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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by DeltaNine
I always get that Dreamweaver song in my head everytime I hear the name.
Not bad from memory, but a little off Waynos
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
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.
Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
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.
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,