General Aviation Thread

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
A helicopter broke apart in midair and crashed upside-down into the Hudson River between Manhattan and the New Jersey waterfront Thursday, killing six people, the pilot and 5 passengers in the latest high-profile aviation disaster in the U.S. In videos online it is visible that the mainrotor and tail boom were seperated from the helicopter during the last part of the flight.

FlightRadar24 identified the helicopter as a Bell 206L-4 LongRanger IV, registered with the Federal Aviation Administration under N216MH. The crash is now under investigation.




 
Last edited:

John Fedup

The Bunker Group

Terran

Well-Known Member
Maybe this was expected and the reason Boeing got the F-47;).....na, Trump wouldn't think that far ahead. Now we can see how fast Xi's tariff on/off switch is.
I know that a number of Chinese have been saying something like this was coming. Though they have been more vocal about access to critical aviation technologies. Comac aircraft may wear made in China branding but many many of the critical components from the Engines, APU, life support and FBW are western sourced. With the worry for proPRC that China could end up like the Russian aviation sector is right now. Desperately trying to maintain operations and develop replacements.
Farther China has been part of the backdoor resale of parts to keep Russian jets flying sanctions busting.
The previous Trump administration went hard on China, and being blunt the CCPs actions over the last decade would have placed them on western sanctions lists in the Cold War era. In recent years the Chinese have been moving more to Airbus and indigenous aircraft.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
I know that a number of Chinese have been saying something like this was coming. Though they have been more vocal about access to critical aviation technologies. Comac aircraft may wear made in China branding but many many of the critical components from the Engines, APU, life support and FBW are western sourced. With the worry for proPRC that China could end up like the Russian aviation sector is right now. Desperately trying to maintain operations and develop replacements.
Farther China has been part of the backdoor resale of parts to keep Russian jets flying sanctions busting.
The previous Trump administration went hard on China, and being blunt the CCPs actions over the last decade would have placed them on western sanctions lists in the Cold War era. In recent years the Chinese have been moving more to Airbus and indigenous aircraft.
Airbus has a massive backlog already. A shame Bombardier mismatched the C-Series so badly, mind you Canada’s relationship with Beijing is just as bad as America’s so it probably doesn’t matter. The Global chaos at the moment could result in a significant air travel decline thus allowing China time to develop a better supply chain domestically for their commercial aircraft. Embraer might have a small opportunity though.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Airbus has a massive backlog already. A shame Bombardier mismatched the C-Series so badly, mind you Canada’s relationship with Beijing is just as bad as America’s so it probably doesn’t matter. The Global chaos at the moment could result in a significant air travel decline thus allowing China time to develop a better supply chain domestically for their commercial aircraft. Embraer might have a small opportunity though.
What do you mean, "mismatched"? Wasn't the problem with it Boeing's successful campaign to get US politicians to attempt to destroy it, thus driving Bombardier into the arms of Airbus? Yet another Boeing blunder . . .

904 orders, 406 deliveries so far. That looks very respectable. Airbus looks content to accept the A220-300 lopping off the bottom end of the A320 range, while it extends the top end.
 

Terran

Well-Known Member
Airbus has a massive backlog already. A shame Bombardier mismatched the C-Series so badly, mind you Canada’s relationship with Beijing is just as bad as America’s so it probably doesn’t matter. The Global chaos at the moment could result in a significant air travel decline thus allowing China time to develop a better supply chain domestically for their commercial aircraft. Embraer might have a small opportunity though.
A small one. Embraer hasn’t had much luck and it’s primarily the little E at the bottom of the line with regional aircraft that sit below the Airbus Boeing Duopoly. Comac’s 909 and 919 would be direct competitors and a State owned air line and a State owned maker inside track vs a foreign state owned maker.
What do you mean, "mismatched"? Wasn't the problem with it Boeing's successful campaign to get US politicians to attempt to destroy it, thus driving Bombardier into the arms of Airbus? Yet another Boeing blunder . . .

904 orders, 406 deliveries so far. That looks very respectable. Airbus looks content to accept the A220-300 lopping off the bottom end of the A320 range, while it extends the top end.

Small Rant/what could have been on the C series/A220, Airbus is probably going to dead end the development of the type long term. Freezing the type without a NEO or stretch (500) selling it until the next generation of Airbus narrow body.

Boeing had it not screwed itself over might have had a better long term prospect for the type’s future but in Airbus’s line up it just doesn’t fit.
Airbus adopted Fly by wire in its airliners early on where Boeing’s main production aircraft save for the 777 and 787 All of Boeing’s aircraft are either fully conventional wire and hydraulics or hybrids of some fly by wire control elements (the dreaded MCAS) mated to conventional control systems. Even the 747-8 and KC46 are flying on Hydro-mechanical controls augmented by the occasional computer inputs. This complicates training.
Airbus moved to FBW as a selling point they can easily transition an airline pilot from model to model with very little retraining as they model the instrumentation and flight control systems all but identically in the cockpits and the aircraft FBW does the rest so in theory an A320 rated pilot could fly any A320 series variant from A318 to A321 as well as going up to the A330s probably even the A350 in a very easy manner.

A220 was developed outside that line so taking an A320 pilot and putting him in an A220 would require retraining. Farther the A220 more or less competes with the A320 series. Making it redundant add in that the logistics of the A220 production process is based on the North American model/Boeing model of outsourcing production to multiple subs vs Airbus’s in house fabrication and it’s a troublesome thing for AB as they are still not making a profit.

By contrast Boeing never did widespread FBW and frankly is long overdue for a 737 series replacement had they, not Airbus bailed out Bombardier rather than starting a trade war the C series could have been Boeing’s future. The production model fit Boeing’s existing model more so than AB. Also considering at the Time Boeing was looking to the next generation of narrow body planes The C series might have become the Way forward for Boeing. Giving Boeing a turn key modern regional airliner to rival AB and Embraer, an ETOPS Rated narrow body
Likely aborting the Max before production.
Then they could have the FBW and cockpit of the C series in a NMA.
With the 787 becoming the model for the widebody segment.
Boeing would have likely still taken taken a hit near to mid term with ending the 737 NG line in favor of a hypothetical Boeing C series as the latter was is a newer aircraft with different maintenance and substantially different training requirements that may have upset Pure fleet Boeing Low cost carriers like Southwest. However That was and is still going to have to happen as Boeing is going to need to build a 797 sooner or later. They also would have had the geared turbo fan issues but that’s on P&W.

Hypothetical over. On to China.
As things are now going Boeing was already at a low point in regard to China. The Max was barred longer there than anywhere else, and the Company’s other issues haven’t helped any. Though it will be interesting to see just how Other US made parts now barred from import effect Chinese airlines. Even Xi’s flying palace in the sky is an Air China flagged Boeing 747-8i. Comac’s 909 and 919 fly on GE and CFM engines. This might be the CCP shooting itself in the foot.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
What do you mean, "mismatched"? Wasn't the problem with it Boeing's successful campaign to get US politicians to attempt to destroy it, thus driving Bombardier into the arms of Airbus? Yet another Boeing blunder . . .

904 orders, 406 deliveries so far. That looks very respectable. Airbus looks content to accept the A220-300 lopping off the bottom end of the A320 range, while it extends the top end.
Sorry, the word should be mismanaged. WRT the C- Series program, Bombardier management delayed development and later on delayed a “500” version development. This version would have eaten into A320/1 and 737 market share with superior fuel economy had they committed much earlier. However, IIRC, fuel prices did recline and along with P&W geared turbine engine delays, a “500” may have been doomed anyway.

Clearly the Airbus acquisition of the C-Series was the winning move with the 100/300 C-Series addressing the lower end of the market. Boeing made this happen with their BS tariff move along with losing 18SHs which may have been increased. Still believe the Bombardier family preferred share BS was ultimately to blame along with typical Canadian corporate risk aversion.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Farther the A220 more or less competes with the A320 series. Making it redundant add in that the logistics of the A220 production process is based on the North American model/Boeing model of outsourcing production to multiple subs vs Airbus’s in house fabrication and it’s a troublesome thing for AB as they are still not making a profit.
Only competing with the bottom end of the A320 series, as I said. The A318 (nearest to A220-100) was a flop anyway, & is out of production. The A220-300 competes with the A319, but not the bigger models - & is selling far, far more than the A319neo, with deliveries of 336 & a backlog of 470 vs the A319neo's 30 & 27. Why sideline the popular & successful model in favour of the flop? The A320neo is a massive success - at the top end, A320 & A321, not below that. It may need reorganisation to cut costs (though simply making more should reduce unit price - & given the backlog that's an obvious move, & being done), but in terms of sales the A220-300 looks very good, & any replacement is many years away.

As for Boeing - well, yes. The 777 & 787 are doing well, but the limitations of the basic 737 airframe have long been painfully obvious, & Boeing's failure to address them is looking more & more like a serious mistake.
 

Terran

Well-Known Member
Only competing with the bottom end of the A320 series, as I said. The A318 (nearest to A220-100) was a flop anyway, & is out of production. The A220-300 competes with the A319, but not the bigger models - & is selling far, far more than the A319neo, with deliveries of 336 & a backlog of 470 vs the A319neo's 30 & 27. Why sideline the popular & successful model in favour of the flop? The A320neo is a massive success - at the top end, A320 & A321, not below that. It may need reorganisation to cut costs (though simply making more should reduce unit price - & given the backlog that's an obvious move, & being done), but in terms of sales the A220-300 looks very good, & any replacement is many years away.

As for Boeing - well, yes. The 777 & 787 are doing well, but the limitations of the basic 737 airframe have long been painfully obvious, & Boeing's failure to address them is looking more & more like a serious mistake.
Commonality, Airlines love commonality it saves them on the thin profit margins. Builders love it for cost efficiency reasons. The A220 and A320 series have almost none. Which is the point I am making. Well the A220 is selling Airbus has been doing so at a loss. They loose per plane. They claim that they can change that by upping the production rate however that’s not happened yet. The A220 is newer giving it a longer potential life however the A320 is an older series dating to the 1980s with the NEO now 10 years old meaning that its replacement is far sooner. When that replacement launches it’s likely to end game the A220. As why NEO an A220 when you could offer a more efficient alternative to both?

Boeing banked on the 737 series based off the financial investment of the Low cost carriers that pure fleet them. During the 1990s In the lead to the NG Boeing had the opportunity to either update the 757 and build a shorter version the 100 or put a new engine and wing on the 737. They chose the latter as they wanted to focus on production volume to the low cost carriers and they could use the lower overhead combined with price reduction strategies to keep that line competitive vs the A320 series. That same strategy would lead to the Max and its issues. Rather than a clean sheet Airliner which they are over due for. Boeing felt that development of such as well as sale of such at that point would have potentially encouraged the Low cost carriers to jump ship to Airbus.
In either case it’s likely that Boeing and Airbus won’t launch new airliner types until the next decade. So yes the A220 100 and 300 will continue yet the clock is ticking.
 
Last edited:

swerve

Super Moderator
$80 million per plane? That suggests that the A220 is extraordinarily expensive to make, & Airbus lost $6 billion on the A220 last year, out of total revenues of €69 billion, & over the last 5 years, could have lost $22.7 billion. I find that hard to believe. I don't know where you got that $80 mn per aircraft loss, but it seems incredible to me. Would Airbus keep it in production if it cost well over twice (taking into account that list prices are discounted) as much to make as they sell it for? Would they have bought the A220 from Bombardier, knowing that it was costing that much to make? It doesn't make sense.
 

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
$80 million per plane? That suggests that the A220 is extraordinarily expensive to make, & Airbus lost $6 billion on the A220 last year, out of total revenues of €69 billion, & over the last 5 years, could have lost $22.7 billion. I find that hard to believe. I don't know where you got that $80 mn per aircraft loss, but it seems incredible to me. Would Airbus keep it in production if it cost well over twice (taking into account that list prices are discounted) as much to make as they sell it for? Would they have bought the A220 from Bombardier, knowing that it was costing that much to make? It doesn't make sense.
Agree, highly unlikely that they make losses of $80 for each aircraft they make, that's around 80% of the cost price of a single 737. Like Swerve already said, no one will continue with their business if they make such amount of losses.

Also in the news article you linked they don't make such claims.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group

I do believe on this matter (Aerospace Trade War), Xi ordering their Airlines to stop buying Boeing and US made parts, is shooting their own foot. On that matter, I do believe in Civilian Airliners, despite larger production base, China still behind Russia on effort to close loop their own Aerospace supply chain.

2395c597-990e-4f66-98ef-c68c04ab048f_f3cc1928.jpg

SCMP shown recent mockup of C929 Cockpit. This not much differ then the mockup Cockpit when still call CR929, with UAC as partner. China on this matter still need partner either Western ones or Russia. While condition force Russia to be more self reliance on their Civilian Airliners supply chains, China still depend to Western Supply chain and more than half of them US ones.

Are China prepare to be self reliance ? or going to work out with Russian on this.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Are China prepare to be self reliance ? or going to work out with Russian on this.
If quality and support are important to China and its potential aerospace customers, self reliance or alternatives to Russia would be my choice.
 
Top