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 super sonic airliner

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
If all the sums had worked out there would never have been a 787


787?


Did I miss something? The newest boeing airliner flying that I'm aware of is the 777. I know they have designs in development, but I don't remember Boeing ever announcing the 787.

Can you fill me in on the 787?

Tim




posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Previously known as 7E7, first flight around 2008? Come on you must have heard of it



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 04:45 PM
link   
You know Tim, I really can't tell if you have learned the British sense of humour or if you are being genuine.

The 787 features on several threads on here of the 'Airbus v Boeing' variety, but then I suppose its entirely possible that you don't read the Airliner threads in the same way that I don't read the antigrav/alien tech ones, in which case you could easily be unaware of it.

The 787 is Boeings replacement for the 767 and also their A330 killer, in market terms. The first prototype is currently under construction and will fly within the next 18 months or so. Boeing launched the 787's develpment under the interim 7E7 designation as soon as it became apparent that the Sonic Cruiser wasn't going to work, although a few of the technologies being worked on for that programme were carried over where relevant.

Airbus initially seriously underestimated the 787 and felt that an improved A330 would match it, this was quickly shown not to be the case and Airbus has designed a new A350 model to compete with it. Boeing however has at least a four year clear run with the 787 in which it will be unchallenged in the market place, giving Boeing an advantage they never even had when the 707 was brand new.




posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 04:53 PM
link   
The 787 features a carbon composite fuselage, bleedless engine and a promised 15-20% jump in efficiency.

Tim for more info check Boeing 787 Website

www.newairplane.com...



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
You know Tim, I really can't tell if you have learned the British sense of humour or if you are being genuine.

The 787 features on several threads on here of the 'Airbus v Boeing' variety, but then I suppose its entirely possible that you don't read the Airliner threads in the same way that I don't read the antigrav/alien tech ones, in which case you could easily be unaware of it.




I'm mostly into Military stuff. I stay away from the Airliner threads, and the UFO/ET stuff. Thanks for filling me in on the 787!

Tim



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
The sonic cruiser was the stupidest idea I'd ever heard of!

I have absolutely no idea why any of the Boeing engineers never stopped the marketing people [the idea MUST have come from them] and told them to get a grip.

A typical graph of drag coefficient versus mach number.




Why, oh why would you want to take the hit on the drag rise for very marginal speed gains?


Failure? not quite. As Boeing has proven time and time again from their failures comes great ultra successful planes. They lost the competition to the Heavy Air transporter in the 60's, what they learned became the foundations of the 747 Jumbo. In the Early 80's the 7J7 project was scrapped when oil prices fell. It included Fly by Wire, larger use of composites and a 25% of Japanese products. What became of those developments, is the ultra efficient and top seller and most advanced commercial plane in service, the 777.
So what happened with all the R&D of the Sonic Cruiser, well the 787 emerged having sold over 400 frames 18 months before flying... a new record in the industry...


[edit on 17-11-2006 by carcharodon]



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Pass the sickbag Carch!


What a load of propagandist bullshine


Its not even true.

FIrst the 747 was developed because Juan Trippe asked for it. Losing out to the C-5 only meant Boeing had nothing better to do so Trippe got what he wanted.

Next Airbus pioneered the use of FBW and composites incivil transports long before either the 777or the 7J7.

Also the 787 (7E7) was created because the SC was shown to be a dead end.

Boeing are one of aviations true greats, for sure, but with blinkers like that you should have a great future with Fox News.



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Well that is a cynical way to put things Waynos.
The 747 was more than that everybody knows that if failed it could have taken Boeing down it was more than just a lets do this since we have nothing else to do...

The 7J7 and the A320 date from the same time, early 80's deployment early 90's so I don't think there was anything wrong with saying the 7J7 was very innovative technologies...

And About the 787 and the SC, so the world changed and they demanded a new product Boeing reinvented the product technologies from faster to efficient, and hit right on the market...
And about saying that those are 3 of the most successful Aircraft of all time well that is a fact
look at the numbers for the 747 (over 1000 planes sold and counting)

look at the numbers of the 777 in the last 2 years 153 last year and 56 this one. Lufthansa might be ordering some very soon. the 787, 432 last year and 142 this year, now lets look at airbus for 2005 166 order for A330/A340/A350 combined... for 06 10A340 have been ordered, 22A330 many of those have been almost gifts from Airbus to their A380 customers and for the A350 24...

[edit on 17-11-2006 by carcharodon]



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 05:05 AM
link   
Yes carch, it is a cynical view, as you say. It is still basically true though. It just goes to show how you can spin things and I simply had to put up an antidote to the sickly sweet spin you had applied to the 'facts'


Boeing have done much to be admired, but all-encompassing worship where faults are airbrushed into being part of an overall grand plan to success shows a totaql absence of objectivity.

In fact the only company I can think of that is deserving of anything like that kind of praise is actually Embraer of Brazil. They rose from formation and the building of small light aircraft to the verge of producing real airliners that take sales away from Airbus and Boeing in a spectacularly short time.

Going back to the points. You are right in that Boeing took a big gamble and bet the company on the 747. Trippe requested it but their was no guarantee other airlines would go for it. There was much uncertainty at the time whether airlines would choose big or fast, they chose big and the 747 is an absolute legend but had Boeing won the C-X then Pan Am, BOAC and the rest would have simply had to wait for their jumbos.

The 7J7 and A320 have one crucial difference between them, can you spot what it is?


The 777, another *spectacular* aeroplane, a Jumbo Jet with only two engines, bears no relation with the 7J7 and it is futile pretending that it does. You fail to mention that the first Boeing 777 was a stretched trijet version of the 767 which failed miserably to attract any interest whatsoever *and so Boeing started again with a clean sheet of paper* to create the brilliant 777 we have today.

You also don't mention how Boeing tried to launch an all new replacement for the 737 that was based loosely on the 757, this was shown simply as the 7-7 and was supposed to rival the A320. Not only was this an abject failure too, but the parent 757 has itself been replaced by a revamped version of the 737 which remains in production today and across the whole range competes with the A320 perfectly well, which is quite ironic when you think about it.

Likewise the 7E7. Just as with the 777 before it Boeing started again, from scratch, in a new direction when they realised the Sonic Cruiser wasn't going anywhere. Your assertion that the Sonic Cruiser somehow metamorphosised into the 787 is complete nonsense and illustrates the lengths to which your blind worship will not allow you to accept that Boeing simply got something wrong and had a rethink, as they have on many occasions, like all the other aerospace companies. You could go right back to WW2 and look at how Boeing redesigned the B-17 into the legend it became following RAF experience with the earlier, feeble, model that the RAF even refused to fly on operational bombing missions, to see this has always happened.

So you see Boeing are simply a huge aerospace company with their fair share of successes and failures, its the gushing deification of 'wonderful Boeing' in your post that I find grating, especially when juxtaposed with your constant sniping at Airbus, the angle is obvious.

Personally I prefer to judge each on its own plus and minus points and take an objective view rather than the "your side are rubbish my side are great" approach.



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos

The 777, another *spectacular* aeroplane, a Jumbo Jet with only two engines, bears no relation with the 7J7 and it is futile pretending that it does. You fail to mention that the first Boeing 777 was a stretched trijet version of the 767 which failed miserably to attract any interest whatsoever *and so Boeing started again with a clean sheet of paper* to create the brilliant 777 we have today.


777 is actually Bigger then the 747!
I was surprised when I ran a comparison of the Specs, but it's true. Take a look:

747 //////////////////// 777

Wing Span: 195ft. 8in ////////////////// 199ft. 11in.
Length: 231ft. 4in /////////////////// 242ft 4in.
Height at Tail: 63ft. 5in. /////////////////// 60ft. 8in.

MaxTO weight: 805'000 lbs. ////////////////// 660'000 lbs.

Note: The weight difference has to do with the use of composits in the 777's airframe, making it lighter.

Sources:

747- The complete Encyclopedia of World Aircraft Copyright 1997

777- Boeing 777 Technical Specs.

Tim

[edit on 19-11-2006 by Ghost01]



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Yes thats right Tim, many airlines are buying the 777 to replace their older 747's. When you look at a photo of a 777 it can be quite deceptive as the fact it is a twin jet can mask just how huge it is.

You see? airliners can be amazing too



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
When you look at a photo of a 777 it can be quite deceptive as the fact it is a twin jet can mask just how huge it is.



Good Point! I never though about that! I don't have any good photos of both aircraft that would allow me to make a visual comparison of size. Also, You right about the twin engine throwing people off. I didn't expect a twin engine aircraft to be larger than one with 4 engines.

Tim



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by carcharodon
Failure? not quite. As Boeing has proven time and time again from their failures comes great ultra successful planes. They lost the competition to the Heavy Air transporter in the 60's, what they learned became the foundations of the 747 Jumbo. In the Early 80's the 7J7 project was scrapped when oil prices fell. It included Fly by Wire, larger use of composites and a 25% of Japanese products. What became of those developments, is the ultra efficient and top seller and most advanced commercial plane in service, the 777.
So what happened with all the R&D of the Sonic Cruiser, well the 787 emerged having sold over 400 frames 18 months before flying... a new record in the industry...


[edit on 17-11-2006 by carcharodon]



Yeap... dead on.



Many people assume that the 747 was a direct outgrowth of Boeing's C-5
effort, and that the 747 is, in effect, a civilian version of our C-5
design. I recently had the opportunity to video tape an extensive
interview with Dick Withington, who was one of Boeing's top
aerodynamicists with a career spanning the B-17 to the 767, and who was
heavily involved in Boeing's C-5 effort. I asked him what, if any,
relationship there really was between the C-5 design and the 747. His
answer was none. Everything about the two designs was different, he said,
engines, wing, tail, fuselage, structure, landing gear, etc. The only
relationship of one program to the other was the fact that when Boeing
lost the C-5 competition, Withington sent about 100 of his C-5 engineers
up to Everett to work on the new 747 program. They took with them their
experience of working on the design of a large transport aircraft, but
that was the only thing from the C-5 program that ended up on the 747
program. Otherwise the programs were completely different, and the
airplanes, Withington said, were as different as night and day.

C. Marin Faure
author, Flying A Floatplane



So they did the 7J7 design, decided they didn't need it then, and let it slip. *Newsflash* IT WOULD BE PRETTY F__KING STUPID NOT TO USE ANY USEFUL DATA BUILT UP DOING THE 7J7 AS PART OF THE 777 DESIGN EFFORT!
Besides, the two aircraft were nothing alike, one was a 150 odd seater, the other a 300+ ETOPS effort. The only significant thing from the 7J7 was the move into the Japanese aerospace market by Boeing - more political than technical.


The sonic cruiser and 787 are again totally unconnected [sensing a trend here?]- anyone with a basic grasp of the processes behind designing aircraft would understand that.



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 11:00 PM
link   
The 777 300ER is a direct replacement for classic 747's (100-200)

Also to be noted the 747 Engines each has a trust of aprox 56,00Lbs while each engine on the 777 300ER has 115,000 Lbs of trust (the most powerful commercial engine BTW)

The thing were they are differences is that the 747 is wider allowing more seats (on the 747-300 & 400)



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join