What I mean is, Boeing and Air bus r not unreplaceable. When their planes get worse, then we will buy Russian planes.Been waiting...And waiting...And waiting...
Soviet/Russia produced many great aerodynamicists, they taught Americans a few things, and I have problems saying that as when I was active duty, I saw many examples of what we learned from them.
But an aircraft, no matter for which side of the purpose line, is more than great aerodynamics. Many great designs never made it out of the wind tunnel stage. Those that made it to operational R/D faces a long list of obstacles present in the real world.
Here is an example of operating in cold weather...
http://code7700.com/g450_cold_weather.htm
Every time nature and/or humans places a demand on a design, something on that design is a candidate for at least one compromise. The result is that an aircraft becomes a collection of compromises. No one will buy an aircraft that can operate only in a dry environment and expects to be profitable. A floatplane is a niche product for a niche market with thin profit margin. Every few yrs, there is always someone claiming to be able to challenge Boeing and Airbus in the mass transit market, and their products ended up in niche markets or out of business altogether.
Right now, China have the best chance of challenging the Big Two and infrastructure is the main reason why. China's civil aviation -- for now -- is practically non-existent. Do not confuse commercial with the broader civil market. China's airspace, for the most part, is still under military control. The true civil aviation market is like that of the US where most US airspace is under civilian control and private pilots are plenty. I learned how to fly when I was in high school and by the time I joined the USAF, I was already well versed in basic aviation and flying skills.
China have the chance to design a new aviation infrastructure that can accommodate the current fleet from Boeing and Airbus as well as the new infrastructure being flexible enough to handle new aircraft classes such as supersonic transport. The Concorde failed but that does not mean the public does not want to cross the Atlantic and Pacific faster. The current aviation infrastructure are not equipped to handle the unique demands of the Concorde when it came out. China have the chance to resurrect the SST if her civil aviation infrastructure is designed for it as well as the current subsonic fleet.
But put aside the uniqueness of the SST for now. The current hub-and-spoke infrastructure is proven for efficiency and profitability, but that does not mean the concept cannot be improved or even do away with it. China's essentially virginal civil aviation market have the chance to make those improvements and if China's indigenous aircrafts proved viable in both sides of of the Pacific, Chinese airliners will be viable challengers to the Big Two. Civil aviation is huge, much more than military. As long as Chinese airspace is closed to the public, there will be no innovation from Chinese indigenous aircraft manufacturers and whatever they produced will be close to the current fleet from the Big Two and that mean Chinese aircrafts will be followers, not leaders. Fancy LED displays in the cockpit are not innovations. Sorry to say.
We will most likely see Chinese airliners in the West before we see Russian ones.
So, Boeing and Air bus must keep improving their quality or they will lose the buyers.
N.VN used Soviet planes before Soviet fall, and all know VN beat up US in 1975 tks to Soviet planes, Soviet missile, Soviet ships, Soviet vehicles etc.
Last edited:
