Old Hippie Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 What a crock..(Not you, Troy.. the article). BOTH Boeing **AND** Airbus have wonderful, and very safe aircraft. I happily fly on either. If a couple of 777's went down or had in-flight incidents the knives would come out for Boeing too. I would think more Boeing than Airbus aircraft have been involved in accidents. (Admittedly, because Boeing has, over time, made more aircraft). But on a ratio basis, I still think Boeing would be higher. Poor maintainance, pilot error, major catastrophe or simple bad luck can happen to any type of airliner. Yeah, the article is pretty much crap...a scrap dealer would not be the "go to guy" for this type of information. I have not worked on an A-300, but I have worked on many A-319 and A-320 aircraft. My general feeling is they are crap, BUT 100% SAFE. However, the A340 and A380 appear to be much better made. The Early commercial airbus aircraft were full of problems, and were not considered to be "long term usage aircraft." Basically, they were and still are more less designed to be flown like hell, then retired before the big maintenance came due. They were not intended to be overhauled and what not, the way the airlines are used to doing business. The result is, they seem to be in uncharted waters so to speak. Airbus also seems to rush foreward with ideas that should work (on paper anyway) without the serious testing other companies might use. Boeing for example phases in new ideas to see how they will hold up, if the materials last, they then expand their usage. Don't get me wrong, ALL Airbus aircraft are safe, and manufactured to the required specifications. The idea that they may be intentionally "flimsy" or shoddily built is rediculis. Regarding the Boeing 787, now 2 years behind schedule (they are blaming in out sourcing to too many facilities, and not enough over sight, which is another word for bad management), the original idea was to have it ALL composite, and to have the shell/hull/skin/fuselage be bonded on, with NO fasteners. That is right, the skin was to originally be "glued on" so to speak. That idea was scrapped as well as the 100% composite idea. But that day will come. Frankly, I can see a day these things are built out of all sorts of new materials, requiring very little maintenance and flown without pilots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faustian Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 What amuses me about this dialogue is that it is all hearsay, with no references to actual reports. I'd say this is very dodgy. Furthermore I found this, cached page, which suggests Mr Larson has been in cahoots with Boeing for a long time... http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/smithson.htm "B) The symbiotic relationship between the Smithsonian and the Boeing Company. After years of being ignored by the Smithsonian with regard to Mr. Burnelli's exclusion from the Smithsonian Book of Flight, the Larson behavior (see above) caused Mr. Goodlin to appeal (November 22, 1994) to a member of the Smithsonian's Board of Regents, Mr. Frank Shrontz, Chairman of the Boeing Company. Instead of receiving an answer from the Smithsonian Regent, Mr. Frank Shrontz, Mr. Goodlin was surprised to receive the response, from Boeing's Vice President of Technology and Engineering, Robert A. Davis dated December 21, 1994. Mr. Davis's letter was a masterpiece of distortion which had no relevance to the Smithsonian's obligation to uphold America's aeronautical heritage and Mr. Burnelli's rightful place in it. The Davis letter was refuted by Mr. Goodlin January 12, 1995. But there can be no doubt that the Davis letter showed a symbiotic relationship between Boeing (industry) and the Smithsonian (Government), a serious detriment to America's aeronautical heritage." It's a cached page, the original is offline.....so the links in the above quote wont work...but google Larson and the Smithsonian and you'll find it. Flash, what's the original source of your copied dialogue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USVirgin Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Call me naive, but I thought all questions as to structural defects would have been answered after FAA investigations into the AA disaster in New York. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 What a crock..(Not you' date=' Troy.. the article). BOTH Boeing **AND** Airbus have wonderful, and very safe aircraft. I happily fly on either. If a couple of 777's went down or had in-flight incidents the knives would come out for Boeing too. I would think more Boeing than Airbus aircraft have been involved in accidents. (Admittedly, because Boeing has, over time, made more aircraft). But on a ratio basis, I still think Boeing would be higher. Poor maintainance, pilot error, major catastrophe or simple bad luck can happen to any type of airliner. [/quote'] Yeah, the article is pretty much crap...a scrap dealer would not be the "go to guy" for this type of information. I have not worked on an A-300, but I have worked on many A-319 and A-320 aircraft. My general feeling is they are crap, BUT 100% SAFE. However, the A340 and A380 appear to be much better made. The Early commercial airbus aircraft were full of problems, and were not considered to be "long term usage aircraft." Basically, they were and still are more less designed to be flown like hell, then retired before the big maintenance came due. They were not intended to be overhauled and what not, the way the airlines are used to doing business. The result is, they seem to be in uncharted waters so to speak. Airbus also seems to rush foreward with ideas that should work (on paper anyway) without the serious testing other companies might use. Boeing for example phases in new ideas to see how they will hold up, if the materials last, they then expand their usage. Don't get me wrong, ALL Airbus aircraft are safe, and manufactured to the required specifications. The idea that they may be intentionally "flimsy" or shoddily built is rediculis. Regarding the Boeing 787, now 2 years behind schedule (they are blaming in out sourcing to too many facilities, and not enough over sight, which is another word for bad management), the original idea was to have it ALL composite, and to have the shell/hull/skin/fuselage be bonded on, with NO fasteners. That is right, the skin was to originally be "glued on" so to speak. That idea was scrapped as well as the 100% composite idea. But that day will come. Frankly, I can see a day these things are built out of all sorts of new materials, requiring very little maintenance and flown without pilots. When do you think they will have pilotless planes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USVirgin Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 When pigs fly. (no offense to anyone here) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted June 24, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 Pigs already fly. How do you think those backpacker gals get over here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USVirgin Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TroyinEwa/Perv Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 Here's the proof...pics never lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torneyboy Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 Wow a real one .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USVirgin Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 Dude, as much as I want to believe you, that pig looks as if it were Photoshopped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.