View Poll Results: Which of these two commercial airplane's do you think travells faster?tr
The new Boeing 747-400ER?
10
7.04%
Concorde?
132
92.96%
Voters: 142. This poll is closed
Boeing claims 747-400ER is fastest commercial airplane in the sky (what about Conc ?)
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: A PC!
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and who gave the yanks the jet engine - yep, the Brits! Another first, second and third all to us.
Now, lets see:
First jet engine? Us
First Turbo prop? Us
First airliner powered by either? Us
First SST? Us
Maybe the VC10 would have been the same commercial success that the 707 was if our industry had been allowed to subsidise it's development with a tanker (KC135) to allow us to sell it at below cost to the airlines.
Long live the government support of Airbus - you guys hate it when someone plays you at your own game (and especially if we beat you!).
I would not like to be at the top of the tree at Boeing with a catalogue of dinosaurs up against the Airbus offerings. How do you go about replacing717, 737, 747, 757, 767 which are all old designs without busting the bank?
Now, lets see:
First jet engine? Us
First Turbo prop? Us
First airliner powered by either? Us
First SST? Us
Maybe the VC10 would have been the same commercial success that the 707 was if our industry had been allowed to subsidise it's development with a tanker (KC135) to allow us to sell it at below cost to the airlines.
Long live the government support of Airbus - you guys hate it when someone plays you at your own game (and especially if we beat you!).
I would not like to be at the top of the tree at Boeing with a catalogue of dinosaurs up against the Airbus offerings. How do you go about replacing717, 737, 747, 757, 767 which are all old designs without busting the bank?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Coupla years ago I flew AMS-HKG in 10.35 mins in a Cathay 744, surfing the jet stream on 120+ miles tail wind over Russia for most of the trip. Acc the Capt. it was the 2nd fastest trip ever.... Arrived 1h30 mins ahead of schedule, which is no use because my party was still in his bed....
The flight info screen indicated speeds up to 1050 kms which is almost Mach1 I believe.
Cheers
cApT.kAoS
The flight info screen indicated speeds up to 1050 kms which is almost Mach1 I believe.
Cheers
cApT.kAoS
To bad in your haste to get things first, you couldn't do it right also. Every one has an excuse for a lack of commercial sucess. The comet was first. For being first a high price was payed in lives and prestige. The accidents aside, it wasn't destined for sucess. the quick to follow 707 and DC8 were hands down superior aircraft. Please argue otherwise.
I will let the French know you guys did that SST thingey all alone. Where were they actually built?
The bus series are good acft, under powered for sure, but excellent technology. Now perhaps if the consortium can bring a dozen more countries into the fold you might have a world beater. I thought this was about Brit plane building. You should be kissing the frogs bu*** for letting you in the game. The Airbus website says says that the UK was not even a founding member.
Again, where are they built?
The dinos as you call them still garner half the market share.
I will let the French know you guys did that SST thingey all alone. Where were they actually built?
The bus series are good acft, under powered for sure, but excellent technology. Now perhaps if the consortium can bring a dozen more countries into the fold you might have a world beater. I thought this was about Brit plane building. You should be kissing the frogs bu*** for letting you in the game. The Airbus website says says that the UK was not even a founding member.
Again, where are they built?
The dinos as you call them still garner half the market share.
Have to correct a couple of the things said above -
First jet engine? Us
First Turbo prop? Us
First airliner powered by either? Us
First SST? Us
First jet engine - The first jet engine to ever run was made by Professor Ernst Heinkel, in March 1937. It was the hydrogen fuelled Heineken He S 2. The engine only ever ran on a test stand, and its construction was overseen by Hans Joachim Pabst von Ohain.
(Whittle's engine first ran on 12-4-1937, a couple of weeks later than the Heinkel engine)
Whittle, however, holds the first patent for a jet engine.
First turboprop - Not sure of the type, but the Germans made a turboprop in the latter stages of WW2.
First SST - Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the Tupolev Tu-144 was earlier than the Concorde?
First jet engine? Us
First Turbo prop? Us
First airliner powered by either? Us
First SST? Us
First jet engine - The first jet engine to ever run was made by Professor Ernst Heinkel, in March 1937. It was the hydrogen fuelled Heineken He S 2. The engine only ever ran on a test stand, and its construction was overseen by Hans Joachim Pabst von Ohain.
(Whittle's engine first ran on 12-4-1937, a couple of weeks later than the Heinkel engine)
Whittle, however, holds the first patent for a jet engine.
First turboprop - Not sure of the type, but the Germans made a turboprop in the latter stages of WW2.
First SST - Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the Tupolev Tu-144 was earlier than the Concorde?
Aviator Extraordinaire
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 76
Posts: 2,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are right 18 wheeler, the Germans beat the English in everything you said; and yes the Conc. was built in France.
Sorry, I love England and the English people but sometime you are guilty of what you chastise the Americans for. And for you people that say the ONLY reason the 707 came about was because of the United States Air Force, how do you explain the success of the DC-8, Boeing 727, 737, DC-10 etc.?
Sorry, I love England and the English people but sometime you are guilty of what you chastise the Americans for. And for you people that say the ONLY reason the 707 came about was because of the United States Air Force, how do you explain the success of the DC-8, Boeing 727, 737, DC-10 etc.?
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cApT.kAoS
The flight info screen indicated speeds up to 1050 kms which is almost Mach1 I believe.
Just a little diversion from this riveting discussion. Mach speed is based on the speed through the air and not over the ground. The B744 would only have achieved around M.86.
Mutt.
The flight info screen indicated speeds up to 1050 kms which is almost Mach1 I believe.
Just a little diversion from this riveting discussion. Mach speed is based on the speed through the air and not over the ground. The B744 would only have achieved around M.86.
Mutt.
Yep, I've seen (briefly) 698 kts groundspeed coming east out of Narita, which was something like M 1.2, pity we could keep going that fast, it would've made the trip a LOT shorter!!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Concorde makes money.....
I'm not sure where people get the idea that Cocorde doesn't make money from - BA makes (ie profit) £25million a year from Concorde. Yes, it may be expensive to run with fuel and maintenance etc, but then each passenger is paying in the region of £4,000 a go - multiply that by 100 and you get £400,000 for every flight, assuming a full load.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Horsham UK
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Con pilot
Not wanting to do any seppo bashing buuuuut
Concordes: 50% Brit 50% Frog final assembly was carried out in Toulouse and Bristol. The extrodinary thing was the the French bits were built using metric measurements and the Brit bits imperial. It's a miracle the damn things went together at all. But there you go.
As for Airbi, Airbus is now a corporate entity 20% owned by BAE SYSTEMS (their caps not mine) BAE is responsible for the wings ever notice how well an aircraft flies without wings?
Boeing 707,727 and 737? damn fine aircraft every one but lets not kid ourselves that Boeing are innovators. They arent now and never really have been
Lets look at the facts:
The 707 fuselage was increased in diameter from the oridginal 'same as the KC135' spec because the company was losing orders to the DC8 with its double bubble design.
If you look at the 737 and 727 fuselages they exactly the same as the 707. Mind you the 727 (well -100 anyway) was pretty revolutionary in field performance.
As for the '37 well yeah they've sold a bunch especially when the -300,400,500 came along. But then for the majority of the types lifetime they really wasn't much in the way of competition was there?
The 747 well that was a failed military strategic airlifter contestant, the plans for which Boeing just dusted off and tweaked when Juan Tripp said he wanted a REALLY big plane (oh and before you get too huffy Joe Sutter told me that). So was it new? nope. Is it a good a/c? damn right. How many US mainline pax carriers still operate it? Erm two
777 OK granted bunches of CAD in the design but is that new? Nope not really. The FBW? nope. Is it a good a/c? yep
Now I'm not doing a 'Boeing is cack Airbus is great' thing here Boeing make great aircraft but so do Airbus they both get subsidies direct or indirect.
Not wanting to do any seppo bashing buuuuut
Concordes: 50% Brit 50% Frog final assembly was carried out in Toulouse and Bristol. The extrodinary thing was the the French bits were built using metric measurements and the Brit bits imperial. It's a miracle the damn things went together at all. But there you go.
As for Airbi, Airbus is now a corporate entity 20% owned by BAE SYSTEMS (their caps not mine) BAE is responsible for the wings ever notice how well an aircraft flies without wings?
Boeing 707,727 and 737? damn fine aircraft every one but lets not kid ourselves that Boeing are innovators. They arent now and never really have been
Lets look at the facts:
The 707 fuselage was increased in diameter from the oridginal 'same as the KC135' spec because the company was losing orders to the DC8 with its double bubble design.
If you look at the 737 and 727 fuselages they exactly the same as the 707. Mind you the 727 (well -100 anyway) was pretty revolutionary in field performance.
As for the '37 well yeah they've sold a bunch especially when the -300,400,500 came along. But then for the majority of the types lifetime they really wasn't much in the way of competition was there?
The 747 well that was a failed military strategic airlifter contestant, the plans for which Boeing just dusted off and tweaked when Juan Tripp said he wanted a REALLY big plane (oh and before you get too huffy Joe Sutter told me that). So was it new? nope. Is it a good a/c? damn right. How many US mainline pax carriers still operate it? Erm two
777 OK granted bunches of CAD in the design but is that new? Nope not really. The FBW? nope. Is it a good a/c? yep
Now I'm not doing a 'Boeing is cack Airbus is great' thing here Boeing make great aircraft but so do Airbus they both get subsidies direct or indirect.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not totally relevant this, but I have heard tell that the RAF VC-10s ('Standard' fuselage with 'Super' engines) have cracked the sound barrier on a few occasions.
This is totally relevant, though. My Concise Oxford Dictionary (5th edition) defines 'commercial' as 'of, engaged in, bearing on, commerce'. Doesn't say anything about having to make a profit, Mr Boeing.
This is totally relevant, though. My Concise Oxford Dictionary (5th edition) defines 'commercial' as 'of, engaged in, bearing on, commerce'. Doesn't say anything about having to make a profit, Mr Boeing.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zoom, just the point I as about to make.
The yanks will say anything to try and convince themselfs of winning everything.
God, Americans just can't face being second
The yanks will say anything to try and convince themselfs of winning everything.
God, Americans just can't face being second
Last edited by tom_higginson; 10th Sep 2002 at 19:48.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since we are on the subject of SSTs, here's a question for you all:
How many American airports would now be happily accepting SST movements if the USA had not abandoned its SST programmes?
How many American airports would now be happily accepting SST movements if the USA had not abandoned its SST programmes?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Fantasy Island
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the tired refrains that often comes out is 'Boeing bet the company when it launched x, you should be thankful for the progress it made to aviation' etc.
However, if you look at it, the only aircraft where Boeing even remotely 'bet the company' was with the 747. Every other launch was supported by the knowledge that the market existed for that aircraft (or, they had sufficient spinoff value from guaranteed sales).
707-----spin off from KC-135
727-----market for medium range jet proved by Comet/707/DC8
737-----market proven by BAC 1-11 and DC-9
747-----risk
757-----update to 727
767-----market for twin-engined medium range widebody proved by A300
777----market for twin-engined high capacity long range proved by A330 and earlier, L-1011 and DC-10
HOWEVER, we should all remember that to Boeing's credit, being late to the market had its advantages, as the 727/737/757/767/777 have been the most successful aircraft in their class, despite the fact that they were not pure 'innovators'.
However, if you look at it, the only aircraft where Boeing even remotely 'bet the company' was with the 747. Every other launch was supported by the knowledge that the market existed for that aircraft (or, they had sufficient spinoff value from guaranteed sales).
707-----spin off from KC-135
727-----market for medium range jet proved by Comet/707/DC8
737-----market proven by BAC 1-11 and DC-9
747-----risk
757-----update to 727
767-----market for twin-engined medium range widebody proved by A300
777----market for twin-engined high capacity long range proved by A330 and earlier, L-1011 and DC-10
HOWEVER, we should all remember that to Boeing's credit, being late to the market had its advantages, as the 727/737/757/767/777 have been the most successful aircraft in their class, despite the fact that they were not pure 'innovators'.
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-on-Sea
Age: 51
Posts: 2,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thought, about the fight in the late 60s, early 70s between Europe and the US is that UK/France bet on Concorde, teh US on the 747. Europe went fast, the US large, and large won the commercial battle. There were various reasons for this, and there were good reasons in the late 60s for believing that there was a market for both. Concorde does now have its advantages, and some companies use it for sound business reasons - the time spared is worth the money to some of their executives (which compared with first class on a 747 is little premium).
Now we come to 2002. Boing bets its commercial division on a small, transonic (it is not subsonic - Boings comment was incorrect) aircraft, Airbus on a large subsonic one (note all contracts bar I think 1 so far signed the aircraft are 50% British, not 20% - they will fly with Rolls Royce engines).
My first impression of the Sonic Cruiser, having recently taught Principles of Flight was that the 15% saving in time could never justify the additional wave drag of transonic flight (this is the importance of it being transonic - wave drag peaks at these speeds). I thought I may be naive in my lack of knowledge of aerodynamics, but at Farnborough I was cooling down in Boing's air conditioning when I bumped into someone I knew at university, who had studied aeronautical engineering. He said he was there to laugh at the sonic cruiser. It was his opinion it would never be built in large numbers. We shall have to see!
Note also that A380 may replace Concorde. If (a big 'if') they can fit some sleeping cabins on for a viable price then sleeping onboard would save similar time for the busy executive, leaving at night to arrive refreshed in the morning.
Now we come to 2002. Boing bets its commercial division on a small, transonic (it is not subsonic - Boings comment was incorrect) aircraft, Airbus on a large subsonic one (note all contracts bar I think 1 so far signed the aircraft are 50% British, not 20% - they will fly with Rolls Royce engines).
My first impression of the Sonic Cruiser, having recently taught Principles of Flight was that the 15% saving in time could never justify the additional wave drag of transonic flight (this is the importance of it being transonic - wave drag peaks at these speeds). I thought I may be naive in my lack of knowledge of aerodynamics, but at Farnborough I was cooling down in Boing's air conditioning when I bumped into someone I knew at university, who had studied aeronautical engineering. He said he was there to laugh at the sonic cruiser. It was his opinion it would never be built in large numbers. We shall have to see!
Note also that A380 may replace Concorde. If (a big 'if') they can fit some sleeping cabins on for a viable price then sleeping onboard would save similar time for the busy executive, leaving at night to arrive refreshed in the morning.
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B777: Cruises at M0.84, max M0.86, wing is actually good for M0.94 but would need re-certifying which would cost too much.
Tu154: Cruises at M0.94 allegedly. Statistically will get you to heaven faster than any other type.
Tu154: Cruises at M0.94 allegedly. Statistically will get you to heaven faster than any other type.
Join Date: Jul 1998
Location: USA
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BahrainLad:
I think you have trivialized Boeing's accomplishments. First of all, the B727 was not a Comet/DC-8/B707 "imitator." The B707 was an intercontinental (i.e., long-haul) aircarft. The B727 was a trans-continental (i.e., medium-haul) aircraft. And the B737 was a short-haul aircraft. One of the reasons why the B727 was so successful was the B727 didn't have a true competitor. As you can see, back then, Boeing was the first manufacturer to offer a complete family of aircraft. That in itself was an innovation. Also, the B757 was meant to be a B727 replacement, but it never did become a B727 replacement because of the US airline industry deregulation. The B767 was partly in response to Airbus' A300. However, Boeing pioneered ETOPS with the B767 which transformed the trans-Atlantic market. Arguably, the ETOPS concept is another innovation. Lastly, although the B777 first came out as the -200 model which competed directly with the A330/340 and MD-11, the B777 would not have been launched if it was strictly to compete with the aforementioned aircraft. The B777 program was deemed commercially viable by the Boeing's Board of Directors because it was also designed to replace the B747-1/200.
Send Clowns:
The 15% speed gain in itself is not sufficient to make the Sonic Cruiser viable. However, the speed gain does open up more operational possibilities. Please refer to an old thread where I gave some (rather extreme) examples:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...threadid=10593
I will not deny that my examples were extremely tight. Nonetheless, I reckon it's not hard to get over 30% productivity gain with a M0.98 aircraft. This can easily overcome the cost associated with the 20-25% extra fuel burn. Furthermore, your theory would fail completely to explain why we have replaced turboprops with jets. I'm not saying the Sonic Cruiser will definitely be launched, but I think Boeing's basic premise is not unsound.
Lastly, the definition of subsonic and transonic is not very clear. The flows on all Airbus and Boeing wings are clearly in the transonic regime, that is, there are supersonic bubbles and shocks. However, all these airplanes travel below the speed of sound. That's why they are called subsonic jets. Since the proposed Sonic Cruiser will travel below the speed of sound, I don't think it's wrong to call it a subsonic aircraft. FWIW, Boeing did call their M1.2-1.4 studies transonic.
I think you have trivialized Boeing's accomplishments. First of all, the B727 was not a Comet/DC-8/B707 "imitator." The B707 was an intercontinental (i.e., long-haul) aircarft. The B727 was a trans-continental (i.e., medium-haul) aircraft. And the B737 was a short-haul aircraft. One of the reasons why the B727 was so successful was the B727 didn't have a true competitor. As you can see, back then, Boeing was the first manufacturer to offer a complete family of aircraft. That in itself was an innovation. Also, the B757 was meant to be a B727 replacement, but it never did become a B727 replacement because of the US airline industry deregulation. The B767 was partly in response to Airbus' A300. However, Boeing pioneered ETOPS with the B767 which transformed the trans-Atlantic market. Arguably, the ETOPS concept is another innovation. Lastly, although the B777 first came out as the -200 model which competed directly with the A330/340 and MD-11, the B777 would not have been launched if it was strictly to compete with the aforementioned aircraft. The B777 program was deemed commercially viable by the Boeing's Board of Directors because it was also designed to replace the B747-1/200.
Send Clowns:
The 15% speed gain in itself is not sufficient to make the Sonic Cruiser viable. However, the speed gain does open up more operational possibilities. Please refer to an old thread where I gave some (rather extreme) examples:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...threadid=10593
I will not deny that my examples were extremely tight. Nonetheless, I reckon it's not hard to get over 30% productivity gain with a M0.98 aircraft. This can easily overcome the cost associated with the 20-25% extra fuel burn. Furthermore, your theory would fail completely to explain why we have replaced turboprops with jets. I'm not saying the Sonic Cruiser will definitely be launched, but I think Boeing's basic premise is not unsound.
Lastly, the definition of subsonic and transonic is not very clear. The flows on all Airbus and Boeing wings are clearly in the transonic regime, that is, there are supersonic bubbles and shocks. However, all these airplanes travel below the speed of sound. That's why they are called subsonic jets. Since the proposed Sonic Cruiser will travel below the speed of sound, I don't think it's wrong to call it a subsonic aircraft. FWIW, Boeing did call their M1.2-1.4 studies transonic.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Fantasy Island
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry....wasn't meaning to trivialise, just showing that the oft-held view that Boeing repeatedly 'bet the company' on launching aircraft that created a new market segment is untrue....the only case where this applies is the 747. This doesn't say that they are not innovators....it just shows that they haven't taken as much risk as people often believe.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Send Clowns, the idea of sleeping cabins on the A380 sounds attractive, but how would e.g. LHR-JFK be scheduled? Seems to me you're looking at a ludicrously late takeoff, or a ludicrously early landing, or both. Failing that, land at JFK and park somewhere off in the middle distance until the pax wake up
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-on-Sea
Age: 51
Posts: 2,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tuba - I agree that you'd have to sort the scheduling, but I'd have thought it could be done. Especially if a new major UK airport does spring up, further from suburbia so able to operate later. Personally I could be happy with 5 hours sleep on a late flight out of LHR then a final couple of hours at the hotel, but then I am good at napping any time except the evening. Would be a personal thing. Don't really see it happening though - a pipedream, in a marketing man's head 
Casual Observer
I agree that your sums are rather tight, and they only work on certain routes. I am sure you could find plenty of other routes with no increase in productivity, which would therefore never have SCs, and that if you assume larger fleets with networks rather than single routes the productivity figures will also become closer.
I also suspect that your idea of significantly larger SCs is impractical. Note that in general unless it has variable geometry wings a faster aircraft takes more runway. The SC looks very much optimised for high speed (would have to be if their figures are anything like realistic!) but also cannot have the brute force of Concorde (no afterburners!) again for efficiency, so would use a lot of runway anway. Make it larger, how many airports could it use?
Casual Observer
I agree that your sums are rather tight, and they only work on certain routes. I am sure you could find plenty of other routes with no increase in productivity, which would therefore never have SCs, and that if you assume larger fleets with networks rather than single routes the productivity figures will also become closer.
I also suspect that your idea of significantly larger SCs is impractical. Note that in general unless it has variable geometry wings a faster aircraft takes more runway. The SC looks very much optimised for high speed (would have to be if their figures are anything like realistic!) but also cannot have the brute force of Concorde (no afterburners!) again for efficiency, so would use a lot of runway anway. Make it larger, how many airports could it use?