AApilot2b From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 574 posts, RR: 1 Posted (11 years 1 month 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 10445 times:
Boeing has decided to begin work on a new ultra-wide body aircraft that will rival the mega A380 from Airbus. Using technology from the 7E7 program, Boeing is looking in to building a new ultra large aircraft that will bring new levels of comfort and efficiency to commercial air travel.
Instead of an ungainly double deck design. Boeing has chosen a single deck, ultra wide configuration featuring not two, but three isles. The aircraft will be a tri-jet design that in several ways revives design concepts of the former McDonnell Douglas, but incorporates new technologies and advanced aerodynamics. Though the aircraft will be the widest ever built, recent drawings show the airplane to look in proportion and not unlike the wide bodies of today. Boeing would like to see an entry in to service only two years following the 7E7.
Now that I have your attention, I am sure you all are aware that this is simply an imagination of mine that you could point out all kinds of technical flaws with. Nonetheless, I was thinking how much I like tri jet designs and couldn't help but wonder on the feasibility of such an aircraft. Wouldn't a new tri jet (Airbus or Boeing for that matter) be cool?
By the way, I know this is a completely stupid idea. Just wanted to see what others were thinking in terms of future airliners.
Matt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 45
Reply 1, posted (11 years 1 month 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 10362 times:
Even if this turns out to be true, it seems pretty evident to me that Boeing is losing it, if they haven't already lost it. They can't seem to make up their mind on what they want to be or what direction they want to go.
EddieDude From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 7647 posts, RR: 42
Reply 2, posted (11 years 1 month 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 10187 times:
I remember when I was young my family and I flew a lot from MX), Mexico">MEX to ACA, CZM and the U.S. with either MX or AM. I was very used to being inside 727's and sometimes DC-10's. I recall I always found the design very odd and not very appealing. Now that there are no more tri-jets in AM's or MX's fleet, I do feel a lot of nostalgia, though. I realize that the 727 is really very iconic and that aviation owes a lot to it. As for the DC10, you still see many great, world-class airlines proudly flying its replacement, the MD11. It would be awesome if Airbus or Boeing came up with a new trijet aircraft but this looks near to impossible. I asked whether this could happen in a separate thread and the answer I got was "today two-engined planes like the 777 and the upcoming 7E7 can fly distances that previously only four-engined planes could fly". I guess this pretty much sums it all. But I like to fantasize: eventually (maybe in 30, 40 or 50 years), the 744ER and the A345 will need to be replaced. Perhaps then a three-engined plane could fly the distance that such planes can (carrying the same number of pax) using less fuel. See you in 2044.
A330Jamaica From Canada, joined Dec 2003, 59 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (11 years 1 month 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 10160 times:
Boeing is losing it and soon Airbus will because there is a significant event about to occur in the next 5- 10 years. It is called the peak in world oil production and they know that it is going to be devastating to the world airline industry. Airbus is already in deep trouble with the A380 that is going to prove a white elephant. Maybe they should concentrate on 7E7 style composite construction and start/continue liquid hydrogen propulsion research. I again refer anyone who thinks I am joking or just being pessimistic to refer to http://www.hubbertpeak.com There have also beeen several recent newspaper articles such as this Toronto Star article http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=communique&newsid=4945 courtesy of http://www.evworld.com. Other references include http://www.peakoil.net Those should be enough to at least get you interested in doing more research on the topic.
Airways6max From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 494 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (11 years 1 month 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 10126 times:
If this turns out to be true, and this is clearly just a rumor. I'll believe it when it happens. In the meantime, I hope that our homegrown aviation giant doesn't get cut down to size in the marketplace.
Q330 From Australia, joined Dec 2003, 1460 posts, RR: 21
Reply 6, posted (11 years 1 month 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 10011 times:
Matt is right about Boeing not having a strong sense of direction. I think that sooner or later they will be regretting their decision not to stretch the 747 when the A380 becomes a big money maker, and they might decide to make a new large aircraft.
Your imaginary plane sounds cool, but I don't think that a triple aisle single deck would be able to came close to the capacity of a double decker (which has a total of 4 aisles) unless it was very, very long or a 5-5-5-4 or something ridiculous like that. Also, something that big would probably want 4 engines. Kind of reminds me of a Blended Wing Body or something like that.
CLEfan From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 299 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (11 years 1 month 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 9962 times:
Check AApilot2b's second and third paragraph: "Now that I have your attention, I am sure you all are aware that this is simply an imagination of mine that you could point out all kinds of technical flaws with. Nonetheless, I was thinking how much I like tri jet designs and couldn't help but wonder on the feasibility of such an aircraft. Wouldn't a new tri jet (Airbus or Boeing for that matter) be cool?
By the way, I know this is a completely stupid idea. Just wanted to see what others were thinking in terms of future airliners."
AApilot2b From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 574 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (11 years 1 month 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 9763 times:
Thank you. Next time I will have to write more clearly that this is not a serious topic. All I wanted to do was see what people think about the future of tri jet designs, but as I read my post now. I did not make that clear enough. Sorry to all of you that have taken this serious. On that note, it does seem that the days of tri jets are over.
IMisspiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6372 posts, RR: 32
Reply 10, posted (11 years 1 month 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 9659 times:
"..because there is a significant event about to occur in the next 5- 10 years. It is called the peak in world oil production.."
I suspect the aircraft builders and airlines are quite aware of this. In my opinion, we are seeing the end of the current production of fossil fuel powered transportation. By 2050, though I'll be long dead, I see no aircraft or cars fueled by dead dinosaurs.
Tu154m From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 685 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (11 years 1 month 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 9306 times:
Boeing has lost it............Airbus ate their lunch with the "common cockpit" concept quite a long time ago. As much as I hate to say it, Boeing would do better bidding to build Airbus sub-assemblies than wasting $$$$$$ on radical new designs, most of which will not see the light of day. Also, about the only people buying Boeing are in the US..........and there aren't to many airlines who can afford a new airplane.(yes, I know alot of operators worldwide buy Boeing, but most have also bought Airbus).
Greaser From Bahamas, joined Jan 2004, 1101 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (11 years 1 month 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 9112 times:
This is a joke...more Boeing Bashing??
' Boeing would do better bidding to build Airbus sub-assemblies than wasting $$$$$$ on radical new designs, most of which will not see the light of day'
What..you nuts? Please think before you type next time!
'Also, about the only people buying Boeing are in the US..........and there aren't to many airlines who can afford a new airplane'
Please take your S along with you.
Most of your statements are not logical...
I should have agreed with the naked cowboy that the world is becoming worse and worse.
2040 is the date that scientists place when the world runs out of oil
Q330, i would have to disagree with your statement that a 747-stretch should be made.
The market is neither lucrative nor large enough to support 2 large liners, and Boeing has made a wise decision to go for frequency.
Let's just say Airbus is placing a bigger bet than Boeing that Bigger is Better
PVD757 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3430 posts, RR: 16
Reply 17, posted (11 years 1 month 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 8794 times:
Hello, since when did McDonnel Douglas come back to life? Oh, that's right, they run Boeing now. We are doomed. When are we gonna see the 717 and the MD100 run the 737 out of production? Are they going to add a tail engine to the 777? When will my nightmare end?
Tavve From Sweden, joined Sep 2003, 172 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (11 years 1 month 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 8645 times:
...there is a significant event about to occur in the next 5- 10 years. It is called the peak in world oil production...
I've heard it many times. Not about this peak but peaks that should have come earlier. A peak could actually be good because then more research money would be available to finally solve the problem and the world would be a cleaner planet (Unless more coal is being used).
As for the aviation industry: The drop of demand created by the introduction of alternative and efficient fuel types for cars will ensure there is enough oil on the market to satisfy the aviation industry.
The big remaining question: Will fuel become extremely expensive during a transition period?
Beltwaybandit From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 495 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (11 years 1 month 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 8073 times:
I think Boeing did the right thing by focusing on construction materials and techniques, and letting Airbus take the "bigger = better" angle. There is not much that Airbus will learn making the 380 that will help it advance designs on the smaller, higher-volume models. Boeing will (or should) get a decent leap ahead that should translate into operating efficiencies, which in turn will translate into sales. When they are flush with cash from those sales, then they can think about building a giant plane -- assuming anyone wants one.
Cloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (11 years 1 month 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7613 times:
We probably won't see a BWB unless Boeing gets the Pentagon to spring for a tanker and/or transport version first. The current aerospace industry is very conservative with its own money, and I doubt Boeing (or Airbus) would spend that much on a concept that has yet to be tried. The spirit that built the 707, 747 and A300 is largely dead. The A380 and the 7E7 have important, but incremental advances. The advances on these planes have largely been proven elsewhere first.
Building a new civil transport is enough risk on its own. That is why you won't see any major unproven tech on a new civilian airliner. The 7E7 has some new stuff, but the vast majority is new only in the sense that it has not been used in a civilian airliner before. A major configuration change such as a large BWB will certainly be tried in a military aircraft first. And no, the B2 and its predecessors do not count. There were not many built. The B2 is nothing like a civilian airliner. Most B2 technology will remain secret for a very long time. A transport or tanker BWB would look very different, and that is the kind of military BWB that could blaze a trail for a new kind of airliner.
TriStarEnvy From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2265 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (11 years 1 month 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 7296 times:
Cloudy says it right. Risk taking and civil aviation today, don't mix too well. Remember the "Sonic Cruiser"? Boeing appeared to be heading off the beaten path. Pretty radical stuff, but seemingly shunned by most airlines, for plenty of different reasons.
AND, it just plain disappeared off the Boeing website overnight when the plane was cancelled.
[Edited 2004-02-04 19:55:40]
If you don't stand for SOMETHING, you'll fall for ANYTHING.