New A/C

[Ripsnort]

What do you think, is there a market for this?  Flys just under Mach 1, cutting time over 3000 miles off by 1 hour, flys higher, 45,000 feet, and further.  Currently the passenger capacity equivelent is 767.  One thing I noticed in this design is that the wings don't have to be extended alot to accomodate a longer, stretched fuselage in anticipation of a 'jumbo' version , thus allowing it to gate at the airports we have built today...Airbus claims it will consume 40% more fuel than current technology, but I have news for them, as I'm sure GE,Rolls Royce, Pratt and Witney does too.  

 

[AKDejaVu]

It doesn't look as if it is capable of large payloads.  Most of the lift is generated at the very rear of the plane, making the forward canards actually support quite a bit of weight.

It just seems un-nattural for cargo type planes.  And yes, passengers are being classified as cargo in this usage of the word.

Curious to see what comes of it.  Also curious to see what happens the first time one of those canards fails.

AKDejaVu

[Saintaw]

Nahhh Rip, you need to be Bish to know what realy happened...

 

[Ripsnort]

LOL, Deja, always the optimist.  

Saw, thats funny!

As soon as Boeing gets a launch customer, this is the future.

[Saintaw]

ok, it's not the best I agree....but hey man, it's FRIDAY for everyone heh  

Saw

 

[Dowding]

Very nice, but Concorde is faster. It all depends how affordable it is to travel on it. If it's cheaper than concorde, then it will succeed. If not, it will struggle.

And the new airbus looks set to take the 747's crown as far as capacity goes.

Lean days ahead for Boeing?

[Toad]

UAL will order first and they'll order a bunch, 100+. AA will order next and get a decent amount. A year later DAL will order two, just to see how they work out. They'll decide they want 50 but by then they will have delivery positions 1150-1200. By the time DAL puts the 50 into the fleet, it will be obsolete.  

It'll be a success. The Concorde is reaching the end of its life cycle, it always carried too few people to be profitable. If this one has a 767-300 payload (@300) and that kind of speed, it will be a winner.

Hope I get a chance to fly that!

[Ripsnort]

Dowding, Boeing is too diversified for lean days, it has the Space program, Satillite division, Military, Space Shuttle, Space Station, Delta 1,2,3, and developement of Delta IV underway, Sea Launch, did you know that 25% of Boeings profits come from porting its computer division assets to other large companies?.. so I think of Boeing as "creeping away" from Commmericial more than anything, considering that one Delta IV launch will profit Boeing as much as the equivelent of 2 747-400's.

This plane is NOT competing with the Concorde, two different frames of thought totally.  This plane sticks with traditional air travel, but rather than dump 10 billion into a project like a super jumbo and competing head to head with fast-rising Airbus, they want to do what is considered successful in any business market: Offer the customer something that the competition does not have...this plane is basically a Civilian Transport much like the 767 wide body line, except it can travel faster, further, and higher.

Remember, in 1968, they said Boeing was dead, the 747 would never fly, and if it did fly, no one would buy it ..  

Edit: I might add our leanest days are now behind us, between 1996 and 2000, Boeing cut 45,000 jobs. Puget Sound where I work, went from 106, to 78,000.

[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 03-30-2001).]

[AKSeaWulfe]

I heard about that on the radio. A cousin of mine use to work for Boeing, I got to see the very first 777 being assembled in their plant in Seattle. I also got to fly their simulator for the 737-- fun!!!

The way I understand it is the airlines are trying to move away from mass travel across the seas to faster travel. The whole point to this aircraft is to go higher than any current airplane which shaves off roughly 37 minutes of flight (less wind resistance and air traffic/flight paths).

I don't know though, this is only a theory right now I think.. has it entered the wind tunnel testing phase yet? Looks interesting, but of course at the proposed altitude it's supposed to travel at... if you get a problem on the plane and it starts to go down... well you've got a lot of time to crap your pants before you hit the Earth.
-SW

[Ripsnort]

Yes, as the HCST, its already been under developement for 10 years now, the wing design is a direct disendent(sp) of the HCST.

Quoting Mulally:"This is the airplane our customers have asked us to concentrate on, they share our view that this new airplane could change the way the world flies as dramatically as did the introduction of the jet age"

Customers also are pleased with Boeings current production line and planned enhancements to the 747 and 777.

[Toad]

Rip, anyone projecting a rollout date for this one?

(Better hurry...I only have 10 years left!   )

[Ripsnort]

Toad, they need to get a launch customer first, we're gearing up in our CADD/CAM group already..I'm guessing 7-10 years? not sure...

[Toad]

OK...I'll buy one.


 

[Sundog]

Actually, one of the problems with the HSCT was the engine out problem. A plane optimised for Supersonic Cruise Speeds doesn't tend to do to well at subsonic speeds. It is nice to see them finally applying cranked arrow wing technology, however, that aircraft has a higher aspect ratio wing then most of the HSCT designs I studied and designed, with the exception of one of the NASA low boom studies. As for the lift being too far to the rear, it actually makes for a more balanced design and generally, lower induced drag, since the canard is actually lifting (If it's an All Flying Canard, which it appears to be (That's as opposed to canards which just exist to modify the flow field ahead of the wing)). Also, by the canard lifting, the wing can be smaller, which lowers weight and drag. Of course that arrangement was also chosen for area rule purposes.

As for what happens when a canard fails is most likely the same as what happens when a Horizontal Stab fails.

Yes, Airbus may be going for capacity with their A380 but Boeing has the BWB (Blended Wing Body) design they inherited from Douglas which could seat around 800 using existing infrastructure if they need to develop a large capacity aircraft. I seriously doubt lean days are ahead for Boeing.

------------------
Sundog
VMF-111 Devildogs
MAG-33

'Criticism is always easier than craftmanship.'

[Jigster]

DC-3 should go back into production.

Someone runnign DC-3's and the new Airbus would have it made