Roost Air Lounge => Aviation related topics => Topic started by: madpilot44 on April 25, 2006, 08:40:20 PM
Title: Boeing 797... blended wing?
Post by: madpilot44 on April 25, 2006, 08:40:20 PM
I just found this one out. (http://www.newtechspy.com/articles06/boeing797.html) what do you think?
Title: Re: Boeing 797... blended wing?
Post by: madpilot44 on April 25, 2006, 08:42:13 PM
I just found it in airliners.net and decided to post it for opinions here. what do you guys think about it?
Title: Re: Boeing 797... blended wing?
Post by: Frank N. O. on April 25, 2006, 09:27:06 PM
Interesting but it looks a lot like a concept I've seen several years ago, and that even flew as a big R/C model (video of it online too if I remember correctly). There was also a concept of such a plane proposed by a big company, McDonnell perhaps, and it looked like this as well.
Still interesting to see if it comes anywhere because that plane will definately require fly-by-wire to fly alright I think, could be more quiet with the engines on top, and taxiing could perhaps be less of a problem too than it is with the A380 for the same reason.
Frank
Title: Re: Boeing 797... blended wing?
Post by: Gulfstream Driver on April 25, 2006, 10:28:08 PM
They've been working on this idea for years. I won't believe it exists until I actually see it on Boeing's website.
If I remember right, the major problem they were having was where to put the passengers and the fuel. In the sketches I saw, passengers were ending up in the wings, where there would be no windows and a lot of attitude variations. You'd have half the cabin with motion sickness.
Title: Re: Boeing 797... blended wing?
Post by: Frank N. O. on April 27, 2006, 10:23:18 AM
Difficult to say if it wouild work as a passengerliner, also with the problem of evacuation but aerodynamically it's a great idea and as said a R/C model has flown successfully.
Frank
Title: Re: Boeing 797... blended wing?
Post by: Mike on April 27, 2006, 05:09:28 PM
If I remember right, the major problem they were having was where to put the passengers and the fuel. In the sketches I saw, passengers were ending up in the wings, where there would be no windows and a lot of attitude variations. You'd have half the cabin with motion sickness.
Good point, I never even thought about that. That's why so few people get sick in a helicopter, you got a great view and being underneath the rotormast acting like a pendulim you get a lot less altitude variations and "chop" than any airplane...
Title: Re: Boeing 797... blended wing?
Post by: Plthijnx on April 27, 2006, 05:46:17 PM
I just shot off an email to a friend that works for Boeing. we'll see what he has to say about it.....
Title: Re: Boeing 797... blended wing?
Post by: Ted_Stryker on May 15, 2006, 09:20:51 PM
The idea for the blended wing that McDonnell Douglas (now part of Boeing) is/was primarily considered for was for military transport options. Not sure if it would do well with the civilian market.
The Airbus A-380 has some real problems that I think will cause it to become an albatross around Airbus' neck. Among those issues are the infrastructure limitations for airfields due to it's immense size and weight, cost of manufacture and cycle time in manufacture, inconvienince to the people in various Eurpoean countries where the assemblies are built (that will foment ill-will among the populace once the novelty wears off), and the fairly limited market for transporting that number of people on a single flight. I think you'll see more efficient smaller aircraft making more flights as more viable due to not having those issues, and being able to be scheduled more often.
Preping and de-planing a 747 is bad enough... but the A-380, despite it's numerous exits (again requiring greater modifications to airport infrastructure and high cost), are eventually going to become a burden people and airlines won't put up with easily.
Just my two cents :D
Title: Re: Boeing 797... blended wing?
Post by: Gulfstream Driver on May 15, 2006, 09:27:02 PM
The idea for the blended wing that McDonnell Douglas (now part of Boeing) is/was primarily considered for was for military transport options. Not sure if it would do well with the civilian market.
The Airbus A-380 has some real problems that I think will cause it to become an albatross around Airbus' neck. Among those issues are the infrastructure limitations for airfields due to it's immense size and weight, cost of manufacture and cycle time in manufacture, inconvienince to the people in various Eurpoean countries where the assemblies are built (that will foment ill-will among the populace once the novelty wears off), and the fairly limited market for transporting that number of people on a single flight. I think you'll see more efficient smaller aircraft making more flights as more viable due to not having those issues, and being able to be scheduled more often.
Preping and de-planing a 747 is bad enough... but the A-380, despite it's numerous exits (again requiring greater modifications to airport infrastructure and high cost), are eventually going to become a burden people and airlines won't put up with easily.
Just my two cents :D
That is exactly why Southwest does so well. Smaller planes, lots of flights, quick turn around, and their whole fleet is the same. Now that's a recipe for success.
Title: Re: Boeing 797... blended wing?
Post by: Zaffex on May 16, 2006, 12:11:50 AM
I think the best route to go is to leave transcontinental transport for the big planes (like the A-380) and leave the other stuff to the more versatile, smaller-dimensioned fleets. I would think it would be more efficient because you're more likely going to fill an A-380 or another huge jet easier for a trans-trip over several thousand miles than for a trip inside a more tri-state range. Simply a matter of filling all those seats that they brag about having. Otherwise it just becomes inefficient when the plane's only carrying a quarter or so of its capacity.
Title: Re: Boeing 797... blended wing?
Post by: chuckar101 on May 21, 2006, 07:45:33 PM
I think thats what the A380 was designed for but still the trancont flights are going to have to be the really long ones. And I don't see all of those filling up either. And what is there four or five airports in Europe and another four or five that can actually handle an aircraft of that size on a regular basis.
Title: Re: Boeing 797... blended wing?
Post by: Gulfstream Driver on May 22, 2006, 02:33:02 AM
I heard that an A380 went into Heathrow the other day just to test it out. Didn't hear if it was able to get a gate, though. Anyone else know?
Title: Re: Boeing 797... blended wing?
Post by: Ted_Stryker on May 22, 2006, 04:55:49 PM
I heard that an A380 went into Heathrow the other day just to test it out. Didn't hear if it was able to get a gate, though. Anyone else know?
I saw the video of it landing on Fox News. It looked like the plane has either a problem with its landing system, a fairly new pilot to that plane, or problems with it's longitudinal stability as it bobbled up and down along the final approach with a porpoising motion pretty badly. I would not have been a happy camper as a regular passenger on it if I was at either end of the plane!
It seemed also to just barely (and I mean just ever so barely) make it through the taxi offramp from the runway!
The video didn't cover it all the way to the gate, but what I did see was of some concern if they expect that thing to be in actual service soon.
I still think it's an albatross for Airbus. If anyone has seen what they have to go through to build the thing, it's amazing... and it's so problematic that the logistics for it are practically untennable for a regular production rate. How would you like to have yoru town come to a standstill while they try to get that thing's parts down the streets, or over a river that HAS to be at low tide and levels just to afford a few feet of clearance from scraping along the undersides of bridge supports?! It's so impractical, I just don't see it being a financial winner, even if they do work out the apparent stability issues.
Title: Re: Boeing 797... blended wing?
Post by: chuckar101 on May 23, 2006, 03:35:29 AM
Yeah I agree and on the production part wasn't there a video posted somwhere on this forum showing trucks and boats hauling the parts through the country to the manufacturing site.
Title: Re: Boeing 797... blended wing?
Post by: Sleek-Jet on May 23, 2006, 05:52:12 AM
It's so impractical, I just don't see it being a financial winner, even if they do work out the apparent stability issues.
Airbus, being a nationalized company, doesn't really have to turn a profit (and as far as I know, they have never reported one). Boeing on the other hand, has shareholders that it has to answer to. That's why I think they didn't pursue the 747X that far, there is only a limited market for airplanes this size. Shoot, here in the US, it's going the other way... smaller airplanes flying more point to point routes.
Title: Re: Boeing 797... blended wing?
Post by: Mike on May 23, 2006, 05:54:01 AM
Yeah I agree and on the production part wasn't there a video posted somwhere on this forum showing trucks and boats hauling the parts through the country to the manufacturing site.
Aren't the Germans involved in Airbus as well?
If they are I am pretty sure this was calculated very well and is still worth it.... 8)
Title: Re: Boeing 797... blended wing?
Post by: Sleek-Jet on May 23, 2006, 05:58:49 AM
Yeah I agree and on the production part wasn't there a video posted somwhere on this forum showing trucks and boats hauling the parts through the country to the manufacturing site.
Aren't the Germans involved in Airbus as well?
If they are I am pretty sure this was calculated very well and is still worth it.... 8)
Pretty sure every country in the EU is involved in some shape or form in building the A380...
Title: Re: Boeing 797... blended wing?
Post by: Stef on May 23, 2006, 09:07:13 AM
Airbus, being a nationalized company, doesn't really have to turn a profit (and as far as I know, they have never reported one). Boeing on the other hand, has shareholders that it has to answer to. That's why I think they didn't pursue the 747X that far, there is only a limited market for airplanes this size. Shoot, here in the US, it's going the other way... smaller airplanes flying more point to point routes.
Just wanted to add here that Airbus is not what you could call a nationalized company. 20% of its shares belong to BAE Systems and 80% to EADS, which is in turn owned by about: ~30% Daimler Chrysler Aerospace (=private, biggest shareholders here are the emirate Kuwait and Deutsche Bank) ~30% Lagardère-group (private) and the the French state (here's your public share) ~6% spanish SEPI (I don't know if this is nationalized) the rest is widespread shareholdings (=private)
So, also EADS (and thus Airbus) has shareholders it has to answer to. AND Airbus is running profits. At least the last two years they were. 2004 about 1,2 billion Euro, 2005 about 1,7 billiion Euro.
Maybe it's just that there IS an niche for these big planes, but it's just not big enough for two and that's why Boeing gave up on that project? ;)
I don't want to deny though, that there's a big public interest in this company and probably lots of intervention on its behalf. But then would you say it's otherwise with Boeing? I don't think there's much difference: hidden subsidies on one side, huge tax breaks on the other, and protectionism and big profiting from big public orders (mainly in the defense sector) on both sides.
Title: Re: Boeing 797... blended wing?
Post by: Sleek-Jet on May 23, 2006, 09:37:08 AM
There's no denying the fact that Boeing is the only kid on the block on this side of the pond, but no part of the company is held by the US Gov't.
These are also decidedly different times that when Boeing "Bet-the-company" on the 747. Airframe manufacturers have a break even number of units that they need to be able to sell to justify the cost of developemant. And being that there is only a finite demand for any airplane at any given time, there's no use dividing up the market place. I would think that if the boys in Seattle (now Chicago ::) ) thought that they could build and sell enough to be profitable today, they would have. Boeing learned a little something watching Lockheed and Douglas step up to the plate with basically the same airplane back in the the late 60's (L1011/DC-10). Neither company really ever recouped their investments in the airplanes and it put both firms on shakey financial ground.
Time will tell I guess. Maybe we'll see a larger people mover out of Boeing at some point, but they'll let all the hubub die down and let the A380 break the trail in airport infastructure first.
Title: Re: Boeing 797... blended wing?
Post by: Ted_Stryker on May 23, 2006, 03:01:41 PM
Well, both Sleek-Jet and Stef are both right in both your latest posts.
The fact is that Boeing does have to turn a profit, and has a constant battle with the EU on sales due to the fact that Airbus Industries (which was correctly illustrated as being multi-national) does get huge subsidies from the same governments that comprise the partner countries involved, so turning a profit is not as critical to stay in business. This is also the contention point that makes it hard for a country based in capitalism to compete with countries that have socialist governments in terms of commercial sales. When one company can count on not having to truly be profitable, knowing they will receive compensatory funding for losses on sales, they can undercut on pricing.
Boeing does get some subsidies, but not anywhere near the extent one may think. These subsidies mainly take the form of some tax breaks, but those are mainly targeted towards having production centers located in certain areas for the benefit of the local economies. So, it's the state governments trying to coax Boeing (and other large employers) to locate in a particular area that are mainly responsible for such things. States want to make it cheaper and easier for a big company to make a product in a given area because they want the jobs there. True subsidies are not really present on the part of the Federal governement here in the USA. About the closest thing to subsidies you might be able to classifiy are some of the tarrifs our government has to impose on companies selling into the USA due to the fact that the governments of various countries truly do pay foreign companies to produce things regardless of profit, and can otherwise undercut pricing unfairly. This is a tool for levelling the playing field, taking away the unfair advantage from socialist and communist countries cheap labor practices. China is a perfect example of that with the situation they had with Phillips-Magnavox. Production of televisions went to China at about 1/10th the labor cost, which meant that shipping costs for the products while high, still were easily offset by the cheap production bottom line. This also lead to major job losses here in the U.S. for them, so we lost manufacturing jobs, and initially the Chinese government was actually charging about half of what it truly cost just to capture those manufacturing jobs, and paying the difference to the manufacturing facilities bottom line, just so it could capture the jobs. These are considered unfair trade practices by the United States, and since we can't control what happens with China, for instance, (at least not as much as we would like via bargaining), we had to impose import tarrifs to even out the situation. This is still an ongoing problem with China, and other countries.
It comes down to the difference between capitalism, and socialism. It is starting to change, but slowly so, as China, and the EU begin to move away from truly socialist and communist economic dependancies, but it will take quite some time for that transformation to be fully realized.
There are so many decisions that go into the analysis of market, and production decisions for a given aircraft that I can't really illustrate it all here efficaciously. But one must consider one of the big factors that Boeing has to find a "launch customer(s)" before it can really produce a jet viably. That means you have to have some customers up front willing to say "yes, we'll definitely buy these planes if you build it for us", sometimes even getting some money up front, so EMD and LRIP can begin. Airbus has no such problems because the governments of the partner countries will foot the bill for EMD and LRIP without having to have money up front.... they just need to have a "shown interest" and an analysis that says "we think there's a market for this". Yet one more difference between capitalism, and socialism in terms of trade practices.
Title: Re: Boeing 797... blended wing?
Post by: Stef on May 23, 2006, 08:28:21 PM
Oh my god, I think I could write a whole BOOK as a reply to Ted's post! I'll try to keep it short... Let me say first, that this is only my personal opinion. I don't speak for all Europeans here!
Okay, it seems that we can agree on at least one thing: Both big companies get "subsidies" and support in one form or another. In my opinion it's immaterial if this happens in the form of tax breaks, research grants, import taxes on comptetitive products, or big public contracts etc. etc. Even enviromental protection laws can work like that if you write them in a way that only your local companies can meet the obligations.
The question now is: Is public intervention and/or control necessarily a bad thing? I would say neither yes nor no, but "it depends". The thing is simply that the free market is an extremely powerful tool in most, but not in all cases. Let me repeat that: it is a tool! It can be used to optimize economical output and maximize the wealth of an economy. Unfortunately it appears that recently it has turned from a tool into a dogma, and our governments privatize every single industry, no matter if it makes sense or not. But there are some "industries" within a society, like the health system, education, pension system and various areas of infrastructure where a publicly owned enterprise makes more sense. This, for example, is the case if the investments are so high (e.g. when building a public transport system), that they don't pay off if there's more than one supplier. In such cases the market would fail, because it would result in a monopoly. In such a case it is better to have a publicly owned company, because a monopolist would charge way more than the market price.
I think that this is the situation we have with the manufacturers of big airplanes: There are only two big players left. Who knows, there might only be one left if the governments on both sides wouldn't support them. And obviously it costs so much money to invest in revolutionary products, that it wouldn't happen, if the state wouldn't intervene and give it a push. Wouldn't it be great if the US government helped Boeing out a bit more in this case? So what's so bad about state intervention then?
The fact that the Chinese government is supporting companies who bring jobs to their country is maybe uncomfortable for us, but where's the difference between that and our governments (regional or federal) who try to do the same thing? To compare the EU with China is pretty steep! And if you say that the EU is "beginning to move away from socialist or communist dependancy", I think you don't really know much about the EU (no offense). The institutions of the EU (except the European Parliament, which has but very little power) are so much in favor of free trade and market economoy that it's bordering on hardcore neoliberalism. Many people here have a problem with that! I think a certain level of socialism is not only essential for a working society, but for the economy as well. (see my examples above).
Finally, the connection you make between communist countries and cheap labor is quite arbitrary. Cheap labor depends on a low standard of living and ancillary wage costs. It just so happens that this is the case in most communist countries. But especially in developed socialist countries the ancillary wage costs are comparatively high (because the socail welfare system has to be financed through them). All I want to say is, that you can have cheap labor in capitalist countries too.
Well, we'll see if the A380 will pay off in the end... As we all know, the concorde didn't. But I think that the new airbus has much better chances, especially it's efficient fuel/passenger ratio could be a big advantage in the future.
Title: Re: Boeing 797... blended wing?
Post by: Ted_Stryker on May 23, 2006, 09:11:42 PM
Very interesting reply, Stef! I don't disagree with you for the most part. My point in illustrating the cheap labor practices of China and how that affects things, and why such things sometimes necessitate corrective actions in the forms of tarrifs was to illustrate why, and how, a government that can control either wages, or other costs, affects ultimate pricing for a commodity. I was not trying to draw a direct correllary otherwise. My apologies if it came across as such.
I would much rather that governments stay completely out of the picture on both sides and let market forces be the motivator. Unfortunately, reality has no such proviso as one side or the other will end up having some sort of subsidization in one form or another. As soon as one side does it, the other side is almost forced to in some capacity then to remain competitive, or assess tarrifs, which ultimately are a bad deal long term.
The biggest problems contributing to the Concord failures were high maintenance costs, and limited passenger capacity, creating high pricing that then became a vicious circle where only the elite could afford a ticket, and not enough of them were buying tickets due to costs, etc.
The reason why the 747 and planes like it are so good for trans-oceanic travel are the high passenger load capacity without necessitating changes in infrastructure to accomodate, and highly economical operating costs due to engine efficiency, etc.
That's why I still see problems for Airbus, and why I think Airbus is changing plans to build more mid-size/range planes to compete with our new 787.
Hope you didn't take umbrage with my observations at a personal level. Simply trying to remain objective and assess the situation logically, here.
Title: Re: Boeing 797... blended wing?
Post by: Stef on May 23, 2006, 09:41:01 PM
No, I didn't take umbrage on a personal level! (had to look that word up first though, hehe). We've had our little political discussions via Email before and I am glad that I can talk to you about topics like that on such a logical and civilized level (which is not to be taken for granted)!
I see now what you mean with your China argument. I have to confess that I didn't understand it at first. Still the EU and China are quite far apart concerning this blatant intervention. AND I still disagree with you on your supposition that the governments should stay completely out of the picture. Like I said, I am afraid that we might be at a point where the market is already beginning to fail. If there would be no intervention and only one of the two big ones would survive a battle, do you really think that things would improve? The survivor would have no incentive for development at all, and could probably sell overpriced old technology for the next half-century.
On a sidenote: Tarrifs are just like any other governmental intervention: They are not "ultimately bad", but can be a very reasonable tool of economic politics. May I remind you that both Europe and America used tarrifs in many cases to protect various industries while they were still in their infancy? It makes sense now for other countries to do the same thing (see Latin America), until a particular industry is competitive. It's no coincidence that it's always the rich countries who tell everybody what a great thing free trade is! It's not because they want to selflessly share their secret of success, but because they would benefit most from it.
To come back to the subject though: Do you think that airport infrastructure would have to be changed for the A380? I am not sure, but I think that it was built so it can perfectly fit into the parking slots at the gates. Maybe they'd have to use two gates instead of one though, but other than that I don't see the problem. Please elaborate if you know more about this!
Title: Re: Boeing 797... blended wing?
Post by: Ted_Stryker on May 23, 2006, 10:12:58 PM
No, I didn't take umbrage on a personal level! (had to look that word up first though, hehe). We've had our little political discussions via Email before and I am glad that I can talk to you about topics like that on such a logical and civilized level (which is not to be taken for granted)!
I see now what you mean with your China argument. I have to confess that I didn't understand it at first. Still the EU and China are quite far apart concerning this blatant intervention. AND I still disagree with you on your supposition that the governments should stay completely out of the picture. Like I said, I am afraid that we might be at a point where the market is already beginning to fail. If there would be no intervention and only one of the two big ones would survive a battle, do you really think that things would improve? The survivor would have no incentive for development at all, and could probably sell overpriced old technology for the next half-century.
On a sidenote: Tarrifs are just like any other governmental intervention: They are not "ultimately bad", but can be a very reasonable tool of economic politics. May I remind you that both Europe and America used tarrifs in many cases to protect various industries while they were still in their infancy? It makes sense now for other countries to do the same thing (see Latin America), until a particular industry is competitive. It's no coincidence that it's always the rich countries who tell everybody what a great thing free trade is! It's not because they want to selflessly share their secret of success, but because they would benefit most from it.
To come back to the subject though: Do you think that airport infrastructure would have to be changed for the A380? I am not sure, but I think that it was built so it can perfectly fit into the parking slots at the gates. Maybe they'd have to use two gates instead of one though, but other than that I don't see the problem. Please elaborate if you know more about this!
Well, I guess it depends on how one views the effects of tarrifs and other forms of subsidization or support. The reason I think that they are ultimately "bad" is that they are a form of artificial price fixing, which in a truely open marketplace is a way to disincentivise on the part of the side being assessed the tarriffs. I do realize that it's in use in many economies, just that it is a band-aid solution and can harm in that the side assessing the tarrif feels protected, and might do less to truly remain competitive by not feeling urgency to improve a product and/or reduce costs of it's production. That's the downside to tarrifs that a truly open market should not accept.
If one major aerospace company went out, then yes, there would be a vaccuum, and the company left would have a monopoly that we would have to deal with the consequences of. It would indeed be counterproductive, and I understand why you feel that subsidies for the sake of keeping something afloat that would otherwise fail can be beneficial to all as a result. Just that it leads to the aforementioned other problems I noted. The best situaiton is to have two, or preferrably more, companies go at it in a truly open, non-subsidized fashion, so prices everywhere could come down, which trickles down, and lets airlines reduce costs, carry more passengers at cheaper prices, which then means that more planes would be needed, and there you go with the upswing side of things once again :)
As for the infrastructure to support the A380, yes, it has to be changed to accommodate. There are three or four main things that need to be done to airports to support the plane;
1) Runways need to be reinforced due to much greater landing weight. The runway at Heathrow had been modified to handle it, and the test landing was to see the impact of landing the plane on the new surface.
2) Taxiways need to be widened and altered so they don't cut at high angles to accommodate the much greater wheel base of the A380. Reinforcement of the pavent throughout is also a requirement here.
3) Ground handling at the gates needs complete modification. The ramp jetways in use at airports today do not elevate high enough, nor do they extend out long enough to provide for mating to the side of the airframe. The arrangement of such ramp jetways also needs to be modified to allow for multiple areas with those improved jetways to hook up simultaneously to the same plane, meaning a special concourse wing area needs to be constructed specifically to handle the plane.
4) I am not certain on this last point, but I did hear that some specialized ground handling equipment for servicing the ship between flights was also required. The primarly ones here being the conveyor belt baggage loading trucks, galley servicing, waste pumping, and fueling vehicles that may require greater elevation capacity. I believe that most ground handling vehicles, with only a few exceptions, would have problems working the plane. If I find out differently, I'll let you know. I believe the plan is to have three to four gates on a side of the plane for boarding/deplaning.
Even without item #4, the other three make it extremely expensive for an airport to take on that plane. This also begs the question... if you have limited numbers of airports in the USA willing to make the multi-million dollar investment, what do you do for divert airports in case of an emergency? In the USA you have around 60 commercial airports, only 4 of which stated they'd eventually accept the plane, Chicago, New York LaGuardia, Los Angeles, and Atlanta, but they are not really capable of it yet. I'm not sure I'd feel too comfortable if I was traveling along, had an emergency, and was unable to land safely because no suitable airport was nearby.
Title: Re: Boeing 797... blended wing?
Post by: fireflyr on May 23, 2006, 10:31:23 PM
Anyone hear the one about a Rabbi, Priest, and Baptist minister that were going skydiving..................?
Title: Re: Boeing 797... blended wing?
Post by: Sleek-Jet on May 23, 2006, 10:50:57 PM
There's more geo-politics involved in the success of the A380 than it just being a good or bad airplane.
oh, and fireflyr... now you've done it... >:( >:( >:( ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Boeing 797... blended wing?
Post by: fireflyr on May 24, 2006, 12:47:05 AM
I just thought it was getting way too heavy for those of us who only have a third grade education!
Title: Re: Boeing 797... blended wing?
Post by: Mike on May 24, 2006, 07:42:13 AM
I just thought it was getting way too heavy for those of us who only have a third grade education!
What's that? Do you mean you dropped out after third grade? Elementary or junior high? ;D ;D
Okay, anyway, I'll try not to write whole dissertations here! Promise!
So, a pilot comes into a bar and says:
Ted, you have a lot of things that are exactly the same as tarrifs that you wouldn't call "price fixing". I'm talking about taxes! And if you just levy a certain percentage of a price of a certain product, it does distort the market, that's true. But that happens all the time and mostly for good reasons. Like I said, tarrifs can also be used to "level the playground", if a certain local industry would otherwise be overpowered by foreign companies... Now of course in turn, like you said, that it hurts competition (and thus efficiency and in the end economic wealth) if that industry is overprotected. Let's maybe agree to disagree, because the best way is probably somewhere in the middle, between state intervention and completely liberalized markets. I just don't trust the logic of the market to the full extend to be the mechanism that automatically yields the best result for a society in every aspect. In my eyes the market is the means and not the end (which should be a maximum of wealth for a maximum of people).
Anyway, to come back to the Airbus: Interesting points! It will surely be interesting to watch how and where and when it first gets implemented. I am sure there will be many problems along the way, but I'm also positive it will work. According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380) 16 companies have already ordered, and only three of them are European (31 out of 159 planes). So, firstly, that's quite a lot, and secondly, it doesn't seem like this project is so very dependent on public support and/or initial orders from Europe to kickstart the sales.
As for the safety argument you brought though: I'm not a civil engineer, but I imagine that the runways need to be reinforced because the asphalt would probably be deformed after a while, if you have 10 landings a day for half a year... I can't envisage a whole "normal" runway being wrecked from one A380 landing, so the possibilities for emergency landings should be sufficient! Or can an airport turn away an aircraft in distress?! ???
Title: Re: Boeing 797... blended wing?
Post by: Ted_Stryker on May 26, 2006, 03:43:15 PM
Stef,
No worries. I do understand where you are coming from. I don't totally disagree with you. The things that we do have that aren't officially labelled as tarrifs, or taxes, are still forms of subsidization in effect because they are mechanisms where they ultimate do try to level the playing field. Companys simply raise pricing if the market will bear up to it to compensate for taxes or tarrifs to minimize impact to their bottom lines. That's the "price fixing" aspect that comes into play on an economics level too.
Anyway, it's complicated, and while I don't think we are that far apart on our viewpoints in some cases, it's probably best to debate privately anyway. I do respect and understand your views. We can agree to disagree. No worries... and it doesn't change the fact that I think you guys are terriffic and highly talented :)
As to the wear and tear aspects, a number of airports that are commercial operators don't want the Airbus A-380 because of the maintenance aspects of the runways, etc. A good number of them are very concerned about damage to the aprons, and some have outright said they don't have the ability to have a plane that heavy land on their strips without very real concern for partial collaps of the runway surfaces, especially over just a single day of operation.
Can an airport turn away a plane in distress... well, technically they can try I guess... at the same time, the FAA rules for Pilot In Command state that the pilot can deviate from any rule or regulation or instruction to the extent required to meet the needs of an emergency. So, as much as they may not want to land at an airport not to spec to handle it, I'm sure that if it came down to that, or landing in the water, or crashing somewhere else... the P.I.C. would override, and risk it. I know I'd much rather have concrete under me in that circumstance than not.
;D
Title: Re: Boeing 797... blended wing?
Post by: Stef on May 29, 2006, 11:15:21 PM
Okay, I think I get your point too! I just thought with "price fixing" you were reffering to the government telling companies what to charge (e.g. a minimum price for cigarrettes of a maximum price for certain basic foodstuffs, like we have it here Austria).
Ah, wouldn't it be great if everybody on this world could talk things out like that? I don't think we could work it out anyway, because after all we'll both just have to wait and see how things develop.
One last point about the runway wear and tear aspects. In that wikipedia article I linked to, I read that the pressure of the tires is actually less than that of a 747, simply because the A380 has more tires. But I don't know if that is the sole criterion for the stress it puts on the asphalt...
Title: Re: Boeing 797... blended wing?
Post by: Ted_Stryker on May 30, 2006, 03:19:48 PM
Okay, I think I get your point too! I just thought with "price fixing" you were reffering to the government telling companies what to charge (e.g. a minimum price for cigarrettes of a maximum price for certain basic foodstuffs, like we have it here Austria).
Ah, wouldn't it be great if everybody on this world could talk things out like that? I don't think we could work it out anyway, because after all we'll both just have to wait and see how things develop.
One last point about the runway wear and tear aspects. In that wikipedia article I linked to, I read that the pressure of the tires is actually less than that of a 747, simply because the A380 has more tires. But I don't know if that is the sole criterion for the stress it puts on the asphalt...
Stef, I'm glad that we are able to communicate openly too. I do apologize if I was phrasing things in a manner that was confusing. It's one of those things that is easy to do when one has the concept in ones head and understands it, and then is trying to communicate it to others, regardless of the topic. Sometimes concepts require things the tossed up and back a bit before all points are conveyed. Economics is one area that tends to be more prone to this sort of thing due to the many flavors of economic styles, and what is common in one country is not in another, or not in the same way, so some meanings do get crossed.
As you say, we will simply have to wait and see how things work out.
Not sure about the psi impact comparative to the 747. I'll have to find out about that. The problem is, however, distributed weight base or not, it's anywhere from 560 to 590 metric tons at takeoff weight, and 386 to 427 metric tons landing, and even if the concrete pad itself can hold up, the build-up under it needs reinforcement to avoid compaction over time, which can then lead to uneven surfaces, and potential for runway surface failure. It's similar in that aspect to having your house settling and it's affects on the structure and ultimate structural integrity.
I did find another link with some interesting information, and even video, of the A-380. Some interesting technical specs there too.
http://www.fraport.com/cms/a380/rubrik/7/7685.htm
Title: Re: Boeing 797... blended wing?
Post by: Stef on June 05, 2006, 01:50:02 PM
Not sure about the psi impact comparative to the 747. I'll have to find out about that. The problem is, however, distributed weight base or not, it's anywhere from 560 to 590 metric tons at takeoff weight, and 386 to 427 metric tons landing, and even if the concrete pad itself can hold up, the build-up under it needs reinforcement to avoid compaction over time, which can then lead to uneven surfaces, and potential for runway surface failure. It's similar in that aspect to having your house settling and it's affects on the structure and ultimate structural integrity.
That's an interesting point! Another point that both of us didn't think about yet is, that an emergency landing might be possible on many airports, but what happens a lot more often is that an airport is closed because of bad weather, terrorist threats... whatever. And then you need an alternate airport. I think that all aircraft have to have enough fuel on board to reach an alternate airport... But if the next alternative to LAX is Chicago, I wonder how much fuel they have to carry...
Stef, I'm glad that we are able to communicate openly too. I do apologize if I was phrasing things in a manner that was confusing. It's one of those things that is easy to do when one has the concept in ones head and understands it, and then is trying to communicate it to others, regardless of the topic. Sometimes concepts require things the tossed up and back a bit before all points are conveyed. Economics is one area that tends to be more prone to this sort of thing due to the many flavors of economic styles, and what is common in one country is not in another, or not in the same way, so some meanings do get crossed.
Yes, you're absolutely right! That was always bothering me when I was still studying at university. The fact that it's not a natural but a social science makes the whole academic discipline of Economics very vague. Some people are throwing around with calculations and models, but even though they can solve some basic questions, they usually forget about the big picture. And then there's so many different theories with so many different special vocabularies that the representatives of two different schools of thought can't even talk to each other anymore... It gets even worse when you hear politicians talking!! They use technical terms in bloodcurdlingly wrong ways. But also it makes it much harder for us "mortals" to really lead a sound discussion. I think despite all the odds we were doing not so bad! ;)
Title: Re: Boeing 797... blended wing?
Post by: Ted_Stryker on June 05, 2006, 09:42:13 PM
Not sure about the psi impact comparative to the 747. I'll have to find out about that. The problem is, however, distributed weight base or not, it's anywhere from 560 to 590 metric tons at takeoff weight, and 386 to 427 metric tons landing, and even if the concrete pad itself can hold up, the build-up under it needs reinforcement to avoid compaction over time, which can then lead to uneven surfaces, and potential for runway surface failure. It's similar in that aspect to having your house settling and it's affects on the structure and ultimate structural integrity.
That's an interesting point! Another point that both of us didn't think about yet is, that an emergency landing might be possible on many airports, but what happens a lot more often is that an airport is closed because of bad weather, terrorist threats... whatever. And then you need an alternate airport. I think that all aircraft have to have enough fuel on board to reach an alternate airport... But if the next alternative to LAX is Chicago, I wonder how much fuel they have to carry...
Stef, I'm glad that we are able to communicate openly too. I do apologize if I was phrasing things in a manner that was confusing. It's one of those things that is easy to do when one has the concept in ones head and understands it, and then is trying to communicate it to others, regardless of the topic. Sometimes concepts require things the tossed up and back a bit before all points are conveyed. Economics is one area that tends to be more prone to this sort of thing due to the many flavors of economic styles, and what is common in one country is not in another, or not in the same way, so some meanings do get crossed.
Yes, you're absolutely right! That was always bothering me when I was still studying at university. The fact that it's not a natural but a social science makes the whole academic discipline of Economics very vague. Some people are throwing around with calculations and models, but even though they can solve some basic questions, they usually forget about the big picture. And then there's so many different theories with so many different special vocabularies that the representatives of two different schools of thought can't even talk to each other anymore... It gets even worse when you hear politicians talking!! They use technical terms in bloodcurdlingly wrong ways. But also it makes it much harder for us "mortals" to really lead a sound discussion. I think despite all the odds we were doing not so bad! ;)
I still haven't been able to get an authoritative reading on what the weight range is for a 747's impact footprint in psi compared to the A380... but I haven't given up hope yet... I just need to track down the right people. I'm sure that figures exist somewhere... at least on the 747 itself if not in comparitive form.
You're right about the weather diverts, etc. I'm sure they must have a certain calculated reserve requirement, but the logistics of that, combined with the lack of emergency divert alternatives... well... let's say that I wouldn't be sleeping as comfortably as an A-380 pilot! Emergent conditions always crop up in aviation. Not having sufficient infrastructure to handle emergencies when hundreds of people's lives are at stake is... well.... irresponsible. At least in my opinion. Maybe it's the former C.A.P. officer in me... but I'd much rather err on the side of conservatism than bravado.
As for economics... one might even go so far as to say that, in many ways we've actually beaten the odds and then some! ;D
