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 |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 06:16:05 +0100, Pooh Bear
wrote: Smutny wrote: As I mentioned, it is in the long run. I didn't say that the 737 in all its variations was a mistake. That would be ignoring the historical sales figures. And they go back a long, long way ! What I was pointing to was that Boeing should have continued the product line commonality idea started with the 757/767, bringing to market a whole new airframe to replace the narrowbody fleet. That design would have been reaching full production about now. Instead, they opted to re-hash, for a third time, a 1960's design. So..... Airbus's idea of making multiple capacity variants of the ( 737 competitor ) A320 ( A318, A319, A320, A321 ) was more sensible I guess ? Same cockpit - same operating procedures - same handling ( fbw ) . Then they made bigger twin aisle versions ( A330, A340 ) with the same flight controls and similar handling - making conversion very easy. The big selling point on cockpit commonality is drastically reduced training and recurrency costs to the airlines. Crew movement up and down the fleet is also simplifed as various factors change route needs and employees are re-deployed. The beauty of having one airfame in various fuselage lengths is not only cockpit comonality, but maintenance and spares issues are simplified as well. Was that what you reckoned Boeing should have done after 757/767 ? Boeing scuttled the process when the 777 was not 'in the family' and competed with the larger 767s. The 757-100 was never built, and the -300 came too late to save the line. The 737 Next Gen is had an adverse impact on the 757-100 development. So in essence, Boeing created its own competition and that hurt. That should have been better thought through. Boeing has put itself in the precarious position now of developing a new design as the worlds major airlines are struggling. A380 is a pretty new concept too ! Mind you, I saw a documentary where Airbus's Chief Exec simply jokingly described it as an A330 stuck on top of an A340 ! I have no idea if Airbus is making the A380 cockpit common to any of the rest of thier line. But when you go after the biggest or the fastest parts of the evelope, it's hard to stay common. Similar cockpit ( but somewhat larger ), controls and handling to other fbw airbuses are promised. Ease of conversion once again. Graham |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Pooh,
Hmm, I looked for the article I read that number in, but can't find it. Will try to call Airbus later today to verify. But if you consider the amount of avionics and standard aviation equipment going in, it makes sense. I see trouble looming as the asian countries get the expertise and no longer require *us* ! Oh, I agree. Fully. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
... "Pooh Bear" wrote in message 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. Question - how efficient is a 727 re-engined with the RR Tay conversion? These seem popular with the higher end of biz-jet operators. I think someone on here, though may have been on TV, said that the difference between cruise speeds on various airliners is to do with the critical speed of the wing. Above this speed, the thrust required is much more, so you use much more fuel. The 747 was designed for a faster speed in this respect so has a higher cruise speed? I think the 727 was quoted as being quite good at M 0.75 but not at 0.85? Something like that? Paul |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
... Dylan Smith wrote: Don't forget the Trident! If de Havilland hadn't been obliged to scale down the Trident to suit BEA and then later scale it back up again ( to suit BEA ! ) , it would have been far more sucessful. Indeed. You could say it was tremendously successful eventually, but by then it was known as the Boeing 727. Boeing apparently hired 9 of the Trident's designers and they made one without one hand tied behind their backs. Paul |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
"David CL Francis" wrote in message ... Just dug out a Concorde brochure, written when they still optimistically hoped to sell many and fly them all around the world. Pacific routes are included as follows West Coast of USA; Anchorage, Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego and Acapulco were all shown as legs to Honolulu. Onward links from Honolulu were to Tokyo and to Auckland and Sydney via a stop at Nandi. West Coast USA to Australia in 2 stops - that's all. If any more Concordes had been made, they would have been the "B" model. These would have had leading edge devices and other high lift tricks to lower take-off and lading speed. They also had more efficient engines. They apparently would have used 30% less fuel, giving the plane a longer range (I'm not sure I have this absolutely right, I'm quoting from my memory of reading Brian Trubshaw's autobiography). Regarding paying back of the design costs, it may well have happened if the airlines had taken up the 70+ options they initially specified. Of course, as has been mentioned, the venture as a whole continues to pay in the guise of Airbus. Paul |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
"G Farris" wrote in message
... It looks like the competition is good for the airlines and the travelling public, but very risky business for manufacturers. Mmm. Competition. How much competition is there if Airbus make the only real choice in the 500+ seat market and Boeing make the only real choice in the 200-300 seat market? :-) Paul |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Paul,
and Boeing make the only real choice in the 200-300 seat market that's a big if, if ever I saw one. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
I wish I was half as optimistic as you - I see the J-STARS fiasco happening all over again. In that case, the DoD thought that they could wait forever to order 707 airframes to use as E-8Bs. They ordered one and Boeing told them to hurry up and order the others - or else. The DoD didn't believe them and Boeing shut the 707 line down. Boeing either refused to reopen it or quoted huge reopening costs - the end result being that the DoD was stuck with the one white elephant E-8B they had bought and no other airframes. The DoD ended up trading the E-8B to Omega for a pile of worn-out 707-320Cs. The DoD then paid Northrop Grumman a fortune to rebuild them so they could be used as E-8Cs. Now, they are complaining that the JT3Ds on the aircraft are getting very difficult to maintain, so they will have to reengine them. They could have had new 707 airframes, with new CFM56 engines (ala' the E-8B), if they had just done things right. I also have trouble believing that the E-10 will be easily platform independent. A lot of engineering goes into creating a system such as the E-10. You can't just plug and play with a different airframe without spending huge piles of money. And if they were going to move from the 767-400ER airframe, what will they use? The bigger, longer range 7E7 won't be available in time. The only choice will be used 767-400ERs. At least these will be younger than the 707s that the E-8Cs were built from. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
"David Lednicer" wrote in message ... I wish I was half as optimistic as you - I see the J-STARS fiasco happening all over again. In that case, the DoD thought that they could wait forever to order 707 airframes to use as E-8Bs. They ordered one and Boeing told them to hurry up and order the others - or else. The DoD didn't believe them and Boeing shut the 707 line down. Boeing either refused to reopen it or quoted huge reopening costs - the end result being that the DoD was stuck with the one white elephant E-8B they had bought and no other airframes. The DoD ended up trading the E-8B to Omega for a pile of worn-out 707-320Cs. The DoD then paid Northrop Grumman a fortune to rebuild them so they could be used as E-8Cs. Now, they are complaining that the JT3Ds on the aircraft are getting very difficult to maintain, so they will have to reengine them. They could have had new 707 airframes, with new CFM56 engines (ala' the E-8B), if they had just done things right. The focus for the E-10 as of now is getting the systems integrated; the airframe is apparently of secondary concern, from what I read earlier. E-10 is not showing up anytime real soon, remember. I also have trouble believing that the E-10 will be easily platform independent. A lot of engineering goes into creating a system such as the E-10. You can't just plug and play with a different airframe without spending huge piles of money. And if they were going to move from the 767-400ER airframe, what will they use? The bigger, longer range 7E7 won't be available in time. Yeah, it would be available. NG is not required ot have the E-10 demonstration radar completed until around 2010, according to the AFA ( www.afa.org/magazine/july2004/0704world.asp ); 7E7 first flies in 2007. Globalsecurity.com says that the delivery to the USAF is currently scheduled for 2012, which might slip by two years. The only choice will be used 767-400ERs. At least these will be younger than the 707s that the E-8Cs were built from. Maybe all of this is why the USAF has only committed to the 767 for the single test and eval airframe as of yet. Brooks |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Kevin Brooks wrote:
7E7 will offer airlines a new airframe (they can't fly the same old ones forever) No ? No. Aircraft have definite service lives. Some helicopters don't. -- Fritz |
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 |