A380 overtakes BA 747 across Atlantic to show off.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: North of London
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, ultimately Boeing have sold about 1200 747's and continue to do so over a 40 reign as the worlds biggest airliner. Airbus may have taken that honour, but I doubt anyone can remember the last time they sold one.....? The break-even point is so far over the horizon, one would wonder if they can ever get there.
Reminds me of the 'story' of the rivalry between airlines in de good ole days of the 707.......
Pan AM 707 flying slightly higher FL is slowly overtaking Aerlingus of same type.
Conversation goes something like....
(Yankee accent)...."Wattsa matter Paddy, trying to save fuel?"
Irish response... "Nope. FULL LOAD!"
Gotcha!
Pan AM 707 flying slightly higher FL is slowly overtaking Aerlingus of same type.
Conversation goes something like....
(Yankee accent)...."Wattsa matter Paddy, trying to save fuel?"
Irish response... "Nope. FULL LOAD!"
Gotcha!
Bear Behind
Colonel Klink - let me refresh your memory. The last time they sold one was in December. To Singapore Airlines. And before that? November. To QANTAS. Were you just being facetious or is it the onset of Alzheimers?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Dublin
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chnage the title
I think I missed the part where they actually overtook the jumbo?! Good sensationalist headline writing at it's best.
Hardly some international race for air superiority but more like a game between two old advasaries. Brits and Germans that is.
Hardly some international race for air superiority but more like a game between two old advasaries. Brits and Germans that is.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: North of London
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Panda, actually neither. I was trying to make a point. I am well aware Qantas bought a few more as did Singapore. Hardly startling sales performance that in the last year, the numbers sold have actually decreased due cancellations of the the Freighters by UPS and others. Meanwhile, Boeing sold another 30 787's this week to an unidentified customer and the number sold over Seattle way is expected to reach 700 by rollout. Now that's impressive!!!
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,096
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear Rainboe, you are really are still smoking that stuff again, aren't you?!!
Airbus original figure for break even was around 269.
Since then they have had billions of dollars in cost over runs and millions, if not billions of dollars in penalty payment due to delivery delays. The current BE figure, from analysts, is at least 500 but possibly more. It has all been in the aviation press for a while now.
The A380 has a niche market, the airlines love it but they will never order in the kind of numbers that will even come close to the B747. The 787 is is similar to the B777, it is a B747 replacement, given the changing nature of the passenger market. Mass cattle movers are great but they have a very limited appeal. Said it before, A380 maybe technically good but commercially a dead duck.
Airbus original figure for break even was around 269.
Since then they have had billions of dollars in cost over runs and millions, if not billions of dollars in penalty payment due to delivery delays. The current BE figure, from analysts, is at least 500 but possibly more. It has all been in the aviation press for a while now.
The A380 has a niche market, the airlines love it but they will never order in the kind of numbers that will even come close to the B747. The 787 is is similar to the B777, it is a B747 replacement, given the changing nature of the passenger market. Mass cattle movers are great but they have a very limited appeal. Said it before, A380 maybe technically good but commercially a dead duck.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: -
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So weight (or should I say mass) has nothing to do with flight?
Yes, because heavier weight = lower flight level (if close to optimum). Lower flight level normally means higher temperature. Higher temperature = higher TAS (if mach is the same), as MACH = TAS/LSS where LSS = 38.95 x sqr(temp in Kelvin). Many an aviator and controller seem to forget this, so even with the same wind, a heavy 747 at FL310 is faster than an empty one at FL 410, just for the sake of the temperature. Crossing the Pacific recently, we were playing with another 747, taking turns at passing each other as the winds were shifting in the different levels (he was 4000 feet above).
How big is this difference in TAS?
Mach .85 @ -56.5C: TAS = 487 (Could be FL410)
Mach .85 @ -46.4C: TAS = 499 (ISA for FL310)
OK, just 12 knots, but still :-) If the wind is the same ...
Yes, because heavier weight = lower flight level (if close to optimum). Lower flight level normally means higher temperature. Higher temperature = higher TAS (if mach is the same), as MACH = TAS/LSS where LSS = 38.95 x sqr(temp in Kelvin). Many an aviator and controller seem to forget this, so even with the same wind, a heavy 747 at FL310 is faster than an empty one at FL 410, just for the sake of the temperature. Crossing the Pacific recently, we were playing with another 747, taking turns at passing each other as the winds were shifting in the different levels (he was 4000 feet above).
How big is this difference in TAS?
Mach .85 @ -56.5C: TAS = 487 (Could be FL410)
Mach .85 @ -46.4C: TAS = 499 (ISA for FL310)
OK, just 12 knots, but still :-) If the wind is the same ...
