Boeing747-400 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (15 years 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1332 times:
I am glad that the A3XX is out! But I look more forward to what Boeing has been doing all these years to challenge the A3XX. I personally hope that they bring out the 747-500 and 747-600. I don't think that a 747X would be a good challenge to the A3XX. When you do think Boeing will reveal their new plane? What do you think it will be?
WorldTraveller From Germany, joined Jun 1999, 624 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (15 years 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1246 times:
Don't worry Boeing747-400, I'll help you out!
Whatever 747 derivative Boeing puts on the market, it will only be a relatively short-term solution in my eyes. The A3XX product family has a lifespan of about 50-60 years (like the 747), and it has a lot of growth capacity.
It's as simply as this: If Boeing wants to offer a 600 passenger plane (3 classes), they would have to develop a true NLA doubledecker like the A3XX. This is because the 747 cannot be stretched longer than approx. 85 meters since 80x80 meters is the standard for which all large airports are being prepared (parking and taxi-wise for example).
All proposed A3XX models fit within the 80x80 m box and offer a capacity of up to 650 pax in three classes (A3XX-200). A 747 derivative won't do that.
As long as the market requires less than 550 seats, any 747 based aircraft is a big competitor to the A3XX. And I don't think the "old" design could be a real disadvantage for efficiency, only for passenger comfort (more space on the A3XX).
If Boeing has to come up with its own doubledecker in about 10 years, which would cost 10-15$ billion to develop, is it wise that the invest around 4$ billion now in a 747 stretch??? I doubt that.
Maybe Boeing's strategy to wait what Airbus had to offer was wrong. They probably lost valuable years of development work so that they are now not able to offer a plane like the A3XX.
Boeing747-400 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (15 years 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1237 times:
It may turn out that Boeing has been designing a new plane all along. This may indeed be the end of the 747.
But maybe it's time for a new Boeing jumbo to be a new 747. The 787 should be be the name of it. I know Boeing is up to something on the A3XX, it's probably a new jumbo airplane. I still hope the 747X comes out, just so the 747 can be in production just a few more years. But I'm looking forward to the new planes from Boeing.
Marair From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (15 years 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 1229 times:
Boeing isnt worried about the A3XX. They dont nead to rush anything. As their plans show they will release the 747-500/600 in two to three years. Then they will release the superjumbo around 2010. I am not sure if it will be another version of the 747 or a totaly new type. Dont also forget that the A3XX has only been commerially launched which means that if there isnt enough orders by december it wont be built. If you ask me I think that AB is being desperate by trying to release the superjumbo first. There wont be a nead for the superjumbo for 10 years. I give AB credit dough for trying to set the trend.
Hamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2770 posts, RR: 58
Reply 5, posted (15 years 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1213 times:
I have a sneaking suspicion that when Boeing develops their SuperJumbo, it WON'T be a doubledecker. Instead, it will be a ovoid design, with a cross section of 30 ft or more! I say this for a couple of reasons:
1) Evac time. It is less on a single-deck aircraft than on a double deck. This means less certification issues to deal with. Also, no slides from an upper deck decreases chance of injuries to passengers.
2) Cargo room!! Remember that despite having 2 passenger decks, the A3XX still only has one cargo deck. This means that the extra passengers' baggage is going into a hold only a little bigger than a A346. We all know Airbus is great designing their cargo holds, but there is a limit to what physical rules allow. An ovoid design would have a significant advantage vs. double-deckers in cargo carrying capacity simply due to its physical nature.
3) Simply to be different. Remember the good 'ol (and sometimes hated) argument between 2-engines vs 4-engines? We may see a very similar one 10 years down the road between one large deck vs. two smaller ones.
Ab.400 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (15 years 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1195 times:
Just an idea: Boeing will keep the 747 as their biggest plane for much longer and offer it to a lower price than A3XX. Just modernize it from time to time . That would allow them to earn the fruits which were sawn while ago without too much investion.
As stated before, the B747 may not be able to compete in the same segment as the whole new A3XX in 2005, but still offer it´s value.
Airbus is seeding now but until the cost´s are starting to revenue, it´ll take at least a decade.
FLY777UAL From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4512 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (15 years 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1179 times:
Boeing will introduce their new plane, a concept which Airbus definitly cannot compete with sometime this summer. It is the Y2K model "Flying Boat", the 747-400SEA.
It is the basic 747-400 fuselage, but with the wings mounted ABOVE the fuselage. Pontoons would fold down from the wingtips upon landing, providing extra balance for the plane (much like the PBY Catalina) while in the water. The underbody would be widened using lightweight fiberglass to provide additional floatation and stability, and with a simplified (and larger) flaps system, the 747-400SEA would be capable of short-water takeoffs and landings.
"Try our new non-stop from New York's Wall St. Pier to Tokyo Harbour!"
GUNDU From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (15 years 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1177 times:
That sounds nice F L Y 7 7 7 U A L.I agree with Hamlet69.The future 747 might be a single deck, cross fuselage like the UCHA.It will have more cargo capacity than the A3XX despite carrying the same amount of passengers.Both are great planes,and they will both succeed(or flop)
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8175 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (15 years 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1158 times:
Remember, when Boeing merged with McDonnell-Douglas, it also gained the expertise of a number of programs that McD was looking at for future airliners.
One extremely radical idea McD studied is a "load-spanner" flying wing, where you can seat 700 pax and lots of cargo on a flying wing that fits inside the 80x80 meter box but because of its very high aerodynamic efficiency only needs something like three Pratt & Whitney PW4084 engines mounted on the top of the back center of the flying wing for takeoff and landing. Supposedly, this flying wing design has a range around 9,000 nautical miles with the 700 pax load.
I think the only thing that might prevent its acceptance is that the design may be just bit TOO radical for the airlines, not to mention how are we going to fit the jetwalks against the plane!
But there's still another trump card that Boeing has: a second-generation SST. Remember, up until 1997 Boeing studied in coordination with NASA a very advanced technology SST that could seat 300 pax and be able to fly LAX-NRT nonstop. Thanks to a very radical (but technologically feasible) engine design, this new SST could cruise at Mach 2.2 easily yet will avoid the NOx emission problems that plague the Concorde, be reasonably fuel-efficient, and will even meet the ICAO Stage III noise emission standards for takeoff and landing easily. The only reason why Boeing didn't pursue it further at the time was because they estimated it would take US$18 billion in development costs to build such a plane. But given that Airbus is willing to shell out US$12 billion to build the A350, I think Boeing may actually be seriously considering dusting off their recent SST research and "go for broke" to build a plane that could effectively halve the time of trans-Pacific flights (even with one fuel stop at HNL, this new Boeing SST plane can fly from LAX to SYD in _half_ the time it now takes with a 747-400 flying non-stop). Remember, this plane is NOT the Concorde, limited to only 100 pax and flies at best JFK-LHW or JFK-CDL, is extremely noisy, very thirsty on fuel, and so on.