kevin wrote on Apr 6^th, 2007 at 6:52pm:


 Sorry, I thought it was new since the original kit was a Mk.1a and the current one is a Mk.Vb.

I do NOT like Airbus.

Why? Because, Leahy is annoying and makes up baseless claims, the A380 is EXTREMELY overhyped, and because of there claims my favourite airline will be receiving A380's years off when they should of been delivered. In Flight simulator? Well they have three fuselage diameters and two diferant cockpits. My two fights on A320's were terrible, the crappy IAE V2500 made that buzzsaw noise all the way through the flight, although that's more IAE and Jetstars fault....
As for the actual planes and company, I have no problem.


As for Boeing, well there only planes I really like are the 727, 757 and the 787, the rest are boring.


My favourite aircraft manufacturer would have to be McDonnell Douglas. The reason for this is there products and non-conforming designs:

AH-64 Apache <----Classic and amazing attack helicopter

F-4 Phantom II<----A 47 year old airplane with over a thousand still in service with 11 countries (as of 2001)

F-15 Eagle<-----A 35 year old airplane that can still take on newer Su-30's with no problem, it also has a perfect combat record, and can fly with most of a wing torn off.

F/A-18 Hornet<----The most successful strike fighters ever.

DC-9<----A extremely successful airliner which is still in use today; with airlines such as North West.

DC-10 <-----446 of these beautiful tri-jets were build, and most are recently getting retired.

MD-11<-----A continuation of the beautiful DC-10, although recently retired in favour of the 777, the MD-11 is still widely used by cargo operaters of the world.

MD-80 Series <---- A continuation of the DC-9 series, 1191 of these were build and are still in service with major airlines such as AA.

MD-90 <---A upgraded MD-80. Although it was uneconomical, it boasted a quiet cabin, no recirculation fans, and high wingl loading enabling it to fly through turbulence very quietly.

MD-95<-----The 717 is a heavily modified DC-9-30 with newer engines, and a highly refined airframe. It is an extremely reliable aircraft, finding high frequincy operators such as Qantas Link and AirTran. The 717 suffered from the RJ boom of the mid 90's, so it never sold well, even though AirTran asked more more aircraft.

MD was aquired 10 years ago by Boeing, and now, many ex- MD employees are helping design the fantabulous Boeing 787, which has sold over 450 airframes despite not having flown yet. This makes it the fastest selling Wide-Body in aviation history.

Quote:

Well there are a few missconceptions here. First, Airbus are not the most Environmentally friendly aircraft in the sky. The 717 burns less fuel than the A318, and MOST of the time, the larger 737NG series burn less fuel than the larger A320 series, anyway, the 737 is over 10 tons lighter and was implemented 10 years after the A320.

Most of the time, the 777 obliterates the A340 in both range, fuel burn, and speed. Go look at the weights of four CFM-56 engines and compare that to two GE-90 engines. I think you'll find the four engines not only makes the A340 a very heavy aircraft, but a fuel hungry one too. This is common knowledge, hell, even airliners which perviously operated A340's are replacing them with Boeing 777s.

The A330? Well hats off to Airbus here, a very nice plane as Boeings equivelent to this airliner is the aging 767 which still outsold the A330.

Even though the 20 year old 747-400 is outselling it, the A380 is still a great plane. That being said, it is not perfect either. It has weight and wiring problems, and now the Boeing 747-8 is coming out which boasts a economical advantage to the A380 by a few %. Both airframes are to early to make REAL comparesins. Don't you find it pethetic that a plane that costed 15 billion dollars to develop is getting outclassed by a 40 year old design?

The 787 is going to obliterate the A330 by over 20%, has over 450 orders, and still flies in a few months making it the fastest selling widebody of all time. It costed 8 Billion $ to develop. I am not going to bother with the A350, it competes with both the 777 and the 787, and it has barely any orders and is going to cost 10 billion $ US to develop. They call it XWB despite the 777 cabin being bigger, and by the time the A350 'XWB' enteres service the Boeing Y3 will be in development which should be amazing.

Safety? I am only going to compare there current lineup as older Boeing planes are very old, so they cannot compare to newer Airbus.

Boeing 777 accidents: 0
Airbus A340 accidents: 2
That's despite the 777 outselling the A340.

737NG accidents: 1
A320 accidents: 12
The 737NG is younger than the A320 though, How many A320 accidents since 1998? I'm pretty sure atleast two.

767: 6
A330: 1
Despite the 767 being way older than the A330 and outselling it, I should really be comparing the A300 to the 767, though, the A300 isn't in Airbuses current lineup.

Yes, I would look at order books to see how well planes are going. If a plane is terrible, it won't sell well.

Ontop of all these, Airbus now comes crying to the governement for all money to help pay for the 10 billion dollar A350 which is being outsold by the 777-200 and the $8 billion dollar 787. Big deal. Airbus marketing? They make false claims about enter in service dates which leads, and there marketting person; John Leahy is world known for his insulting of other products and there companies. How professional  .

You may also see Airbus planes outselling there superior Boeing counterparts. This is now mostly due to the rare circumstances that some Airbus aircraft are more economical, and if you look at average selling prices (NOT list prices), you'll find most Airbus aircraft are cheaper.

Quote:


Going by that, they sound like the most boring aircraft around, too!

Quote:

It first flew in 27 April 2005

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04/26/airbus.launch/index.html

Quote:

Airbus only has two fuselage diametres in service and two diferant cockpits in sevice. They are.

P.S: Re-read reply 34 again.

Quote:


Mmm, considering the A320 been around for 20 years and had noted development problems, a little unfair a comparison - care to share the accident figures of the 737OG?

Quote:


And Boeing never say a bad world about anyone! Come on, feel free to enter the real world... 

Oh no, looking at the last paragraph we see that you're beyond hope of appreciating anything that isn't made by Boeing or MD. Competition is a good thing for the world - not everyone wants to be run by USA Plc and its enormous companies.

Quote:


Sorry if this post sounds a little harsh but one does get fed up with the continually one sided posts saying how great the Seattle company is and that every other aeroplane in the world is complete cr*p.

Quote:


Another gem from the Hughes stable was it not, before MD took it over?

Quote:



I have to say around here it is normally vice-versa...

Quote:


But is still several large sections in an assembly hall. Mind you, the blogs say they're still on target for a August 07 first flight, which by normal standards quite a quick time scale (but then again is the 787 a normal aeroplane?), but good luck to them.

Just googled "Leahy vs 787". To be fair to him with his quote about the possible lateness of the 787 project, if it is late, then he is somewhat vindicated.