Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Whether by VolksFleugZeug, VolksFleug or Amazon &c, wouldn't we have better and more affordable aircraft if traditional or complacent planemakers were retired in favour of automanufactures etc? Just One Look at the new 2016 Volkswagen (VW) Up[/url] convinces me that we are letting the wrong type of companies make our planes. But the likes of Boeing should survive such changes, for it may already be some way en-route to becoming the people's planemaker
If we are to bring-on or accelerate such changes, how should they be effected? For example, how much persuading would a candidate company require to alter its focus? Several motor car makers, such as BMW, Bristol and General Motors have a history, especially in times of war, of making airplanes or their engines. But others, such as Fiat, though great corporations, probably shouldn't be encouraged to make planes because their reputation for high quality output may leave something to be desired
Well – let me put it this way – would one or two of the world's leading automanufacturers produce a better plane than the greatest planemakers provide us with? I believe, to the point of being convinced, that they would. Such comes from competition, no?
Given the level of quality or lack thereof still coming from some makers, no. Additionally, the investment in infrastructure needed to START up a production line would literally add up to tens of billions of USD or euros. That's one reason Airbus was able to succeed when Douglas, later McDonnell-Douglas, failed, as did Convair, Lockeed's commercial division, and Fokker. It costs so much to make a new aircraft (A350 development costs are ~15USD/12B euros) that only a company with massive capital can do so, unless aided as in the case of Airbus with consortium formation. If Hyundai decided to start up a new aerospace company it would likely bankrupt them.
Well – let me put it this way – would one or two of the world's leading automanufacturers produce a better plane than the greatest planemakers provide us with? I believe, to the point of being convinced, that they would. Such comes from competition, no?
Well Mitsubishi and Honda are making jets.
Not sure what your point is...anyone with the means (read $$$) is welcome to design, construct, test and market a commercial jet.
But considering auto manufacturers can't even make money in their own industry, I'm not so sure I'd want them rushing to make airplanes.
The OP has a fascination with the aesthetics of aircraft, suggesting that an aircraft that is not pleasing to his eyes isn't a really good aircraft. Now, aircraft operate due to aerodynamics, and not aesthetics. (Corollary known to pilots: Bernoullis, not Marconis) A large vertical stabilizer serves a very good purpose, as did the S-duct of the L-1011 and B-727. When the MiG-25, F-14 and F-15 came out with not one but two vertical stabilizers a whole lot of people were up in arms about the whole thing; fighters only have one tail, and the disastrous F7U Cutlass was proof that one is better than two. Yet later on the F/A-18, MiG-29 and SU-27 family of aircraft came out with two stabs because it really makes the aircraft fly better, and that continues with the F-22 and F-35. There are plenty of pleasing-looking aircraft out there, some successful (SU-27, F-16, B-757, and those are just my examples) and not-so-successful (B-58, A-5). The OP's line of thinking is that if a car looks interesting, perhaps the manufacturer has their "signature" on it, then they'll be able to make a similarly good-looking and performing aircraft, and the reality is way different. Sure, Ford and Goodyear have made aircraft in the past, but in the case of the Ford Tri-Motor it wasn't a big investment in tooling and infrastructure, and Goodyear's version of the F4U Corsair, the F2G, wasn't really funded by the company, it was wartime and the plans and testing had been completed years earlier by Chance-Vought.
Mooney aircraft have an odd vertical stabilizer. It's "backwards". And it works. When the aircraft is at high angles of attack, near stall, the trailing edge and rudder are perpendicular to the relative wind, resulting in a more effective rudder. Good to have. It's odd, and it's functional. Aerodynamics over aesthetics. Sometimes trying the aesthetics thing doesn't work. In the late 70s/early 80s Piper tried the T-tail arrangement on the Tomahawk and Seminole (so did Beech on the competing Skipper and Duchess) as well as the Arrow IV, Lance II and the Cheyenne 400LS. The qualitative handling capabilities were not as good as they had been with the conventional arrangement. I flew Arrow II, III and IV aircraft and liked the semi-tapered wing Arrow III the best; I really didn't like the Lance II at all compared to the Lance and the Cherokee 6. The T-tail was just plain dysfunctional, IMO, during takeoffs.
So why would an auto maker even consider the risky and often low-margin aircraft business? If they have a corporate death wish. Mitsubishi has been in the business a long time, and Mitsubishi heavy Industries is a large consortium with deep pockets. Even then, they have stated that they won't build anything larger than their upcoming MRJ, which looks a lot like an Embraer E-Jet, (there's that form following function again) because they can't compete with Boeing and Airbus, and also because they supply Boeing with a lot of 787 parts.
Last edited by SluggoF16; 05-23-2016 at 11:43 AM..
And I'm not understanding what the VW that the OP linked to has to do with why car manufacturers should be making airliners. That VW looks like every other generic euro-hatchback/smart car that's already out there.
And I'm not understanding what the VW that the OP linked to has to do with why car manufacturers should be making airliners. That VW looks like every other generic euro-hatchback/smart car that's already out there.
It actually looks... inelegant.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
