A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » General Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

What are Boeing's plans?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old September 18th 04, 05:29 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #22  
Old September 18th 04, 06:52 PM
Tom S.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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?



  #24  
Old September 18th 04, 10:51 PM
Leadfoot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.


  #25  
Old September 18th 04, 11:04 PM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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





  #26  
Old September 19th 04, 01:18 AM
Peter Stickney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #27  
Old September 19th 04, 01:49 AM
Bob Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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
  #28  
Old September 19th 04, 10:03 AM
Dylan Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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"
  #29  
Old September 19th 04, 04:13 PM
G Farris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #30  
Old September 19th 04, 08:21 PM
Pooh Bear
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Smutny wrote:

The bottom line is that Boeing as we've known it for 88 years is no
more. As a Seattle resident, it pains me to see the plants being torn
down, to see engineering and sales buildings turned into parking lots
where the circus sets up a couple times a year.


BAe has done this to Hatfield ( formerly owned by Hawker Siddeley and de
Havilland ) , the home of the jet airliner, just to name one significant
product made there.

Oh, sure, the management said they would *never* close Hatfield.

The real estate was worth too much as a business park and BAe wanted to
concentrate on defence contracts instead of commercial.

Sounds kinds similar.


Graham

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 08:50 PM
Unused plans question Doc Font Home Built 0 December 8th 04 10:16 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 10:23 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.