Boeing 777-400 carry 400 passengers
Join Date: May 2000
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 724
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lucifer - do you think that you are in some way superior to the rest of us?
I don't think there was anything wrong with the original question - it makes a perfectly valid point & I speak as an aviation consultant with over a decade's experience in market forecasting and airline economics. If it is ok for me what makes you so special? (But then if all you do is fly Tridents in FS2004 I'm not surprised)
I don't think there was anything wrong with the original question - it makes a perfectly valid point & I speak as an aviation consultant with over a decade's experience in market forecasting and airline economics. If it is ok for me what makes you so special? (But then if all you do is fly Tridents in FS2004 I'm not surprised)
Clearly, the 777 cannot carry four engine without new wings and heavy structural modifcations, and clearly the 747-8 is the more efficient aircraft to carry that level of pax/payload.
I don't think people here expect everyone to know the ins and outs of every aspect of aviation, or people would not even be on here asking questions, but I object to weepy-eyed off-topic questions that are clearly not of a technical nature, but rather are derived from looking at aircraft for too long!
btw - what does Lucifer carry? Look it up on Wikipedia if you don't know what the trident is...
Moderator
We should tend to be fairly generous in how we might interpret "technical" matters.
At the end of the day ..
(a) if a thread is too silly, we probably will remove/lock it .. doesn't happen all that often in this Forum
(b) if it gets a bit silly (etc.), we will moderate it in an endeavour to guide it back onto the paths of PPRuNe righteousness
(c) if it's too boring, few will bother replying to it and it gurgles down to the bottom of the quagmire
(d) if it seems a little simplistic or trivial, then hopefully the subject matter will be discussed politely and rationally and one or more folk will go away with a bit better appreciation of the subject ... often such threads only attract a few responses ... on occasion, they can generate a great deal of interest.
One needs to keep in mind that we all started out in this game knowing something between nothing and not very much .. so we must preserve, quite rigorously, an opportunity for the newbies to test the waters and develop their knowledge .. as did those with greyer beards all those years ago ..
(e) if the subject has lots of meat to it, then so much the better for the majority of readers.
However, there is no "one size fits all" in this Forum .. so we probably should exercise a bit more tolerance to reflect the spectrum of reader backgrounds.
About the only thing we insist on is that excessive rudeness etc. not be tolerated ... the Forum is a place of rational and, in the main, gentle discussion.
The Forum definitely is NOT some sort of elitist conclave where only those annointed with Tinkerbelle's pixie dust may come ...
At the end of the day ..
(a) if a thread is too silly, we probably will remove/lock it .. doesn't happen all that often in this Forum
(b) if it gets a bit silly (etc.), we will moderate it in an endeavour to guide it back onto the paths of PPRuNe righteousness
(c) if it's too boring, few will bother replying to it and it gurgles down to the bottom of the quagmire
(d) if it seems a little simplistic or trivial, then hopefully the subject matter will be discussed politely and rationally and one or more folk will go away with a bit better appreciation of the subject ... often such threads only attract a few responses ... on occasion, they can generate a great deal of interest.
One needs to keep in mind that we all started out in this game knowing something between nothing and not very much .. so we must preserve, quite rigorously, an opportunity for the newbies to test the waters and develop their knowledge .. as did those with greyer beards all those years ago ..
(e) if the subject has lots of meat to it, then so much the better for the majority of readers.
However, there is no "one size fits all" in this Forum .. so we probably should exercise a bit more tolerance to reflect the spectrum of reader backgrounds.
About the only thing we insist on is that excessive rudeness etc. not be tolerated ... the Forum is a place of rational and, in the main, gentle discussion.
The Forum definitely is NOT some sort of elitist conclave where only those annointed with Tinkerbelle's pixie dust may come ...
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sydney NSW
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still think that the airliner most in touch with the market will more closely resemble the bigger B777 than the B744 or A380.
In the days of tombstone engineering men thumped their chests and said "G*dammit we make planes to fly and not to crash!" Until and unless the big twins show otherwise it seems to me that the smart money isn't on quads.
Unless tombstone engineering returns.
As regards having pods outboard or inboard Lawrence Pomeroy's dictum suggested that it was better to design for an outside blade thrown in than hope that an inside blade would be thrown out.
Chance is a terrible thing and there probably aren't that many VC10s or L1011s left to figure in disasters but I think Chorny is right to highlight differences between large and small types so long as we do not try to extrapolate data too far. But because somebody did something once don't necessarily imagine it all happened inside a clean room full of pure logic, sweetness and reason.
Predicting the future is not like laying a straight-edge on sales figure graphs or oil prices for the market can turn on the proverbial sixpence. Types such as the bigger 777s seem to me to have a better chance of survival when to quote Supermac "events, dear boy, events happen".
If God forbid one of the events was a rash of twins lost in wild and inhospitable places I'd guess quad sales might would improve but I cannot see a rehearsal of VC10/DC10/L1011 designs. I'm really sorry if you don't agree that the porrige in that pot has gone cold and short of bashing out the old arguments again I'm of no use.
You are all of course helpful to me because you're making me stop and challenge my way of thinking. If I can't convince others of the rightness of my arguments and the wrongness of theirs then either my understanding or my powers of persuasion are at fault. Subjectively and objectively I think that the medium and big twin are most likely to be the best choices for operators and manufacturers. But then I would say that, wouldn't I? I can be very stubborn.
Soon be home JT - nearly well enough to travel!
Thanks to you all for your ideas!
The "E"
In the days of tombstone engineering men thumped their chests and said "G*dammit we make planes to fly and not to crash!" Until and unless the big twins show otherwise it seems to me that the smart money isn't on quads.
Unless tombstone engineering returns.
As regards having pods outboard or inboard Lawrence Pomeroy's dictum suggested that it was better to design for an outside blade thrown in than hope that an inside blade would be thrown out.
Chance is a terrible thing and there probably aren't that many VC10s or L1011s left to figure in disasters but I think Chorny is right to highlight differences between large and small types so long as we do not try to extrapolate data too far. But because somebody did something once don't necessarily imagine it all happened inside a clean room full of pure logic, sweetness and reason.
Predicting the future is not like laying a straight-edge on sales figure graphs or oil prices for the market can turn on the proverbial sixpence. Types such as the bigger 777s seem to me to have a better chance of survival when to quote Supermac "events, dear boy, events happen".
If God forbid one of the events was a rash of twins lost in wild and inhospitable places I'd guess quad sales might would improve but I cannot see a rehearsal of VC10/DC10/L1011 designs. I'm really sorry if you don't agree that the porrige in that pot has gone cold and short of bashing out the old arguments again I'm of no use.
You are all of course helpful to me because you're making me stop and challenge my way of thinking. If I can't convince others of the rightness of my arguments and the wrongness of theirs then either my understanding or my powers of persuasion are at fault. Subjectively and objectively I think that the medium and big twin are most likely to be the best choices for operators and manufacturers. But then I would say that, wouldn't I? I can be very stubborn.
Soon be home JT - nearly well enough to travel!
Thanks to you all for your ideas!
The "E"
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Estonia
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What do you think are the next generation of engines like? And how are they expected to scale up?
Are there any plausible engine improvements which can be applied to A340, but cannot be applied to A350 and B787 with the same effect?
Are there any plausible engine improvements which can be applied to A340, but cannot be applied to A350 and B787 with the same effect?
I think we have reached the highest thrust we will see but suspect efficiency will improve. I think that 250-400 pax will be the norm for long-haul aircraft so the 787/777 range will fulfill most requirements, particularly if they can achieve a slight further stretch of the 777.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 34S
Age: 59
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who needs a 777-300 stretch?
There are already airlines carrying 434 pax in a 2 class B773, & 380 in 3 class layout!
The B773 ER is already proving to out perform the A340 500 in all respects, with the latter being significantly smaller, w.r.t. payload capability.
Cant see Boeing ever fitting 4 engines to a "New airframe" again.
There are already airlines carrying 434 pax in a 2 class B773, & 380 in 3 class layout!
The B773 ER is already proving to out perform the A340 500 in all respects, with the latter being significantly smaller, w.r.t. payload capability.
Cant see Boeing ever fitting 4 engines to a "New airframe" again.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Estonia
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who needs a 777-300 stretch?
There are already airlines carrying 434 pax in a 2 class B773, & 380 in 3 class layout!
There are already airlines carrying 434 pax in a 2 class B773, & 380 in 3 class layout!
BUT can you get 589 seats in a 2 class B773? You can have 589 seats in a 2 class B744!
Also, Boeing has talked about Boeing 777-100 as well. 767-400 was preferred to 777-100. But there has also been talk of 777-250 model - and not for Trek Airways. Would it make sense?
