News Forum - Boeing’s China syndrome, big problems for the US aircraft manufacturer

[KaptainRob]

3 minutes ago, Guevara said:

Here's a question for you KR, why are Cuba replacing their fleet of Antonov's with Airbus?

If you've never flown on an Antonov, give it a try, you would believe it was cobbled together by McGiver.

No idea, Russian made aircraft, cars ... almost anything Russian, has never been of interest to me.

[Fanta]

18 minutes ago, Guevara said:

Here's a question for you KR, why are Cuba replacing their fleet of Antonov's with Airbus?

If you've never flown on an Antonov, give it a try, you would believe it was cobbled together by McGiver.

Antonov is located in Kyiv and has been under Ukrainian control since Ukraine gained independence in 1991. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov

[Cathat]

23 minutes ago, Guevara said:

Are you having a laugh? Concorde had one fatal failure and it was removed from service soon after. Read the NTSB and, BEA and FAA reports before you compare the 2. The Commie version couldn't even perform at an air show

Since when did the FAA publish accident reports?

Since when did the NTSB publish reports about French registered aircraft operating in French airspace that were designed and manufactured by an Anglo/French consortium?

avin a larf arnt yer squire!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guevara]

1 hour ago, KaptainRob said:

No idea, Russian made aircraft, cars ... almost anything Russian, has never been of interest to me.

Sensible decision.

[Cathat]

1 hour ago, Guevara said:

Are you having a laugh? Concorde had one fatal failure and it was removed from service soon after. Read the NTSB and, BEA and FAA reports before you compare the 2. The Commie version couldn't even perform at an air show.

Are you aware the "commie version" was restored to flying condition and chartered by NASA for a very successful supersonic test flying program?

[CamPat]

Boeing's Problems seem to continue unabaited. The US Airforce rejected several new planes to be delivered for: Faulty trim kept KC-46 emergency exit door from opening.

Boeing gets out the Velcro to patch over another glitch with the Air Force tanker

 

Fri, April 1, 2022

WASHINGTON — A problem with the trim on the KC-46A Pegasus’ overwing exit doors kept it from being able to open, which could have hindered passengers’ ability to escape during an emergency.

U.S. Air Mobility Command spokeswoman Maj. Hope Cronin said in an email Thursday that the Air Force’s engineers worked with KC-46 manufacturer Boeing to create and issue a time compliance technical order to modify the refueling tankers’ doors in the field.

The modification in this order removes the obstruction and installs a temporary fix that eliminates the potential emergency risk until a permanent fix is made, Cronin said.

Boeing acknowledged the problem with the trim blocking the exit doors in a statement to Defense News. The company also said it is trying to figure out how the issue wasn’t caught before the KC-46s entered service.

“We are coordinating closely with the Air Force customer as we develop a permanent production and retrofit solution,” Boeing said. “We are carefully examining our testing processes to determine why this issue was not identified sooner.” Velcro has been applied to the bottom part of the panel to keep it in place and prevent vibrations, Boeing said.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-gets-out-the-velcro-to-patch-over-another-glitch-with-the-air-force-tanker/

 

If this wasn't enough trouble the 777 reported another problem

(Bloomberg) — French air-safety officials launched an investigation into the cause of an Air France flight-control incident that led pilots of a Boeing Co. 777 to abort a landing at Paris-Charles de Gaulle airport. 

Air France Flight AF011 from New York landed safely on its second attempt Tuesday morning after pilots told air traffic-controllers the aircraft was unresponsive as it approached the runway the first time. 

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-777s-landing-scare-prompts-french-probe/

The Boeing 777 had multiple problems with it's new engines, too. This caused massive delays in deliveries.

My take: If it's not Airbus - I'm takin the Bus.

 

 

 

 

 

[Alavan]

9 hours ago, Soidog said:

Is that the definition of intellectual property theft? 

China, where copyright means the right to copy

[Noble_Design]

Another Boeing 737 had a near miss today - the flight took a sudden dive sending passengers floating:

https://mothership.sg/2022/04/malaysian-airlines-flight-dive/

Quote

 

Based on the passenger's checks on the Flight Radar application, the flight was cruising at 31,000ft, before dropping to 24,000ft "in a matter of seconds".

However, the dip on Flight Radar's online data shows a 1,625 ft dip.

 

 

Scary stuffs here.

[Grumpish]

3 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

Concord suffered one aircraft loss in 27 years of service and that was caused by running over a piece of debris left on the runway by a Boeing aircraft which took off right in front of it.

It was not a technical failure.

Concords commercial failure was due to the refusal of countries to allow it to travel supersonic within its airspace. Even though military jets do it on a daily basis. Often at far lower levels than Concorde flew.

Still when you compare it to the deathtrap that Concordski was its night and day. 

I worked for BA from 1975 to 1999 and lived just a few hundred yards from the Heathrow's perimeter, I used to love watching Concorde taking off early evening, afterburners glowing. Not so kind on the ears though. But you are right, it was far from a technical failure, although it never made a profit.

[Cathat]

2 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

Concord suffered one aircraft loss in 27 years of service and that was caused by running over a piece of debris left on the runway by a Boeing aircraft which took off right in front of it.

It was not a technical failure.

Concords commercial failure was due to the refusal of countries to allow it to travel supersonic within its airspace. Even though military jets do it on a daily basis. Often at far lower levels than Concorde flew.

Still when you compare it to the deathtrap that Concordski was its night and day. 

Military aircraft are rarely operated at super sonic speeds over land and not near areas of high population or at low level (are you aware of bird strike!)

when they do fly at high speed it is generally for very good operational reasons such as an intercept.

most military aircraft can not fly at high mach numbers at low altitude anyway due to the effect of weight ,altitude and temperature on aircraft  engine performance.

People were quite right to object to public transport aircraft flying at supersonic speed over their houses,the sound is horrendous especially as the aircraft accelerates and decelerates through the transonic speed range.

The manufacturers withdrew technical support and by default the certificate of airworthiness was withdrawn.

They don't make em anymore and there are no descendents of the type.

The whole fiasco cost the the french and british tax payer a fortune so a few rich people could arrive at destination a bit earlier.

The fuel burn resulted in horrendous pollution at high altitude.

The body count from Concorde operations is far higher than the body count from Tu 144 opps accepted it flew many more hours.

They were both commercial and technical failures.

[Cathat]

5 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

Right so no evidence then.

Plenty out there you just have to look and it's not hard to find.

[Soidog]

3 hours ago, Alavan said:

China, where copyright means the right to copy

When you stop and think about it. What a backward and despicable government China has. Why don’t the people do something about it? They know nothing different. So so sad 

[Cathat]

11 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

How on earth is Russian aerodynamics well in advance of western countries?

Do please provide evidence for this bold claim. 

Have a look at the sukhoi MC 21 at the Dubai airshow last year on youtube.

an aerodynamics expert clearly and simply explains the advances in the design.

took me about 30 seconds to find it.

[Rookiescot]

1 hour ago, Cathat said:

Have a look at the sukhoi MC 21 at the Dubai airshow last year on youtube.

an aerodynamics expert clearly and simply explains the advances in the design.

took me about 30 seconds to find it.

So they copied an Airbus 320 but in your opinion that means they are ahead of the west in aerodynamics. 

[KaptainRob]

In local news, Thai Airways have just taken delivery of 2 new Boeing 777 aircraft with one more due very soon.

An unusual step for a company under managed receivership and having to sell old seats to raise money, the 777 s are, for some reason best not discussed here, fitted with a first class lounge.  The naming of the planes provides a clue as to the possible routes they may serve.

One really has to wonder how Thai can survive unless it divests itself of all the unwanted aircraft, many of which appear no longer fit for service and will probably be scrapped.

[Noble_Design]

4 hours ago, KaptainRob said:

In local news, Thai Airways have just taken delivery of 2 new Boeing 777 aircraft with one more due very soon.

An unusual step for a company under managed receivership and having to sell old seats to raise money, the 777 s are, for some reason best not discussed here, fitted with a first class lounge.  The naming of the planes provides a clue as to the possible routes they may serve.

One really has to wonder how Thai can survive unless it divests itself of all the unwanted aircraft, many of which appear no longer fit for service and will probably be scrapped.

They need the 777 though since Thai Airways have retired the A380s that ply the BKK-FRA route.

[Soidog]

4 hours ago, KaptainRob said:

the 777 s are, for some reason best not discussed here,

Is that because a new one is “privately owned” shall we say? 

[Cathat]

9 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

So they copied an Airbus 320 but in your opinion that means they are ahead of the west in aerodynamics. 

And why exactly would a long standing company that are respected worldwide for advanced aerodynamics copy a very recent airbus design and how could they also manufacture and produce it at introduce it to the market at the same time?

form follows function and superficially any manufacturers aircraft will look broadly similar to any others that are aimed at the same segment of the market.

The devil is in the detail and what lies under the skin.

I assume you looked at the info freely available on youtube and if you can't accept an explanation about the class leading innovations from a phd qualified aerodynamics engineer that's up to you.

Edited April 7, 2022 by Cathat

[Stardust]

On 4/5/2022 at 11:26 PM, Cathat said:

boeing and airbus are both naive if they genuinely believe their pie in the sky future market predictions.

the chinese are masters at reverse engineering any product, improving on it then manufacturing and selling it at a far lower price.

they also have the technology home developed to put satellites and people in space already anyway.

why do they think that the chinese will keep buying their overpriced spam cans to transport the public from a to b when they can easily knock up their own for a song. 

the ludicrous future market predictions are to try to talk the share price up only and anybody who believes it will probably be interested in a very nice bridge I have for sale also.

A good joke because China can't produce any aircraft without supply from abroad/the west. And its not only about the supply they need on semiconductor etc. There a few more reasons

https://www.mcnallyinstitute.com/why-cant-china-build-jets-engine/

And

https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Aerospace-Defense/China-develops-passenger-jet-but-40-of-parts-suppliers-are-overseas

And it is not only comeercial aircrafts

https://tfiglobalnews.com/2022/02/21/its-official-china-cannot-produce-new-jet-engines-and-warships-for-a-long-time-to-come/

 

We could fill up some pages about these subjects!

Result anyway China is not able to produce any comercial jet by themself!

[Rookiescot]

6 hours ago, Cathat said:

And why exactly would a long standing company that are respected worldwide for advanced aerodynamics copy a very recent airbus design and how could they also manufacture and produce it at introduce it to the market at the same time?

form follows function and superficially any manufacturers aircraft will look broadly similar to any others that are aimed at the same segment of the market.

The devil is in the detail and what lies under the skin.

I assume you looked at the info freely available on youtube and if you can't accept an explanation about the class leading innovations from a phd qualified aerodynamics engineer that's up to you.

OK so now its about "What lies under the skin" rather than the aerodynamics?

Usual scattergun approach from one of Czar Putins bots.

[Cathat]

20 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

OK so now its about "What lies under the skin" rather than the aerodynamics?

Usual scattergun approach from one of Czar Putins bots.

What lies under the skin is what forms the profile and that's how you get the NACA number etc,thought anybody would know that.

You are clutching at straws and have been comprehensively trashed on point after point by me so many times i have now lost count!

<deleted content>

 

Edited April 8, 2022 by BigHewer
Personal disparaging comment removed

[Rookiescot]

18 hours ago, Cathat said:

What lies under the skin is what forms the profile and that's how you get the NACA number etc,thought anybody would know that.

You are clutching at straws and have been comprehensively trashed on point after point by me so many times i have now lost count!

<deleted content>

You are dancing on the head of a pin here.

<deleted content>

Edited April 8, 2022 by BigHewer
Reply to inappropriate content removed

[Rookiescot]

3 hours ago, Cathat said:

I give as good as I get,insult me I'll insult you,it's that simple,I did not introduce derogatory personal insults to the tread but I'm quite happy to counter them.

<deleted content>

You claimed that Russian aircraft manufacturers are ahead of their western counterparts. I asked you for evidence of this. You talked about some video YOU had seen on youtube but provided no link.

You claimed Concorde was a technical failure. I pointed out that it had ONE aircraft lost in 27 years of operation and that was because it ran over debris on the runway. Thats not a technical failure thats simply bad luck. In virtually EVERY other flight it made it performed flawlessly. So no. Its was never a technical failure.

You then pivoted on you claim about aerodynamics and claimed what really mattered was what is under the skin. I pointed out your volt face. You then performed yet another ballet pirouette. So even more mental gymnastics from you.

Hence my reply about you dancing on the head of a pin.  

Edited April 8, 2022 by BigHewer
Provocative content removed

[Cathat]

6 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Ok precious here goes.

You claimed that Russian aircraft manufacturers are ahead of their western counterparts. I asked you for evidence of this. You talked about some video YOU had seen on youtube but provided no link.

You claimed Concorde was a technical failure. I pointed out that it had ONE aircraft lost in 27 years of operation and that was because it ran over debris on the runway. Thats not a technical failure thats simply bad luck. In virtually EVERY other flight it made it performed flawlessly. So no. Its was never a technical failure.

You then pivoted on you claim about aerodynamics and claimed what really mattered was what is under the skin. I pointed out your volt face. You then performed yet another ballet pirouette. So even more mental gymnastics from you.

Hence my reply about you dancing on the head of a pin.

What's a volt face?

Never heard it before.

[Poolie]

1 minute ago, Cathat said:

What's a volt face?

Never heard it before.

It's actually 'volte face', the opposite view as taken when changing your mind.