Boeing's first 787-10 for commercial use rolls out

Skåning said:
2014%2B-%2B1
Click to expand...

Pretty sure Antonov is the one that cheats.
 
pete2800 said:
Extra long airplanes look weird. The best looking one is the -8. Just like the A319 looks better than the 321, the 737-700 is the best looking one, and the 757-300 looks awkward as all hell.
Click to expand...
A319 is a very unimpressive looking airplane IMO, and the 757-300 and 767-400 look pretty awesome. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
 
NovemberEcho said:
Is China still getting their new AN-225's?
Click to expand...
Not sure.
That would be quite an undertaking.
There were ever only two - one flying and one at some level of completion, long abandoned.

Most of the airspace workers bolted since 2014. Most found their way to Russia - especially the helicopter people, since Russia was the #1 customer and has since restarted parts manufacturing in Russia.
 
pete2800 said:
Extra long airplanes look weird. The best looking one is the -8. Just like the A319 looks better than the 321, the 737-700 is the best looking one, and the 757-300 looks awkward as all hell.
Click to expand...
I don’t know, I see some Lufthansa 340-600s at ORD every now and then and I think they’re awesome looking
 
I like the look of the A340-600 also. It kind of reminds me of what a DC-8 may have looked like if they kept it going. I think the A380 is the most hideous airliner flying today. The 747SP is also a goofy looking airplane as is the A318.
 
Box hauler said:
Yeah I don't think that's correct. Boeing is trash that lacks innovation ( besides the 78). A 737 made in 2017 still looks like It was made in 1970 but with the addition of a few screens.
Click to expand...

Meh... The big two both aren't really innovating on all fronts. With the exceptions of the A380/A350 and the 777/787.

The 737 might be from the 60's. But the A320 is from the 80's. 1987 to be exact. My math say it's thirty years old. The 737 is older tech, yes. But 30 years old tech really isn't really innovating, is it? Both companies are stuck in their bread and butter planes and aren't exactly taking any risk anymore. Why? Because their bread and butter planes are still selling like hotcakes.

Don't mistake this as a pro Boeing post. Just calling a spade a spade.
 
Maximillian_Jenius said:
Meh... The big two both aren't really innovating on all fronts. With the exceptions of the A380/A350 and the 777/787.

The 737 might be from the 60's. But the A320 is from the 80's. 1987 to be exact. My math say it's thirty years old. The 737 is older tech, yes. But 30 years old tech really isn't really innovating, is it? Both companies are stuck in their bread and butter planes and aren't exactly taking any risk anymore. Why? Because their bread and butter planes are still selling like hotcakes.

Don't mistake this as a pro Boeing post. Just calling a spade a spade.
Click to expand...

I kind of agree with you but I think delivery time frame has more to do with it. Airlines want something asap and the manufacturers want to beat their competitors and fill as many orders as possible. I think the delay issues with the 787 and A380 made both think about not straying too far from what they know and are capable of. I think the A350 is the final result of all the crap they learned with delay issues.
 
Last edited:
NovemberEcho said:
Airlines don't want innovation. Airlines want stability and a sure thing. Until you can prove to them that your innovative idea will be better for their bottom line they'll stick with what they know.
Click to expand...

You're onto something here - I would just emphasize that at the end of the day, most everything comes down to economics. Performance/efficiency trades can be more than made up for in purchase price.

Case-in-point: for your average US-Europe mission, a 767, A330, and 787 will have very similar operating economics. The 787 will have far superior range, but if you're an airline that's not going to use it, which most don't, why pay the premium for the efficiency you don't use? You'll get better, less risky returns taking the cheaper asset. Same conundrum applies to CSeries - it's a good airplane, but it's clearly designed to either have a ton of range, or to further stretch it into a CS500, which may never happen. Because of its size, it starts to give back its efficiency against distressed A319s and 737s.

This is the problem next gen NBs will face - the 737 and A320 families are pretty competitive as-is, and they're very cheap to produce compared to a potential $10B new development program. The next airplane has to walk a very fine line between markedly improving efficiency while not being too expensive. That's challenging.
 
Ecl!pse said:
The next airplane has to walk a very fine line between markedly improving efficiency while not being too expensive. That's challenging.
Click to expand...

In America, many of those challenges have been accomplished by applied research and development in collaboration with industry, academia, and government.

"NASA's New Aviation Horizons – an ambitious undertaking by NASA to design, build and fly a variety of flight demonstration vehicles, or “X-planes.” It’s a shout-out to NASA’s century-old heritage in using experimental aircraft to test advanced technologies and revolutionary designs, and to reduce the time it takes for the tech to be adopted by industry and moved into the marketplace.

Thanks to recent extraordinary results coming out of six years of technology demonstrations done with other government agencies, industry and academia, NASA Aeronautics feels confident to enter X-plane territory
This truss-braced wing concept could be another subsonic X-plane; the supported wing has proven in wind-tunnel testing to reduce fuel use by 5 to 10 percent over advanced conventional wings.
Credits: NASA Langley / Sandie Gibbs
The demos included advancements in lightweight composite materials that are needed to create revolutionary aircraft structures, an advanced fan design to improve propulsion and reduce noise in jet engines, designs to reduce noise from wing flaps and landing gear, and shape-changing wing flaps, and even coatings to prevent bug residue buildup on wings. Researchers predict the tech could save the airline industry $255 billion accrued during the first 25 years after being put into service."
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-aeronautics-budget-proposes-return-of-x-planes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top