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
|
|||
|
|||
Boring airliners?
Now the A380 is surely a marvel of modern engineering, as is the Boeing
7E7 (787? Dreamliner?). But fundamentally...it's yet another tube with wings with two or four engines on pylons below the wings. I'm really disappointed that Boeing dropped the Sonic Cruiser, a much more interesting proposition. I'm also wonder what the point of the 7E7 is - surely the midsize longhaul jet market is already adequately served by the 777? Could they just not make incremental improvements to the 777 in the same way they've done with the 737 for years? -- 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" |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Dylan Smith wrote:
Now the A380 is surely a marvel of modern engineering, as is the Boeing 7E7 (787? Dreamliner?). But fundamentally...it's yet another tube with wings with two or four engines on pylons below the wings. I'm really disappointed that Boeing dropped the Sonic Cruiser, a much more interesting proposition. Yes, but interesting doesn't pay the bills in the airliner business. I'm also wonder what the point of the 7E7 is - surely the midsize longhaul jet market is already adequately served by the 777? Could they just not make incremental improvements to the 777 in the same way they've done with the 737 for years? Maybe, but I believe the 777 is an "old" airplane and they needed something new to compete with the "new" airplanes from the bus. I always have thought that Airbus was an accurate, yet unfortunate, name choice for an airplane company. Talk about pedestrian... Matt |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Matt Whiting wrote:
Maybe, but I believe the 777 is an "old" airplane and they needed something new to compete with the "new" airplanes from the bus. Yet they apparently don't feel that need with the 737 - the first model which came out decades ago, yet they keep making new versions of it. I'd expect a new 777 (which isn't actually an old design by airliner standards) would be far less expensive to improve than building a completely new ...well, tube with wings. -- 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" |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Greg Farris wrote:
I agree. The French often get screwed up when they invent "English" names. You seem to miss that Airbus is *not* a French company. And the Brits tend to be at least as sensible for connotations as the Yanks. "Airbus" doesn't sound like the most technologically advanced airliner in the world. It sounds exactly like what airliners are today: Nothing adventurous, nothing fancy, just simple and safe transport. Stefan |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 16:07:31 +0200, Stefan
wrote: You seem to miss that Airbus is *not* a French company. And the Brits tend to be at least as sensible for connotations as the Yanks. The sensitivity is very different, however. When I lived in England, I was startled to find a range of books called Cheap Editions, and the place where I got my teeth fixed part of the Health Scheme. To an American, cheap meant shoddy, and scheme meant something close to crooked. -- all the best, Dan Ford email (put Cubdriver in subject line) Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com the blog: www.danford.net In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Cub Driver wrote:
The sensitivity is very different, however. When I lived in England, I was startled to find a range of books called Cheap Editions, and the I'll always remember that American who proudly stated: Hey, I'm certified! in a British environment. He earned big amusement and never understood why. The question remains: Why should Airbus care about the connotations their name causes in the USA when their main market most probably will be Europe, Arabia and Asia? Stefan |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 at 06:55:00 in message
, Cub Driver wrote: The sensitivity is very different, however. When I lived in England, I was startled to find a range of books called Cheap Editions, and the place where I got my teeth fixed part of the Health Scheme. To an American, cheap meant shoddy, and scheme meant something close to crooked. The National Health Service I think you will find it is called. -- David CL Francis |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Greg Farris wrote:
I agree. The French often get screwed up when they invent "English" names. You seem to miss that Airbus is *not* a French company. And the Brits tend to be at least as sensible for connotations as the Yanks. "Airbus" doesn't sound like the most technologically advanced airliner in the world. It sounds exactly like what airliners are today and what most people are looking for: Nothing adventurous, nothing fancy, just simple and safe transport. Stefan |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
It sounds exactly like what airliners are today and what most people are
looking for: Nothing adventurous, nothing fancy, just simple and safe transport. Speaking of safety -- I wonder if the A380 has a composite rudder? -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Laser beams being aimed at airliners? | Corky Scott | Piloting | 101 | January 22nd 05 08:55 AM |
PIREPS / airliners | [email protected] | Piloting | 10 | January 21st 05 11:15 PM |
2 civilian airliners down south of Moscow | Pete | Military Aviation | 64 | September 11th 04 04:16 PM |
Another boring post... | G. Burkhart | Piloting | 10 | June 5th 04 07:06 PM |
121.5 & Airliners | Nolaminar | Soaring | 19 | November 20th 03 07:35 AM |