It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

7E7 is no more.

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 01:31 AM
link   
Boeing has given there new jet a official name: 787 Dreamliner.

This is my favorite commercial jet, I like it a little more the the A-380. and i'm sure it will be another Boeing Success.

Boeing 787 Dreamliner





posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 01:34 AM
link   
I was wondering why they broke with tradition with the 7E7 moniker. As long as the plane survives I don't care what the name is!



posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 01:43 AM
link   
I always get that Dreamweaver song in my head everytime I hear the name.



posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 01:47 AM
link   
and China just inked a 60 plane deal for it. Rumors persist that Boeing may redo the 747 using 7E7 technology. Now that would be an impressive beast with that huge amount of composite material. If they have no huge issues with it (and so far so good) the use of Aluminum in commercial aircraft may begin to decline quite a bit.



posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Does that mean that Boeing has had a rethink of its position? after all they said there was no market for the A380 and now they might try to compete with it.

Please forgive me if I blow my own trumpet but did I not say the 7E7 would become the 787 several weeks, if not months ago?


To be fair to the people who wondered why Boeing was going against tradition by using 7E7, I am old enough to remember when the 757 was called the 7N7 and the 767 was the 7S7 so I've seen it before.



posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I was wondering why they broke with tradition with the 7E7 moniker. As long as the plane survives I don't care what the name is!


Actually:




Tradition at Boeing has been that airplanes in development are given a letter designation and at time of launch are given a number. The 757 started life as the 7N7, for instance. The 767 was the 7X7 and the 777 was the 767-X.



From:

www.boeing.com...

Regards,

Osiris



posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
To be fair to the people who wondered why Boeing was going against tradition by using 7E7, I am old enough to remember when the 757 was called the 7N7 and the 767 was the 7S7 so I've seen it before.


Not bad from memory, but a little off Waynos


Osiris



posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Does that mean that Boeing has had a rethink of its position? after all they said there was no market for the A380 and now they might try to compete with it.


Waynos, first of all I broke this into two posts rather than one so I don't confuse the two ideas. Was trying to do one post and it didn't really blend well.

Secondly, Boeing is thinking of re-engineering the 747. It is still substantially smaller than the 380. All they are talking about is updating the materials used in it, much like when they redesigned the 737 series to use high-bypass engines and glass cockpits. (In fact there have been several non-trivial changes to the '37 over the years, as I'm sure you are aware).

Finally I would expect that if Boeing *does* re-egineer the 747, it may well become a 3 engine plane sporting a derivative of the GE90 with technology from the GEnx engine. I've heard talk that folks inside GE feel that cross breeding the two engine might net out something in the 150K lbs of thrust range


Coupled with a lighter weight body, I personally think it would be a good move for Boeing, on two front:

1) It will modernize the 747 and make it more economical, thereby increasing demand for the old girl and

2) Since this is business, a 747 with 787 efficiencies would seriously dent interest in the 380 (IMHO). I think a 747 is *big enough*. I'm personally not looking forward to arriving in a tropical island behind a pair of 380s that just flew in, in all economy seating. A lot of airports around the world just can't handle that many passengers


Osiris



posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeltaNine
I always get that Dreamweaver song in my head everytime I hear the name.



I liked Gary Wright alot better when he was in "SPOOKY TOOTH" than his solo stuff.



posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 11:07 AM
link   
It is nice to see new airliners being built, but they all look like they are using the same old designs. It would be nice to see a new design for a change.



posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Not bad from memory, but a little off Waynos


LOL, would you believe that as I was typing that I was thinking "was it 'S' or 'X'?"

I made the wrong choice


Regarding your second post, the 747 is smaller than the A380, of course, but not by as much as you might think. It is the full length double deck of the Airbus that gives it its higher capacity rather than sheer physical size.

Despite any difference in size the fact remains that the 747 and A380 are competitors in the same class and any decision by Boeing to re-engineer it to prolong its production run (which I accept they haven't done just yet) does tend to suggest that Airbus was right all along and Boeing may have erred in not designing a replacement (or re-engineered it) earlier. After all a '747-500' could have been produced much more quickly than the A380 had they been launched at the same time, giving Boeing a head start in the market.

It will be an interesting aircraft to see when or if it appears and it strikes me that it is the exact reverse of the position where Airbus' re-vamped A350 will compete with the all new 787.



posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
LOL, would you believe that as I was typing that I was thinking "was it 'S' or 'X'?"

I made the wrong choice



Should picked door two




Regarding your second post, the 747 is smaller than the A380, of course, but not by as much as you might think. It is the full length double deck of the Airbus that gives it its higher capacity rather than sheer physical size.


Oh I'm well aware, but I'm talking size in terms of weight.

A380: 606,000 pounds (empty)
747-400: ~398,000 pounds (empty)
Theoretcial 747 with 787 materials: ~338,000 pounds (empty)

More importantly, weight per pax: (assuming typical 3 class for both boeing and airbus 416 and 550 respectively)

A380: 1,102 pounds per
747-400: 956 pounds per
747-500*: 812 pounds per

That's fairly signficant. But to be fair let's also look at 1 class seating (I'm going to assume 850 for the A380 and 550 for the 747, Boeing doesn't list a 1 class capacity, so I'm extrapolating from 524 2 class)

A380: 712lbs per
-400: 723lbs per
-500*: 614lbs per

As you can see the A380 is *really* only significantly better in 1 class or 2 class config. In 3 class config the 747 is already fairly competitive, which is why Boeing hasn't mucked with it so far. Some new engines on it, and it would probably be the same $/pax/mile as a 380 in 3 class.





Despite any difference in size the fact remains that the 747 and A380 are competitors in the same class and any decision by Boeing to re-engineer it to prolong its production run (which I accept they haven't done just yet) does tend to suggest that Airbus was right all along and Boeing may have erred in not designing a replacement (or re-engineered it) earlier. After all a '747-500' could have been produced much more quickly than the A380 had they been launched at the same time, giving Boeing a head start in the market.


Well I haven't heard that Boeing was planning on shutting down the 747 lines (which isn't to say I didn't miss such an announcement). I think Boeing's arguement has been for smaller planes from the perspective of direct-connect city pairs. The only thing I think they missed is that in Asia some of the direct-connect city pairs can actually use planes with 500+ capacity. Having said that, I really think a 747-500 would have significant cost savings over the A380. I might be wrong, but that's my take on it.



It will be an interesting aircraft to see when or if it appears and it strikes me that it is the exact reverse of the position where Airbus' re-vamped A350 will compete with the all new 787.


Won't argue that point too much.. It appears they are both right and both wrong. The proof will be in the pudding so to speak, let's see which plane the airlines make more with. Until then, you, I and the next guy can pontificate all we want


A pleasure as always Waynos,

Osiris



posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Not again...it seems it's always competion between the US and the World.

esspecially on this board...

Can't you guys just accept two IMPRESSIVE aircraft are being made? and no matter who made them, they are COOL?

This kind of comparing will only lead to argueing on which one is better...and which will turn into a debate, the debate will turn into a flame war and members will get banned...

Anyway, enough of that, I do agree with GroinGrinder, i'd like to see some more interesting ideas for airliners, but not really one of those Ugly Russian saucers...ick...

I Guess i'd like to see something that looks like a moderized Concorde with a cool delta wing...but yeah, it's all about functionality, not looks, esspecially in the boeing firm, Douglas made some good looking jet liners though.



posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
Not again...it seems it's always competion between the US and the World.

esspecially on this board...


Ground_zero: Neither Waynos nor myself are American




Can't you guys just accept two IMPRESSIVE aircraft are being made? and no matter who made them, they are COOL?

This kind of comparing will only lead to argueing on which one is better...and which will turn into a debate, the debate will turn into a flame war and members will get banned...


Only if someone chooses to take it there. Since when is discussing technical specs of aircraft and theorizing on performance against forum rules. I have no intent to get into a flame war, and infact am merely look at numbers to try and figure out the 'real truth' despite what BOTH manufacturers may say. I do it because I like aviation, not because I love one manufacturer more than the other.

Hell my fave commercial planes of all time aren't even made anymore (Concorde and the 727.. don't ask
)



Anyway, enough of that, I do agree with GroinGrinder, i'd like to see some more interesting ideas for airliners, but not really one of those Ugly Russian saucers...ick...


I know from reliable sources that certain nameless companies are actively (and VERY quietly) studying ways to 'replace' Concorde. Perhaps that will help ya. But the reality of the situation is that all planes look the same because that's what gives the best performance. Things are the way they are for a reason (be it materials available, whatever).



I Guess i'd like to see something that looks like a moderized Concorde with a cool delta wing...but yeah, it's all about functionality, not looks, esspecially in the boeing firm, Douglas made some good looking jet liners though.


See my little point above. I *really* can't say more, but you can probably guess one of the companies, but I guarantee you'll never figure out the second one. Give it a year or two and then I can talk at great lengths (that's the problem with confidendtial sources.. they tend to shut up if they see their information on the web.. :mad


Osiris

PS: I don't expect you to believe me, nor will I try and force you to, just take it as what it's worth.. a post on a message board on the Internet



posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 06:02 PM
link   
What could be interesting is an antonov an-225 mriya converted into a airline passenger jet.
Just imagine the passenger seat capacity of that thing.

On the other hand those 6 antic Lotarev engines do burn a hell lots of fuel.
Wouldnt be very profitable for airlines.
Anyhow, was just a thought .


[edit on 29-1-2005 by amraam]



posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Welcome to the board AMRAAM!

Yeah that is an interesting thought...oddly they never considdered it!



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 05:16 AM
link   
Ground zero, there was never any possibility of the little discussion with otlg turning into a flame war, he made some very good points regarding the upgraded 747 which I agree with, my standpoint was merely that after dropping their plans to upgrade or replace the 747 several years ago saying there was no market for such a type Boeing appear to be having a rethink in the face of recent success for the A380.
As you see I have also noted the irony of the fact that each manufacturer now seems set to put up a revamped design against the all new one of their competitor. It will be an interesting race to follow for sure.

Despite the impression I may have given in some other threads I am not 'anti Boeing' by any means. I am 'pro aeroplane' if anything. I just thought that the Airbus/Boeing argument was a little too one eyed from the Boeing lobby and firmly beleive in the 'two sides to every argument' syndrome.

Regarding the An-225, if it were possible for the Ukraine (in partnership with Russia perhaps) to compete with Airbus and Boeing in this market how about a version of this with four Trent 900's?



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 11:09 AM
link   
Interestingly the empty weight of the 225 is listed at around 385,800 lbs, which is pretty light.

If we added say 20% for all the necessary 'human' extras to convert it to a passenger carrier you would be looking at a rather modest 462,960lbs. Certainly lighter than a 380, heavier than a jumbo.

The internal dimensions of 41,454 ft3 compare to a 747-F (using a 747-F so I can get apples to apples here) totally out at 25,952 ft3 (of which 4,605 ft 3 is in the 'normal cargo area' in the pax models).

Assuming the Mira (the AN225) was fitted with similar decking we'll take 17% of the 41K ft3 (7,337 ft3) as 'cargo hold' on a pax model leaving 34116 ft3 for pax capacity..

Based on a 3 class config of 416 (62.38 ft3/pax) for the 747 and a 1 class config of 550 (47.185 ft3/pax), we get (**ROUGHLY!**):

1 class: 723 pax
3 class: 543 pax for a converted an-225.

Which isn't horrible. Now there are two downsides to this beast. One is the engines, as already mentioned. Roughly I think the Mira has around 311,000 lbs of thrust available. While I know Waynos was recommending 4 Trents, I would tend to lean in favor GE90s. With a little re-engineer of the tail section of the plane, (there is a lot of non-useable space in the tail area), you go could with 3 GE-90s in a tri-jet config.

The bigger downside is a max speed of 530MPH. To fix this would likely require re-engineering the wing, and that's where the whole experiment breaksdown


Osiris



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Three engines for over 700 passengers? The maths might stack up but my sensibilities as a passenger would demand four


PS I forgot to ask, have you seen the artist impression Boeing published for their original 737-300? It too was a tri-jet as you advocated earlier, think 747 with TriStar tail and rear engine arrangement.

I cannot remember whether I saw this on the web or in a book, most annoying!



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
PS I forgot to ask, have you seen the artist impression Boeing published for their original 737-300? It too was a tri-jet as you advocated earlier,


Excellent Waynos, very few people know of that proposed variant. It was in responce to the DC-10 and L-1011 and would have been a 3 engine plane with the hump and everything.

In reposnce to a new 747 variant. Boeing floated several ideas around from the Dash 500 / 600 etc etc and found little interest why? Despite refinments its a 40 year old design. Very little stretch is avalible. However the A380 is a brand new plane and has alot of future stretch potential.

No, short of offering an all composite 747 --- maybe the 797 perhaps, the 747's will not go beyond the 747-Advanced. However, if they kept the smaller seating of the 747 and offered a plane with mongo efficiency, there may be alot of interest in it. However, no one has build an primarily composite airframe of that size. the 787 will be the biggest commerical composite plane and they will want to see how it goes.

If they are indeed wrong on thier forcasting, Ill bet they offer up a variant as I described to compete. If they are correct and the 787 sells like hotcakes, then they will not.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join