kalvasflam

It was a nice episode, learned a few new things about the Tomcat I never knew about. Kind of sad to see it go. The Hornet is just not quite up to snuff in my view... oh well.

Wait wait, I know plot. Evil terrorist (German or American) plots to steal experimental warplane to attack airbus factory in Tolouse. And Maverique (standard high risk pilot) takes another plane to shot down terrorist. The terrorist (if German is out there because he wants to keep the A380 jobs in Hamburg... if dastardly American, then he was hired by Boeing to permanently destroy the marvel that is the pride of France, the A380) Heh heh.... like the thought of that plot. P.S. under no circumstances can the terrorist be muslim, it might touch off more riots.

Wasn't that the sonic cruiser concept redux from Boeing?

A little variety is good for life. After all, combat aircraft might be sexy and hot, but it's the commercial airlines that gets business done all day. Although I am the first to admit, just looking at the pictures of the 787 from a distance, it looks exactly like a 737.... BORING

Steriff resigned??? huh? On the other hand, the Rolls news is just pure irony for all involved. And it's funny as hell.... The last statement is just hilarious, I guess that'll surely make Tolouse an expensive place to live in soon. I find the whole thing with respect to the European union and the idea of equality just funny, let everybody share in the work, and hope to hell they get it right. But I'm betting there is stll not one single cancellation at the end of this fiasco. Why... there is not another real competitor. EADS is lucky in that respect.

Interesting tidbit about Boeing, I didn't know it. But then again, I don't think that's quite enough because up until the introduction of the 787 and the Airbus setback, Boeing was getting its ass kicked the last few years. The Airbus crappy service didn't hurt that much then.

Yeah? Have you tried those long ass international flights of 10 or more hours? Besides, too many people would revolt if there was no tv, it's like a damn entitlement for the cattle class. Imagine what would happen to all the JetBlue customers if they decided no more DirecTV. I heard that Singapore Airline is getting compensation for this delay. I wonder how much. I know the airlines have got to all be loving this delay. First, they know they have Airbus over a barrel, because Airbus needs be get the revenue in order to build up A350, and second, the airlines are going to squeeze a bunch of concessions out of Airbus, so I wonder what the actual selling price after all of the compensation that Airbus will be stuck paying out. None of them will cancel orders, besides, it's just unlikely since these guys will have a need for these jumbos for these long point hauls and they can't afford to give Boeing too much of a leg up. The funny thing is if Airbus launched the Cargo version of the A380 first, they would've been far better off, and even Emirates would've been pleased. But on the other hand, Singapore Air must have a pretty big black eye now since they even have a webpage dedicated to the A380. I hope the drawing winner(s) aren't too disappointed with the flight delay of six or more months.

Regardless of the failings of the A380 now, Airbus will ultimately do well, because there is really not a competitor out there that can match the A380. The 747-8 just doesn't quite cut it I think. With Airbus, they can afford to screw things up with A380, because fundamentally, who else is there in the market? Now having said that, the problem is that the decrease in earnings is going to hurt them on the stock market, but they should be pushing ahead with A350 development. Worst case, they go crying to the EU for more subsidies, and the EU can't afford to let EADS's primary business unit fail too badly, so they'll provide subsidies for the A350 development to keep Airbus afloat. On the other hand, Boeing can't screw up at all with the 787. They've announced the plane for almost two years now, maiden flight is next year if I recall correctly. Then first deliveries come in 2008. If they have even one snafu, they're in trouble, and they set all their customers back. If you look at the Boeing order books, there are some majors that haven't ordered at all yet. BA, United, AA, Luftansa, they all come to mind. Given that the Boeing books is full up until 2012. The majors figure they can wait a few years to see how Airbus does before committing to replacement aircraft. I'm positive that Luftansa and some of the other major European airlines will support Airbus even if it delays new planes in their fleet for a few years. So when you sum it all up, Boeing has far more to lose if it screws up. With Airbus, like I said, the 747-8 just isn't a threat at all, and there is nothing but upside for them. As for other manufacturers for airlines... my question is whom? None of the others can build a 787, A350, or an A380 now, they're all still focused on regional jets.

I just read something off of Aviation today that had a test pilot fly the A380. It's a good plane, handles very nicely. All of the bad press is a big fat self inflicted wound that EADS/Airbus management is giving to themselves. The problem is always in terms of expectations. EADS set the bar too high for themselves, part of it is the market, but I think when they figured out that Boeing wasn't going that route, they should've managed their customer expectations properly, now it's just bad news everytime they announce a delay. They better deliver the first plane to Singapore at end of the year, or they're going to have problems. If for some reason their lead customer cancels on them, then they're screwed. I doubt if it'll happen, but I'm sure Singapore Airline is going to make Airbus pay for late delivery. The same is true for Boeing, I think having helped to define the market, the 787 production better run without a hitch, because I can imagine if there are production problems, there really will be hell to pay with Boeing. They have something like 400 planes on order I think. A hitch is going to kill them, and give Airbus a lot of leeway going forward. Because unlike the A380, the 787/777 combination will have a lot of competition if and when Airbus get their act together on the A350 widebodies.

May be they could use the A380... if it ever gets off the production line. Seriously though, wasn't there a company named Evergreen that set up a 747 to do firefighting as well? It would be interesting to see one making a low pass over a fire area.

Anyone seen this movie yet? It looked entertaining in terms of the commercial, but anyone seen the movie yet?

I'd disagree, but that's just me. It's always possible that the Iranians have a bunch of surprise in store if it ever came to open fight against the US. But I don't think they'd be able to inflict much damage before they were grounded down. If they launched an all out surprise attack against the US forces in the region (never say never) then they could do some damage. But I doubt the Iranian air force would survive more than a week of open conflict. Wait for the USS Google, the USS Intel, and the USS Microsoft .... heh heh... but I remember being involved in a discuss on this thread earlier, so think I'll sit this round out.

Meh, I'd take Iran as seriously as any of the other pissant Arab air forces in the region. The plane looks entertaining, but I would not want to be flying in the Iranian air force if the US ever decided to get serious on launching an air offensive against them. However, if they were to go against Iraq (without US involvement), I'd give them more than even chance on gaining air superiority.

Ha ha, that's so funny, OMG, we're out of fuel, we're gonna crash. But thank God we have this plane load of water to weigh us down. I believe they've recently refitted 747 to do fire fighting, although the water is expelled via nozzles on the side of the plane

My only problem with the A320 is the luggage bin, both on Jetblue and United, the damn thing is just about half an inch too small for my rollerboard. The seats on the Jetblue version is far more comfortable. United... well, it's United, what can you say. As for the 3-2 seat configuration, it offends my sense of symmetry a little, but it has its uses. The seat configuration I really don't like is the United 2-5-2 configuration on 777, great if you're window or isle, sucks if you're middle. I suppose the idea is that way, only one person has to go over two people to get out, version two people on the 3-4-3 configurations. I do love the 777 though for the way the engines are, very quiet, and overall, I just like riding on that plane better. If you ever looked out of the wing of a 777 versus that of a 767, it's just so different. I know I sound dumb this way, but I always enjoyed the 777. In regards to sale, remember that the A380 was doing fantastically well until the production snag in April. It could happen to be Boeing 787 too, one could only hope that Boeing pays attention and gets all its manufacturing up to speed before the actual build. And the CEO had better hope that the designers didn't overpromise on the 787. That could be a disaster waiting to happen... especially considering there is quite a bit of new technology that's going into the 787.

I think the seating arrangements is done by airlines, but I don't know about the cabin bin though. My experience so far is that Boeings (no matter the airline) seem to have slightly larger cabin space. Heh heh, nice video about A350 vs 787. But I understand the new design A350 is well received by the public, the one that airbus just came out with. But like the 787, the jury is out. Until those planes make it through production, nothing is certain. My thought on the 787 right now is that there is a ton of hype, but until the plane makes its maiden flight, and proves manufacturability, it's just nice marketing.

Changing the focus slightly. I don't know how many of you travel, but do you have preference for Boeing aircraft or Airbus models? Speaking from personal experience, I tend to like the 737 just a bit better than the A320 (???), if nothing else, the luggage spacing is better so that my carrying on can fit wheels in first. But beyond that, have any of you flown the current long range airbus, which I think is the A330 and/or 340? What do you think? I would think the A380 might be a nice aircraft to fly on when it finally gets deployed, just for the experience. Same for the 787. What is your flight experience like?

my god, did you watch the animation they have? They have an F-16 actually DOCKING to a guide rail before the missiles are sent along a second rail to be loaded. That's freaking crazy. 420525[/snapback] Well, about 200 years ago ... it would've been crazy to think that large number of people can fly. so, far fetched today is tomorrow's reality.

Some of those ideas are not so far fetched. The aerial rearming though... But the drop tank idea is not a bad one. Just have to fit it with some small amount of explosives. After all, the tanks are likely going to be lost anyway. So, put it to some good use.

Effect, I watched it, it's better than GSD. Hard to believe I know, but think of it this way, it's hard to put the bar any lower than GSD.

I'd like to point out that Eisenhower never would have had a ship named after him if he had not been the President. The Navy does not name ships after soldiers, Shugart and Gordon were rare exceptions, and they were Medal of Honor winners as well as soldiers. 417520[/snapback] Hmmm, Nimitz was a soldier if I recall correctly, sailor if you really want to nitpick. Spruance, another sailor, Halsey, King, etc. None of those were politicians. I'm going to hold my peace on this subject at this point. Since this is becoming a pointless debate. Personally, my preference is still for historical battles, and names of outstanding military men to be names for ships. Followed by states, and cities... although I can't help but like the British naming tradition, Broadsword, Battleaxe... now those were good names.

Interesting question. Ok, I'm gonna look at this backwards, by eliminating non-contenders first. Jaguar was replaced by the Tornado, so it's out. The SU-24 has short combat legs under full load, but carries a nice loadout. So, short legs eliminate it. Tornado is slightly newer, better legs, and heavier loadout, but still not that great. So, it's out. 417058[/snapback] Right, but I bet you one thing - however low you think you are, the Tornado will be under you somewhere. 417136[/snapback] And look where it got them during Desert Storm....

My whole point on this is that it's better not to name ships after politicians. Had Bush Sr not become a president, there would've been no carrier named after him. Ike would've had a ship name not due to politics, but due to his distinguished military record. Likewise for Washington, and Abe and if they ever name another ship after FDR, are both deserving because they were war time leaders - so I can overlook the political side on those. The point being that the distinction should be due to military career, not political ones. Other ships that were worth while... Shugart and Gordon. Good mentions. I'm hoping for an Enterprise. The navy needs a new one. Oh, and the navy needs a ship named England too. I don't think there is one by that name these days.

I haven't seen it yet, but it sounds good so far. Only question is was this equal to the first six episodes of GSD? If so, then it's a good sign so far.

I can't stand these people naming warships after politicians. Stennis, Vinson, etc, geez, I can understand if they name it for a real war hero, and might make exception for one or two politicians, Ike, GW, and Abe comes to mind. But that's about it. Jimmy Carter? I don't care if he was in the navy, it's a disgrace to name a fighting ship after someone like him, same for Reagan, and Bush. I want warships named after famous battles... or respectable people, i.e. Nimitz was deserving, and they really should've named a carrier after Spruance, and possibly even Halsey, definitely Mitscher. But sadly, that was not to be....