Low-cost, muti-role aircraft for small militaries

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

Pointblank said:

1. It was a three way competition, but McDonnell Douglas was already in trouble well before. ,...............

Click to expand...

US market was a monopoly of US manufacturers for a long time. Even then we had the likes of MD and Lockheed getting into trouble. Boeing would have suffered the same fate had it not been continued support from the state.
Defence may not be the majority but it's a significant revenue stream for Boeing.

787's so called 'innovations' are mostly marketing ploys. For now Boeing is still losing massive amount of money on it. If delays or inability to meet performances continues, we can expect demands for compensation to mount and Boeing may never see a single cent from this project.

C-Series targets a smaller sized jet segment from A320, MRJ is even smaller at less than 100 seats. Both of them target a launch date before 2013 and Airbus has never taken these 2 seriously.
C919 targets exactly the same segment as A320 and A320Neo follows exactly the 2016 launch date of C919. Actually C919 originally planned to launch after 2020, same as the new A320 and 737. But they saw an opening and moved it to 2016. Airbus felt threatened and followed despite stretched resources.

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

Schumacher said:

US market was a monopoly of US manufacturers for a long time. Even then we had the likes of MD and Lockheed getting into trouble. Boeing would have suffered the same fate had it not been continued support from the state.
Defence may not be the majority but it's a significant revenue stream for Boeing.

787's so called 'innovations' are mostly marketing ploys. For now Boeing is still losing massive amount of money on it. If delays or inability to meet performances continues, we can expect demands for compensation to mount and Boeing may never see a single cent from this project.

C-Series targets a smaller sized jet segment from A320, MRJ is even smaller at less than 100 seats. Both of them target a launch date before 2013 and Airbus has never taken these 2 seriously.
C919 targets exactly the same segment as A320 and A320Neo follows exactly the 2016 launch date of C919. Actually C919 originally planned to launch after 2020, same as the new A320 and 737. But they saw an opening and moved it to 2016. Airbus felt threatened and followed despite stretched resources.

Click to expand...

1. Boeing's commercial aircraft division has been consistently profitable since the 1970's. That says a whole lot about the financial viability of Boeing.

2. So, a aircraft made almost completely of composites, with all-electrical systems is not innovation? This aircraft, despite the various issues it encountered, is considerably more efficient than existing aircraft of similar capabilities (estimates right now is anywhere from 15-20% more efficient than the 767). The aircraft is not that far off performance requirements; only 2%. And those gains can be made back through later upgrades to the engines.

And according to Boeing's latest financial statements, the 787 program will become profitable within the current order book of 800+ aircraft. And that's excluding how many 787's Boeing will sell over the next 20-30 years. The success of the 787 program has kind of changed the way people view the success of new aircraft programs. Before the 787 we did not look for profitability or even break even before EIS. Aircraft programs are developed to generate revenue over a long period of time and to make the program worth the extreme risk that is required by investors who provide financing for development the return needs to be significant.

3. The CSeries approaches the territory of the A319. Customers demanded a more efficient aircraft, and were willing to pay for it.

4. Comac can't even get the issues surrounding ARJ21's certification right. The ARJ21’s faults have included problems with the flight control system and an aluminum-alloy wing that broke before reaching its ultimate load. Comac was slow to recognize the wing of the ARJ21 had failed a test, even though it very obviously had. Then the company hoped simply to repeat the test. The CAAC insisted on a redesign.

Flight control issues have resurfaced and avionics suppliers Honeywell and Rockwell Collins have been asked to change their equipment, not because it did not meet the specification but because a regulator, perhaps the CAAC, was not satisfied with the specification.

The FAA is insisting its shadow certification effort on the ARJ21 be completed before the agency begins work on the C919. But the C919 is already near the point at which a certification agency needs to be brought in; if the project advances much further without the FAA’s involvement, the U.S. regulator may decide it can never become involved, which will kill the C919's chances at even being exported.

They are pulling resources from the C919 project to fix major issues with the ARJ21, which will delay the C919 even more; estimates from industry officials is that the delays right now will add at least a extra year to the C919 development schedule as it is. Pulling resources to deal with the ARJ21 will add to the delays. If the C919 encounters even a slight hiccup during certification, most likely first delivery will only occur towards 2020.

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

Pointblank said:

1. Boeing's commercial aircraft division has been consistently profitable since the 1970's. That says a whole lot about the financial viability of Boeing.

2. So, a aircraft made almost completely of composites, with all-electrical systems is not innovation?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This aircraft, despite the various issues it encountered, is considerably more efficient than existing aircraft of similar capabilities (estimates right now is anywhere from 15-20% more efficient than the 767). The aircraft is not that far off performance requirements; only 2%. And those gains can be made back through later upgrades to the engines.

And according to Boeing's latest financial statements, the 787 program will become profitable within the current order book of 800+ aircraft. And that's excluding how many 787's Boeing will sell over the next 20-30 years. The success of the 787 program has kind of changed the way people view the success of new aircraft programs. Before the 787 we did not look for profitability or even break even before EIS. Aircraft programs are developed to generate revenue over a long period of time and to make the program worth the extreme risk that is required by investors who provide financing for development the return needs to be significant.

3. The CSeries approaches the territory of the A319. Customers demanded a more efficient aircraft, and were willing to pay for it.

4. Comac can't even get the issues surrounding ARJ21's certification right. The ARJ21’s faults have included problems with the flight control system and an aluminum-alloy wing that broke before reaching its ultimate load. Comac was slow to recognize the wing of the ARJ21 had failed a test, even though it very obviously had. Then the company hoped simply to repeat the test. The CAAC insisted on a redesign.

Flight control issues have resurfaced and avionics suppliers Honeywell and Rockwell Collins have been asked to change their equipment, not because it did not meet the specification but because a regulator, perhaps the CAAC, was not satisfied with the specification.

The FAA is insisting its shadow certification effort on the ARJ21 be completed before the agency begins work on the C919. But the C919 is already near the point at which a certification agency needs to be brought in; if the project advances much further without the FAA’s involvement, the U.S. regulator may decide it can never become involved, which will kill the C919's chances at even being exported.

They are pulling resources from the C919 project to fix major issues with the ARJ21, which will delay the C919 even more; estimates from industry officials is that the delays right now will add at least a extra year to the C919 development schedule as it is. Pulling resources to deal with the ARJ21 will add to the delays. If the C919 encounters even a slight hiccup during certification, most likely first delivery will only occur towards 2020.

Click to expand...

1. 1970s money doesn't even compare to the amount of money Boeing is losing with it's 787.

2. Composites can't be smelted like metal therefore it can't be recycled efficiently. It has problems blending in with the metal parts at times, therefore in the long run more maintenance trouble and delay flight.

3. How do you know for sure Boeing will be profitable based on sales data alone, what about the penalties for delayed planes and cancelled orders?

4. Your bias view on Comac testing, designing, and building new planes in their early stages as proof of failure doesn't comply because all new planes has to go through with it anyways. Didn't Boeing was late on the first plane for three years before All Nippon Airlines finally received it.

It's good to have another industry player in the mix for the competition. I hope Comac will eventually compete with Airbus and Boeing in the near future. It's better to try and try again, instead of just accept inferiority don't you think?

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

Equation said:

1. 1970s money doesn't even compare to the amount of money Boeing is losing with it's 787.

2. Composites can't be smelted like metal therefore it can't be recycled efficiently. It has problems blending in with the metal parts at times, therefore in the long run more maintenance trouble and delay flight.

3. How do you know for sure Boeing will be profitable based on sales data alone, what about the penalties for delayed planes and cancelled orders?

4. Your bias view on Comac testing, designing, and building new planes in their early stages as proof of failure doesn't comply because all new planes has to go through with it anyways. Didn't Boeing was late on the first plane for three years before All Nippon Airlines finally received it.

It's good to have another industry player in the mix for the competition. I hope Comac will eventually compete with Airbus and Boeing in the near future. It's better to try and try again, instead of just accept inferiority don't you think?

Click to expand...

1. You are talking about billions of dollars since the 1970's. Plenty of money in the bank.

2. Composites are stronger and lighter, and less prone to corrosion, and the future of aircraft construction is with composites. We have gained tremendous experience in constructing aircraft with composites since the 1970's. The FAA and EASA would not certify the 787 if there were issues with composite construction. Customers would not buy into aircraft with maintenance issues. The competing Airbus A350 XWB will also made primarily out of composites. Aluminum alloy construction will be less common in aircraft construction.

3. The penalties for delays will at most be a small fraction of the worth of the 787 order book. Estimates are that the penalties reach around $5 billion dollars, but the total value of the current order book is around $151 billion dollars at list price. A average profit of around 15% value of the order book says almost $23 billion dollars profit. They will be able to absorb the penalties based upon the profits right now.

4. It's not my 'biased' view. It's the view of the following aviation experts:







The general consensus is that Comac is making very serious errors in certification that will continue delay certification. At the rate they are going, the C919 will be technically obsolete when it achieves EIS. Not a good trend; as every successful aircraft manufacturer started off on the right foot with a good product that was technically innovative. Not good for Comac as they have a technically inferior aircraft that no one without a vested interest in Comac will buy.

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

Pointblank said:

1. Boeing's commercial aircraft division has been consistently profitable since the 1970's. That says a whole lot about the financial viability of Boeing.

.............

Click to expand...

And those profits especially in the early years of 70s and 80s owed a lot to US support in pressuring major markets in US, Japan etc to buy US jets.
And if Boeing's words can be trusted, the 787 would have been delivered 3 years ago. The fact is no one including those at Boeing knows when/if they'll make a profit on 787 even using fancy accounting.
Big discounts were given to make sales of 787 that orders well into thousands are needed just to break even. And that's not counting any future compensation payouts due delays and missed performances.
Indeed, C-Series is closer to the smaller A319/318 than it's to A320 which is Airbus's cash cow. That's why, together with the schedule, made it ludicrous to say A320Neo was responding to it. Airbus never took Bombadier or Embraer seriously and unlikely ever will have to.
A cursory look at Neo's schedule and segment shows Airbus was responding to threats from C919.
Boeing was obviously forced into B737Max much earlier than they like. If they slip again with 737Max and 787 doesn't turn profitable by 2020, and with Neo and C919 going in for the kill in this rich segment, we may see Boeing going the way of GM but of course the US government will come in to save it. They can't afford not to.

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

Pointblank said:

1. You are talking about billions of dollars since the 1970's. Plenty of money in the bank.

2. Composites are stronger and lighter, and less prone to corrosion, and the future of aircraft construction is with composites. We have gained tremendous experience in constructing aircraft with composites since the 1970's. The FAA and EASA would not certify the 787 if there were issues with composite construction. Customers would not buy into aircraft with maintenance issues. The competing Airbus A350 XWB will also made primarily out of composites. Aluminum alloy construction will be less common in aircraft construction.

3. The penalties for delays will at most be a small fraction of the worth of the 787 order book. Estimates are that the penalties reach around $5 billion dollars, but the total value of the current order book is around $151 billion dollars at list price. A average profit of around 15% value of the order book says almost $23 billion dollars profit. They will be able to absorb the penalties based upon the profits right now.

4. It's not my 'biased' view. It's the view of the following aviation experts:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The general consensus is that Comac is making very serious errors in certification that will continue delay certification. At the rate they are going, the C919 will be technically obsolete when it achieves EIS. Not a good trend; as every successful aircraft manufacturer started off on the right foot with a good product that was technically innovative. Not good for Comac as they have a technically inferior aircraft that no one without a vested interest in Comac will buy.

Click to expand...

1. If they had plenty of money how come they're in financial trouble and laying off union workers in Seattle?

2. I don't trust composites. The are unlike metal where you can weld two pieces together into one. Composites on the other hand are either glued or weave together. That's not secure to me in the long run. These planes and composites are made to save fuel cost and nothing else. That 15-20% fuel saving capacity will only line up the pockets of shareholders and the CEOs. We the consumer will not see a reduce in ticket prices significantly enough and they will add more seats in the future, therefore more weight from passengers and luggage almost put that savings to zero.

3. That's assuming everything will run smoothly and efficiently without delay of any kind, but given Boeing large demand that's a tall order, considering so many of the plane parts are out source to all around the world.

4. Aviation Week speaks for the industry of the airlines and defense industries, their words are not god. I give Comac a chance first before considering them inferior. Besides what so different in today's plane compare to 50 years ago? They all carry you from point A to point B safely. Today's plane doesn't go that much faster. There's still flight delays and fluctuating ticket prices. The 787 is only technically innovative for the Airline CEOs to line their pockets with the money they saved from fuel cost, does that mean they will do away with charging for extra luggage, food, head phones, and pillows? Nope. It's nothing to ga ga about anyway.

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

Equation said:

1. If they had plenty of money how come they're in financial trouble and laying off union workers in Seattle?

2. I don't trust composites. The are unlike metal where you can weld two pieces together into one. Composites on the other hand are either glued or weave together. That's not secure to me in the long run. These planes and composites are made to save fuel cost and nothing else. That 15-20% fuel saving capacity will only line up the pockets of shareholders and the CEOs. We the consumer will not see a reduce in ticket prices significantly enough and they will add more seats in the future, therefore more weight from passengers and luggage almost put that savings to zero.

3. That's assuming everything will run smoothly and efficiently without delay of any kind, but given Boeing large demand that's a tall order, considering so many of the plane parts are out source to all around the world.

4. Aviation Week speaks for the industry of the airlines and defense industries, their words are not god. I give Comac a chance first before considering them inferior. Besides what so different in today's plane compare to 50 years ago? They all carry you from point A to point B safely. Today's plane doesn't go that much faster. There's still flight delays and fluctuating ticket prices. The 787 is only technically innovative for the Airline CEOs to line their pockets with the money they saved from fuel cost, does that mean they will do away with charging for extra luggage, food, head phones, and pillows? Nope. It's nothing to ga ga about anyway.

Click to expand...

1. They are not laying off union workers in Seattle. There are layoffs, but at Long Beach, California, where the C-17 is set to close production in a few years.

2. Composites use advanced glues that cure, making them very hard, often harder than metals and more durable. They are very durable, and last for a long time without maintenance, unlike aluminum alloys, which corrode.

And if you don't realize it, the airline industry is not a very profitable industry. Margins are often razor thin, and any cost savings in one of their biggest costs, fuel, significantly helps the bottom line. It is said that the only way to be a millionaire is to be a billionaire and invest in an airline. Take a look at the balance sheets of a number of airlines; fuel costs comprise a large portion of their costs (anywhere from 20 - 40% of costs for an airline is fuel costs), and any way they can cut that cost will help maintain profitability.

If they can squeeze in more seats, they will because it helps lower costs per available seat miles, which is a measure of profitability for a flight. A lower CASM means that it is easier for the airline to make a profit on a flight. Airlines determine how to configure aircraft and plan routes using this measurement.

3. Boeing's suppliers for the 787 have worked extensively with Boeing to achieve reliability and dependability. The construction process is not unlike how Airbus assembles their airplanes, with large sections flown in from factories far away.

4. The word of airlines and defense industries says it all. Comac's customers are in the airline industry! If the airlines don't think Comac is creditable, then by extension, customers don't think Comac is a creditable manufacturer!

There are big differences between today's airplanes compared to 50 years ago. Engines are way more powerful and fuel efficient, aircraft are way more smarter, etc. The basic external shape remains the same, but what's inside is the big difference.

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

Pointblank said:

1. They are not laying off union workers in Seattle. There are layoffs, but at Long Beach, California, where the C-17 is set to close production in a few years.

2. Composites use advanced glues that cure, making them very hard, often harder than metals and more durable. They are very durable, and last for a long time without maintenance, unlike aluminum alloys, which corrode.

And if you don't realize it, the airline industry is not a very profitable industry. Margins are often razor thin, and any cost savings in one of their biggest costs, fuel, significantly helps the bottom line. It is said that the only way to be a millionaire is to be a billionaire and invest in an airline. Take a look at the balance sheets of a number of airlines; fuel costs comprise a large portion of their costs (anywhere from 20 - 40% of costs for an airline is fuel costs), and any way they can cut that cost will help maintain profitability.

If they can squeeze in more seats, they will because it helps lower costs per available seat miles, which is a measure of profitability for a flight. A lower CASM means that it is easier for the airline to make a profit on a flight. Airlines determine how to configure aircraft and plan routes using this measurement.

3. Boeing's suppliers for the 787 have worked extensively with Boeing to achieve reliability and dependability. The construction process is not unlike how Airbus assembles their airplanes, with large sections flown in from factories far away.

4. The word of airlines and defense industries says it all. Comac's customers are in the airline industry! If the airlines don't think Comac is creditable, then by extension, customers don't think Comac is a creditable manufacturer!

There are big differences between today's airplanes compared to 50 years ago. Engines are way more powerful and fuel efficient, aircraft are way more smarter, etc. The basic external shape remains the same, but what's inside is the big difference.

Click to expand...

1. A lay off is a lay off pure and simple to save the company's money or bosses bonus money.

2. Advanced glue is still a glue. Gluing two pieces of composites together are still two pieces not like welding metals. All materials corrodes due to atmosphere.

So Airlines will continue to squeeze in as many seats as possible therefore back to the sardine syndrome in the air again, back to uncomfortable tight spaces with a screaming baby behind me. Same old operational routine with a new plane that just has more interior cabin space to squeeze in more screaming babies (this doesn't mean I hate babies). Lame.

3. It's still depending on far away places for pieces. See what happen when Japan got hit with an earthquake so bad that it jolts their manufacturing capability due to shortage of power to operate them. What if something happens to suppliers in China, Europe, Japan or any other places at any given time? Where will Boeing turn to for those supplies? Is there contingency plan for that? Are the workers up to par for making these parts needed?

4. Comac are more than a credible manufacturer, it's the good 'ol boys (old companies)that are threaten by the uprising of a new contender.

How much faster are today's plane compare to 50 years ago? How are the experiences for the consumers compare to 50 years ago? It's still a plane flying no faster than the Concorde made by Aerospatiale. They should sell that plane and technology to India or China, I'm sure they will make it profitable.

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

Equation said:

1. A lay off is a lay off pure and simple to save the company's money or bosses bonus money.

2. Advanced glue is still a glue. Gluing two pieces of composites together are still two pieces not like welding metals. All materials corrodes due to atmosphere.

So Airlines will continue to squeeze in as many seats as possible therefore back to the sardine syndrome in the air again, back to uncomfortable tight spaces with a screaming baby behind me. Same old operational routine with a new plane that just has more interior cabin space to squeeze in more screaming babies (this doesn't mean I hate babies). Lame.

3. It's still depending on far away places for pieces. See what happen when Japan got hit with an earthquake so bad that it jolts their manufacturing capability due to shortage of power to operate them. What if something happens to suppliers in China, Europe, Japan or any other places at any given time? Where will Boeing turn to for those supplies? Is there contingency plan for that? Are the workers up to par for making these parts needed?

4. Comac are more than a credible manufacturer, it's the good 'ol boys (old companies)that are threaten by the uprising of a new contender.

How much faster are today's plane compare to 50 years ago? How are the experiences for the consumers compare to 50 years ago? It's still a plane flying no faster than the Concorde made by Aerospatiale. They should sell that plane and technology to India or China, I'm sure they will make it profitable.

Click to expand...

1. A layoff at Long Beach is because the plant is being sold after the last C-17 comes off the assembly line to a developer! Big difference.

2. Glues are actually much stronger than welding. The current carbon-fibre reinforced plastics and glass-reinforced plastics are considerably stronger and more durable than any metal of the same weight. Composite materials are also considerably more fatigue resistant, meaning longer service lives.

An airline is trying to make a profit here. They aren't there to pamper you in economy class; if you want lots of comfort, fly first class or business class.

3. So what? Today's supply chains are increasingly globalized. The Boeing 777 is made from components sourced from around the world; the fuselage panels and center wing section are made in Japan. The elevators and rudder are made in Australia. Depending on what engine choice you make, the engines could be 2 different states, or from the UK. And the fasteners that hold the airplane together could be made in Germany. The Airbus A380's parts are from all over the world as well; the engines could be made in the US or the UK, the wing is from the UK, the front and rear sections of the fuselage are made in Germany, the the belly and tail sections are made in Spain, and avionics are from the US.

4. Comac is making significant and elementary errors in development and certification right now with the ARJ21; the types of mistakes a creditable manufacturer don't make. Their products are already technically obsolete even before first flight. Why do you think the big Chinese airlines (Air China, China Southern, etc) refuse to buy or even consider Chinese aircraft in large quantities? They don't have the confidence in the local product! That's the most damning thing of all; if you can't get the large local companies to buy your product in a protected market, then how can you be considered a success?

Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?

Pointblank said:

1. A layoff at Long Beach is because the plant is being sold after the last C-17 comes off the assembly line to a developer! Big difference.

2. Glues are actually much stronger than welding. The current carbon-fibre reinforced plastics and glass-reinforced plastics are considerably stronger and more durable than any metal of the same weight. Composite materials are also considerably more fatigue resistant, meaning longer service lives.

An airline is trying to make a profit here. They aren't there to pamper you in economy class; if you want lots of comfort, fly first class or business class.

3. So what? Today's supply chains are increasingly globalized. The Boeing 777 is made from components sourced from around the world; the fuselage panels and center wing section are made in Japan. The elevators and rudder are made in Australia. Depending on what engine choice you make, the engines could be 2 different states, or from the UK. And the fasteners that hold the airplane together could be made in Germany. The Airbus A380's parts are from all over the world as well; the engines could be made in the US or the UK, the wing is from the UK, the front and rear sections of the fuselage are made in Germany, the the belly and tail sections are made in Spain, and avionics are from the US.

4. Comac is making significant and elementary errors in development and certification right now with the ARJ21; the types of mistakes a creditable manufacturer don't make. Their products are already technically obsolete even before first flight. Why do you think the big Chinese airlines (Air China, China Southern, etc) refuse to buy or even consider Chinese aircraft in large quantities? They don't have the confidence in the local product! That's the most damning thing of all; if you can't get the large local companies to buy your product in a protected market, then how can you be considered a success?

Click to expand...

1. So what happens to those C-17 workers? Didn't India order like 10 of those lately? Selling and laying off workers is due to lack of efficient funding to maintain productive costs.

2. I'm still not sold on the idea of flying on a plane with pieces glued together. Who's to say what will happen if it gets struck by lightning (several times during the planes operations) and other elements that can degrade the effective strength of that industrial glue.

If airlines are running with a tight budget with continuous cutting services to "keep costs down", maybe they shouldn't be in business in the first place. Apparently if the airlines does NOT have the consumer in mind means the airlines don't care about the overall experience of flight but to keep profits to make share holders happy. What kind of engineer or designer that doesn't have the best interests of the consumers other than safety is concern? The 787 is a good plane, but NOT great. It's design for the airlines to line their pockets NOT for the overall flight experience of the consumers.

3. So what? Isn't it much better to have the plane supplies and assemble in one place for better quality and efficiency? That goes to any business. This tells me that Boeing doesn't have all the necessary engineers (due to early retirement and lay offs of older workers) that they needed to inspect the progression during assembly, therefore outsourcing it to others. Here's an interesting read to get you an idea how the company thinks.



4. Comac will strive to be successful in it's own way through trial and error like any other new industry taking on the big boys. It takes awhile, but not as long as you think. Making a big drama on hick ups for the first couple of planes doesn't mean Comac is not capable.