| |
sanook269
|
Mr. Alan wrote:
Most jumbo jets already travel at more than 600 mph......
******************
While I've seen the mph figures, relative to ground speed, on the TV screens onboard a jet liner say it was going little over 700 MPH, I assume with a very strong tailwind, the average crusing speed of a 747-400 is 567 MPH,.855 of Mach, at 35,000 Feet.
Back in the 1960s Boeing had an SST, SuperSonic Transport Program, and actually started to build a prototype, but they were never completed. Environmental concerns (read, tree huggers) killed the project. I've often wondered if had it been built, would the technology have evolved over the years, to the point, that today, almost 40 years later, supersonic travel would have been commonplace and, of course, cheaper. We will never really know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_2707
Until there is a major "breakthrough" we will be flying at the current speeds for sometime to come. Just as well. If we could get there any faster the place would probably be totally overran.
|
Thai Girls : Meet Sexy Thai Girls
Posted on: 2:50 am on July 27, 2005
|
|
mansaturday
|
I have a fear that they they are packing too much 'entertainment' into the new planes. They are going to make it possible to use cell-phones on planes.
Twelve hours next to ajerk calling his mother: 'Hi Mum, I'm on the pane'.
A nightmare.
|
Bangkok Women : Meet Sensual Bangkok Women
Posted on: 4:08 am on July 27, 2005
|
|
Black Jaques Chirac
|
The mobile phone technology is already there. It is just up to the airlines to order it. Yes you will be sitting next to a mobile phone user in the future !
B747 Advanced ?
They have proposed this many times but not gone ahead. Then came the Sonic Cruiser and Boeing got the complete fright when the airlines took them seriously !
By gar !
Then came the B787. The mostly plastic airplane. fuselage sections are already built.
All kevlar etc. I expect some of you make the plastic planes when you were young ? Not quite the same.
This is very new for Boeing. Normally they are very conservative. This time they also make the windows much bigger. Big deal the stewardess comes along and closes them. The inside design is very 'Ikea' - All very trendy. Very un-Boeing.
But did you see the Airbus 380 at Paris ?
A wonderful bird !
The B747 Advanced is just a stretch of a plane designed in the 1960's.
I would choose the Airbus A380.
British wings and engines.
|
Thai Girls : Meet Sexy Thai Girls
Posted on: 7:20 am on July 27, 2005
|
|
sanook269
|
Quote: from Black Jaques Chirac on 7:32 pm on July 27, 2005
B747 Advanced ?
..............................
Then came the B787. The mostly plastic airplane. fuselage sections are already built.
All kevlar etc. I expect some of you make the plastic planes when you were young ? Not quite the same.
This is very new for Boeing. Normally they are very conservative. This time they also make the windows much bigger. Big deal the stewardess comes along and closes them. The inside design is very 'Ikea' - All very trendy. Very un-Boeing.
But did you see the Airbus 380 at Paris ?
A wonderful bird !
The B747 Advanced is just a stretch of a plane designed in the 1960's.
I would choose the Airbus A380.
British wings and engines.
Yes, mobile phone technology on airliners is available, but I, for one, do not look forward to it. How are you going to rest with some idiot's phone ringing every few minutes?
The A380 is mostly a "plastic airplane." Whether or not it will be a commercial success will be determined in the market place. The A380 in a technological mavel, but it is a very large plane for a very small market. All personal prejudices aside, Airbus vs Boeing, I don't think the A380 is at all an attractive aircraft. I do, however, like the "gullwing look" when viewed from straight on.
The basic concept of the 747 does go back to the 1960s, but the plane has been updated with all the "latest technology" making it still faster and less expensive to operate, after all these years, than an A380. The most recent version, the 747-400ER did not go into service until 2002. The 747-400 was given an entirely new wing, and many other "features" including updating the flight deck to "fly by wire" as are the 767, 777, 787, and most of the newer airbus products. Current 747-400s are now undergoing, at most airlines, refurbishment of the interiors. These new interiors are similar to that used in the 777, an award winning designed favored by many of the flying public. And so, the story goes on. It is an airplane that "works" and is preferred by the airlines and the public.
From the surge in recent Boeing sales it would appear Boeing's two engine strategy has worked and I think, no, I'm fairly sure, you will see some MAJOR orders placed for Boeing aircraft, all models, including the four engine 747, over the next few weeks and months.
Rumor has it one South American Airline will order 101, 737s, of which 344 have already been ordered this year alone, and a major U.S. carrier will order an entire new fleet of 747s.
Wait and see......
|
Bangkok Girls : Meet Sexy Bangkok Girls
Posted on: 3:38 pm on July 27, 2005
|
|
DaffyDuck
|
Personally, I like the A380's look, and I can't wait to fly in one -- after the first year in operation (it's an Airbus thing). From what I read, quite a few of the larger intercontinental carriers have already placed substantial orders for the A380 (including China Airlines, and Singapore) - so it certainly seems to have gotten some interested bites...
> These new interiors are similar to that used in the 777, an award
> winning designed favored by many of the flying public.
The interior is nice, but the moron who designed the 'remote controls' for the entertainment systems, and embedded them in the inside side of the seats (resulting in tons of accidental overhead lights, and such, toggling), should be strangled on sight.. It is the WORST design, and the worst industrial and functional design I have ever seen. Good grief, embed them in the front headrest instead!
The in-flight internet access is intriguing, though - can't wait to use more of that.
Agreed on the concern over the arrival of in-flight mobile phones usage -- it is a totally unecessary functionality, that is bound to irritate more, than provide any sort of advantage. Instead they ought to drop the prices for in-flight telephony (down from the roughly $8/minute it is now -- crazy!), or provide a 'mobile station' on the plane -- being a restricted location where one could use a mobile phone, and it being the only cubicle where the phone would work. Ths, it would offer the functionality, but limit it, and reduce the potential to irritate.
The airlines oppose it, and so do in-flight crews... so the FAA is currently wavering.
|
Thai Women : Meet Matured Thai Women
Posted on: 9:01 pm on July 27, 2005
|
|
sanook269
|
I was reading on Wednesday, 27 July 2005, that Airbus has announced they will deliver the first A380 to Singapore Air in November of 2006, so it will be December 2006 or January 2007 before it enters commerical service.
Emirates will take delivery in April 2007, as will Qantas, and Air France in Oct. of '07.
I agree on the remote control units. One of the stupidest designs I've ever seen.
There is a poll being ran at
http://www.luchtzak.be/index.html
an aviation related site, asking if mobile phones should be allowed onboard. So far the No vote is 73.66 % of the 186 votes cast.
I agree.
|
Bangkok Women : Meet Beautiful Thai Girls
Posted on: 1:34 am on July 28, 2005
|
|
Black Jaques Chirac
|
"The A380 is mostly a 'plastic airplane' -"
By comparrison to the B787 it is not.
The B787 is about 85-90% plastic.
The Airbus 380 is nowhere near this figure. That is why I say this is a quantum leap for a conservative company like Boeing. Their cockpits have always been straightforward, logical. Initially for many pilots the A320's etc were a little 'gallic' in design and function. But now they are very popular.
"Rumor has it one South American Airline will order 101, 737s, of which 344 have already been ordered this year alone"
Amazing for a fuselage designed in the 1950's !
Although the wings and engines are new.
"All personal prejudices aside, Airbus vs Boeing, I don't think the A380 is at all an attractive aircraft"
The view is prejudicial, sans doute !
"refurbishment of the interiors"
Interiors are specified by the airline and do not reflect on the manufacturer as such.
"The basic concept of the 747 does go back to the 1960s, but the plane has been updated with all the "latest technology" making it still faster and less expensive to operate, after all these years, than an A380."
Not the concept,the B747. First flight occurred on February 9 1969, certification was awarded on December 30 that year.
It does not have the side stick controller of the Airbus.
The wing and engines have been updated like that of the B737. Airbus had fly-by-wire for a long time.
Boeing conceived the 747 in the mid 1960s following its failure to secure a US Air Force contract for an ultra large strategic transport (which resulted in the Lockheed C-5 Galaxy), when it identified a market for a high capacity 'jumbo jet'. Boeing was able to draw upon design experience with the USAF transport and launched the new airliner on July 25 1966.
From the surge in recent Boeing sales it would appear Boeing's two engine strategy has worked and I think, no, I'm fairly sure, you will see some MAJOR orders placed for Boeing aircraft, all models, including the four engine 747, over the next few weeks and months."
Greasing palms, I know about greasing palms.
Airbus also has two engines. But the pilots I know prefer four. "Why do you fly an airplane with four engines?" - "Beacuse they don't make one with five!"
c'est ça
With ETOPS (Engines Turn or Passengers Swim - Extended-range Twin-engine Operation Performance Standards) and LROPS (Long Range Operational Performance Standards) I also prefer four.
Boeing have struggled to keep up with Airbus of late.
Every thing is worked out on man hours. So they don't finish off an edge smoothly in the hold and they add a shim here or there. Boeing also let go their staff when there is a downturn in sales. Re-employing in an upturn.
There is not the continuity of skills.
Airbus try to keep their staff in-house on other projects.
Some years back I asked some engineers of an airline who had just received some Airbus 320's. They also had Boeing B737 - "I have heard that the difference between a Boeing and an Airbus is like between a Ford and a Volkswagen?"
They said, "No! It is like the difference between a Ford and a Rolls-Royce! A different concept of construction, you should see the beautiful Airbus manuals? All colour coded etc !"
In the end it is down to finance and Boeing and Airbus will always argue about that ! The Boeing B707 was ensured success because the U.S.A.F bought hundreds of C-135's. Which to Boeing was in fact the original Boeing B717 and not the renamed DC-9/MD-87. To me that will always be a DC-9.
Some cochon even tried to call the Douglas DC-3 a Boeing !
Merde !!!
|
Bangkok Girls : Meet Attractive Thai Girls
Posted on: 3:00 am on July 28, 2005
|
|
sanook269
|
Talk about prejudicial views?!!!!!!  Whew!!!!
Boeing did a survey of airline pilots and found most preferred the "Yoke" vs the "Joy Stick." Usually, former military fighter pilots, who are not the first choice of airlines, prefer the joy stick as that is what they are accustom to using.
The KC-135 Tanker was called, in house, i.e., inside of the Boeing company, the 717, NOT the airliner version known as the 707.
I agree on the DC-9 and the DC-3. I wish the Boeing and McDonnell/Douglas merger had NOT been allowed. It didn't do anything to benefit anyone but make a few very rich people at the top of the corporate ladder even richer. The anti-trust laws in the U.S. have pretty much been ignored the last 20 or so years.
Your history of the 747 is basically correct.
From the launch date, that is the date the decision was made to go ahead and build it, to the roll out date, the day they pulled it out of the factory and showed it to the world, was less than 16 months. The rest, as they say, is history.
It will be interesting to see how this, Boeing vs. Airbus, washes out over time. It will be 2 or 3 years, maybe 4, before the smoke clears.
|
Thai Girls : Meet Active Thai Girls
Posted on: 2:23 pm on July 28, 2005
|
|
Black Jaques Chirac
|
Quote: from sanook269 on 8:35 pm on July 28, 2005
Talk about prejudicial views?!!!!!! Whew!!!!
Boeing did a survey of airline pilots and found most preferred the "Yoke" vs the "Joy Stick." Usually, former military fighter pilots, who are not the first choice of airlines, prefer the joy stick as that is what they are accustom to using.
The KC-135 Tanker was called, in house, i.e., inside of the Boeing company, the 717, NOT the airliner version known as the 707.
I agree on the DC-9 and the DC-3. I wish the Boeing and McDonnell/Douglas merger had NOT been allowed. It didn't do anything to benefit anyone but make a few very rich people at the top of the corporate ladder even richer. The anti-trust laws in the U.S. have pretty much been ignored the last 20 or so years.
Your history of the 747 is basically correct.
From the launch date, that is the date the decision was made to go ahead and build it, to the roll out date, the day they pulled it out of the factory and showed it to the world, was less than 16 months. The rest, as they say, is history.
It will be interesting to see how this, Boeing vs. Airbus, washes out over time. It will be 2 or 3 years, maybe 4, before the smoke clears.
Bar gar an alleged expert ?
latest technology" making it still faster and less expensive to operate
The maximum operating mach number for the A380 is M0.89. The B747 usually files M0.82. But in the operation they will probably be the same.
Your history of the 747 is basically correct.
Of course it is correct !
Boeing did a survey of airline pilots and found most preferred the "Yoke" vs the "Joy Stick." Usually, former military fighter pilots, who are not the first choice of airlines, prefer the joy stick as that is what they are accustom to using.
Of course BOEING would say this ! Paff.
Most of the pilots I know when they get used to the joystick prefer it. Boeing probably did a survey amongst the old men.
Boeing were the top for a long time. Now they have a big-player to compete with them. They don't like it.
Tough, the monopoly has ended. Lockheed made good airliners but compared to Boeing were over engineered.
The Tri-Star had a nicely engineered ladder to get out of the cockpit in an emergency Boeing provided a rope.
Boeing still make airliners Lockheed doesn't. Boeing knows how to make money. Lockheed knows how to make it from governments.
Boeing usually get things right but with the B787 and the B747X or Advanced I am not so sure this time.
The B777-200LR will have the same problems as the A340-500. Crews do not like to be in an airplane for 17 hours. It's too long even with a rest area. I spoke to some crew of a A340-500. They did not tell me whether they liked the aeroplane just the many hours inside that tube. Flying can be boring. Or as defined by someone,"Long moments of sheer boredom punctuated by short moments of sheer terror.
Flying has lost its glamour.
|
Thai Women : Meet Matured Thai Women
Posted on: 2:57 am on July 29, 2005
|
|
DaffyDuck
|
Quote: from Black Jaques Chirac on 3:09 pm on July 29, 2005
Flying has lost its glamour.
Speak for yourself - it never lost it for me, and I'm a pilot brat.
|
Bangkok Girls : Meet Attractive Thai Girls
Posted on: 3:18 am on July 29, 2005
|
|
| |
|
