General Aviation Thread

swerve

Super Moderator

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
@swerve ... a sad situation for a premier aerospace corporation. Unfortunately they are not the only important company that is willing to sacrifice QA for enhanced share value and quarterly returns.:(
 

KiwiRob

Active Member
Boeing has some serious issues with production control & QA nowadays, & not just on the 737 & 767.
'I've begged my family not to fly Dreamliners': Former Boeing quality manager blows the whistle

Damaged 787 parts which should have been scrapped not accounted for according to the FAA, & a now former manager saying he'd seen parts taken out of scrap bins & put on aircraft, metal shavings left in aircraft, including around wiring - not good.
Until a Dreamliner crashes I doubt the FAA will do much if plaything.
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
Boeing has some serious issues with production control & QA nowadays, & not just on the 737 & 767.
'I've begged my family not to fly Dreamliners': Former Boeing quality manager blows the whistle

Damaged 787 parts which should have been scrapped not accounted for according to the FAA, & a now former manager saying he'd seen parts taken out of scrap bins & put on aircraft, metal shavings left in aircraft, including around wiring - not good.
This, of course, brings into the question of quality control across their entire range of aircraft. While I realise that all modern aircraft are pretty safe I have become aware of a public perception that Boeing aircraft are not as safe as Airbus. I travel a lot these days and I noticed that even my wife breaths a sigh of relief when she sees that the aircraft we are about to embark on isn't a Boeing.

Boeing, as a brand, has taken quite a hit over the last few years.

Personally it isn't just safety issues I am concerned about. I also think about the cabin environment and I have noticed that Airbus's aircraft generally seem to be a lot quieter than your typical Boeing. It seems to me that Boeing does need to lift its game across the board.
 
Last edited:

oldsig127

Active Member
This, of course, brings into the question of quality control across their entire range of aircraft. While I realise that all modern aircraft are pretty safe I have become aware of a public perception that Boeing aircraft are not as safe as Airbus. I travel a lot these days and I noticed that even my wife breaths a sigh of relief when she sees that the aircraft we are about to embark on isn't a Boeing.

Boeing, as a brand, has taken quite a hit over the last few years.
What goes around, comes around. Twenty years ago Boeing fanboys were chanting "If it's not Boeing, I'm not going!"

Karma is a bitch. "If it's a Boeing, I'm not going!"

oldsig
 

Sandhi Yudha

Active Member
This, of course, brings into the question of quality control across their entire range of aircraft. While I realise that all modern aircraft are pretty safe I have become aware of a public perception that Boeing aircraft are not as safe as Airbus. I travel a lot these days and I noticed that even my wife breaths a sigh of relief when she sees that the aircraft we are about to embark on isn't a Boeing.

Boeing, as a brand, has taken quite a hit over the last few years.

Personally it isn't just safety issues I am concerned about. I also think about the cabin environment and I have noticed that Airbus's aircraft generally seem to be a lot quieter than your typical Boeing. It seems to me that Boeing does need to lift its game across the board.
Well, its a fact, compared to the cabin of a 737NG/MAX, the one from an A320 is much quiter and spacier, a 3,70 m wide cabin is just spacier than a 3,54 m one.
 

FormerDirtDart

Active Member
OK, it was hard to stop laughing
I think they might want to make the fuselage a bit wider, so they can fit a couple feet of sound proofing into the cabin.
Sometimes Twitter delivers gold Tony Osborne on Twitter
Tony Osborne @Rotorfocus
The ultimate VIP machine? @BellFlight is proposing a VIP V-22 #Osprey for the head of state mission with what appears to be a rather plush interior. #imhelicon
VIP V22 1a.jpg
VIP V22 2a.jpg
VIP V22 3a.jpg

There's a brochure, but, I don't think I can upload a PDF.
If you use the link: Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey and scroll down to Specifications you can download their Bell Boeing V-22 VIP Brochure

Edit: Oh, OK, the PDF attached. Couldn't see if it had in the preview.
 

Attachments

Ananda

Well-Known Member

The Chinese must give a lot of Financial Incentives to Ryan Air to stick with C919. The plane will be inferior to A320 Neo, Max even MC-21 (as even MC-21 will be lighter and have more range). Well it can still be used to operate within Euro Zone, and if Chinese give Ryan Air very attractive packages, the perhaps the margin will still be compensated the Economics of other Airliners.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro

The Chinese must give a lot of Financial Incentives to Ryan Air to stick with C919. The plane will be inferior to A320 Neo, Max even MC-21 (as even MC-21 will be lighter and have more range). Well it can still be used to operate within Euro Zone, and if Chinese give Ryan Air very attractive packages, the perhaps the margin will still be compensated the Economics of other Airliners.
Gotta wonder. Will the C919 get EASA approval?
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Very interesting reading: Opinion: Rethinking ‘Shareholders First' | Aviation Week Network. Boy does it shaft blame for the Boeing fiasco at the McDonnell Douglas cabal lead by Harry Stonecipher who were disciples of Milton Friedman who was the architect and leading prophet of the "shareholders first before anything else" religion. Didn't realise that GE and Honeywell were devoted followers as well. Anyway, apparently that religion maybe crashing and burning now. I hope it is.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Boeing's been rather good in the past at capturing procurement departments (e.g. the original Boeing vs Airbus AAR competition, which was Boeing's for the taking if it played it straight, but which it blew by turning the USAF procurement staff into rather too obvious Boeing cheerleaders looking forward to Boeing jobs . . . ), & it looks as if it's also been good at regulatory capture. So the same success - but also the same mistake, not knowing when it's going too far.
 

At lakes

Member
They finally got this big thing back in the air. The other one is still in bits or not completed most probably never will be. Anyone know if its true that the Russians acquired the technology for the engine for the 225 and the 125 via a reversed engineered DC10 engine, which they borrowed from Afghan Airlines whilst they were there during the 80's war.
 

Takao

The Bunker Group
They finally got this big thing back in the air. The other one is still in bits or not completed most probably never will be. Anyone know if its true that the Russians acquired the technology for the engine for the 225 and the 125 via a reversed engineered DC10 engine, which they borrowed from Afghan Airlines whilst they were there during the 80's war.
It may be true - but the dates don't seem to line up. The Progress D-18T stems from the mid-1970s, and while Afghanistan did operate a single DC-10 that was sold in 1985, the invasion wasn't until 1979. Obviously access to the DC-10 may have been possible in the intervening time, but I wouldn't have thought in enough detail to properly re-engineer something major.

That's not to say there might not be some parts that were tweaked / engineered from Western examples. There were certainly enough widebodies around the world that the Soviets could access.
 
Top