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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
"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? |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
"Tom S." wrote
"Kevin Brooks" wrote No. Aircraft have definite service lives. Surprised you did not know that. What's the service life of a DC-3? Since all loads in a DC-3 are carried by high strength fittings and not by "stressed skin", the CD-3 has no specified service life as do the modern jetliners. I recall seeing a TV interview with Mr. Douglas in which he explained that by replacing the bushel basket of fittings that he had brought with him, any DC-3 airframe could be made good as new. Bob Moore |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Peter Stickney wrote:
(Well, the COmet IV may have, as well) Everythig else - Vikings, Ambassadors, Heralds, Britannias, Vanguards, VC.10s - (And those are only ht eones that made it into production) all ended up as losers, economically. Don't forget the Trident! -- Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net "Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee" |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
I happen to subscribe to the believe that the best player(s) should win.
Boeing has been trailing Airbus for some years now, both in technological development and in marketing strategy. Condit has paid the price, which I'm sure came as a surprise to no one here, and the company is logically paying the price in market share. There is room for both, of course, and there is a serious issue regarding subsidies. If you listen to Boeing execs, they'll tell you you don't contribute anything to the 7E7 program until you actually fly in one, whereas the A380 will cost a lot to the European taxpayers, even if they never fly, and particularly if it's not successful. The truth, as usual, is a bit more shades of grey, as both companies have received and will continue to receive considerable subsidies - but Boeing has a point nevertheless. No one will ask the European citizens their opinion before bailing out Airbus, should the A380 fail to meet expectations. In fact, they will never even be told the full amount of the subsidy they're to hit up for. You have to give Airbus some credit - not only for coming up to parity market share with Boeing in so few years, but also for forging ahead with a real market strategy. "We're tired of being shut out of long haul markets,because we have no answer to the 747, so we're going to out-jumbo the jumbo!" Time will tell if it's a good move or not, but it's at least a readable strategy, while Boeing has been flirting around for years with different flavored fantasies, before finally settling on what looks like a typical medium-haul airliner with a curvy paint scheme. It looks like the competition is good for the airlines and the travelling public, but very risky business for manufacturers. G Faris |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
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 |
Fly Baby Plans Off the Market | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 9 | June 6th 04 02:45 PM |
Modifying Vision plans for retractable gear... | Chris | Home Built | 1 | February 27th 04 09:23 PM |
Here's a silly question regarding plans | David Hill | Home Built | 21 | October 8th 03 04:17 AM |