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: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Currently there are only 3 planned A380 'versions', as its coming to market as an 'already developed aircraft (ie no refinements anytime soon, which is what usually happens)'.

The A380-800 is the release version, carrying 550 passengers.
The A380-900 is the proposed stretched version, carrying around 650 passengers.
The A380-700 is the proposed 'mini' shorter version, carrying 480 passengers.

Im looking forward to when the 787 (dang, why did they change the designation, 7E7 went well with the 'futuristic' look of the aircraft, 787 sounds 'used'
) is shown for the first time, it definately looks like a nice aircraft.

PS FredT, I apologise for calling you what I did, I was having a hard week that week and it was uncalled for.




posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice
PS FredT, I apologise for calling you what I did, I was having a hard week that week and it was uncalled for.


Hey no worries. I never take anything personal here



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Not quite 'excellent' Fred, I did of course mean, and should have said, 747-300



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Not quite 'excellent' Fred, I did of course mean, and should have said, 747-300


Ah but Boeing did float a concept of a 3 engined 747 to compete with the DC-10'a and L-1011's and it was called the 747-3. The scrapped it and went with the killer 747-SP. If money were no object, Id buy one to be my executive transposrt Mach 0.92, high altituted, give it new engines, -400 avionics, and blended winglets!





posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Thats the very picture I was on about before, the one I couldn't find again. Brilliant!

when I first raised the subject of this version I accidentally typed 737-300 instead of 747 - 300. This was indeed the plane I was talking about, hence my correction above.



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Waynos, I just feared a peaceful discussion would turn into a heated debate, I have seen it happen so much before on this and my own board, I had to do it...

I used to be an Admin for a large forum, but that forum shrunk since the game it was for wasn't as popular anymore since it was made in 1997.

Hence me trying to keep the peace if possible, but i'm not even a mod here so...oops, sorry for that...

I really wonder what a jetliner would look like if made my Lockheed Martin...



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 07:29 PM
link   

GZ
I really wonder what a jetliner would look like if made my Lockheed Martin...

heh heh, simply put: damn cool.


Lockheed working on Supersonic Business Jet




posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 08:03 PM
link   
Wow, that's interesting, any schematics on that thing? it's kinda hard to graps that shape...it does look nice



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 09:09 PM
link   
hey, the L1011 by Lockheed was one of the nicest airliners i've ever been in



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by KKing123
hey, the L1011 by Lockheed was one of the nicest airliners i've ever been in


No doubt, but it was plagued by a poor choice in engines and never reached a critical mass. PSA actually flew a model that had a bar underneath the main deck!!!



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 08:51 AM
link   
Poor engine? The RB211 is one of the most successful engines ever



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 09:53 AM
link   
Waynos:

That may be, but I know the l-1011 had *alot* of teathing problems with the enginge. Air Canada used to operate them and I know a mechanic that loathed them



Osiris



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Fair enough, the Tristar was the first plane to use the engine so it probably would have had teething troubles, especially since R-R was bankrupt at the time and probably didn't develop the engine quite as thoroughly as it would have liked.

Maybe I was hasty as it probably could have had a better engine at launch but the fact remains that the RB 211 is one of the best of the big fan engines and has powered all sorts of aircraft between the 757 and 747 in size.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 01:51 AM
link   
Waynos:

Oh I don't disagree, but for the L-1011 the early troubles scared off a lot of orders (I don't know that any other power plants was speced for it, at least not for a while).

Plus the one down-side to tri-jets is maintenance is much more of a PITA.. you need that tail mounted engine to need as little attention as possible.

For the record I love RR engines. The only reason I'm on about the GE90 lately, is well, 127K lbs of thrust
.. that's a big bad number that's hard to say no to


Osiris



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Poor engine? The RB211 is one of the most successful engines ever


Sorry, At the time, Lockheed had decided to go with RR to make the engines in hops that it would drum up European orders. Perhaps I misspoke a bit. As the planes were being built, RR went bankrupt. My Airliner Tech book about the plane showes them lined up with no engines on them waiting. Momentum is a big thing and that just about killed it. In fact Lockheed had to borrow money from the governemnt (and pay upfront interest) to stay afloat. They did have alot of inital problems with the engine once they got it, but oce those issues were ironed out it was fine.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 02:27 AM
link   
Yes, there's no denying that. I see I misunderstood your initial statement.

Thinking about it it does seem odd that the Tristar only ever had RB211's when today it is normal practice to offer any type of engine that will fit the pylon. I was wondering if this was normal practice (I don't remember whether the DC-10 ever flew with alternative engines) but then I remembered that the 747 allowed the operator a choice and even the 707 offered a choice of P&W or R-R power. Yes, it does seem odd that Lockheed limited themselves in that way.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
e pylon. I was wondering if this was normal practice (I don't remember whether the DC-10 ever flew with alternative engines)


The 777-300 ER has GE 90's as the only option. But I think (not 100%) that the newer 777-LR has a choice.

The 787 has RR and GE (Trent 1000 and GE-X??)



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
The 777-300 ER has GE 90's as the only option. But I think (not 100%) that the newer 777-LR has a choice.

The 787 has RR and GE (Trent 1000 and GE-X??)


Thats GEnx Fred


www.geae.com...

Osiris



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 01:32 PM
link   
7E7 Never Existed in the first place, read carefully www.vialls.com...

[edit on 1-2-2005 by SiberianTiger]



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Is that a bong I hear in the background? The page you guoted is from a total crackpot, and the 787 test article is actually in production. I believe that part of the foreward fuselage has already been built.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join