Aviation MegaThread!!!!

[EvilGenius]

Originally Posted by chazbird

I'm not specifically endorsing it but Boeing sub contracts large portions of production for their "domestic built" airliners in other countries. Proportionally much more so than EADS. Boeing was caught in this tanker deal doing criminal acts, but apparently that did not disqualify them and only delayed their receiving the contract, even though EADS had once won the contract themselves. I wonder how much all the back and forth actually cost. So now French wine and other tasty products will probably rise in prise, but the threatened trade tariff on Budweiser to Europe will be dropped.

Huh.

All I know is EADS stocks are gonna be sore tomorrow.

[chazbird]

AF 447. Jury is way out on that. Look up Birgin Air out of Santo Domingo or Aero Peru out of Lima. Both were Boeing's (757's) and both had air-data issues probably like AF 447. (The 757's were maintenance issues).

I don't know why many people has to bash another countries products. They are all excellent aircraft.

[muskeg]

Originally Posted by chazbird

AF 447. Jury is way out on that. Look up Birgin Air out of Santo Domingo or Aero Peru out of Lima. Both were Boeing's (757's) and both had air-data issues probably like AF 447. (The 757's were maintenance issues).

I don't know why many people has to bash another countries products. They are all excellent aircraft.

Didn't mean my post as a jab. I thought the "investigation" in the documentary was interesting. The A330 is quite a plane. Also saw the show on the first flight of the A380... Impressive.

[chazbird]

I am usually not a defender but there just seem to be a lot of Airbus bashers, usually with no real cause. There used to be a good deal of picking on the DC-10, fundamentally a sound aircraft but the cargo door latch issue caused havoc on one flight, and basically wasn't adequately addressed by McDonnel Douglas, which led to another one crashing. (THY @ Paris) That was a long time ago.

[Klay]

Originally Posted by chazbird

I'm not specifically endorsing it but Boeing sub contracts large portions of production for their "domestic built" airliners in other countries. Proportionally much more so than EADS. Boeing was caught in this tanker deal doing criminal acts, but apparently that did not disqualify them and only delayed their receiving the contract, even though EADS had once won the contract themselves. I wonder how much all the back and forth actually cost. So now French wine and other tasty products will probably rise in prise, but the threatened trade tariff on Budweiser to Europe will be dropped.

It would be more accurate to say that certain individuals were caught doing criminal acts.

[Klay]

Originally Posted by muskeg

Don't know if it was mentioned but I watched part of this on Air France 447 the other night. Not very inspiring.

The problem should be going away as most of the Airbus models with the Thales pitot tubes are being retrofitted with Goodrich tubes, which haven't displayed the same vulnerability to icing.

[Klay]

Originally Posted by chazbird

Tanker is a version of the Boeing 767 airliner. The EADS was a version of their A330 airliner. It was a nasty battle that was going on for years. The A330 had more lift and range, and (supposedly) would have been built (assembled) in the US (Alabama). EADS has 10 days to appeal.

It's a nuanced choice, because the 767-based tanker if I recall will be able to operate from shorter runways. So there are some trade-offs.

[muskeg]

Originally Posted by chazbird

I am usually not a defender but there just seem to be a lot of Airbus bashers, usually with no real cause.

Airbus, DC-10, Ford, Chevy, BMW, KLR....

[chazbird]

If an employee of a company conducts a crime in an effort to sell a program of huge importance to the company (whom obviously knew of the situation) then the company isn't responsible?

The KC-135 and KC-10's are huge runway hogs in comparison to the the 767 or A330, so the runways are already there. But maybe the USAF plans on operating tankers out of Kathmandu on a hot and humid summer days.

As far as bashing anything, I'd take a much maligned DC-10 over a KLR any day.

[Klay]

Originally Posted by chazbird

If an employee of a company conducts a crime in an effort to sell a program of huge importance to the company (whom obviously knew of the situation) then the company isn't responsible?

No, it wasn't.

The KC-135 and KC-10's are huge runway hogs in comparison to the the 767 or A330, so the runways are already there. But maybe the USAF plans on operating tankers out of Kathmandu on a hot and humid summer days.

Could be. I'll have to research a little, but I remember reading that the 767-based proposal had some advantages because it's smaller. It's a trade-off, of course.

[muskeg]

Originally Posted by Klay

The problem should be going away as most of the Airbus models with the Thales pitot tubes are being retrofitted with Goodrich tubes, which haven't displayed the same vulnerability to icing.

Yeah, that is interesting. I don't have any experience with supercooled H2O at 35,000' thankfully. I don't have to use pitot heat too often, really, but I know those suckers get HOT.

[chazbird]

I followed the process and debate on and off for several years, but then it became numbing. The whole thing has taken 10 years to decide, and someone, somewhere, will add up the extra costs. That's the interesting part. The old cliche, but still true, the whole moon program took about 9 years. How long did the F22 take? It is similar to this cement factory in Sri Lanka. They would dredge lime out of the ocean floor, make cement out of it, and then dump it back in to shore up the collapsing dredge trench's. Completely circular.

[chazbird]

I've flown at altitude in the tropics in convective conditions and there is no doubt it was the worst icing I've ever experienced, by far. Worse than Alaska, the Cascades, the lee-side of the great lakes. Besides watching in alarm and horror as the ice accrued, and watching the airspeed decline like I've extended the flaps, I could hear the clear ice adhering to the plane, it sounded like a car-wash spray. The idea that a pitot tube being over-come isn't beyond my imagination.

[Klay]

Originally Posted by chazbird

I followed the process and debate on and off for several years, but then it became numbing. The whole thing has taken 10 years to decide, and someone, somewhere, will add up the extra costs. That's the interesting part. The old cliche, but still true, the whole moon program took about 9 years. How long did the F22 take? It is similar to this cement factory in Sri Lanka. They would dredge lime out of the ocean floor, make cement out of it, and then dump it back in to shore up the collapsing dredge trench's. Completely circular.

The real guilty party may be the military procurement process. It needs badly to be overhauled.

[chazbird]

Like campaign finance reform? Reform the civil military symbiotic labyrinth of Babylon?