Airbus's view of the A380 and 747 comparison

But Baseler says that, while Boeing has the “option to do the -8 programme as a freighter only”, he is confident the first orders for the 747-8I passenger model are close. “We expect we will have some orders for the -8I this year,” he says.

Boeing points out that, despite the lack of success so far with the 747-8 passenger model, the freighter outsold its Airbus rival handsomely last year. The manufacturer claims that, although it gives away around 18t in payload to its rival and has less cargo volume, the 747-8F has a 15% lower operating cost per tonne over the A380, and a 20% lower trip cost.

An important carry-over from the existing 747Fs, which has appeal to the general cargo operators, is the upward hinging nose cargo door that allows outsize loads to be carried. Boeing also highlights the fact that the new 747 can slot into existing 747-400F schedules, as it uses existing 747 cargo-handling equipment, whereas the A380 requires a unique high-loader to access its upper deck, which will make it difficult to operate “off route”.

Airbus’s Carcaillet says the huge cost advantages Boeing claims for the 747-8F are again due to “gross exaggeration” of the A380’s fuel burn and weight – the latter to the tune of 13t. “The reality is that the A380F’s cost per tonne is comparable to that of the 747-8 on short ranges,” he says, adding that “comparisons at short range ignore the unique non-stop range of the A380F”. He says that on long-range flights with maximum structural payload, the A380F’s cost per tonne is 15% lower.

Airbus has conceded that, while it does not see the 747-8I as a threat, the freighter could dilute the A380’s sales in the cargo sector, but believes an airliner programme cannot have a solid business case built purely around cargo demand. “Of course the 747 is a good a freighter – all they’re selling are freighters,” says Leahy. “But you can’t make an aircraft programme around an aircraft that is just a freighter. If you want a balanced aircraft programme like we have with the A380 you will sell probably about three-quarters of your models as passenger aircraft and the rest as freighters.”

Package popularity

Express package carriers have ordered the bulk of the A380Fs to date, while the 747-8F was launched by two general cargo airlines, which Boeing says indicates the Airbus freighter’s configuration is suited to carrying the heavier, higher-density loads normally associated with general freight carriage. But Carcaillet disputes this: “The A380F will fly 150t non-stop, whatever the density,” he says. “At a similar range, according to Boeing, the 747-8F will carry 113t only, which is less than today’s 747-400ERF with a stop.”

Given Boeing’s long-standing pessimism about the size of the ultra-large-aircraft market, Airbus could be forgiven for mocking the fact that its rival has now apparently “seen the light”. Shortly after the 747-8 programme was launched last year, Airbus chief executive Gustav Humbert congratulated his rival “for following the Airbus market view on large-aircraft demand”.

The fact is that Boeing has consistently in recent years been pessimistic about the market for aircraft in the 500-seat-plus category – the A380’s bracket – where its 20-year forecast is currently put at 300 passenger aircraft. In comparison, Airbus has continued to be firm in the belief that 20-year demand for ultra-large aircraft (450-seats plus) is in excess of 1,000 aircraft – its latest forecast putting demand at 1,250 aircraft (excluding freighters).

However, Boeing’s long-term forecast for overall demand in the “747 and larger” sector (400-seat-plus passenger aircraft and large freighters) has varied dramatically over the last decade from a high of 1,600 in 1996, when it was poised to launch a 550-seat 747 stretch family, to a low of 790 in 2004. Significantly, last year Boeing bucked the recent trend by increasing its forecast (by 15%) to 907 units as it prepared the ground for the 747-8 launch, having consistently reduced its outlook each year in the period 2001-4.

“Airbus’s ultra-large-aircraft forecast is consistent, Boeing’s follows every twist and turn,” says Carcaillet.

Boeing’s decision to finally join its rival in the ultra-large-aircraft sector has livened up the proceedings, after Airbus had things its own way for five years. It will be another five years at least until it becomes clear who has got it right, but one thing is for certain – the airlines at last have what they always wanted and that is a choice of supplier at the top end of the size.

arrow

Here is my new design called "arrow".
It is a small airplane for one person that uses electrical engines.
The engines energy comes from a battery that is use in the take off from the cruise altitude.
For the rest of the trip I'm thinking about some electrical generators down the wings.
That generators have to produce energy with out resistance, may be a pair of turbines or an electrical dispositive.

Concorde

Today we are gonna talk about the Concord the fastes comercial aircraft ever built:

History:

the Concorde's story began in 1956. On November 5th of that year the Supersonic Transport Aircraft Committee (STAC) was founded to study the feasibility of building a supersonic airliner. It wasn't until 1959 that they recommended design studies for 2 supersonic airliners.

The first discussions between The British Aircraft Corporation and Sud Aviation of France took place in 1961. In September 1962 French President Charles de Gaulle made a plea for cooperation as the building of a supersonic aircraft would be too costly for either country to finance alone.

The British Minister of Aviation and the French ambassador signed a preliminary agreement for cooperation. The treaty stated that Britain and France would share equally in both the costs of production and the profits from future sales. Four companies would get the contracts for work e SST. The British Aircraft Corporation and Sud Aviation would build the airframe. Bristol Siddeley (Britain) and SNECMA (France) would manufacture the Olympus 593 jet engines.

In September 1965, work began on the production airframe. Final assembly of the British prototype began in 1966. The following year the first prototype was presented in Toulouse, France. In 1968 the first supersonic airliner to fly was not British of French. The Tupolev Tu-144 took off from a runway near where it was built, in Zhukovski, USSR. The French and British were painstakingly building, rebuilding and testing theirs. Funding was a hot electoral issue in England and was halted for a few months by the new Labor government.

On March 2nd 1969, The French Concorde 001 made its first take off run and on April 9th, the 002 in England first flew. Both aircraft were displayed at the Paris Air Show that year. By October the French model had made 45 test flights, reaching a speed of Mach 1 on October 1. In February 1970 the Olympus 593 engine made a test run and ran continuously for 300 hours, the equivalent of 100 Trans-Atlantic SST flights. Residents of London voiced the first complaints about noise in September when Concorde 002 landed at Heathrow airport.

There is a funny and beautiful story about the Concorde When aerospatiale was promoting the Concorde in New York everybody in the angar were saying that they would permit that the Concord lands in NewYork ever but when they saw the aicraft getting into the angar the got astonished and they said that it was the most beautiful aircraft they haven't seen in their lives.

 Speeches:

Cruising speed: Mach 2 (twice the speed of sound)

Cruising altitude: 15,000-18,000 meters (50,000-60,000 ft.)

Takeoff speed: 360 km/h (223 mph)

Landing speed: 300 km/h (186 mph)

Runway length required for takeoff: 3,590 meters (11778.2 ft.)

Acceleration on takeoff: zero to 360 km/h in 20 seconds

Passenger capacity: 100

Overall length: 62 meters (203 ft.)

Maximum takeoff weight: 185,000 kilograms (84,000 lbs.)

Engines: Four, with 17,000 kilograms thrust each

Fuel capacity: 94,800 kilograms

Range: 6,545 kilometers (4,058 miles)

Round-trip fare: New York-Paris: $US 8,720

Flight time: New York-Paris: three hours 35 minutes

Airbus vs Boeing

Today there is a big controversy between both but lets see this analysis.

Airbus and Boeing have different control systems, and most pilots strongly prefer one over the other. (The Explainer isn't aware of a poll, and so has no way of knowing which manufacturer pilots favor overall.) Modern Airbus planes employ a "fly-by-wire" system. The pilot controls the plane by manipulating a joystick next to the main console and a set of pedals. The movement of the joystick and pedals is translated into electrical signals, which switch on and off machines that move the plane's flaps, slats, ailerons, and rudder. Most Boeing jets don't have a joystick, but a more traditional yoke. (The 777 is Boeing's first fly-by-wire plane.) When a pilot yanks back on the yoke, he's actually pulling cables that move the plane's control surfaces with the help of some hydraulic systems. In short, there's less electronic mediation between the pilot and the machinery in a Boeing aircraft. Some pilots think this gives them a better "feel" in flying the plane, while others prefer the video-gamelike quality of the electronic interface.

Airbus also places more restrictions on how far the pilot is able to push the aircraft. All planes, no matter the manufacturer, must fly within certain limits, known as the "flight envelope," or risk mechanical failure.   For example, if a pilot attempts too steep a climb, the wings may stall. * Airbus aircrafts won't allow that to happen because they are programmed to ignore the pilot's instructions if the plane's computers think they would lead to catastrophe. The system is called "flight envelope protection," and the pilot has a limited ability to override it by changing its default limits.

In the last years airbus have encase it demands that means that airlines are prefering the new airbus aircrafts as the A320 neo, the A380-800 or the A350 XBS; but why, just because they are more efficient.

Boeing announced the 787 that it is the most efficient aircraft but that's just referring to the engine and the fuel we also have to take into account that airbus wins all the others categories as the maintenance or the security.

I think that airbus will win in this battle, also I want to expose my preference to airbus just because their planes are better and they are innovating always.

Both are excellent its's just with one you prefer.

Wings

Now we're gonna learn about the airplanes parts:

Today we'll learn about the wings.

Here we have the basics airfoils, in the up side there is more area and ind the low part there is less area it makes sustenance. Thats why and aircraft take off. 

                     The wings also can have diferent shapes, here we have the basics ones:
                   

right

trapezoidal

elliptic

doble arrow

inverted arrow

delta with canard timons

variable arrow

doble delta

delta with back rudders 

arrow

delta

ogival 

The wings also have some mobil parts as the flaps(7,8), the ailerons(2,3),  the air brakes(10) and attack border(5,6),winglets(1) and spoilers(9).

The flaps help to reduce speed and turn the airplane,the aileron gives sustentation and reduce speed the air brakes stop the aircraft when landing on,attack border gives sustentation and pilots use when they are taking off and landing, winglets reduce the combustible used and spoilers crash the sustentation and stop the airplane

In conclusion the wings are the most important part of an airplane, if the aren't wings the airplane couldn't fly, also they are so simple but they have a lot of complements that make them to be sophisticated. 

Shinden

Here I want to share one of my favorite airplanes that is the J7W SHINDEN

The uniquely different "Shinden" was the brainchild of Captain Massaoki Tsuruno around the beginning of 1943. From the outset the "Shinden" was conceived in such away that it could be fitted with a turbojet engine as soon as one became available with out any delay in production.

Captain Tsuruno put his idea to the First Naval Air Technical Arsenal (Dai-Ichi Kaigun Koku Gijitsusho) in April 1943, who were impressed enough to have some exploratory work done to see if Captain Tsuruno airplane had any merit. This resulted in three gliders (MXY6) being built to test Tsuruno's design in flight, with one of the gliders being fitted with a 22 hp Ha-90 4 cylinder air cooled engine.

The feasibility of the canard design was proven by the end of 1943. The Navy were so impressed by the flight testing, that they instructed the Kyushu Aircraft Company to design a canard interceptor around Captain Tsuruno concept (with Tsuruno leading a team from the Dai-Ichi Kaigun Koku Gijitsusho assigned to aid Kyushu's design works).

Here are the spicifications:

Engine: 1x Mitsubishi MK9D 18 cylinder radial piston engine @ 2,130 hp / 1x Ne-130 axial-flow turbojet with 1,984 lb of thrust

Wing Span: 36' 5.5 ''

Length: 31' 8.33''

Height: 12' 10.5''

Weight: Empty 7,639 lb / Loaded 10,854 lb

Maximum Speed: 466 mph

Ceiling: 39,370'

Range: 529 miles

Crew: 1

Armament: 4x 30 mm type 5 cannons / provision for 4x 66 lb bombs or 2x 132 lb bombs

Shadow of light

This airplane has 2 engines one in the back and the other in the front.
It was design thinking in an interceptor. It has 2 stabilizers in the back part, so it has to rudders that optimized de stability. We get more stabilization with the big wings and the to stabilizer that are in the front part. The pilot is sited in the middle and the diesel tanks are in the wings an back of the pilot cabin.

Here is the turbine model it's the same, but this is thinner, larger and it only has one engine in the back part


I hope you will like it and if you have any suggestions please leave them.

Introduction to this blog

In this blog I want to share all my designs and why not let other people to learn about aircrafts and planes.