AirWillie6475 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 2448 posts, RR: 1 Posted (10 years 2 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 5431 times:
This is kind of dumb but my question is basically what will the aircraft after the 787 look like? I chose 797 because its the only number left no in the 7s. I think that it would look like a 747 but different. I don't think that it would be to far stretched from today's design because after all the 787 still has the normal 757/767 design.
Also while still on the topic what will the next Airbus look like? After making the a380, who knows what they will make next.
DeltaWings From Switzerland, joined Aug 2004, 1294 posts, RR: 16
Reply 2, posted (10 years 2 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 5408 times:
Boeing could either bring out a 777 replacement or a successor to the 737NG.
About the design, the standard design that we have now, seems to be the proven one. I don't think the designs will change much in future.
Homer: Marge, it takes two to lie. One to lie and one to listen.
Lehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 20
Reply 4, posted (10 years 2 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 5387 times:
Dude this has been discussed with exhaustive repetition.
IMO, this is what will happen:
Boeing will make the 747Adv with little success, maybe 100-200 units, same with A350 and A380, don't get me wrong I think 800 A380's over 20 years is fantastic apart from their estimate of 1300... .
Afterwards I think both companies will focus on long term projects as well as their 'children'; being all current seires of aircraft currently in production. That supposed pix of the highwing-widebody that Boeing had it's cross-section patented, might be again IMO, the 737-successor. It might be a STOL airliner which would be perfect for smaller fields with high density traffic that can't take more planes. Yeah the freq drops but it is cheaper than expanding the airport.
I sincerely hope the 80x80 meter box is upgraded within 20 years, it will be required, if not then the A38x will be the largest ever built within this century. IMO, research on either a sonic or a BWB variant will have matured, it will be the only way to combat capacity issues without screwing with square-cube.
I do not think commercial space flight will allow access for most business travelers within 40 years, but then I could be wrong, in fact let's assume I am. Time (or a smartass A.netter) will call it on me.
[Edited 2005-02-19 22:37:56]
[Edited 2005-02-19 22:39:21]
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
A388 From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 10225 posts, RR: 15
Reply 5, posted (10 years 2 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 5351 times:
Just like I've said in the past. In Boeing's case, I think we will see a complete family of aircraft based on the technologies and exterior design of the 787. The 787 will most likely be the foundation for Boeing's new complete line of aircraft family, just like what Airbus did when they introduced an entire family of aircraft based on the technologies used on the A320 & A330/340.
About Airbus, I'm not sure what they plan on doing. It would be nice if the A350 would have a similarly designed wing as the 787 with the blended raked wingtips and a newly designed tail. Will the A350 also have the ability to change engine types like the 787 has? That would give the A350 a better market value just like the 787. Airbus must offer this option in order to compete with Boeing's 787.
All in all, I'm very anxious to see what both Boeing and Airbus will come up with in the future.
Wdleiser From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 962 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (10 years 2 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 5180 times:
>>>I don't like they way they fly--but I do love certain aspects of the Airbus--they are marvels of 1987 technology. And they have much better ergonomics for pilots / pax.
I have a "design" question: Clearly Europe is much more in tune with art and "design" than the U.S.--Why is it that Boeings are consistently more pleasing to the eyes?<<<<
Not quite sure what you mean. The 747 is beautiful, but the A330 is more appeasing to my eye than any other Boeing besides the 747. The 777 ain't bad but nor is the A345/6. The A321 is hideous and so is the 753, 738, and 739.
252MKR From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 108 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (10 years 2 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 5155 times:
I agree--the 330 is a good looking airplane. I really like the -300.
I also agree that the 739 is not the best. And the 74 is kool in an ugly way--like the 380. My intent of the comment is when you look at 777 or a 787 they invoke the design spirit of a Ferarri--while the Bus seems more like a Mercedes--lineless / efficient. It just seems strange. But perception is everything.
"...If I'm here, and you're here--doesn't that make it our time?" Jeff Spicoli
Byrdluvs747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2546 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (10 years 2 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 5106 times:
I have a "design" question: Clearly Europe is much more in tune with art and "design" than the U.S
In the case of interior design, I have to disagree. The 777 interior is the best of any aircraft.
Why is it that Boeings are consistently more pleasing to the eyes?
I wouldn't say consistently. While the 747 is still the most graceful airliner, the 737 is hideous. Given the freakish look of the A380, Airbus' track record is pretty bad. Outside of the A330, Airbus planes are not that attractive.
Boeing will chalk up another design win with the 787.
The 747: The hands who designed it were guided by god.
Charvett From Venezuela, joined May 2001, 82 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (10 years 2 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5063 times:
What I see for Airbus in a near future is the A-360: A-321 fuselage
plus a streightned wing based-or-similar but with 4 engines.
Will fill a gap between the company's single aisle and widebody family.
Look for example, the A-330/A-340. What do you think?
A388 From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 10225 posts, RR: 15
Reply 12, posted (10 years 2 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 5006 times:
That is what I mean, to leasing companies it makes the aircraft much more attractive and we all know how big the leading leasing companies are. Airbus' largest customer in fact is a leasing company or am I mistaken? I do agree with you, the 'swappable' engine option is not that important, but it does make the aircraft more attractive and more valuable for leasing companies and the second hand market when the aircraft reaches its end of life with major airlines (don't know how to explain it, but hopefully you know what I mean). The engine interchangebility stretched the aircraft's market value.