483 replies to this topic

[MattGarner]

Perriwen, on Dec 5 2009, 09:59 PM, said:

MattGarner, on Dec 5 2009, 04:53 PM, said:

Perriwen, on Dec 5 2009, 09:26 PM, said:

Da_KGB, on Dec 5 2009, 03:16 PM, said:

Maybe it's because those are cheaper than getting an FA/18 to chase it. (FA/18s aren't exactly small fuel efficient jets)

More so than the old, gas-guzzling 1950's era T-33.

I do find myself wondering, though, after the F-22 debate, is why is Boeing even wasting time and money building this plane, and the 747-8? What's wrong with the current 757s, 747s, and 767s, and just upgrading them? Seriously, this whole project is just an effort by Boeing to get media attention after getting jealous of the press Airbus got with the A380. They made it clear in needing to 'make sure the press is notified 48 hours in advance.'

What the :S. You could say that about Airbus! The planes you have mentioned don't have use the new technology the 787/747-8 will be using.

So integrate the tech into them if it's that important. It'd be a heck of a lot cheaper. But why fix what isn't broken? The DC-3 was designed in the 1930s, and upgrades have been keeping it flying faithfully for nearly 70 years. You telling me we can't do that with current airliners? The B-52 was designed in the 1950s, and upgrades are projected to keep it flying for another 50 years. And how could this not be a cry for attention? Boeing is even airing cable TV commercials for the thing like they expect people to A.) just pick up the phone and order one, or B.) notice them which they are clearly begging people to do. Is Lockheed airing TV commercials for their aircraft? Cessna? Northrop Grumman? Learjet? Gulfstream? No. But Boeing is, for no other likely reason that they're begging for attention, which is evident in these delays that they slapped this thing together so fast to have something to present that they made a load of errors along the way.

Many companies beg for attention, it is advertising after all. Boeing has had problems building this new plane because they have never built a plane like this before. It's brand new technology, there was going to be delays anyway, many new aircraft these days have delays. They can't just keep upgrading the old ones because the airlines want new, efficient, greener aircraft. That is why airliners have ordered the 787. The B-52 is not an airliner and you don't see DC-3's owned by major airlines that fly around the world etc, such as British Airways, doing flights do you? No.

Edited by MattGarner, 05 December 2009 - 04:07 PM.

[Prancer]

MattGarner, on Dec 5 2009, 05:04 PM, said:

[ you don't see DC-3's owned by major airlines that fly around the world etc, such as British Airways, doing flights do you? No.

They do fly around the world in a couple dozen operators still, so, yes. Doesn't matter how "major" the company is, it's the reliability and lifespan of the aircraft

Edited by Perriwen, 05 December 2009 - 04:07 PM.

[Alaska_MD-83]

Perriwen, on Dec 5 2009, 12:59 PM, said:

MattGarner, on Dec 5 2009, 04:53 PM, said:

Perriwen, on Dec 5 2009, 09:26 PM, said:

Da_KGB, on Dec 5 2009, 03:16 PM, said:

Maybe it's because those are cheaper than getting an FA/18 to chase it. (FA/18s aren't exactly small fuel efficient jets)

More so than the old, gas-guzzling 1950's era T-33.

I do find myself wondering, though, after the F-22 debate, is why is Boeing even wasting time and money building this plane, and the 747-8? What's wrong with the current 757s, 747s, and 767s, and just upgrading them? Seriously, this whole project is just an effort by Boeing to get media attention after getting jealous of the press Airbus got with the A380. They made it clear in needing to 'make sure the press is notified 48 hours in advance.'

What the :S. You could say that about Airbus! The planes you have mentioned don't have use the new technology the 787/747-8 will be using.

So integrate the tech into them if it's that important. It'd be a heck of a lot cheaper. But why fix what isn't broken? The DC-3 was designed in the 1930s, and upgrades have been keeping it flying faithfully for nearly 70 years. You telling me we can't do that with current airliners? The B-52 was designed in the 1950s, and upgrades are projected to keep it flying for another 50 years. And how could this not be a cry for attention? Boeing is even airing cable TV commercials for the thing like they expect people to A.) just pick up the phone and order one, or B.) notice them which they are clearly begging people to do. Is Lockheed airing TV commercials for their aircraft? Cessna? Northrop Grumman? Learjet? Gulfstream? No. But Boeing is, for no other likely reason that they're begging for attention, which is evident in these delays that they slapped this thing together so fast to have something to present that they made a load of errors along the way.

Do you have the idea the resources required to pull that off? The U.S. Millitary can do it because they are the only Owner of the B-52. They can do what they want when they want, with what they want.

Douglas made new airplanes after the DC-3 ya know too. I don't think anyone still operates them for profit anymore...

Boeing on the other hand is a manufacture, and they sell the planes. not to keep old versions current. A Plane is not an OS where you can just click the update button, and you're done. To overhaul each and every plane whenever a new update comes out would be insane. Airlines do update aircraft in their fleet at their choice. (Take winglets on the 767)  

For Boeing to update all planes every single time a new safety feature comes out would be equal to each car being updated each year, instead of actually buying a new car. In the Long run, it's much more expensive then just buying a new car.

Just so ya know, Boeing 707s are still used. MD-80s are still used, DC-8s are still used. DC-10s are still used.

Edited by Da_KGB, 05 December 2009 - 04:11 PM.

[Prancer]

Da_KGB, on Dec 5 2009, 05:08 PM, said:

Douglas made new airplanes after the DC-3 ya know too. I don't think anyone still operates them for profit anymore...

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Douglas_DC-3

Quote

Even today, 73 years after the DC-3 first flew, there are still small operators with DC-3s in revenue service and as cargo planes. The common saying among aviation buffs and pilots is that "the only replacement for a DC-3 is another DC-3." The aircraft's legendary ruggedness is enshrined in the lighthearted description of the DC-3 as "a collection of parts flying in loose formation."[4] Its ability to take off and land on grass or dirt runways makes it popular in developing countries, where runways are not always paved.

[Alaska_MD-83]

Okay I was wrong, please address the rest of my post.

[wyoairbus]

Perriwen, on Dec 5 2009, 04:59 PM, said:

MattGarner, on Dec 5 2009, 04:53 PM, said:

Perriwen, on Dec 5 2009, 09:26 PM, said:

Da_KGB, on Dec 5 2009, 03:16 PM, said:

Maybe it's because those are cheaper than getting an FA/18 to chase it. (FA/18s aren't exactly small fuel efficient jets)

More so than the old, gas-guzzling 1950's era T-33.

I do find myself wondering, though, after the F-22 debate, is why is Boeing even wasting time and money building this plane, and the 747-8? What's wrong with the current 757s, 747s, and 767s, and just upgrading them? Seriously, this whole project is just an effort by Boeing to get media attention after getting jealous of the press Airbus got with the A380. They made it clear in needing to 'make sure the press is notified 48 hours in advance.'

What the :S. You could say that about Airbus! The planes you have mentioned don't have use the new technology the 787/747-8 will be using.

So integrate the tech into them if it's that important. It'd be a heck of a lot cheaper. But why fix what isn't broken? The DC-3 was designed in the 1930s, and upgrades have been keeping it flying faithfully for nearly 70 years. You telling me we can't do that with current airliners? The B-52 was designed in the 1950s, and upgrades are projected to keep it flying for another 50 years. And how could this not be a cry for attention? Boeing is even airing cable TV commercials for the thing like they expect people to A.) just pick up the phone and order one, or B.) notice them which they are clearly begging people to do. Is Lockheed airing TV commercials for their aircraft? Cessna? Northrop Grumman? Learjet? Gulfstream? No. But Boeing is, for no other likely reason that they're begging for attention, which is evident in these delays that they slapped this thing together so fast to have something to present that they made a load of errors along the way.

you use the DC-3 and B-52 as examples as to why no new planes should be developed?

very true that both are still in use, but how many airlines do you see operating DC-3s today?? maybe they aren't 'broken' as you put it, but technology moves forward and new and better options need to be offered to airlines and passengers.

by your own logic, you are essentially saying that we should all still be flying around in upgraded DC-3s because theres no real need to design anything new?

i highly highly doubt that boeing made developed the 787 solely to get 'attention'.

[Prancer]

Quote

Do you have the idea the resources required to pull that off? The U.S. Millitary can do it because they are the only Owner of the B-52. They can do what they want when they want, with what they want.

You are aware all those resources come from places like Boeing, right? The military doesn't 'have' them, they contract these companies to make them, either by request or suggestion from the company. The airlines can contract them as well for the resources, or Boeing can come up with it and recommend it. So, therefore...Boeing should have the same resources for the airliners.

Quote

Boeing on the other hand is a manufacture, and they sell the planes. not to keep old versions current. A Plane is not an OS where you can just click the update button, and you're done. To overhaul each and every plane whenever a new update comes out would be insane. Airlines do update aircraft in their fleet at their choice. (Take winglets on the 767)

Then overhaul only when it's really needed. See my next point down below. Boeing makes plenty of revenue off other things too, they aren't going to be in any kind of trouble if they don't pump out a new aircraft.

Quote

For Boeing to update all planes every single time a new safety feature comes out would be equal to each car being updated each year, instead of actually buying a new car. In the Long run, it's much more expensive then just buying a new car.

Just so ya know, Boeing 707s are still used. MD-80s are still used, DC-8s are still used. DC-10s are still used.

You don't need to upgrade the stupid thing every time a new feature comes out, by the same token, you don't need to build a new plane every 20 years to. The planes currently used are just fine. Nothing's wrong with them, they get from point A to point B as designed. Want a 'greener' plane (no way I can take that phrase seriously)? Make a new engine and fit it to the plane. You don't need a whole new aircraft for that. So stop wasting the worker's time because the CEOs have egos the size of Rhode Island.

[MattGarner]

I find it funny you never mention any other company like Airbus. They make new planes, for example look at the A380. You could just say that wasn't needed when they could just upgrade their A340. The A350 isn't needed because they can just upgrade their A330. (Since you are the one pointing everything at Boeing :/ ) They make new aircraft because its time to make new aircraft. If you think that the current 757/767/747 is going to be here forever. Then you are wrong, these new aircraft come with new technology. I don't see the new wings on the 787/747-8 on the current Boeings. It would probably cost more to even fit them on the older fleet.

Away from the planes though. So if they can build new ones, Microsoft aren't allowed to build a new operating system? So really any of us who is using Windows 7. Should be all using the first version of Windows! I don't bloody think so.

[Prancer]

MattGarner, on Dec 5 2009, 05:30 PM, said:

I find it funny you never mention any other company like Airbus. They make new planes, for example look at the A380. You could just say that wasn't needed when they could just upgrade their A340. The A350 isn't needed because they can just upgrade their A330. (Since you are the one pointing everything at Boeing :/ ) They make new aircraft because its time to make new aircraft. If you think that the current 757/767/747 is going to be here forever. Then you are wrong, these new aircraft come with new technology. I don't see the new wings on the 787/747-8 on the current Boeings. It would probably cost more to even fit them on the older fleet.

Away from the planes though. So if they can build new ones, Microsoft aren't allowed to build a new operating system? So really any of us who is using Windows 7. Should be all using the first version of Windows! I don't bloody think so.

1.) Airbus is not the subject of this thread, so don't bring it up.
2.) I never said the 757/767/747 will be here forever, but they likely can have a service life until the next real significant part of aircraft evolution comes, likely the blended-wing aircraft.
3.) Microsoft makes ordinary consumer products, unlike Boeing. They also don't have a huge load of cushy government contracts to keep them afloat, like Boeing does.

[MattGarner]

Perriwen, on Dec 5 2009, 10:34 PM, said:

MattGarner, on Dec 5 2009, 05:30 PM, said:

I find it funny you never mention any other company like Airbus. They make new planes, for example look at the A380. You could just say that wasn't needed when they could just upgrade their A340. The A350 isn't needed because they can just upgrade their A330. (Since you are the one pointing everything at Boeing :/ ) They make new aircraft because its time to make new aircraft. If you think that the current 757/767/747 is going to be here forever. Then you are wrong, these new aircraft come with new technology. I don't see the new wings on the 787/747-8 on the current Boeings. It would probably cost more to even fit them on the older fleet.

Away from the planes though. So if they can build new ones, Microsoft aren't allowed to build a new operating system? So really any of us who is using Windows 7. Should be all using the first version of Windows! I don't bloody think so.

1.) Airbus is not the subject of this thread, so don't bring it up.
2.) I never said the 757/767/747 will be here forever, but they likely can have a service life until the next real significant part of aircraft evolution comes, likely the blended-wing aircraft.
3.) Microsoft makes ordinary consumer products, unlike Boeing. They also don't have a huge load of cushy government contracts to keep them afloat, like Boeing does.

Boeing are not doing anything wrong. They are doing what they are supposed to be doing! "Building aircraft". This also involves building new aircraft for the future. Which they are doing with the 787. Its a brand new airline for the world that airliners can fly. Surely there is nothing wrong with that? Yes it has had long delays but it will fly very soon. This will make history in aviation and you know it.

Edited by MattGarner, 05 December 2009 - 04:41 PM.

[Prancer]

MattGarner, on Dec 5 2009, 05:38 PM, said:

This will make history in aviation and you know it.

And how exactly is this going to make aviation history?

[Captain-Amar]

Perriwen, on Dec 5 2009, 10:40 PM, said:

MattGarner, on Dec 5 2009, 05:38 PM, said:

This will make history in aviation and you know it.

And how exactly is this going to make aviation history?

I think it already did

Edited by Captain-Amar, 05 December 2009 - 04:44 PM.

[Prancer]

Captain-Amar, on Dec 5 2009, 05:44 PM, said:

Perriwen, on Dec 5 2009, 10:40 PM, said:

MattGarner, on Dec 5 2009, 05:38 PM, said:

This will make history in aviation and you know it.

And how exactly is this going to make aviation history?

I think it already did

Then kindly show me a history book that mentions the aircraft?

[MattGarner]

Perriwen, on Dec 5 2009, 10:46 PM, said:

Captain-Amar, on Dec 5 2009, 05:44 PM, said:

Perriwen, on Dec 5 2009, 10:40 PM, said:

MattGarner, on Dec 5 2009, 05:38 PM, said:

This will make history in aviation and you know it.

And how exactly is this going to make aviation history?

I think it already did

Then kindly show me a history book that mentions the aircraft?

You find me a book saying that Boeing should upgrade their aircraft not build new ones.  

[Prancer]

MattGarner, on Dec 5 2009, 05:47 PM, said:

Perriwen, on Dec 5 2009, 10:46 PM, said:

Captain-Amar, on Dec 5 2009, 05:44 PM, said:

Perriwen, on Dec 5 2009, 10:40 PM, said:

MattGarner, on Dec 5 2009, 05:38 PM, said:

This will make history in aviation and you know it.

And how exactly is this going to make aviation history?

I think it already did

Then kindly show me a history book that mentions the aircraft?

You find me a book saying that Boeing should upgrade their aircraft not build new ones.  

You find me a book saying they should build new ones instead of upgrade the current fleet.   But then, it all depends on the author..I could write one, and show you, and there you go.

And those of you who are going to play the all-composite fuselage card, let me introduce you to the ones that have gone ahead..and oddly not made history. The Hawker 4000, and the Hondajet come to mind.

Edited by Perriwen, 05 December 2009 - 04:51 PM.

[MattGarner]

Perriwen, on Dec 5 2009, 10:50 PM, said:

MattGarner, on Dec 5 2009, 05:47 PM, said:

Perriwen, on Dec 5 2009, 10:46 PM, said:

Captain-Amar, on Dec 5 2009, 05:44 PM, said:

Perriwen, on Dec 5 2009, 10:40 PM, said:

MattGarner, on Dec 5 2009, 05:38 PM, said:

This will make history in aviation and you know it.

And how exactly is this going to make aviation history?

I think it already did

Then kindly show me a history book that mentions the aircraft?

You find me a book saying that Boeing should upgrade their aircraft not build new ones.  

You find me a book saying they should build new ones and no upgrade the current fleet.  

And those of you who are going to play the all-composite fuselage card, let me introduce you to the ones that have gone ahead..and oddly not made history. The Hawker 4000, and the Hondajet come to mind.

I'm sure Boeing would not still be finishing this aircraft of if they didn't think it would be worth it in the end. Its kinda "normal" for many companies to keep bringing out new products. New planes, new cars, new boats and so on. This is the way they work and make business. No point upgrading the 767 with new wings and so on!

[Prancer]

MattGarner, on Dec 5 2009, 05:52 PM, said:

[No point upgrading the 767 with new wings and so on!

What is wrong with the current 767 that it would even need upgrades within the next ten years? Boeing has plenty of other projects going on, including...

Aegis SM-3
AEW&C
AGM 86-C Conventional Air-Launched Cruise Missile (CALCM)
Advanced Information Systems (AIS)
Advanced Logistics Services
Airborne Antisubmarine Warfare (ASW) and Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR)
Airborne Laser (ABL)
Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle
Arrow
Avenger
Boeing Integration Center (BIC)
Boeing Launch Services (BLS)
Boeing Mission Systems
Boeing Satellites
Brimstone
C-130 Avionics Modernization Program
Checkout, Assembly & Payload Processing Services (CAPPS)
Combat Survivor Evader Locator (CSEL)
Combat Systems
Command, Control, and Communication (C3) Networks
Commercial/Civil Satellite Programs
Constellation/Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle
Conventional Air-Launched Cruise Missile (CALCM)
Cyber and Information Solutions
DataMaster
Delta II
Delta IV
Directed Energy Systems
DIRECTV 1, 2, 3
DIRECTV 10, 11, 12
EA-18G Airborne Electronic Attack Aircraft
Engineering & Logistics Services
Expendable Launch Systems
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
F-22 Raptor
Family of Advanced Beyond Line-of-Sight Terminals (FAB-T)
Future Combat Systems (FCS)
F-15K - Republic of Korea
Global Services and Support
GPS IIF (Global Positioning System)
GSA Professional Services
GOES N-P
Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD)
Insitu
Intelligence and Security Systems
Intercontinental Ballistic Missile System
International Space Station (ISS)
Harpoon
LJDAM
Lancer
Laser & Electro-Optical Systems (LEOS)
Long-term Mine Reconnaissance System (LMRS)
Maintenance, Modifications & Upgrades
Measat-3
Military Satellite Systems
Missile Defense Systems
Mission Systems
National Security Communications Programs
Network-Centric Operations (NCO)
New Skies (NSS-8)
Nimrod Maritime Patrol Aircraft
Orbital Express
P-8A Poseidon
Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC-3)
Peace Eagle
Phantom Works
SOSCOE
SQS
ScanEagle
Sea Launch
Secure Border Initiative (SBI) and SBInet
Security Solutions
SkyTerra
Small Diameter Bomb (SDB)
SoftPlotter
Space and Intelligence Systems
Space Based Space Surveillance System (SBSS)
Space Exploration
Space Flight Awareness (SFA)
Spaceway
Special Operations Chinook
Special Operations Forces Support Activity (SOFSA)
Spectrolab
Spirit
Standoff Land Attack Missile -- Expanded Response SLAM-ER (SLAM-ER)
Thuraya-2, 3
Training Systems and Services
Transformational Wideband Communication Capabilities for the Warfighter
Wideband Global SATCOM (WGS)
X-51 WaveRider
XM-1, 2
XM-3, 4
XSS-10 Micro-Satellite


I don't think they'd be in trouble if they didn't produce uneeded aircraft, alright.

[Captain-Amar]

Perriwen, on Dec 5 2009, 10:46 PM, said:

Captain-Amar, on Dec 5 2009, 05:44 PM, said:

Perriwen, on Dec 5 2009, 10:40 PM, said:

MattGarner, on Dec 5 2009, 05:38 PM, said:

This will make history in aviation and you know it.

And how exactly is this going to make aviation history?

I think it already did

Then kindly show me a history book that mentions the aircraft?

Saw it in a dutch avation of 2009 book. Talking about its development. And what its set to do. So..its in a book

[Prancer]

Captain-Amar, on Dec 5 2009, 06:02 PM, said:

Perriwen, on Dec 5 2009, 10:46 PM, said:

Captain-Amar, on Dec 5 2009, 05:44 PM, said:

Perriwen, on Dec 5 2009, 10:40 PM, said:

MattGarner, on Dec 5 2009, 05:38 PM, said:

This will make history in aviation and you know it.

And how exactly is this going to make aviation history?

I think it already did

Then kindly show me a history book that mentions the aircraft?

Saw it in a dutch avation of 2009 book. Talking about its development. And what its set to do. So..its in a book

No, not a yearly encyclopedia type thing, I mean an actual history book.  

[Captain-Amar]

Perriwen, on Dec 5 2009, 11:05 PM, said:

Captain-Amar, on Dec 5 2009, 06:02 PM, said:

Perriwen, on Dec 5 2009, 10:46 PM, said:

Captain-Amar, on Dec 5 2009, 05:44 PM, said:

Perriwen, on Dec 5 2009, 10:40 PM, said:

MattGarner, on Dec 5 2009, 05:38 PM, said:

This will make history in aviation and you know it.

And how exactly is this going to make aviation history?

I think it already did

Then kindly show me a history book that mentions the aircraft?

Saw it in a dutch avation of 2009 book. Talking about its development. And what its set to do. So..its in a book

No, not a yearly encyclopedia type thing, I mean an actual history book.  

Well, its fabrication and stuff is already history. But look..I was being sarcastic about the book. But I do think its development with new materials and fuel saving stuff is on its own made history. Anyway w/e. I wanna see it fly.