![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Pooh Bear" wrote in message ... Kevin Brooks wrote: "R. David Steele" /OMEGA wrote in message ... What is the advantage that the 7E7 or the Dreamliner have over the rest of the line? I assume that the market niche for the 757 and 767 is still there. It is just that they are not large enough to support the lines or just use other aircraft to cover that niche. 7E7 will offer airlines a new airframe (they can't fly the same old ones forever) No ? No. Aircraft have definite service lives. Surprised you did not know that. My fave large a/c is still the 747 ( not keen on 777 - feels cramped to me - and I'm sure that factor will be a great seller for A380 ) . 747's been around a while hasn't it ! ;-) Uhmmm...they still build them, that is correct. A lot of the older, higher hour airframes were either converted to cargo use, put out to pasture, or both. Modern version of 737s still sell well and how old is that design originally ? Yep, they still build them. Again, the original versions have gotten kind of long in the totth, and retirements have already begun. Even some ancient 727s were only recently pensioned off in the US. Exactly--they don't last forever, do they? with what is promised to be unparalleled efficiency. Airlines have to maximize efficiency in order to remain profitable. Note I got my replaced-airframe list off-kilter (see other message in this thread). Fuel efficiency ( cost per seat-mile ) is what it's about. This factor is skewed by amortised cost of old but serviceable a/c - like the 727s I just mentioend. Not efficient - but the lease purchase was paid off decades back. I tell you what--you want to start up a new low-cost airline here in the states with 727's, be my guest---but don't be planning on getting many financial backers. What was your point to all of this? According to an article in the August 04 Air International, Boeing sees a potnetially lucrative market for the 7E7 as a replacement for older airframes nearing or exceeding their 20th anniversary in the next few years (according to the article, some 1500 aircraft total meet that description in the niches the 7E7 would fill). You apparently think otherwise--fine. I am willing to go out on a limb here (not really) and state that Boeing knows more about it than you do. Brooks Graham |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ... 7E7 will offer airlines a new airframe (they can't fly the same old ones forever) No ? No. Aircraft have definite service lives. Surprised you did not know that. What's the service life of a DC-3? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Tom S." wrote in message ... "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ... 7E7 will offer airlines a new airframe (they can't fly the same old ones forever) No ? No. Aircraft have definite service lives. Surprised you did not know that. What's the service life of a DC-3? Don't know--how many of them have you seen flying with major airlines of late? Brooks |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ... "Tom S." wrote in message ... "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ... 7E7 will offer airlines a new airframe (they can't fly the same old ones forever) No ? No. Aircraft have definite service lives. Surprised you did not know that. What's the service life of a DC-3? Don't know--how many of them have you seen flying with major airlines of late? Why would the number of major airlines be at all relevant? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Tom S." wrote in message ... "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ... "Tom S." wrote in message ... "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ... 7E7 will offer airlines a new airframe (they can't fly the same old ones forever) No ? No. Aircraft have definite service lives. Surprised you did not know that. What's the service life of a DC-3? Don't know--how many of them have you seen flying with major airlines of late? Why would the number of major airlines be at all relevant? They are the folks who buy most of the airplanes--you know, the thing we were talking about here? Brooks |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Tom S." wrote in message ... "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ... 7E7 will offer airlines a new airframe (they can't fly the same old ones forever) No ? No. Aircraft have definite service lives. Surprised you did not know that. What's the service life of a DC-3? 10,665 were built of which less than 400 remain in flyable condition Nuff said. Keith |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In rec.aviation.owning Keith Willshaw wrote:
"Tom S." wrote in message ... "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ... 7E7 will offer airlines a new airframe (they can't fly the same old ones forever) No ? No. Aircraft have definite service lives. Surprised you did not know that. What's the service life of a DC-3? 10,665 were built of which less than 400 remain in flyable condition Nuff said. Keith Does the 10,665 include the C-47 and Li-2? -- Jim Pennino Remove -spam-sux to reply. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Boeings take on aircraft service life is that it can be indefinite so long
as the sircraft is maintained properly. There has never been a requirement to retire a Boeing aircraft after "X" number of whatevers. I suspect the 747 will fare far better than the DC-3 over a 70 year period. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article 3523d.323018$Oi.300857@fed1read04,
"Leadfoot" writes: Boeings take on aircraft service life is that it can be indefinite so long as the sircraft is maintained properly. There has never been a requirement to retire a Boeing aircraft after "X" number of whatevers. I suspect the 747 will fare far better than the DC-3 over a 70 year period. While you're correct about Boeing's take on service life, the fact remains that, at some point in its life (the end, of course) a 747 will start showing cracks in wing spars, and the fuselage pressure vessel, and all manner of other areas, and it will become uneconomical to repair it. That's already happening. the DC-3 series of airplanes hasn't shown any of these behaviors. That's not too surprising, really - The DC-3's wing structure is fairly stiff, and it uses Jack Northrop's multi-cellular construction techniques. There are multiple load paths there, so individual elements aren't stressed too highly. It's not pressurized, so you're not inflating and deflating the cabin on each flight. The 747, and, for that matter, any other jet, is much more flexible, and has to put up with the stresses and strains of pressurization, At some point, it's going to give. -- Pete Stickney A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures. -- Daniel Webster |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
want to trade 601 plans for 701 plans | [email protected] | Home Built | 0 | January 27th 05 07:50 PM |
Unused plans question | Doc Font | Home Built | 0 | December 8th 04 09:16 PM |
What are Boeing's plans? | David Lednicer | General Aviation | 6 | September 27th 04 09:19 PM |
What are Boeing's plans? | David Lednicer | Military Aviation | 62 | September 27th 04 12:23 AM |
Modifying Vision plans for retractable gear... | Chris | Home Built | 1 | February 27th 04 09:23 PM |