Aviation

Flamma said:
But you can see how that would be too big to fail, right? I don't know how you break it up, it's not like a phone company.
Click to expand...
force independence of the military side to start with

now to be fair, Airbus does get massive EU credits and funding so its not exactly a level playing field.

I am sure more companies could make inroads but are kept from doing it by the usual suspects

when you have only a few corporations doing something, that tends to stifle innovation and flexibility.
 
gtb1943 said:
force independence of the military side to start with

now to be fair, Airbus does get massive EU credits and funding so its not exactly a level playing field.

I am sure more companies could make inroads but are kept from doing it by the usual suspects

when you have only a few corporations doing something, that tends to stifle innovation and flexibility.
Click to expand...
I am not sure what breaking up Boeing's military and airline sides would do. Since deregulation in the 70s, there has been a ton of mergers in the airline industry, including airlines and manufacturers. It is a low margin, high risk, high Capex business. It is essentially a race to the bottom.

airline-mergers-v3.jpg
 
CyberB0b said:
I am not sure what breaking up Boeing's military and airline sides would do. Since deregulation in the 70s, there has been a ton of mergers in the airline industry, including airlines and manufacturers. It is a low margin, high risk, high Capex business. It is essentially a race to the bottom.

airline-mergers-v3.jpg
Click to expand...
Reduce boeing's power to intimidate and control to start with.
 
CyberB0b said:
I am not sure what breaking up Boeing's military and airline sides would do. Since deregulation in the 70s, there has been a ton of mergers in the airline industry, including airlines and manufacturers. It is a low margin, high risk, high Capex business. It is essentially a race to the bottom.

airline-mergers-v3.jpg
Click to expand...
We would also have to find another supplier for the two Air Force 1’s. That certainly won’t be Airbus.
 
rags747 said:
We would also have to find another supplier for the two Air Force 1’s. That certainly won’t be Airbus.
Click to expand...
Boeing was not just allowed to run everyone else out of the airliner business but encouraged.
Lockheed Martin could do the Air Force 1 aircraft. After all, its all but a military aircraft anyway.
A downsized C5 would be fine.
 
gtb1943 said:
Boeing was not just allowed to run everyone else out of the airliner business but encouraged.
Lockheed Martin could do the Air Force 1 aircraft. After all, its all but a military aircraft anyway.
A downsized C5 would be fine.
Click to expand...
C5 too slow, too old and a maintenance nightmare. Converting to passenger capability would cost just as much as the two 747’s on order. C5 is great for cargo but looks kind of dumpy whereas the 747’s look like the aircraft that the leader of the free world would travel in.
 
rags747 said:
C5 too slow, too old and a maintenance nightmare. Converting to passenger capability would cost just as much as the two 747’s on order. C5 is great for cargo but looks kind of dumpy whereas the 747’s look like the aircraft that the leader of the free world would travel in.
Click to expand...
New Model would not have any of those problems.

Now it is probably not practical but maybe take a new C-17 and use it instead of the 747.
I know its still Boeing but the military side and like I said for all intents and purposes this is a Command Aircraft for military operations
 
Air India 171 catastrophe. A 787 crashes just after takeoff killing everyone except one person. Absolutely terrible.
 
rags747 said:
We would also have to find another supplier for the two Air Force 1’s. That certainly won’t be Airbus.
Click to expand...
Didn’t you hear?

Qatar just gifted our president a new luxury 747 out of the goodness of their hearts and without any strings attached. It’s completely above board.
 
Flamma said:
Air India 171 catastrophe. A 787 crashes just after takeoff killing everyone except one person. Absolutely terrible.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_India_Flight_171

Investigation

The crash is being investigated by India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB).[41] The United Kingdom's Air Accidents Investigation Branch also dispatched investigators,[42] while the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) sent a go-team to assist.[14][26] The US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said it "stands ready to launch a team immediately" in support of the NTSB.[43]

On 13 June, after twenty-eight hours of searching, the National Security Guard (NSG) recovered the first of the aircraft's two flight recorders.[22][44] Later on the same day, the Gujarat Anti-Terrorism Squad retrieved a digital video recorder (DVR) from the wreckage. The DVR stores footage from the aircraft's external and cabin-mounted cameras and is separate from the two certified flight recorders.[45][46] A few hours later, investigators located the second black box—the aircraft's flight data recorder.[47]

India's Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) and Air India opened parallel inquiries into the accident.[48] On 13 June the DGCA ordered additional pre-departure technical inspections for the airline's entire Boeing 787 fleet, starting on 15 June.[49]
 
I'm really interested in what they find. Normally after they rotate, then call positive rate, gear up is next. That didn't happen. Is it possible the copilot retracted the flaps instead of the landing gear? The timing seems to be right.
 
Flamma said:
I'm really interested in what they find. Normally after they rotate, then call positive rate, gear up is next. That didn't happen. Is it possible the copilot retracted the flaps instead of the landing gear? The timing seems to be right.
Click to expand...
There's a couple of theories going around, this is one of them, but it would also require an engine failure. The airplane would lose a little altitude in this scenario, but should fly OK, if both engines were operating.

I talked to a 787 pilot and he told me he thinks they might have had the wrong (lower) altitude selected in the flight guidance system (I don't fly Boeing, not sure what it's called) and when it captured the lower altitude, the auto throttles went to idle, and they thought they had a dual engine failure. In this scenario, if they retracted the flaps instead of the gear, it would cause this type of issue. Another potential here is the airplane trying to capture the altitude and giving the pilot the wrong commands when it gets too slow and stalls.

It's best to not speculate and just let the pros do their job. The NTSB are the best in the world.
 
CyberB0b said:
There's a couple of theories going around, this is one of them, but it would also require an engine failure. The airplane would lose a little altitude in this scenario, but should fly OK, if both engines were operating.

I talked to a 787 pilot and he told me he thinks they might have had the wrong (lower) altitude selected in the flight guidance system (I don't fly Boeing, not sure what it's called) and when it captured the lower altitude, the auto throttles went to idle, and they thought they had a dual engine failure. In this scenario, if they retracted the flaps instead of the gear, it would cause this type of issue. Another potential here is the airplane trying to capture the altitude and giving the pilot the wrong commands when it gets too slow and stalls.

It's best to not speculate and just let the pros do their job. The NTSB are the best in the world.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure it would require an engine failure. If you don't have lift, engines don't matter, speed does. Those wings are designed to provide lift at high speed. That's why they have the flaps for low speed take off. They weren't going anywhere near the speed required without flaps.

That said, it's probably not what happened. I'm just stuck on this based on what I saw and the timing. My ignorance also plays a role.
 
Flamma said:
I'm not sure it would require an engine failure. If you don't have lift, engines don't matter, speed does. Those wings are designed to provide lift at high speed. That's why they have the flaps for low speed take off. They weren't going anywhere near the speed required without flaps.

That said, it's probably not what happened. I'm just stuck on this based on what I saw and the timing. My ignorance also plays a role.
Click to expand...
The amount of lift generated from an airfoil is proportional to the square of the velocity over the air going it. We generally take off with lower than max engine thrust (for cost savings and safety reasons) and retract flaps at 1000 feet after gaining sufficient speed, but if you accidentally retract the flaps, you can add thrust to max and pitch down, both of which will increase the velocity of the air going over the wings and generate enough lift. If you are down to one engine, that makes the job quite a bit tougher.

We also don't really touch anything until 1000 feet in the event of an engine failure, to prevent us from accidentally messing something up at a low altitude.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

... and 22 more.
Total: 757 (members: 122, guests: 635)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
465,900
Messages
13,903,905
Members
23,793
Latest member
Roger33
Back
Top