350-900: 36 A350-1000: 44787-9: 36, 787-10: 44Max Take off Weight (1000 kg= tonne)A380: 560747-8: 442A350-800: 185, A350-900: 205 A350-1000: 228.5787-9: 244.9, 787-10: 272Max fuel (1000's of litres):A380: 310747-8: 241A350-800: 129; A-350-900: 138; A350-1000: 156787-9: 138.7, 787-10: 145Max thrust ('000 lb)A380: 70747-8: 66.5A350-800: 75; A-350-900: 84; A350-1000: 93787-9: 66.8, 787-10: 88.2Range:A380: 8200747-8: 8000A350-800: 15.400; A-350-900: 15.000; A350-1000: 14.800787-9: 15.75, 787-10: 13.89Price: ($USD millions)A350-800: 198; A-350-900: 215; A350-1000: 242M787-9: 178.5M, 787-10: TBADecember 6, 2006, Boeing conducted a "virtual rollout" of the 787 in which a simulation of the 787's manufacturing process was shown publicly.How much of the 787 is "American"?:Boeing and all subcontractors design with CATIA V5 (an EADS-Aerospatiale DaimlerChrysler Aerospace created program- NOT AMERICAN!)Horizontal stabilizers: Alenia Aeronautica in Italy (part of Airbus);Fuselage in Charleston, South Carolina (USA),Spirit AeroSystems KansasANDKawasaki Heavy Industries in JapanMitsubishi Heavy Industries- wing boxesLatécoère (France): passenger doorsSaab (Sweden): cargo doors, access doors, and crew escape door are35% work share = supported & funded by Japanese government.Toray Industries (Japan)  On April 26, 2006 announce production agreement involving $6 billion worth of carbon fiber.TAL Manufacturing Solutions Limited (India) February 6, 2008 will manufacture spars (good God- you trust them?)Messier-Dowty (France also used in Airbus) builds the landing gear: the titanium forged in Russia, brake parts from ItalyThales (Airbus) supplies the integrated standby flight display and electrical power conversion system.June 30, 2006, Boeing celebrated the start of major assembly of the first 787 at Fuji Heavy Industries.Maiden flight: December 15, 2009Europe is decades ahead of the US and we are only just beginning to compete directly- and without all the Capitol Hill kickbacks and pork barreling.Germany +France +Russia= unbeatable. This lost pennies of Greece will be easily absorbed.Eropa Erwache! (Europe awakes)But the absolute knock out is this Airbus MilCargo vs Boeing MilCargo:A330 MRTT - KC-45 vs the Boeing KC 767Passengers:A330 MRTT 226-280KC-767: 190Range:A330 MRTT: 12.500 kmKC-767: 12.200 kmMax Take off weightA330 MRTT: 230 tonneKC-767: 181 tonneMax fuelA330 MRTT: 113.500 kg + 43.500 reserveKC-767: 73.100 kg, 91.600kgCargo:A330 MRTT: 32 x 463L palletsKC-767: 19 x 463L palletsSummary- which do you choose: the Mercedes Benz or the Chevy of aviation?The economics of quality win the endurance race against initial quantative outlay.Ask me anything about Airbus- I work for EADS Munich- where we consider your US military a decade old. Compare our Leopard 1 to the Abrams.
Haha! Such lies and half truth garbage. Please, save it for people that'd actually fall for it. LOL!
Europe ahead of the U.S. in technology? Hahahaha! Oh, that's priceless.
The F-22 Raptor and/or all the American technology in the F-35 is superior to the Eurofighter Typhoon jet fighter. The U.S. has fielded around 5-6 different American fighters with AESA radar already, while NO ONE in Europe has done the same. Europe is playing 'catch up'. LOL! You're so clueless, it's so funny. Stop lying, buddy. :)
Where's Europes answer to Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit?
Germany had to buy American Global Hawk UAV's because they have nothing like it themselves.
Where's Europes answer to American Microsoft company? America's IBM? America's Apple? America's Silicon Valley?
Sorry, Europe is actually lagging behind the U.S. in most technology today.
Even someone from Airbus OPENLY ADMITTED that the technology found in the Boeing 787 is at least FIVE (5) YEARS ahead of ANYthing Airbus (Europe) has out now! They admit it, but your poor Europride cannot take it.
Keep living in that sweet denial, kid. LOL! :)
Oh, that Internet you're using now? Guess who invented it? America. Guess who developed and invented the modern home personal computer? America. That's why IBM, Apple, Microtsift, etc. are so huge... they made almost everything we use today in our personal computers. LOL! That Windows 2k program you're using now... made by ---> MICROSOFT! That iPod, iPhone, iPad, etc. you use... made by Apple! I can go on, but you're not worth anymore of my time.
P.S. I do smile when I see the A380 fly, because it makes me laugh so much. "Tubby". LOL!
Actually completely ignorant (unsurprising for American) .
Our answer to the Grumman B2 was the Horten "Gotha" made in 1945 out of
compressed graphite impregnated compressed plywood. This is equivalent
in radar signature reduction to modern carbon fibres. The Luftwaffe in the 1960's started plans for drone gliding bombs.
"Engineers of the Northrop-Grumman Corporation had long been interested in the Ho 229, and several of them visited the Smithsonian Museum's facility in Silver Hill, Maryland in the early 1980s to study the V3 airframe. In early 2008, Northrop-Grumman paired up television documentary producer Michael Jorgensen, another long-time fan of the aircraft, and the National Geographic Channel to produce a documentary to determine whether the Ho 229 was, in fact, the world's first true "stealth" fighter-bomber"
Much technology was then used for the Tomahawk.
The Barracuda flew in 2006, before the Predator. http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRHEFT/FRHeft06/FRH0607/FR0607g.htm
Here is your answer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheinmetall_KZO- built and successfully flown, all test successful before the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Dominator
Actually, the British invented the Internet
The UK beat the predator to the air in 1996: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_%28UAV%29
Sir Timothy John "Tim" Berners-Lee, OM, KBE, FRS, FREng, FRSA (born 8 June 1955, also known as "TBL"), is a British engineer and computer scientist and MIT professor credited with inventing the World Wide Web, making the first proposal for it in March 1989CERN was signed on 29 September 1954 by 11 countries in Western Europe. CERN is French, for Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire (European Council for Nuclear Research): it is the world's largest particle physics laboratory,
Nokia invented the N9200- the first computer-telephone in 1996, the first colour one in 2000. It is a Finnish company.
Apple is old news- released in 2007. Ancient like your USA strange cell networksystem. In Europe we have 3.5G, 4G and CDMA.FDMA/TDMA (IMT‑FT). EDGE is ancient.
"ABI Research has released worldwide cell phone market share statistics
for 2008 that indicate Nokia's continued domination over the market and
heightened competition between smartphone manufacturers Apple and
Research In Motion.
Nokia leads the market with 38.6 percent, beating its second place
competitor Samsung, with 16.2 percent, more than two to one. Motorola is
tied with LG Electronics in third, each owning 8.3 percent of the
market. Fourth is Sony Ericsson with 8 percent.
In a lower tier of manufacturers, Research In Motion and Apple are
closer than ever in competition. RIM owns 1.9 percent of the market,
nearly doubling its share since last year, and Apple pushed past its 1
percent market share. Apple's current share represents a 267 percent
gain since the end of 2007 when Apple controlled 0.3 percent of the
market. Apple released the iPhone in mid-2007 in a limited number of
Wow- 1 percent.
The US routinely uses unfair tactics to gain advantage- as it wants to retain its monopoly as world number one weapons seller- but this is due to political coercion and bribes- not quality of material.
Microsoft is hardly worth noting, aside from being buggy rubbish. You can even get XP working more efficiently than Windows 7.
UNIX and LINUX are used by most companies and Open Source is fast outpacing commercial software.
In Germany we have SAP software-
SAP is the world's largest business software company and the third-largest independent software provider in terms of revenues (as of 2007). It operates in three geographic regions – EMEA, which represents Europe, Middle East and Africa; the Americas (SAP America, headquartered in Newtown Square, Pennsylvania), which represents both North America and Latin America; and Asia Pacific Japan (APJ), which represents Japan, Australia, India and parts of Asia. In addition, SAP operates a network of 115 subsidiaries, and has R&D facilities around the globe in Germany, Turkey, Canada, China, Hungary, India, Israel, Bulgaria, and North America.SAP focuses on six industry sectors: process industries, discrete industries, consumer industries, service industries, financial services, and public services. It offers more than 25 industry solution portfolios for large enterprises and more than 550 micro-vertical solutions for midsize companies and small businesses
CATIA (Computer Aided Three-dimensional Interactive Application) is a multi-platform CAD/CAM/CAE commercial software suite developed by the French company Dassault Systemes and marketed worldwide by IBM. Written in the C++ programming language, CATIA is the cornerstone of the Dassault Systemes product lifecycle management software suite.The software was created in the late 1970s and early 1980s to develop Dassault's Mirage fighter jet, then was adopted in the aerospace, automotive, shipbuilding, and other industries.CATIA competes in the CAD/CAM/CAE market with Siemens NX, Pro/ENGINEER, Autodesk Inventor and SolidEdge.
CATIA is used by Boeing as anything of Autodesk is outdated
Here is your answer.
EADS Munich supplied a team of engineers to Boeing in 2002.
The UAV EADS Barracuda was sidlined by the US who are desperate to stop skilled jobs leaving the USA completely.