Look at Boeing's beautiful new aircraft!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Look at Boeing's beautiful new aircraft!
Guest
Posts: n/a
I love it. I want children by this thing! I want to fly it. With one step Boeing moves aviation on a generation, and I think will eventually overtake the A3xx. When the A340 came out, I was looking at the plan view and thinking you wouldn't know this wasn't a B707 circa 1958- aviation design just hadn't moved on in 40 years. Brilliant.
Guest
Posts: n/a
How do you sell this aircraft to the customer airline accountants that has a fuel burn per passenger that is over double that of its competitor, even if the competitor comes in few hours later (its competitor may even be another Boeing product).
Airlines look are revenue per passenger mile, the more seats per unit of fuel and crew the better.
Most passengers look at the cost of the journey not the time it takes (exception on the North Atlantic Concorde routes). It would be a good direct replacement for the Concorde, but that is a very limited market.
The number of passengers on seats per crew is in the wrong direction, i.e. becoming more expensive.
This unconventional aircraft will require yet another Boeing cockpit that would bare little resemblance to others, more training expense for the customer airlines.
The aircraft will be more expensive due to new technologies that will need to be developed and the few airframes (if any) that will be sold. I didn’t think Boeing had anyone left in their design team to complete such a technologically risky project.
This aircraft does nothing to solve the problem of congested airports and airspace.
Airlines look are revenue per passenger mile, the more seats per unit of fuel and crew the better.
Most passengers look at the cost of the journey not the time it takes (exception on the North Atlantic Concorde routes). It would be a good direct replacement for the Concorde, but that is a very limited market.
The number of passengers on seats per crew is in the wrong direction, i.e. becoming more expensive.
This unconventional aircraft will require yet another Boeing cockpit that would bare little resemblance to others, more training expense for the customer airlines.
The aircraft will be more expensive due to new technologies that will need to be developed and the few airframes (if any) that will be sold. I didn’t think Boeing had anyone left in their design team to complete such a technologically risky project.
This aircraft does nothing to solve the problem of congested airports and airspace.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Awe, Zeke, I was starting to get excited for a moment. Wasn't the same true of Concorde? I reckon it's time to "push the frontiers" again. If I was a pax and saw one of these babies on the ramp I reckon I'd want to cancel the new kitchen to fly in it. If the Boeing team need market research confirmation, here's my vote.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Why so negative? I understand it uses two engines the same that currently power the B777. OK so .95 rather than .8 mach might require more fuel to get to cruising speed and altitude but FL 450 means more efficient fuel burn doesn't it?
As for the flight deck - isn't it is just another commercial twin. I can't see that it would have to be any different to present day aircraft.
My only concern as a regular passenger on long haul routes is that the airlines will use the additional speed as an excuse NOT to improve customer space and comfort.
As for the flight deck - isn't it is just another commercial twin. I can't see that it would have to be any different to present day aircraft.
My only concern as a regular passenger on long haul routes is that the airlines will use the additional speed as an excuse NOT to improve customer space and comfort.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well, not that you have to ask me, but if you would...
That is just the PR gag for wall street. It's so simple: they give up (or at least say they do) the 747X and the 767-300ERX, and so basically admit that Airbus has beaten them. So to show that they are such a progressive company, they dig up one of these old studies and present it as the future. Which banker understands the issues that design would give fo any airline operating it. None! SO why care that the project presented to wall street is not really a practical one. You'll have enough time to explain the whole thing to your customers in private anyway.
To the airplane: impractical! First, the airlines don't care about more speed for practical reasons (read R.E.G. Davis: Fallacies and Fantasies of Air Transport History, chapter about Concorde, SST and Orient Express). What is the help of a faster aircraft in the hub and spoke environment? That is stands around longer at destination!
Then, look at that forward wing! How many times will a finger dock bump into it, causing heavy delays and expensive repairs? I would guess every single day in JFK! How do you cater the thing? By rolling the carts over the wings? Or do you cater it first and then have the passengers enter it? Oh, what was that thing about turnaround times again?
Where do you put the bags and the cargo? And how do you put it? By hand? Interesting challenge! And I would like to see the slides of that thing in the back. Will be fun to run over the fuel filled wing in an evacuation. Lovely!
Wake up people! The shape does not work for practical ground servicing reasons and the speed is not really needed. This is a good April's fools joke!
------------------
There's nothing like a three-holer...
That is just the PR gag for wall street. It's so simple: they give up (or at least say they do) the 747X and the 767-300ERX, and so basically admit that Airbus has beaten them. So to show that they are such a progressive company, they dig up one of these old studies and present it as the future. Which banker understands the issues that design would give fo any airline operating it. None! SO why care that the project presented to wall street is not really a practical one. You'll have enough time to explain the whole thing to your customers in private anyway.
To the airplane: impractical! First, the airlines don't care about more speed for practical reasons (read R.E.G. Davis: Fallacies and Fantasies of Air Transport History, chapter about Concorde, SST and Orient Express). What is the help of a faster aircraft in the hub and spoke environment? That is stands around longer at destination!
Then, look at that forward wing! How many times will a finger dock bump into it, causing heavy delays and expensive repairs? I would guess every single day in JFK! How do you cater the thing? By rolling the carts over the wings? Or do you cater it first and then have the passengers enter it? Oh, what was that thing about turnaround times again?
Where do you put the bags and the cargo? And how do you put it? By hand? Interesting challenge! And I would like to see the slides of that thing in the back. Will be fun to run over the fuel filled wing in an evacuation. Lovely!
Wake up people! The shape does not work for practical ground servicing reasons and the speed is not really needed. This is a good April's fools joke!
------------------
There's nothing like a three-holer...
Guest
Posts: n/a
Too true Hunter; what'll they produce next - a two hull bi-plane that runs on prune (note spelling) juice. Pure fantasy!!
The Fireflash in Thunderbirds had a smoking lounge with grand piano (just checked it on the VCR) and four engines (but no glass cockpits in 2026!), and had a two man crew.
By the way, how does air get into the engines; very Comet style arrangement there.
The Fireflash in Thunderbirds had a smoking lounge with grand piano (just checked it on the VCR) and four engines (but no glass cockpits in 2026!), and had a two man crew.
By the way, how does air get into the engines; very Comet style arrangement there.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Pilots always want to fly the fastest heaviest and newest aircraft on the block, fortunately the people who have to pay the bills look at the practicability of running the beast, from economics, crewing, and servicing.
genius-747
My guess for the delta wing is to carry fuel, the fuse looks like a 757 style cross section.
Mowgli
I did say it would be a good direct replacement for the Concorde. As a passenger are you willing to pay $14,000 to cross the Atlantic ? Or would you stick with $1000 on a 747-400 ?
Xeque
Have a look at the Boeing Fact sheet on the aircraft . It does not talk about the engine configuration.
The aircraft to me looks like a 757 fuse with some supersonic wing on it, a conventional wing would suffice to fly at M0.95 as they have done on the Citation X.
The higher you go the more the core of the engine is providing the aircraft performance, that huge fan on the from of the 777 engine does nothing at M0.95 and 42,000/43,000 feet. Can anyone confirm its a twin ?
FL450 (not tat I have seen it mentioned) does not equate to a more efficient fuel burn if the engine is optimized for flight in the FL300's as it is for the 777.
Look at the Citation X and Challenger aircraft that fly at this altitude and speed (Citation X) for the power to weight ratio they need to achieve this. To get this power to weight ratio Boeing if going to have to put a lot of fuel and thrust out that back of the aircraft to get it to this speed and altitude to get some decent buffet boundary margin.
What other commercial jets are of this configuration, how many other commercial jets currently have the handling characteristics of the is aircraft ? You don’t need a PHD in aerodynamics to know that delta wings are hard to fly in the terminal area, need longer runways, and very high pitch attitude. How easy will it to train people to fly it then ? Concorde V1 VR V2 V2+20 are around the 150 198 220 240 280 kt mark.
Hunter58
I agree with your comments regarding the ground servicing and general maneuvering of the aircraft on the ground and terminal area. I have not worked out how they will get the aircraft into the bay with the canard sticking out where the ramp normally is.
genius-747
My guess for the delta wing is to carry fuel, the fuse looks like a 757 style cross section.
Mowgli
I did say it would be a good direct replacement for the Concorde. As a passenger are you willing to pay $14,000 to cross the Atlantic ? Or would you stick with $1000 on a 747-400 ?
Xeque
Have a look at the Boeing Fact sheet on the aircraft . It does not talk about the engine configuration.
The aircraft to me looks like a 757 fuse with some supersonic wing on it, a conventional wing would suffice to fly at M0.95 as they have done on the Citation X.
The higher you go the more the core of the engine is providing the aircraft performance, that huge fan on the from of the 777 engine does nothing at M0.95 and 42,000/43,000 feet. Can anyone confirm its a twin ?
FL450 (not tat I have seen it mentioned) does not equate to a more efficient fuel burn if the engine is optimized for flight in the FL300's as it is for the 777.
Look at the Citation X and Challenger aircraft that fly at this altitude and speed (Citation X) for the power to weight ratio they need to achieve this. To get this power to weight ratio Boeing if going to have to put a lot of fuel and thrust out that back of the aircraft to get it to this speed and altitude to get some decent buffet boundary margin.
What other commercial jets are of this configuration, how many other commercial jets currently have the handling characteristics of the is aircraft ? You don’t need a PHD in aerodynamics to know that delta wings are hard to fly in the terminal area, need longer runways, and very high pitch attitude. How easy will it to train people to fly it then ? Concorde V1 VR V2 V2+20 are around the 150 198 220 240 280 kt mark.
Hunter58
I agree with your comments regarding the ground servicing and general maneuvering of the aircraft on the ground and terminal area. I have not worked out how they will get the aircraft into the bay with the canard sticking out where the ramp normally is.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hey, give the Boing boys a bit of credit. Sure the fuel burn is higher but on the long-haul routes the speed can help offset the costs *if* they can turn it around quick enough to fly more miles per day. With the transpolar routes opening up in a couple of years knocking a few hours off the run to the far east combined with the higher cruising speed it could mean using just one plane for a daily round-trip from North America to Japan or HK- something the bean-counters would love because a plane sitting on the apron overnight doesn't generate much revenue. As for the delta wing, don't know if it gives any advantage in the transonic range but the canard should make it handle reasonably well at low speeds.
------------------
Nuke the rainforest- it's more efficient than logging.
------------------
Nuke the rainforest- it's more efficient than logging.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Smurfjet,
Going by the number of windows there seems to be about 50 rows, which means about 4 abreast.
More than likely the picture is a computer rendered model of a preliminary CAD model for the aircraft.
Squawk 8888
When looked at as a whole, labor accounts for 35 percent of the airlines' operating expenses and 75 percent of controllable costs. Fuel is the airlines' second largest cost (about 10 to 12 percent of total expenses), and travel-agent commissions is third (about 6 percent). Commission costs, as a percent of total costs, have recently been declining, as more sales are now made directly to the customer through electronic commerce. Another rapidly rising cost has been airport landing fees and terminal rents.
According to reports filed with the Department of Transportation in 1999, airline costs were as follows:
Flying Operations - essentially any cost associated with the operation of aircraft, such as fuel and pilot salaries - 27 percent;
Maintenance - both parts and labor - 13 percent;
Aircraft and Traffic Service - basically the cost of handling passengers, cargo and aircraft on the ground and including such things as the salaries of baggage handlers, dispatchers and airline gate agents - 16 percent;
Promotion/Sales - including advertising, reservations and travel agent commissions - 13 percent;
Passenger Service - mostly inflight service and including such things as food and flight attendant salaries - 9 percent;
Transport Related - delivery trucks and inflight sales - 10 percent;
Administrative - 6 percent;
Depreciation/Amortization - equipment and plants - 6 percent.
Therefore any aircraft that gives an airline an increased fuel burn per passenger mile must make up for the extra expense elsewhere in order for this new Boeing aircraft to compete with others within the customer airlines fleet, an increase in utilization alone will not do it.
The configuration of the aircraft alone is novel and would require additional R&D expense on Boeings part that would need to be passed onto the customer airlines leading to an increased initial purchase price, or higher lease payments for the aircraft.
This new aircraft would need to prove to airlines that it had significant saving and benefits for them not to go out and get themselves a B757 or B767.
The problem with the B757 on long haul routes is that customer airlines found that their was insufficient under floor cargo space, airlines do generate significant revenue from what’s carried inside the hold.
The delta (more of a Ogee shape) is of an advantage in transonic rage, as well as other factor such as aerofoil section and the "area rule", on the down side you get a very low Clmax.
Going by the number of windows there seems to be about 50 rows, which means about 4 abreast.
More than likely the picture is a computer rendered model of a preliminary CAD model for the aircraft.
Squawk 8888
When looked at as a whole, labor accounts for 35 percent of the airlines' operating expenses and 75 percent of controllable costs. Fuel is the airlines' second largest cost (about 10 to 12 percent of total expenses), and travel-agent commissions is third (about 6 percent). Commission costs, as a percent of total costs, have recently been declining, as more sales are now made directly to the customer through electronic commerce. Another rapidly rising cost has been airport landing fees and terminal rents.
According to reports filed with the Department of Transportation in 1999, airline costs were as follows:
Flying Operations - essentially any cost associated with the operation of aircraft, such as fuel and pilot salaries - 27 percent;
Maintenance - both parts and labor - 13 percent;
Aircraft and Traffic Service - basically the cost of handling passengers, cargo and aircraft on the ground and including such things as the salaries of baggage handlers, dispatchers and airline gate agents - 16 percent;
Promotion/Sales - including advertising, reservations and travel agent commissions - 13 percent;
Passenger Service - mostly inflight service and including such things as food and flight attendant salaries - 9 percent;
Transport Related - delivery trucks and inflight sales - 10 percent;
Administrative - 6 percent;
Depreciation/Amortization - equipment and plants - 6 percent.
Therefore any aircraft that gives an airline an increased fuel burn per passenger mile must make up for the extra expense elsewhere in order for this new Boeing aircraft to compete with others within the customer airlines fleet, an increase in utilization alone will not do it.
The configuration of the aircraft alone is novel and would require additional R&D expense on Boeings part that would need to be passed onto the customer airlines leading to an increased initial purchase price, or higher lease payments for the aircraft.
This new aircraft would need to prove to airlines that it had significant saving and benefits for them not to go out and get themselves a B757 or B767.
The problem with the B757 on long haul routes is that customer airlines found that their was insufficient under floor cargo space, airlines do generate significant revenue from what’s carried inside the hold.
The delta (more of a Ogee shape) is of an advantage in transonic rage, as well as other factor such as aerofoil section and the "area rule", on the down side you get a very low Clmax.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Despite all the erudition above - IT LOOKS TERRIFIC!!
The Sonic Cruiser will probably have the biggest 'Must have' factor for an airline since the Comet or 707! Who wouldn't want either to fly it or in it??
Boeing say that it could be in service by 2007; now that IS impressive. But just look at the pace of development the US aerospace industry is now capable of with their latest offerings!
Hours and hours with nearly a thousand others bumbling along in the mid-30s in an A380 Megabus or a short trip time in the high stratospheric world of the Sonic Cruiser with just a hundred or two?? The choice may soon be available.....
The Sonic Cruiser will probably have the biggest 'Must have' factor for an airline since the Comet or 707! Who wouldn't want either to fly it or in it??
Boeing say that it could be in service by 2007; now that IS impressive. But just look at the pace of development the US aerospace industry is now capable of with their latest offerings!
Hours and hours with nearly a thousand others bumbling along in the mid-30s in an A380 Megabus or a short trip time in the high stratospheric world of the Sonic Cruiser with just a hundred or two?? The choice may soon be available.....
Guest
Posts: n/a
Amos,
You've got me thinking now...hmmmm March 31st at 0300 something. What's the importance of that date? If you mean April fools, that was a few (quite a few) hours after the topic was posted.
BTW,
I have to agree with the replies that intimated that in releasing images of this aircraft, and the unreasonably optimistic Time-in-Service estimate, Boeing have simply smokescreened their admission of failure to beat Airbus in the 'super jumbo' race.
If they really are going to shelve plans for a B747X, then they're handing the next generation of people movers (read B747 replacements) to Airbus on a platter.
Personally, I think that is a fantastic state of affairs. For too long (the B777 being the only real exception here) Boeing have been sitting back, resting on their laurels, selling rehashed, but nonetheless outdated aircraft to an industry in need of replacements. Airbus, on the other hand has continually gone the hard yards to develop their concepts into state-of-the-art commercial products that satisfy both the customer and the customer's customer.
Is it any wonder that Boeing has commenced what appears to be an unprecedented diversification strategy, culminating in the iminent transfer of their headquarters away from Seattle. They've been protectionist instead of cutting edge for so long that they've lost the plot entirely.
Sadly this could mean that Airbus may become monopolistic to the point that they too become complacent, selfish and ultimately unwilling to continue the hard work that has made them what they are today - arguably the maker of the world's best family of commercial aircraft.
[This message has been edited by Eecam (edited 01 April 2001).]
You've got me thinking now...hmmmm March 31st at 0300 something. What's the importance of that date? If you mean April fools, that was a few (quite a few) hours after the topic was posted.
BTW,
I have to agree with the replies that intimated that in releasing images of this aircraft, and the unreasonably optimistic Time-in-Service estimate, Boeing have simply smokescreened their admission of failure to beat Airbus in the 'super jumbo' race.
If they really are going to shelve plans for a B747X, then they're handing the next generation of people movers (read B747 replacements) to Airbus on a platter.
Personally, I think that is a fantastic state of affairs. For too long (the B777 being the only real exception here) Boeing have been sitting back, resting on their laurels, selling rehashed, but nonetheless outdated aircraft to an industry in need of replacements. Airbus, on the other hand has continually gone the hard yards to develop their concepts into state-of-the-art commercial products that satisfy both the customer and the customer's customer.
Is it any wonder that Boeing has commenced what appears to be an unprecedented diversification strategy, culminating in the iminent transfer of their headquarters away from Seattle. They've been protectionist instead of cutting edge for so long that they've lost the plot entirely.
Sadly this could mean that Airbus may become monopolistic to the point that they too become complacent, selfish and ultimately unwilling to continue the hard work that has made them what they are today - arguably the maker of the world's best family of commercial aircraft.
[This message has been edited by Eecam (edited 01 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
I have to agree that the timing of this release is a little suspect when considered in relation to the dropping of the 747X program. Would somebody like to offer me some odds on whether or not that that picture was actually created over a decade ago for a project that was ditched in the early 90's?
Let's look at the facts - Boeing have just ditched a project which amounts to nothing more than another 747 stretch, at a cost of peanuts, which could have competed (on equal terms?
) with Airbus for the lion's share in the market for large transport aircraft. Instead, they have abandoned safe ground and (alledgedly) started to develop an aircraft that is 'so good that it will create its own niche in the market' Of course it will! Like Concorde did? If they airlines had wanted to, I'm sure they could have flown Concorde at M0.95 on routes over land. They didn't, because it didn't make economic sense.
I've been involved in an extensive undergraduate study into a design concept almost identical to this. At first we thought it was a winner, but to cut a long story short, we came to the comclusion that it was a cr@p idea. Development costs too high, certification too difficult, airlines would never go for it, and the foreplane would get in the way of the jetway!!!
Does look cool though
[This message has been edited by Pielander (edited 01 April 2001).]
Let's look at the facts - Boeing have just ditched a project which amounts to nothing more than another 747 stretch, at a cost of peanuts, which could have competed (on equal terms?
) with Airbus for the lion's share in the market for large transport aircraft. Instead, they have abandoned safe ground and (alledgedly) started to develop an aircraft that is 'so good that it will create its own niche in the market' Of course it will! Like Concorde did? If they airlines had wanted to, I'm sure they could have flown Concorde at M0.95 on routes over land. They didn't, because it didn't make economic sense.I've been involved in an extensive undergraduate study into a design concept almost identical to this. At first we thought it was a winner, but to cut a long story short, we came to the comclusion that it was a cr@p idea. Development costs too high, certification too difficult, airlines would never go for it, and the foreplane would get in the way of the jetway!!!
Does look cool though
[This message has been edited by Pielander (edited 01 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
"A good replacement for Concorde"?
Hmmm, one flies at Mach 2 and cuts Transatlantic journey times in half. The other flies at Mach 0.95 and does the Atlantic as quickly as a Convair 990 or a VC10.
This is hardly innovative, is it?
To make a worthwhile reduction in journey time you need to save the pax 50% - say 4 hours across the pond, which would infer Mach 1.3 or so.
Hmmm, one flies at Mach 2 and cuts Transatlantic journey times in half. The other flies at Mach 0.95 and does the Atlantic as quickly as a Convair 990 or a VC10.
This is hardly innovative, is it?
To make a worthwhile reduction in journey time you need to save the pax 50% - say 4 hours across the pond, which would infer Mach 1.3 or so.