Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: beet1e on February 16, 2005, 11:05:33 AM
-
Now we have two monsters!
Source - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/02/16/wavi16.xml
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2005/02/16/wavi16big.gif)
A month after Europe unveiled the world's biggest airliner, America yesterday came up with one that could fly the farthest.
The roll-out in Seattle of the Boeing 777-200LR (for "long range") was portrayed as the joining of a mighty aerospace battle, pitting size against staying power, with the ultimate spoils being billions in orders from the world's airlines.
Click to enlarge
While many industry insiders dismiss such a notion, describing the new Boeing as merely a "niche plane" aimed at a limited market, the spectacle of two new and so different airliners appearing hard on each other's heels has inevitably led to questions over the way passengers in the future would most like to travel.
On one hand, there is the Airbus behemoth, the A380 with its twin decks, 261ft wingspan and, theoretically, the ability to seat 740 economy passengers, even though, in reality, it will "only" accommodate between 500 and 550 in three classes when it enters service next year.
It might not be the fastest aircraft in the world or have the longest range (but still a respectable 8,000 nautical miles) but it will get you to Australia with only a stop or two. And, if Sir Richard Branson's dreams are realised, you will be able to wile away the time in the bar, gym or casino. The aircraft is so wide and heavy that many airports will not be able to accommodate it. However, it will not be going to that many airports: just the main hubs.
By contrast, the Boeing 777-200LR, with a range of about 9,400 nautical miles, will be capable of connecting "virtually any two cities in the world, non-stop". You could, for instance, fly non-stop from London to Sydney but not, unfortunately, the other way round because of prevailing head winds.
Carrying about 300 passengers, the new offering from Boeing – a company still smarting after being overtaken by Airbus last year as the world's leading supplier of airliners – will be more expensive to operate and, hence, cost more to fly than the giant Airbus. But it will get passengers there and back quicker, which has obvious appeal to business travellers who do not mind the prospect of spending up to 20 hours in the air to save an hour or two.
Yet, according to Max Kingsley-Jones, the commercial aviation editor of Flight International, the battle for orders is not between the new Boeing and the Airbus 380 - launched amid much fanfare in Toulouse last month – but, rather, between the American aircraft and the Europeans' A340-500, which entered service just over a year ago.
"The new Boeing is merely a derivative of the Boeing 777 that many of us have flown across the Atlantic," said Mr Kingsley-Jones. "They have taken that plane, taken out some of the fuselage and increased the size of the wings and the engines to get another 1,000 miles or so out it.
"They have gained range by losing payload – normally, you do it the other way round. It means it has high operating costs and, I would expect, only a niche market to be filled."
-
It doesn't matter which one you think is superior. You gotta admit both are pretty darn impressive:aok
-
"They have gained range by losing payload – normally, you do it the other way round. It means it has high operating costs and, I would expect, only a niche market to be filled."
I find that stament a bit funny in an article that compares the boeing 777 to the Airbus A380. They're both niche market planes to the extreme... though for different reasons.
-
Both impressive but this was more impressive shame its gone. My whole office turned out to watch it make its last flight over Birmingham. Sad day for aviation fans.
(http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/aero/background/images/concorde.jpg)
Gone but not forgotten:(
-
Zulu,
I used to have that thing fly directly over my house at climb power 2-3 times a day. Some days it would rattle the glassware inside my wall unit and/or make my windows rattle.
But it probably wasn't as loud as this...
(http://www.avrovulcan.org.uk/andy_leitch_vol1/4443.jpg)
-
The oversized tail of the 380 looks nearly phallic.
-
Probably not beetle.
As a kid I had all of these rattling my windows in Suffolk
(http://perso.wanadoo.fr/romain.g/f111.jpg)
(http://www.airsceneuk.org.uk/hangar/phantoms/Others/xv433.JPG)
(http://www.jetplanes.co.uk/pictures/a10/a10sharknose.jpg)
(http://www.geocities.com/smalnbrg/abbotsford93/a93c5.jpg)
So plenty of rattling going on! Courtesy of the USAF and RAF
-
I'm much more interested in range rather than size: I'd love to be able to go back the UK in one hop, maybe 22-23 hours, rather than 26-28.
-
whatever happened to the 7E7?
-
There is a reason United Parcel Service is buying A380s, and not Boeing 777s. Range is good, but payload is better.
-
Originally posted by Glasses
whatever happened to the 7E7?
Doh! To be honest, I got my numbers confused. The 7E7 is not the 777-200LR. 777 has already been in service for some years. The article refers only to the -200LR variant. The 7E7 (http://www.newairplane.com/) is to be known as the 787. The 787-3 will carry 296 pax and have a range of 3500 miles. The -8 and -9 will have range of more than 8000 miles but will carry fewer pax.
787 Order book (http://www.newairplane.com/en-US/787Dreamliner/Customers.htm) - popular with Far Eastern operators, where they need range.
-
Speed more than size for me. I wan't to get there before my legs sieze up and I die from deep Vein Thrombosis!
A bigger concorde thats cheaper to ride thats what we need. surely tecnology has advanced enough to provide that?
-
Photos of the 777-200LR are available at Boeing's website
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/200LR/K63235-03.html
and more info
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/200LR/index.html
There's even a video of the aircraft being painted.
MiG
-
I used to get the RAF, German & Italian Tornado's rattling my windows.... to be followed by Harrier GR7s.... plus the usual visiting F15s, F111s, A10s, C130s, C160s, blah blah blah
(http://www.rob.clubkawasaki.com/arl15.jpg)
As for the Boeing and Airbus, they both look mighty impressive! :)
-
Originally posted by CMC Airboss
There's even a video of the aircraft being painted.
Speaking of paint, and as someone has posted a pic of a Lockheed C5 Galaxy a few posts up, I am reminded of a titbit of useless information: The weight of the paint on a C5 is equivalent to the weight of a Piper Commanche - forerunner to the Arrow (?).
Nexx - were you buzzed by planes from Conningsby and Finningley?
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Speaking of paint, and as someone has posted a pic of a Lockheed C5 Galaxy a few posts up, I am reminded of a titbit of useless information: The weight of the paint on a C5 is equivalent to the weight of a Piper Commanche - forerunner to the Arrow (?).
Nexx - were you buzzed by planes from Conningsby and Finningley?
Before Finningley closed we'd get training aircraft in the area, probably visiting Cranwell. As for Coningsby we didn't get that many purely because they were on rapid reaction standby. You'd occasionally get the odd diversion Phantom/Tornado F.3. Of course you'd be guaranteed to see the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight fly over at least 10 times a year. You could hear the Merlin engines from miles away! Within 50 miles of where I lived you had Cottesmore, Wittering, Cranwell, Waddington, Scampton, Syerston, Barkston Heath, Wyton, Alconbury, Coningsby, not forgetting the non-flying RAF bases (several). Then just outside that area you'd get Marham, Honington, Mildenhall, Lakenheath, Binbrook etc. I wish it was how it was in the mid/late 80s, loads of aircraft and active airfields!
-
nexx
I remember visiting Binbrook in the early 80's many times when they still had the Lightning in service.
That sure was a site to see (and hear), some great viewing areas too. Conningsby had easy access also but Mildenhall (USAF) had a purpose built viewing area, can you believe it !
I remember being invited on to Upper Heyford (USAF) by an American serviceman for an evening drinking, It was another world. Compared to the UK services the Americans were spoilt rotten ;)
wipass
-
The Lightnings at Binbrook were incredibly impressive! I really miss those days!
Incidently, Binbrook was used for the filming of Memphis Belle in 1990!
(http://www.tim-beach.com/light3.gif)
(http://www.tim-beach.com/light2.gif)