Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: schizer on April 24, 2006, 03:14:12 PM
-
Wow, this thing could revolutionize commercial air travel
http://www.newtechspy.com/articles06/boeing797.html
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_47/b3809113.htm
Boeing to take on Airbus with (1000 seat) giant 797 Blended Wing plane
....Boeing is preparing a 1000 passenger jet that could reshape the Air travel industry for the next 100 years. The radical Blended Wing design has been developed by Boeing in cooperation with the NASA Langley Research Center. The mammoth plane will have a wing span of 265 feet compared to the 747’s 211 feet, and is designed to fit within the newly created terminals used for the 555 seat Airbus A380, which is 262 feet wide. The new 797 is in direct response to the Airbus A380 which has racked up159 orders, but has not yet flown any passengers.
....Boeing decide to kill its 747X stretched super jumbo in 2003 after little interest was shown by airline companies, but has continued to develop the ultimate Airbus crusher 797 for years at its Phantom Works research facility in Long Beach, Calif. The Airbus A380 has been in the works since 1999 and has accumulated $13 billion in development costs, which gives Boeing a huge advantage now that Airbus has committed to the older style tubular aircraft for decades to come.
....There are several big advantages to the blended wing design, the most important being the lift to drag ratio which is expected to increase by an amazing 50%, with overall weight reduced by 25%, making it an estimated 33% more efficient than the A380, and making Airbus’s $13 billion dollar investment look pretty shaky. High body rigidity is another key factor in blended wing aircraft, it reduces turbulence and creates less stress on the air frame which adds to efficiency, giving the 797 a tremendous 8800 nautical mile range with its 1000 passengers flying comfortably at mach .88 or 654 mph cruising speed (another advantage over the Airbus tube-and-wing designed A380’s 570 mph)
....The exact date for introduction is unclear, yet the battle lines are clearly drawn in the high-stakes war for civilian air supremacy.
”This is a great advancement in commercial aviation and a huge win for boeing"
-
Thats a freaky design
-
Yeah, too bad there's no indication whatsoever that Boeing un-scrapped the project.
-
Cant be very practical to find parking for that plane on a congested airport.
-
Originally posted by schizer
Wow, this thing could revolutionize commercial air travel
In what way?
-
"He's dead, Jim"
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Cant be very practical to find parking for that plane on a congested airport.
I watched a program about this plane a couple years ago on Discovery Wings. The problem with a blended wing passenger plane is none of the airports are designed to handle it.
If the objective is to be more efficient you have to move more passengers. To move more passengers, you have to get them on and off of the aircraft. Current gates are spaced too close together to fit them. You'd have to redesign every airport.
-
Originally posted by rpm
I watched a program about this plane a couple years ago on Discovery Wings. The problem with a blended wing passenger plane is none of the airports are designed to handle it.
If the objective is to be more efficient you have to move more passengers. To move more passengers, you have to get them on and off of the aircraft. Current gates are spaced too close together to fit them. You'd have to redesign every airport.
yup, saw the same show. Its the same problem for the A380 many places, but on a lesser scale.
-
Regarding the 'congested airports' comment, it has a slightly smaller footprint than the A-380:
(http://www.newtechspy.com/AprilArt/797v380.jpg)
-
Chairboy true, footprints are fun, but to really build & fly one is another story,
a nice idea but this kind of plane would only pay off for super long
distances,
to quote the anti-airbus folks.
So lets see...
-
Yeah, that's why I was only responding to the "hard to find parking" comment. That problem exists already, and isn't the "silver bullet" for the BWB design.
I've been following the BWB stuff for years, they flew a subscale model a few years ago, and this thing could be the neatest thing since flying sliced bread.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Regarding the 'congested airports' comment, it has a slightly smaller footprint than the A-380:
(http://www.newtechspy.com/AprilArt/797v380.jpg)
Yes, but the shape of the thing means you have to redesign all those tube things that you unload people with.
-
Boeing scrapped this 797 idea in favor of smaller jet transports after doing extensive market research. The Customers customers (the people who fly the customers airliners) wanted smaller jets not larger, easier to unload, claim baggage, etc. Boeing didn't get much enthusiasm from its customers when it presented the BWC, sooo...
Boeing is playing to one market niche, Airbus is playing to another. We'll see how it turns out in 10 years.
-
This article is BS. Nobody yet knows how Y3 will look like.
Besides, 747X (adv) has been resurrected as 747-8, a gap measure until Y3 arrives (if ever).
Boeing is playing to one market niche, Airbus is playing to another. We'll see how it turns out in 10 years.
Both manufacturer are looking to cover the entire market, although is true that Boeing wants to reduce down to 3 families (and possibly to only 3 fuselage diameters):
Y1 - 717, 737, 757 replacement (EIS 2012-15)
Y2 known as 787 - 767, 777 replacement (EIS 2008)
Y3 - 777, 747 replacement (EIS -unknown).
-
Oh my... please dont let this thread turn into another retarded Airbus VS Boing thread.
-
Originally posted by 2bighorn
This article is BS. Nobody yet knows how Y3 will look like.
Besides, 747X (adv) has been resurrected as 747-8, a gap measure until Y3 arrives (if ever).
Both manufacturer are looking to cover the entire market, although is true that Boeing wants to reduce down to 3 families (and possibly to only 3 fuselage diameters):
Y1 - 717, 737, 757 replacement (EIS 2012-15)
Y2 known as 787 - 767, 777 replacement (EIS 2008)
Y3 - 777, 747 replacement (EIS -unknown).
The 747-8 doesn't carry the R&D costs that a new airplane program would require in a bigger jet like the A380. Besides, we don't have the taxpayers to dump the R&D costs onto as EADS did to the European taxpayers. Sure, they'll keep the cash cow around, but a new cash cow bigger than the 747-8 isn't on the horizon. The -8's primary customer is cargo airliners first, passenger plane 2nd.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Sure, they'll keep the cash cow around, but a new cash cow bigger than the 747-8 isn't on the horizon.
That solely depends on the future oil prices. If they remain high, Boeing will enter VLA market with Y3 simply because larger planes have lower CASM.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Besides, we don't have the taxpayers to dump the R&D costs onto as EADS did to the European taxpayers.
Errr Rip *cough* pot meet kettle. You do realise the US gets dragged in front of the WTO for tarrif violations for supposedly 'free trade' on a regular basis, plus theres backend loading from 'military projects', and the competitive info boeing get flicked from networks like echelon (funded by tax payers of course).
Although I think all of this is the least any country should do for its industry I don't think you can complain about euro tax relief ;)
-
It'd be nice to see some creative thought in airliner design after 50 years of modified 707s (itself outwardly appears to be not too much more than a upscaled 262)...i miss the concorde
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Errr Rip *cough* pot meet kettle. You do realise the US gets dragged in front of the WTO for tarrif violations for supposedly 'free trade' on a regular basis, plus theres backend loading from 'military projects', and the competitive info boeing get flicked from networks like echelon (funded by tax payers of course).
Although I think all of this is the least any country should do for its industry I don't think you can complain about euro tax relief ;)
Don't confuse Boeing Commercial Airplanes with IDS. I'm sure EADS carries a few military contracts too, no? ;)
EADS whines because the ONLY commercial jet that was funded solely by miliary monies was the Boeing 707 in 1955. 50 years ago, sir.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Errr Rip *cough* pot meet kettle. You do realise the US gets dragged in front of the WTO for tarrif violations for supposedly 'free trade' on a regular basis, plus theres backend loading from 'military projects', and the competitive info boeing get flicked from networks like echelon (funded by tax payers of course).
I'm sure EADS keeps the military and civilian project R&D completely separate.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Oh my... please dont let this thread turn into another retarded Airbus VS Boing thread.
why would you go and call Airbus retarded? That seems a little harsh.
-
797 looks like something out of Star Wars:O
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Don't confuse Boeing Commercial Airplanes with IDS. I'm sure EADS carries a few military contracts too, no? ;)
EADS whines because the ONLY commercial jet that was funded solely by miliary monies was the Boeing 707 in 1955. 50 years ago, sir.
Wow someone that admits that.
But do you admit what that subsidy did to the European AC industry
-
Hey rip, doesn't take much to scratch the surface, I'm sure if I dug deeper it'd just get worse:
U.S. Government Subsidies
U.S. government subsidies, mostly in the form of military and NASA contracts, research and development expenditure and tax subsidies have enabled the U.S. aerospace industry to maintain its global dominance for more than 50 years.
Unlike European launch investment, none of this support has to be repaid - and in fact is not repaid
Since 1992, Boeing has received around $ 23 billon in subsidies from the U.S. government.
The total U.S. Government indirect support of the U.S. LCA industry in FY 2003 alone was up to $2.74 billion. This represents around 11.9% of the FY 2003 commercial turnover of the U.S. LCA industry.
Since 1990, Boeing has outsourced increasingly large shares of its civil aircraft programmes to other countries, e.g. Japan (more than 60% of the 7E7). The governments of these countries subsidize these shares, such that Boeings programs also receive substantial foreign subsidies.
Since 1990 Boeing has avoided paying around more than $1.2 billion in federal taxes through the use of off-shore Foreign Sales Corporations (FSC). This is a direct (and illegal) government subsidy prohibited by international rules.
The real issue is one of competitiveness: From 2001 to 2003, Boeing has invested only $2.8 billion of its own funds in commercial aircraft R&D and capital expenditure compared to $9.4 billion by Airbus. Lack of R&D and capital investment, has meant that Boeing has not launched any new programs since 1990.
US subsidies in the form of Defence Procurement
There are massive benefits accruing to Boeings large civil aircraft business from military R&D programmes and overpriced DoD contracts, e.g. sales of subsequently converted civil airplanes to the US Department of Defence at inflated prices. Recent examples include:
Regarding the possible sale of B-767 refuelling tanker aircraft, a 2003 Morgan Stanley report establishes a subsidy margin of 9% or $1.6 to $2.3 billion in profits for Boeing. The report argues that the lease deal is the equivalent at least 700 firm deliveries of Boeing 737s, that the normal profit margin for the 767 is 6% and that the Pentagon plans to give Boeing up to 15%.
On 14 June 2004, the US Navy awarded Boeing a contract worth potentially about $44 billion until 2030 for the production and maintenance of 108 civil B-737 and their conversion into long-range submarine hunter Multi-Mission Aircraft. It appears that airplanes will be built at Boeings civil plants in Wichita, Kansas, and Renton, Washington.
US subsidies in the form of R&D expenditure
Boeings large civil aircraft business benefits significantly from NASA and DoD R&D programmes. In 2003 alone, Boeing received US$ 2.74 bn in subsidies, including around US$ 2 bn from the US Department of Defence and more than US$ 600 million from NASA.
The largest part of funds spent by the Government in R&D for a specifically aeronautical product constitutes a reduction in R&D expenses for the main potential user of the technology, i.e. Boeing. This is the case even if the R&D is eventually not successful.
Subsidies to the planned Boeing 7E7: over $ 6 billion
Planned subsidies for Boeings 7E7 programme from Washington State ($3.2bn), Kansas ($0.5bn), Oklahoma ($0.35bn). Washington State 7E7 subsidies alone are about as high as European launch investment for A380. The only difference is that A380 launch investment is paid back and is compatible with the 1992, while Washington support is not. In addition, Washington 7E7 production subsidies are illegal under the 1992 Agreement. To this must be added the planned 7E7 subsidies of around US$1.6 billion from Japan.
You're nieve if you think the US Govt doesn't subsidize boeing in any way.
-
You may be confusing 'subsidies' with 'purchases'. I'm guessing that $21b is the many airplanes the US has purchased from Boeing. Airbus = no actual aircraft purchased. Hence, subsidies vs. commerce. Easy to confuse.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
You may be confusing 'subsidies' with 'purchases'. I'm guessing that $21b is the many airplanes the US has purchased from Boeing. Airbus = no actual aircraft purchased. Hence, subsidies vs. commerce. Easy to confuse.
The only difference is the Euro's are up front about it, the Yanks try and hide it in overinflated purchase prices (6% market rate margin vs 15% is a huge difference) or Defence "R&D".
Like I said, I'm not against it. I think any countries govt should look after homegrown industries first (although now Boeing is outsourcing and tax-evading offshore you have to wonder how wise that is). However I think its hypocritical to continually whinge about Airbus subsidies... hence pot meet kettle.
-
Who would want to travel in a 1000-passenger flying cattle car? Heck, 737's are too cramped to be tolerable.
J_A_B
-
By the time this thing is possibly being tested there are going to be a few hundred Airbuses buzzing around. So, it's going to be a tough one.
For neither you'll need to completely redesign an airfield though, rather think of it as building or modyfying a terminal to receive those. I mean the batch of passengers is about the load of 2 Jumbo's which is nothing unhandlable.
Maybe we'll be riding those biggies on intercontinental flights in 10 years. I hope so :)
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Hey rip, doesn't take much to scratch the surface, I'm sure if I dug deeper it'd just get worse:
Well you didn't dig very deeply to start with. Your post is straight out of a Lawsuit (http://www.eurunion.org/News/press/2004/200400137.htm) filed in 2004. I would guess they (the filers) are not exactly representing both sides of the issue. But hey maybe lawyers in Europe are different
-
:rofl :rofl
Vulcan has been OW3N3d!
(http://pic4.picturetrail.com/VOL767/2726312/8668097/142059950.jpg)
Vulcan, FYI, chairboy is correct. The Govt is just another purchaser of civilian aircraft.
On the defense side, we make bids along with other aerospace companies to compete for Govt business. They just a customer. They don't give us an open checkbook on the backs of the taxpayers and say "build this for us". Matter of fact, its just the opposite, we have to compete, and when we do get contracts, we are constantly under scrutiny to be on time, on schedule and on budget with constant military audits.
-
It's going to be hard to evacuate that puppy in 30 seconds.:(
Maybe they can install bomb doors and drop the load. That way they can do it in about 3 secs.:D
-
Too bad the US government doesnt give Boeing risk free money to develope planes that if they dont sell Boeing does not have to return a dime of the money given.
Maybe they should......:huh
-
Stupid question, but why not have trap-style emergency exits every x square feet? That'd make for quick exit without much structural complications.
Why not have the airport terminal's gate corridors serve each BWC, two at a time? That'd make it 500 passengers per corridor, as opposed to 800 for the big Airbus, for example.
Every possible solution has probably already been thought of at Boing, I'm just curious.
-
Originally posted by Krusher
Well you didn't dig very deeply to start with. Your post is straight out of a Lawsuit (http://www.eurunion.org/News/press/2004/200400137.htm) filed in 2004. I would guess they (the filers) are not exactly representing both sides of the issue. But hey maybe lawyers in Europe are different
WTO lawsuits tend to be based on facts, perhaps you should spend some time outside the US legal system. Its not a 'ohhh my coffee's too hot' lawsuit you know ;)
Rip, why the massive extra margin for defence contracts? Usually defence contracts are tighter on margin... not so owned huh...
U.S. trade policy suffers a blow as WTO rules against tax break
Tuesday, August 21, 2001
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER STAFF AND NEWS SERVICES
The World Trade Organization ruled yesterday that a popular U.S. tax break is actually an illegal trade subsidy, threatening a corporate strategy used by thousands of companies, including The Boeing Co.
The ruling will force the United States to either file an appeal, settle the issue or possibly face as much as $4 billion in sanctions by the European Union. The issue is now the biggest trans-Atlantic trade dispute.
U.S. corporations have been watching the trade dispute carefully because exporters from Bellevue-based Attachmate Corp. to Pennsylvania-based Bethlehem Steel Corp. support the tax provision.
"This issue has the potential to be enormously destabilizing, so both sides have a strong incentive to solve it," said Chris Padilla, a Washington, D.C., lobbyist for Eastman Kodak Co.
Washington state companies have plenty at stake. Boeing alone claimed tax benefits tied to foreign sales corporations -- a previous incarnation of the tax provision -- worth $291 million in its 2000 annual report.
General Electric, meanwhile, saved $746 million and Motorola Inc. saved $378 million from 1991 to 1998, according to the European Union Web site.
"We are disappointed in this decision and we are hoping that the USTR (Office of the United States Trade Representative) will be able to find a way to negotiate a mutual acceptable solution that fully protects U.S. interests," said Boeing spokesman Rick Fuller.
U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick said he has been consulting closely with Congress and U.S. businesses and will work to "promote U.S. economic interests while at the same time fulfilling our WTO obligations."
U.S. trade officials have not yet decided how to respond, according to Zoellick's spokesman, Richard Mills.
"We are weighing our options," Mills said.
Under WTO rules, the United States has 60 days to decide whether to appeal.
The case affects U.S. exporters that obtain tax breaks by channeling transactions through overseas companies and dwarfs other U.S.-EU disagreements, including fights over banana and beef imports.
The disputed tax law allows U.S.-based companies to shield some foreign income from tax as long as they have paid tax overseas on the earnings.
It also adds to tension that has been heightened by a U.S. decision to back away from a global-warming treaty and European opposition to the Bush administration's plans to set up a missile defense shield, among other clashes.
The European Union welcomed the decision.
"The WTO panel has upheld the EU's reasoning on all points," the European Commission, an arm of the European Union, said in a statement.
Joseph Englert, president of San Francisco-based Export Assist Inc., which manages the so-called "foreign sales corporations" used by U.S. exporters to shield overseas earnings, said he believes the two trading partners can resolve the issue.
"I don't know if an appeal would be appropriate so much as asking the Europeans or the WTO if they would just suspend the case while we find an answer," he said. "I think we will find a solution without a trade war," he added.
Englert, whose company lists Boeing, Kodak and communications equipment maker Harris Corp. among its clients, said he thought there was an appetite in Congress to revamp the tax system and a willingness by the Europeans to be flexible. "Forty-five percent of world trade is between Europe and the U.S., and this is quite a hammer hanging over our heads," Englert added.
If the United States loses an appeal or does not alter its trade policy, the EU has asked the WTO for permission to impose the trade sanctions on the United States.
"We are very confident we can defend our position," said Stephen Gospage, an EU trade official.
The current trade fight actually goes back to 1998, when the EU challenged an earlier version of the tax law.
In 1999, the World Trade Organization ruled that tax system was an illegal export subsidy.
So, the United States scrapped the system, replacing it with the tax law the WTO ruled yesterday was also illegal.
The persistent dispute has led some policy-makers to consider whether it's time to revamp the way the federal government taxes overseas corporate income.
But, veteran tax lobbyists say Congress is unlikely to take any broad steps this year.
WHAT'S NEXT?
The United States and the European Union have argued for years over the tax breaks the United States grants its exporters.
The World Trade Organization's decision to reject the latest U.S. tax tool could spark a variety of steps on both sides, including:
The United States could appeal the decision, a move that would also buy it a few months to work out a solution. The United States has 60 days to decide whether to appeal.
Whether or not the United States files an appeal, it can attempt to negotiate a solution with the European Union.
Congress and the Bush administration could attempt to pass new legislation designed to address the WTO's concerns.
The European Union could seek to impose up to $5 billion in sanctions on U.S. goods, if the United States loses its appeal or leaves the law unchanged.
Source: Bloomberg News.
The WTO says you're subsidising Boeing.
-
Originally posted by moot
Stupid question, but why not have trap-style emergency exits every x square feet?
Think about what is underneath the passenger cabin of an aircraft.
Typically lots of bags, fuel and various large systems components such as landing gear, hydraulics and controls. Trap doors on the belly of an airplane also don't do any good if the gear isn't down, fuel leaked and is burning and what not. Overwing is simple, easy, less expensive and dare I say...safer.
I for one don't want to ride my firehouse pole down into a pool of burning jet fuel to escape.
Window seat in an exit row, please. Or first class.
-
Not very many window seats in the wing design there.
-
This thing is better than the Airbus or Boing:
(http://carnalreason.org/images/misc/wheel.sp.gif)
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
WTO lawsuits tend to be based on facts, perhaps you should spend some time outside the US legal system. Its not a 'ohhh my coffee's too hot' lawsuit you know ;)
The facts according to Airbus.
You do know that Boeing filed a lawsuit earlier? If the facts are not in dispute then Boeing should win by filing first !
-
Golfer, I was thinking of topside exits. Would that be feasible?
-
Since when is this a "new idea" or "new technology?" Seems to resurface every 20-25 years then gets buried in money to be rediscovered at a later date. :D
(http://www.warbirdforum.com/paxwing.jpg)
http://www.warbirdforum.com/paxwing.jpg
http://www.warbirdforum.com/paxwing.htm
-
Originally posted by moot
Golfer, I was thinking of topside exits. Would that be feasible?
Not really. Each emergency exit section with it's seals and reinforcment as well as latching mechanism is heavier (obviously) than a regular section of fuselage in the same area.
When you say "Trap style" exit what do you exactly mean anyway? When I think of that I think of trap door and trap doors fall into the floor into an alligator pit.
-
When you say "Trap style" exit what do you exactly mean anyway? When I think of that I think of trap door and trap doors fall into the floor into an alligator pit.
alligator pit could be added to the aircraft as a anti terrorist thing
:D
-
hehe.
I wasn't thinking of anything in particular.. I thought of it as was a way to clear an emergency path thru the roof, explosive-bolt style, or by a topside door like you described if it's not acceptable to save lives at the cost of some localised damage, without costing too much structural integrity either.. like somewhere already reinforced, like at the food/video closets.
I don't know what there is between the cabin ceiling and outer surface in that plane.
-
Link 1 (http://travel.howstuffworks.com/flying-wing2.htm)
NASA's opinion (http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/BWB.html)