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.

 

Boeing v Airbus; latest scores

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 07:30 AM
link   
Looking a little further I am now curious about the whole idea of the 737 replacing the 757.

I notice that the 737-900 packs 22,200lb less thrust than a 757-200 and has a roughly 50,000lb lighter MTOW, I had previously thought the two types were closely comparable so maybe my explanation may lie there, clearly a much bigger aircraft was needed in 1982 than any stretch of the 737 could provide and now smaller ones will do in this sector. I was surprised to discover that the 737-900 is however extremely close to the A321 in terms of size weight and capacity. I also noted that the CFM-56's of the 737-900 are rated at 26,000lbs thrust while the the same basic engine type in the A321 is rated at 30,000lb. There is obviously a reason for this, I just haven't read it yet. I am wondering if the ground clearance issue of the 737 is restrictive in this respect?

I never thought I could get so interested in little short haul jets




posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 10:38 AM
link   
The 737-900ER will make its first flight this year. It's going to increase the range to 3200mn with aux tanks, or 2800nm without, and 215 pax. The MTOW will be increased to 85,200kg. It's going to be a lot closer to a 727 in performance and weight. The first one is supposed to be delivered in April of 2007 to Lion Air in India.



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Wich is better the 787 vs A350...??



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Who knows? Neither one has flown yet, and probably won't for another year or so at the earliest.



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
Wich is better the 787 vs A350...??


Who knows for sure at this stage?

The more adventurous and more advanced is the 787 for sure, but whether it is 'best' will have to wait until it has been proven, after all you never know what is around the corner, remember the DH Comet.



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 02:48 PM
link   
The A350 is just an upgraded A330 with modified wings and the engines of the 787 GE's GnEx, but the same old round fuselage.
It was made as a response that the 787 is having.

The 787 has a fuselage made of composites with a double bubble shape. It has newly developed wings.
It burns 20% less fuel than a current A330. Its technology was developed from the sonic Cruiser after that project was put on hold. It is currently the most successful commercial launch for Boeing in its history.

On that note, its curious how both the 777 and 787 were developed from cancelled projects.
The 777 came from the 7J7, a 727 replacement in the 80's full of composites that was supposed to burn less fuel but when oil prices went down the project was cancelled. The opposite happened to the Dreamliners , oil went up, the Sonic went down, the 787 was born.



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Though the basic idea behind the A350 wass to make an upgraded A330 (which itself never was such a successful plane) in order not to leave Boeing alone on a certain market, it seems now more ane more probable that the A350 will be an all new plane, since the wings and tail are already new and customers/potential customers are pushing towards a bigger fuselage section. The "good" point for the A350 is that it still is at a stage where it can be redesigned.
Anyway since Boeing and Airbus are the two major airliners makers there is no real surprise seeing that the lead changes from time to time. Being the leader is fun but on a 50/50 market the difference doesn't matter that much as long as the gap doesn't become too wide (which would not be good for consumers as well).



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Here is an article on the GEnx engine that will power both the 787 and the A350







After waiting three decades for enabling technology to catch up with its design ideas, GE-Aviation is deeply embedding itself in composite materials as a next-generation answer to making engines quieter and cheaper to own and operate.

The payoff is coming in the GEnx engine, which made its first run on Mar. 19 when Serial No. 001 was started on test stand 6A at the company's Test Operation Center in Peebles, Ohio. By the time the trials concluded two days later, the team had pushed the engine to 80,500 lb. of sea-level, standard-day takeoff thrust. Its top power requirements thus far are for 75,000 lb.


Full Article



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Looking a little further I am now curious about the whole idea of the 737 replacing the 757.

I notice that the 737-900 packs 22,200lb less thrust than a 757-200 and has a roughly 50,000lb lighter MTOW, I had previously thought the two types were closely comparable so maybe my explanation may lie there, clearly a much bigger aircraft was needed in 1982 than any stretch of the 737 could provide and now smaller ones will do in this sector. I was surprised to discover that the 737-900 is however extremely close to the A321 in terms of size weight and capacity. I also noted that the CFM-56's of the 737-900 are rated at 26,000lbs thrust while the the same basic engine type in the A321 is rated at 30,000lb. There is obviously a reason for this, I just haven't read it yet. I am wondering if the ground clearance issue of the 737 is restrictive in this respect?

I never thought I could get so interested in little short haul jets


The somewhat replacement for the 757 is the 787-3. Although is a twin aisle it is close regarding range and capacity.

757
Passenger Seating Configuration.
757-200- 200/228
757-300- 243/280

Maximum range
757-300- 6287-km
757-200- 7222-km

Cargo
757-300- 67,1 cu m
757-200- 53,3 cu m

Boeing 757 specs

Boeing 787-3

Seating:
290 to 330 passengers
Range:
3,000 to 3,500 nautical miles (5,550 to 6,500 km)

Configuration:
Twin aisle
Cross Section:
226 inches (574 centimetres)
Wing Span:
170 feet (52 meters)
Length:
186 feet (57 meters)
Height:
56 feet (17 meters)
Cruise Speed:
Mach 0.85
Maximum Takeoff Weight:
360,000 lbs
Program milestones:
Authority to offer Late 2003
Certification/Entry into service 2010

787-3 Fact Sheet



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Hope this isn't too far off topic, but this doesn't exactly instill confidence...






Boeing Parts and Rules Bent, Whistle-Blowers Say

Jeannine Prewitt knew there was a problem when the holes wouldn't line up.

On a Boeing Co. assembly line in Kansas in 2000, Prewitt saw workers drilling extra holes in the long aluminum ribs that make up the skeleton of a jetliner's fuselage. That was the only way the workers could attach the pieces, because some of their pre-drilled holes didn't match those on the airframe.

...

The assembly workers Prewitt observed were not the only ones who noted problems with parts from a key Boeing supplier, AHF Ducommun of Los Angeles. Other workers told her that many pieces had to be shoved or hammered into place. And documents reviewed by The Washington Post show that quality managers reported numerous problems at Ducommun in memos recorded in Boeing's system for monitoring its suppliers.





[edit on 21-4-2006 by loam]



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 06:38 PM
link   
The 787-3 appears to be in the next class up from the 757 looking at those figures, there seems to be no direct replacement but one aircaraft a little smaller and one a little larger should cover it.



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Well Loam, That Article has serious flaws. The 737 is built in Renton, Washington, not in Kansas.

www.boeing.com...


Second, Boeing might have had some scandals now and then (we all remember the 767 tanker one), but nothing regarding in quality. Also to be noted, Boeing with its planes has always achieved better results than what they promised (the 777 is the proof of that). Contrary to Airbus that always promises more than what it delivers.



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 06:49 PM
link   
But why drag Airbus into it? That article, whether it is flawed or not (and I don't know) is nothing to do with Airbus and saying 'always promises more than it delivers' is not only a sweeping generalisation, it is wrong too.

Yet again I feel I am forced into defending Airbus in order to try and keep the thread even handed, even tyhough I have no wish to do so.

Can't we just discuss the subject without mud slinging?



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by carcharodon
Well Loam, That Article has serious flaws. The 737 is built in Renton, Washington, not in Kansas.

www.boeing.com...

.


Nope the article is actually correct. The 737 Fuselage is produced in Wichita

www.boeing.com...

The aircraft may be assembled in renton, but major porions are made elsewhere



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by carcharodon
Well Loam, That Article has serious flaws. The 737 is built in Renton, Washington, not in Kansas.

www.boeing.com...



thats where you are wrong

final assy is done in renton. but the fuse is shipped completed by rail to renton from kansas

here's a few pics of the fuse enroute from kansas to renton



Remarks: Boeing train with 737 fuselage outside the Boeing plant in Wichita.



Remarks: 1 of 2 Boeing 737 Fuelselages enroute from Wichita, KS to the Renton plant near Lake Washington, WA.



Remarks: A Boeing 737 Fuselage rides BNSF 800105 north on Colorado's Joint Line.

we were playing a softball tourney in wenatchee and in between games saw several fuse's going up the tracks by the columbia on their way to renton. a lot of people didn't know they were built out of state

[edit on 22-4-2006 by bigx01]

[edit on 23-4-2006 by bigx01]



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 04:37 AM
link   
Hey, good pictures bigx, nicely done
(I know we argue but that doesn't mean I don't acknowledge it when I see something I like
)

When looking at those pics I struck by the realisation that if that was my neighbourhood those fuselages would arrive at their destination with holes shot through them by kids with air rifles.

Not because they're Boeings or anyhting, its just the kind of thing that happens here. Lucky we can't have real guns hey?



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 04:54 AM
link   
Totally off topic, but you'll love this one Waynos.....

Many years ago, there was a B-52 that had to be removed from the inventory, because they were having either a readiness inspection, or a storm evac, I can't remember which, and a farmer got pissed because everytime it happened, they scared his cows, so he took his shotgun out, and blew a hole in one of the BUFFs. Caused major damage, and blew out a spar or two. They landed, and after doing the inspection decided it would cost more to fix it than retire it.



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 05:22 AM
link   
Wow, a B-52 taken out by a farmer with a shotgun! That is a great story, I so hope it is true.



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 05:24 AM
link   
It's true. I talked to one of the crews the week after it happened and they told me about it.
They were amazed at the damage it did. I think they wound up putting it on static display.



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos


When looking at those pics I struck by the realisation that if that was my neighbourhood those fuselages would arrive at their destination with holes shot through them by kids with air rifles.


i would bet that it happens here also. i would also guess that they are kept moving and not sitting on a side rail to try and prevent it.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join